|
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
|
