It’s Hillary vs. the Patriarchy

I’m not shocked or surprised by the latest round of hype surrounding Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment on the campaign trail today, I’m disgusted:

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton’s eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that the sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

“Well, I said I would not tear up; already we’re not exactly on the path,” Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

Disgusted that the patriarchal press and blogosphere is at it again. I’m disgusted that a genuine moment is turned into a circus of over analyzationmockery and Hillary bashing, by men — not women — men.

It’s doesn’t matter how far we’ve come, baby, we’re still living in a patriarchal society where men get away with crap like this:

Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women,” said Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday, one of the many “news” outlets to expose Kristol’s reliable sexism. “The Democratic establishment would be crazy to follow an establishment that led it to defeat year after year,” Kristol continued in his woolly, repetitive style. “White women are a problem, you know. We all live with that.”

The problem isn’t white women, or women in general. The problem is societal mindset that makes it acceptable to get away with demonizing a strong woman.

I’ve been down that road, as Hillary Clinton has — I had my real emotions turned upside down by cynical men.

I’ve been down that road, as Erica Jong who writes in the WaPo today that it’s “Hillary vs. the Patriarchy,” has.

And I have been down that road, as Robin Morgan has, who says, “I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.” She speaks for me:

I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but as a great U.S. president.

RELATED POST: Feminism, and a Blues Apology

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to It’s Hillary vs. the Patriarchy

  1. Markus K. says:

    I am grateful for your positive and encouraging assessment of Hillary’s show of emotion. Although as a male I was initially tempted to discard her tears as politically motivated, your article convinced me not only to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, but also to openly embrace the unique attributes of Hillary as a female leader.
    I am particularly dissapointed that her gender is not perceived among pundits as something contributive, but rather as something to be downplayed and averted.

    Markus K.