- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If you will look at Nancianne's previous posts here at Salon, you will see that almost every single one of them is an anti-Hillary rant that connects Hillary inexorably to her husband as if a woman as accomplished as Clinton simply cannot have an identity or achievements of her own.
Moreover, these are short, hit and run attacks with no analysis. Just rants.
I consider women who consider other women to be mostly connected to their husbands rather than looking at them individually to be a particularly anti-feminist sort of women. Now, of course, these women will tell you that they would be oh-so-thrilled to see women in power who have gotten somewhere without that connection -- ignoring the fact that women my age often had little choice to achieve entirely on our own given sexist barriers -- however, strangely, they never actually support those women who might have a chance of achieving power anyway.
Women must always be senators and not Secretary of State. They must always be Secretary of HHS rather than president. They must always work on some sort of "feminine" role like health care but not foreign policy. Then if they do have true foreign policy achievements in areas that relate to issue concerning women and children -- those achievements are denigrated as not true foreign policy achievements since they didn't involve moving armies.
Work with women and children is denigrated as less important -- ignoring the fact that women are over half the population of the world.
With the Nanciannes women who actually stand a chance of realizing the dreams of true female empowerment will always be subject to some nitpicking criticism.
If black people had treated Barack the way that women (the Nanciannes) have treated Clinton, he wouldn't be president.
To paraphrase a certain feminist writer, I'll bet many people voted for Barack Obama not because he was black but because they were. In other words, they thought of their own best interest. There's not a damned thing wrong with that. Even I had tears in my eyes at the election of our first black president. It is of great historical significance.
However, let us not overlook how many votes that Hillary Clinton got from women because they voted for the interests of women as being important to them.
Have you ever heard Condi Rice tout her feminism? No. And you won't either. Because the welfare of women world wide means nothing to her. Where is her leadership on the situation in the Congo, where women, after being raped as an act of war have hot stones put in their vaginas to cause pain and fistulas?
You will never hear a serious outrage from Condi Rice on this.
Our Secretary of State should consider the role that she has to play in the way women are treated world wide.
"Women's rights are human rights."
Hillary Clinton said that.
I think she would be a great SoS. I think she and Obama are quite close on foreign policy. Moreover, with his backing, hers is a voice the world would listen to.
