2008 Woodie Awards
The Hillary Divide
Guest Column
Emily Lawing
Issue date: 3/4/08 Section: Opinions
Although an obvious theme within current feminist rhetoric, Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign is still a worthy topic of discussion since mention of her name alone has launched a fiery debate between feminists and created a significant rift within feminism. Her campaign has no shortage of critics and avid supporters from both within the feminist movement and outside of it.
Looking through a feminist framework, we are faced with several questions in evaluating the meaning of progress and choice in examining the "Hillary divide." Important questions we need to ask ourselves include, does having a woman in the White House mean more feminist policies will be enacted in the future? Should we cast our vote for a candidate based solely on gender? Could breaking the glass ceiling and electing a female president be enough to further the feminist cause? Is Hillary an appropriate symbol of feminism? Can gender and race be separated and prioritized? Many of these issues can also be found in the early history of feminism in the effort to gain women's suffrage in the 19th and 20th century.
Many feminists believe that electing Hillary to office in 2008 would not only be ineffective in creating positive change for women, but could produce a considerable backlash for them in the future. If women feel obligated to vote for the vagina-wielding candidate, a more liberal one could be passed over that would more readily implement feminist principles both in the United States and globally. On the other side of the debate, gender-neutral feminists in this election could suggest indifference or defeat in regards to the patriarchal status quo to any anti-feminists or anti-feminism groups, even though this gender neutrality is based on idealism. This creates a dilemma: what is progress in regards to the 2008 presidential election? Some argue that a woman even occupying the role of president of the United States would accelerate the progression towards gender equality and change the way in which we perceive political leadership and the relationship between gender and political power. An important issue to explore is whether having a woman at the top is enough in 2008, especially after the Bush presidency. Though Hillary is a woman, she does not have close ties to the goals of feminism and could, in fact, carry out the patriarchy more so than a man would. The "Hillary divide" is establishing the idea that gender is not the only, or even the most important, facet of feminism. Hillary represents the exclusive, white, privileged elite in the same way that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony did in the first wave of feminism in establishing the groundwork for women's suffrage.
Looking through a feminist framework, we are faced with several questions in evaluating the meaning of progress and choice in examining the "Hillary divide." Important questions we need to ask ourselves include, does having a woman in the White House mean more feminist policies will be enacted in the future? Should we cast our vote for a candidate based solely on gender? Could breaking the glass ceiling and electing a female president be enough to further the feminist cause? Is Hillary an appropriate symbol of feminism? Can gender and race be separated and prioritized? Many of these issues can also be found in the early history of feminism in the effort to gain women's suffrage in the 19th and 20th century.
Many feminists believe that electing Hillary to office in 2008 would not only be ineffective in creating positive change for women, but could produce a considerable backlash for them in the future. If women feel obligated to vote for the vagina-wielding candidate, a more liberal one could be passed over that would more readily implement feminist principles both in the United States and globally. On the other side of the debate, gender-neutral feminists in this election could suggest indifference or defeat in regards to the patriarchal status quo to any anti-feminists or anti-feminism groups, even though this gender neutrality is based on idealism. This creates a dilemma: what is progress in regards to the 2008 presidential election? Some argue that a woman even occupying the role of president of the United States would accelerate the progression towards gender equality and change the way in which we perceive political leadership and the relationship between gender and political power. An important issue to explore is whether having a woman at the top is enough in 2008, especially after the Bush presidency. Though Hillary is a woman, she does not have close ties to the goals of feminism and could, in fact, carry out the patriarchy more so than a man would. The "Hillary divide" is establishing the idea that gender is not the only, or even the most important, facet of feminism. Hillary represents the exclusive, white, privileged elite in the same way that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony did in the first wave of feminism in establishing the groundwork for women's suffrage.
Be the first to comment on this story