The Invisible Women

The “Invisible Women” know that they are “Not Invisible” to Hillary Clinton and that is what draws them to her candidacy:

Much has been written about how boomer women have rallied to Hillary’s cause (she won an impressive 67 percent of the white women voting in Ohio; they were 44 percent of the total). It’s fashionable to write off this core element of her base as rabid paleo-feminists fighting the tired old gender wars of the past. But Hillary’s appeal to the boomer gals is wider and deeper than that. Cynthia Ruccia, a grass-roots political organizer in Columbus, told me that in these last beleaguered weeks, women started showing up in waves at Clinton headquarters—women who told her they had never volunteered in a campaign before. “There was just an outpouring about the way she was being treated by the media,” Ruccia said. “It was something we hadn’t seen in a long time. We all felt, as women, we had made a lot of progress, and we saw this as an attack of misogyny that was trying to beat her down.”

It’s a revolt that has been overdue for a while and has now found its focus in Clinton’s candidacy. In 1952, Ralph Ellison’s revelatory novel, “Invisible Man,” nailed the experience of being black in America. In the relentless youth culture of the early 21st century, if you are 50 and female, the novel that’s being written on your forehead every day is “Invisible Woman.” All over the country there are vigorous, independent, self-liberated boomer women—women who possess all the management skills that come from raising families while holding down demanding jobs, women who have experience, enterprise and, among the empty nesters, a little financial independence, yet still find themselves steadfastly dissed and ignored. Advertisers don’t want them. TV networks dump their older anchorwomen off the air. Hollywood studios refuse to write parts for them. Employers make it clear they’d prefer a “fresh (cheaper) face.”

The “Invisible Women”…

We’re the ones who fought the battles for the Equal Rights Amendment for decades only to see it not be ratified and be made part of the U.S. Constitution.

We’re the ones who remember when “women’s studies” was not offered at colleges and universities across the nation.

We’re the ones who remember when women sportscaster’s weren’t allowed in the men’s locker room.

The list goes on and on. For many of of the “Invisible Women,” her scar tissue is our scar tissue. And some look deep into their souls and suddenly realize “I am Hillary.”

Sadly we are Still Stuck In Second,” and the “double standard is alive and well; it’s just more nuanced.” And here’s the rub that progressive men in the Democratic Party who are among those weilding the sexist memes against Hillary Clinton should remember, “Make no mistake about it: if we’re going to continue to have elections that excite and engage, we need the women.”

We need the women. The women in politics give the “Invisible Women” hope. It’s not the hope that floats from pictures of change sung on speeches filled with rhetoric — no it’s the hope that “Invisible Women” can hold on to because they get that Hillary Clinton she’s and hear’s them. They get that she’s listening. And that’s something that Barack Obama hasn’t told them.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to The Invisible Women

  1. Janis says:

    …we need a U.S. President with the guts to tell these other people to their faces why it is that they don’t qualify to be treated like adults.

    Maybe you should vote for McCain instead. This is the same horseshit rhetoric I’ve heard from every warmongering right-winger since the dawn of time, child.

    Or are you just trying to prove that despite backing a supposedly “anti-war” candidate — who is no such thing, as I’ve shown — you can talk tough with the rest of them?

  2. McCain and all foreign policy traditionalists (of which Sen. Clinton is trying to create the impression that she is one) only talk AT exactly the people that they should try talking TO, and Sen. Obama is indicating that he will try the other approach. In first developing my ideas I wrote extensively on this topic in 1983. In 2006 I produced a sort of a digested version, which follows:

    Bush versus The Little Freak – Smack Down

    The asshole is obviously looking for attention when he caps off a nuke, because he is too interested in living for it to be anything else. While the whole idea of violent use of any of those weapons is too horrible to even contemplate, you can still predict that he is one of the people who would not survive his making that particular colossal mistake. Suicidal is one thing that the Korean goofball ain’t.

    And I would dearly love to see our President (any of them, not just the current occupant) say exactly that in an eyeball to eyeball conversation. I think that this sort of responsibility comes with the job, and that Bush needs to spend a whole lot more time out of his comfort zone.

    The “Pomp and Circumstance” of Nixon going to China is all well and good, but we do ourselves no favor by allowing our Presidents to define the job in a way that includes their being able to avoid doing any truly heavy lifting. Sometimes a President can only serve us by calling one whack job or another out. Bush and Kim Jong Il getting it on alone together in some appropriately luxurious meeting room in one royal palace or another in Beijing could and should be arranged. And when they are finished with each other there should be no official statement of “full and frank discussion”. Bush could get on T.V. and say “I told the jerk that he needs to start acting civilized” and that he either said yes, or screw you, or whatever. And then the jerk could get a very sobering wake up call when he tried to get the same level of attention for his side of the story and finds out that no one is interested. Our President owes us that much, and it doesn’t matter which one it is.

    Why do these guys think that they are entitled to avoid all such unpleasant confrontations? What are we paying them for? Isn’t it embarrassing to think that not one of them has ever had a sit down with Castro, for as many years as he has been considered to be a pain in our behinds? This whole President gig has always been at least part theatrics. Why do they seem so reluctant to stage difficult performances for the benefit of the nation? Take on Iran, Hugo Chavez, and any of the other trouble makers that we work so hard to shun making contact with. All the world truly could be a stage in the era of modern communications and we would be far more well served if we had a leader that was willing and adept at using this resource as a weapon of choice.

  3. Darrell

    “McCain and all foreign policy traditionalists (of which Sen. Clinton is trying to create the impression that she is one) only talk AT exactly the people that they should try talking TO, and Sen. Obama is indicating that he will try the other approach.”

    For all intents and purposes, what Obama indicated he will do is not anything to jump up and down over. Sure he said he will talk without preconditions, then he back tracked on that. And the truth is foreign policy and diplocacy go hand and hand. Obama’s jump in approach is not anything to crow about and could get us in trouble.

    Clinton on the other hand does have a bit more experience, even just in the status of former First Lady in meeting with foreign leaders and diplomacy.

    If you haven’t read this you might want to: Hillary Rodham Clinton — Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century

  4. Peace Out For Unity says:

    We’ve only waited 144 years to get here and see a woman for president and that’s exciting but so are her qualifications! Butter,Bing,butter boom!

  5. Janis says:

    Pamela, there’s also the clear contradiction between crowing over Obama’s willingness to talk to and with anyone (or at least that’s how his supporters have spun it) followed up with the faux-tough-talk about how we can’t let people into the new and improved international union if they don’t “act like grownups.”

    Neither he nor his supporters have thought this stuff through — they are giong off the cuff, saying whatever they need to say at the moment. I’m not in the mood for that in a president. I’m just not willing to waste however much time it’ll take to get this guy up to speed, to wait until he’s had his backside handed to him a few times to learn what works. I’m not interesting in raising my next president.

    His supporters have spun it such that his lack of an Iraq war vote (when he wasn’t even in the Senate at the time, and when he fell in line the minute he was) as the most significant distinguisher bwetween the two. With that absurd myth exploded, there is nothing else to the man. There may be in time — but I’m not banking on a maybe. When he had the chance to distinguish himself from Clinton, he didn’t do so — for all opportunities he had, he voted for that war the exact same number of times she did.

    So his supporters flip back and forth at random between “let’s all hold hands” and “shun the bastidz” with no coherence at all — because they haven’t thought it through. They haven’t even considered it. They are only now realizing that they have to do a little “tough talk” to get by with the image thing, so they are giving it a whirl to see how it comes out and how they can spin it. *sigh*

  6. Kendall A. Johnson says:


    Keep pounding it!!! Your points are exactly right!! Obama doesn’t have a clue about foreign policy. Hillary had to tell him the name of the new Russion president.

    Obama reaks of inexperience and as this contest continues, it is more and more clear that he just isn’t ready for the job!!!! Now with this whole Paster Wright thing, on top of the fact that he can’t carry a pivital state is a huge problem. He is clearly going to be a liability in the fall if he gets the nomination!!!! And what is wrong with Nancy Polosi!! She is doing everything she can to cut Hillary Clinton’s throat, even if it costs the party the White House!!!!!! She really needs to be slapped down hard.