-Books: Damn, She Done It: Mystery Writer Barbara Neely
-Editor's Page
-Gloria Steinem's column
-Uppity Women
-Work Notes
I Do! I Do?
Who Wants to Marry a Feminist? by Lisa Miya-Jervis
>What, Me Marry? by Ms. Staffers

A Special Report on the Fertility Industry:
What Price Pregnancy?

Since the birth of the first "test tube baby," assisted reproductive technologies have been hailed as medical miracles. Ms. goes behind the hype. >by Ann Pappert


- Both Sides Now:
She married at 18 and instead of finding bliss, she became a shrinking woman. Now, at 54, marriage is on her mind again.
- Marriage Vegas Style
In this desert empire 295 couples marry every day.
-Who Wants to Marry a Feminist?
But the real question is why do feminists want marriage?
-Otherwise Engaged
The issue of same-sex marriage has sparked an impassioned debate. Asked if she would marry if she could, this author takes a long hard look at the institution and herself.

-What, Me Marry?

-What Price Pregnancy?
Ms. goes behind the hype of assisted reproductive technologies.
When it comes to fertility treatments, gender makes all the difference.

Her immediate family fled Germany before being swept up in the Holocaust, but they forever mourned the loved ones who didn't survive and the life they'd once shared.

- What?
- Women to Watch
- Word: Fuck
- Just the Facts

-The Struggle to Preserve Reproductive Rights
- Laws of Entrapment
- Taxing Menstruation
- High Anxiety

- Austria Ditches Women's Ministry
- Opinion: Partial-Truth Abortion
- $5 and a Dream
- Czech Mate
- Newsmaker: Lisa Oberg
- Women Organizing Worldwide: Reports from Philippines, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and the Internet

- A Newscaster, a Mother, and a Steelworker Talk About Their Gigs
- Damn, She Done It: Mystery Writer Barbara Neely
- Bold Type: Chelsea Cain
- Debunking the Book That Claims Rape COmes Naturally
- More Reviews
-Editor's Page
-Uppity Women: Tsitsi Tiripano
- Fiction: Resurrection Hockey
- Columns: Carolyn Mackler, Gloria Steinem, and Patricia Smith
- Comments Please!

Why would Hillary Rodham Clinton want to run for the Senate--from New York, Illinois, or anywhere? Imagine the scenario if she loses: all the right-wingers who sported "Impeach Hillary's husband" bumper stickers will claim victory, as will those behind thecurrent TV ads that burlesque Hillary as the Statue of Liberty. If she wins, what happens? She gets to live in the free-floating hostility of Washington again, this time without the protection of the White House, working every day under such senior senators as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Is this a lose-lose situation or what?

As one of the most famous and admired women on the world stage, she had plenty of alternatives. For example, she could have raised a huge pot of foundation money and become an international force on the women's and children's issues that have always been close to her heart. Instead, she is now doing daily combat with New York's Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, one of the most vindictive and racially divisive politicians of our time, and also discovering a fact of life for any female candidate: there is no "right" way for a woman to seek power.

So why did she choose this path of maximum resistance?

After months of listening to her as she campaigns around New York State, I think the answer is simple: she wanted to use the lessons she learned as the partner of a politician, and to do so in Washington, where she also witnessed the power that even one U.S. senator can have over the issues she cares about. Though her goals have been created by experience and interests that are different from her husband's--her work as a lawyer for the Watergate Committee, a top corporate lawyer, a children's rights advocate, a policy wonk on health care, and an international activist on women's issues--she wants to advance them by using her derived experience in campaigning, building coalitions, dealing with the press, cultivating a thick skin, making Washington work, and other time-honored secrets of getting and using elected power.

This bridging of worlds is a new possibility. Eleanor Roosevelt was an intimate lobbyist with her husband, but not a practitioner of elected power. As for such beneficiaries of derived power as Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Representative Lindy Boggs, they waited for husbands to die before taking over their Congressional seats, thus obeying the rule that in a patriarchy, it's only widows who are honored in authority.

Perhaps these differences are part of the reason that Hillary Clinton is accused of exploiting her wifely position--even by some feminists. They ask, "Why doesn't she stick to her own professional experience? Isn't she setting feminism back by exploiting the power she gained as a wife?"

But those questions betray a double standard. They also ignore the wisdom gained in traditionally female roles. The fact is, the Bush boys would be nowhere without the derived power of their father's presidency; John Glenn used the male-only privilege of being an astronaut to become a U.S. senator; and John McCain went from prisoner of war to the Senate and almost to the White House. Those experiences were far less relevant to the political job at hand than Hillary's eight years in Washington, yet they were highly valued. Meanwhile, such largely female experiences as parenting, teaching, community organizing, and living on welfare have been undervalued as political training grounds. This double standard wouldn't last if it hadn't been internalized by women ourselves. That's one of the reasons for a disheartening fact: female registered voters in New York State are almost equally divided between Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani. Of course, women are not immune to the law-and-order, wealth-protecting Republican platform, especially because Republican leadership in New York is slightly less bad on gender-gap issues. (For example, the governor and New York City's mayor both oppose the criminalization of abortion.)

Still another reason for some women voter's hesitancy is the anger they feel toward Hillary for remaining married to an unfaithful husband, especially women who themselves have been hurt by faithless men. And then there are the women who have been exposed only to the right-wing image of Hillary.

For all those who don't support her, the bottom-line question is: would you support a male candidate with the same issue positions? If the answer is yes, it's worth rooting out the double standard. Because Hillary Clinton's success as the first crossover candidate would be a landmark for a larger issue: making partnered and other female experience a source of talent, honor, and credit.

Gloria Steinem is a founding editor of "Ms."

Illustration by John Kascht


Copyright Ms. Magazine 2009