Young people are giving Hillary Clinton the love, and not just Barak Obama. Just sayin’.
Addendum, later that day: I just read that the NYTimes is endorsing Hillary and John McCain.
women’s leadership
So as part of my participation in the Women’s Media Center’s new Progressive Women’s Voices Project, I’ve been reading up on polls and found something* very interesting to share. Did you know that more men may think our nation is ready for a woman president than women do?
Historically, women and men have felt almost the same about their willingness to vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job. Acccording to survey data from the years between 1958 and 1969, both women and men said they would consider voting for a such a gal, but the men were actually more positive: 50-53 percent of women and 55-60 percent of men answered “YES” when asked whether they would vote for a woman if she were their party’s nominee. Today, of course, post-women’s movement, those numbers have spiked. According to a CBS/New York Times Poll in January 2006, 92 percent of respondents said they would vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job.
But now get this: That same year, 2006, when asked about the U.S. public’s readiness to elect a woman head of state, much smaller percentages said they thought the country was ready (92 percent versus 55 percent in the CBS News/New York Times Poll). And when you analyze these responses by gender, the men come out on top: 60 percent of men versus 51 percent of women think the country is ready for a female Commander in Chief.
So, ladies, what gives? I asked Ruth Mandel, Director of the Center for American Women in Politics, this question. Her answer was telling. Apparently, the same holds true for African Americans (though I have yet to see the actual data). The group that is historically on the outside of the presidency feels less sanguine than the in-group about the public’s readiness to see a member of the out-group at the helm.
Is this some form of internalized oppression, to use a word from back in the day? Or are the out-groups’ intuitions right on? Psychology is deep. And so are women’s–and African Americans’–feelings about the readiness of this country to elect someone other than Another White Male.
But I’d love to know if these percentages have changed now that we’ve been through a few primaries and have seen that, on the Dem side at least, some states have proved themselves ready to put a Hillary or a Barack in office. Anyone seen any more recent data on “readiness perception”? Thoughts?
*Data drawn from a book chapter, “She’s the Candidate!”, by Ruth Mandel, published in Women and Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change, edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode (Jossey-Bass, 2007). Full chapter available here.
I’m late to this one, but just read Michiko’s review of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary. (Thanks, Heather!). Michiko writes, referring to Hillary’s teary moment the other week,
The 24/7 replaying of that moment on cable television…reminds us how relentlessly Mrs. Clinton has been dissected, deconstructed and decoded over the years: by now her marriage, her hair, her pantsuits, her voice and her laugh have been more minutely anatomized than her voting record on Iraq, her (mis-)handling of health care during her husband’s administration or her stands on Iran, Social Security and immigration. This willful focus on the personal is underscored by “Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary,†an intriguing but highly uneven anthology of reflections about Mrs. Clinton by a spectrum of well-known female writers.
Michiko criticizes the book by noting that in these authors’ essays, Hillary’s actual résumé and record are largely shoved to the side. I’m still reading the book, so not yet weighing in on that one, but it’s an interesting point (and one I keep blogging about here). A few of the contributors submitted comments for the Hillary forum I’ve put together for More magazine (going live soon!), and I’m attending a lunch soon in celebration of the book. Very much looking forward. Promise to report on it here.
And while we’re on the topic of images (see post below), this just in, from feministing’s Hillary Sexism Watch. Very original, dudes.
Having written a book on feminism and the age gap, it’s ENDLESSLY interesting to me the way younger women’s votes are being taken as a barometer of the state of feminism. To wit, Michael Barone begins his U.S. News article, “Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton,” like so:
“It’s interesting that in Iowa, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama by a wide margin among younger women. The idea of a first woman president evidently is not of great appeal to them. I think this is part of a larger story about the decline, or perhaps the maturation, of American feminism.”
As Ann over at feministing notes, the reasons one chooses one’s candidate are often much more complicated than that.
Regardless, anyone seen the breakdown of women voters by age in New Hampshire yet? Just curious. I know I gotta write more about this somewhere…so many things to write, so little time! Alas.
Meanwhile, be sure to check out the February issue of More for a forum I coordinated in which women in the public eye weigh in with their thoughts on Hillary. Their responses may surprise you.
Back in September, I posted on those Gallup polls that found younger women supporting Hillary in greater numbers than older women. Remember those polls? Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect did a nice report on younger women’s Hillary enthusiasm a while ago too. In Iowa, things went the other way. Whether this trend play out nationally remains to be seen. But folks are already talking that way. Writes Gloria Steinem in today’s NYTimes op-ed:
“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”
That older women are more radical argument–I just don’t want to believe it! And today, this young(ish) woman is coming out with an announcement: I’m supporting Hillary. I join Veronica–see comments in post below. Yesterday’s “iron my shirt” assholes being one–but just one–of the things that pushed me over the edge. (Addendum: And if you think those hecklers were isolates, see comments, below.)
Gloria is supporting Hillary too. Says she:
“I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.”
Here’s to two terms for Hillary, two for Obama. And hell, if Edwards is man enough to take back his real-politicians-don’t-cry comment, two for him then too.
Yes, folks, she’s a human. DUH. I was actually touched by Hillary’s choked up moment yesterday (see clip above), and impressed by Obama’s response: “I didn’t see what happened … [but] I know this process is a grind, so that’s not something I care to comment on.” And I’m so down with Rebecca Traister on John Edwards’ response. Said Edwards, “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.” Unclassy, tough guy.
Once again, to cite research from Catalyst, if you’re a woman in leadership, you’re damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Def don’t miss Gloria Steinem’s op-ed on it all in today’s New York Times, which my mother called to tell me about this morning (thanks, Mom!) and which I am now off to read.
Meanwhile, back in the land of actual issues,
Marc at Feminist Dad notes that when Take Care Net issued a survey to all the presidential candidates with questions about policy support on issues like FMLA, child care, child care workers, other paid and unpaid family caregivers, and victims of domestic violence, only the Dems responded. The Republican candidates didn’t even bother. Say wha? Survey results are here.
Don’t miss Kerry Howly’s op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “It Takes a Family to Break a Glass Ceiling.” Howly brings an important historical perspective to the issue of Hillary being a politician’s wife–the best I’ve read on this aspect yet.
And while we’re on it, some smart and timely gender – and – election commentary from a few of my favorite bloggers:
Gloria Feldt on Hillary: “You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.” Read more. Be sure to check out Gloria’s “memos to Hillary” over at HuffPo.
Carol Lloyd at Broadsheet: “Obama and his mama.” Read more.
And of course, Virginia Rutter here at Girl with Pen: “Mind you, seeing Barack Obama win is great for the election, because it keeps the pressure on all around. But there is something else going on, and commentators keep acting like concerns about gender are baloney.” Read more. (Thank you to all who are linking to Virginia Rutter’s post and helping spread the word. And thank you to those who commented–Virginia will likely be weighing in soon, with her thoughts!)
For anyone near San Diego on February 29, do check out the Eighth Annual Women and the Law Conference and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecture at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego (via Feminist Law Professors). The topic is, guess what, “Women in Politics: The Role of Gender in Political Decision Making.†I’d be more than happy to have someone who attends guest blog about it here. Any takers?
Check out this piece from The Onion, “Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement.” Highlights:
“All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business,” said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by “making a few calls to the big boys upstairs.” “In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it’s all about who you know.”
McGowan, who was selected from a pool of roughly 150 million candidates, made eliminating sexual harassment his first priority before working on securing reproductive rights for women in all 50 states, and promoting healthy body images through an influx of strong, independent female characters in TV, magazines, and film.
“It’s about time,” McGowan said upon returning from a golf game with several “network honchos” in which he brokered a deal to bring a variety of women’s sports to prime-time television. “These ladies should have brought me on years ago.”
(Thanks to my man Marco for the heads up. Photo cred.)
Regardless of which candidate you’re gonna support next November, you’ve got to admit that to wake up and see the word “feminist” on the cover of the New York Times this morning is itself a testament of the effect Hillary’s running is having on the presidential debate. I mean, this beats “soccor moms” and “security moms” hands down. The article, “Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama,” suggests that the Obama campaign is “subtley marketing its candidate as a postfeminist man, a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers.” In other words, in the eyes of the postfeminist generation, the best candidate for women might be a man.
But the claim that younger women are less interested in Hillary than Boomer women are seems to go against what the polls are saying. As GWP readers know, I’m obsessed these days by the stats showing the generational breakdown of women’s support of Hillary. I posted back in September about how polls were showing younger women supporting Hillary more than Boomer women were. Has anyone seen the recent stats on this one? I’d be curious to hear.
Photo cred.
So as part of my participation in the Women’s Media Center’s new Progressive Women’s Voices Project, I’ve been reading up on polls and found something* very interesting to share. Did you know that more men may think our nation is ready for a woman president than women do?
Historically, women and men have felt almost the same about their willingness to vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job. Acccording to survey data from the years between 1958 and 1969, both women and men said they would consider voting for a such a gal, but the men were actually more positive: 50-53 percent of women and 55-60 percent of men answered “YES” when asked whether they would vote for a woman if she were their party’s nominee. Today, of course, post-women’s movement, those numbers have spiked. According to a CBS/New York Times Poll in January 2006, 92 percent of respondents said they would vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job.
But now get this: That same year, 2006, when asked about the U.S. public’s readiness to elect a woman head of state, much smaller percentages said they thought the country was ready (92 percent versus 55 percent in the CBS News/New York Times Poll). And when you analyze these responses by gender, the men come out on top: 60 percent of men versus 51 percent of women think the country is ready for a female Commander in Chief.
So, ladies, what gives? I asked Ruth Mandel, Director of the Center for American Women in Politics, this question. Her answer was telling. Apparently, the same holds true for African Americans (though I have yet to see the actual data). The group that is historically on the outside of the presidency feels less sanguine than the in-group about the public’s readiness to see a member of the out-group at the helm.
Is this some form of internalized oppression, to use a word from back in the day? Or are the out-groups’ intuitions right on? Psychology is deep. And so are women’s–and African Americans’–feelings about the readiness of this country to elect someone other than Another White Male.
But I’d love to know if these percentages have changed now that we’ve been through a few primaries and have seen that, on the Dem side at least, some states have proved themselves ready to put a Hillary or a Barack in office. Anyone seen any more recent data on “readiness perception”? Thoughts?
*Data drawn from a book chapter, “She’s the Candidate!”, by Ruth Mandel, published in Women and Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change, edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode (Jossey-Bass, 2007). Full chapter available here.
I’m late to this one, but just read Michiko’s review of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary. (Thanks, Heather!). Michiko writes, referring to Hillary’s teary moment the other week,
The 24/7 replaying of that moment on cable television…reminds us how relentlessly Mrs. Clinton has been dissected, deconstructed and decoded over the years: by now her marriage, her hair, her pantsuits, her voice and her laugh have been more minutely anatomized than her voting record on Iraq, her (mis-)handling of health care during her husband’s administration or her stands on Iran, Social Security and immigration. This willful focus on the personal is underscored by “Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary,†an intriguing but highly uneven anthology of reflections about Mrs. Clinton by a spectrum of well-known female writers.
Michiko criticizes the book by noting that in these authors’ essays, Hillary’s actual résumé and record are largely shoved to the side. I’m still reading the book, so not yet weighing in on that one, but it’s an interesting point (and one I keep blogging about here). A few of the contributors submitted comments for the Hillary forum I’ve put together for More magazine (going live soon!), and I’m attending a lunch soon in celebration of the book. Very much looking forward. Promise to report on it here.
And while we’re on the topic of images (see post below), this just in, from feministing’s Hillary Sexism Watch. Very original, dudes.
Having written a book on feminism and the age gap, it’s ENDLESSLY interesting to me the way younger women’s votes are being taken as a barometer of the state of feminism. To wit, Michael Barone begins his U.S. News article, “Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton,” like so:
“It’s interesting that in Iowa, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama by a wide margin among younger women. The idea of a first woman president evidently is not of great appeal to them. I think this is part of a larger story about the decline, or perhaps the maturation, of American feminism.”
As Ann over at feministing notes, the reasons one chooses one’s candidate are often much more complicated than that.
Regardless, anyone seen the breakdown of women voters by age in New Hampshire yet? Just curious. I know I gotta write more about this somewhere…so many things to write, so little time! Alas.
Meanwhile, be sure to check out the February issue of More for a forum I coordinated in which women in the public eye weigh in with their thoughts on Hillary. Their responses may surprise you.
Back in September, I posted on those Gallup polls that found younger women supporting Hillary in greater numbers than older women. Remember those polls? Dana Goldstein at The American Prospect did a nice report on younger women’s Hillary enthusiasm a while ago too. In Iowa, things went the other way. Whether this trend play out nationally remains to be seen. But folks are already talking that way. Writes Gloria Steinem in today’s NYTimes op-ed:
“What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”
That older women are more radical argument–I just don’t want to believe it! And today, this young(ish) woman is coming out with an announcement: I’m supporting Hillary. I join Veronica–see comments in post below. Yesterday’s “iron my shirt” assholes being one–but just one–of the things that pushed me over the edge. (Addendum: And if you think those hecklers were isolates, see comments, below.)
Gloria is supporting Hillary too. Says she:
“I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.”
Here’s to two terms for Hillary, two for Obama. And hell, if Edwards is man enough to take back his real-politicians-don’t-cry comment, two for him then too.
Yes, folks, she’s a human. DUH. I was actually touched by Hillary’s choked up moment yesterday (see clip above), and impressed by Obama’s response: “I didn’t see what happened … [but] I know this process is a grind, so that’s not something I care to comment on.” And I’m so down with Rebecca Traister on John Edwards’ response. Said Edwards, “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.” Unclassy, tough guy.
Once again, to cite research from Catalyst, if you’re a woman in leadership, you’re damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Def don’t miss Gloria Steinem’s op-ed on it all in today’s New York Times, which my mother called to tell me about this morning (thanks, Mom!) and which I am now off to read.
Meanwhile, back in the land of actual issues,
Marc at Feminist Dad notes that when Take Care Net issued a survey to all the presidential candidates with questions about policy support on issues like FMLA, child care, child care workers, other paid and unpaid family caregivers, and victims of domestic violence, only the Dems responded. The Republican candidates didn’t even bother. Say wha? Survey results are here.
Don’t miss Kerry Howly’s op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “It Takes a Family to Break a Glass Ceiling.” Howly brings an important historical perspective to the issue of Hillary being a politician’s wife–the best I’ve read on this aspect yet.
And while we’re on it, some smart and timely gender – and – election commentary from a few of my favorite bloggers:
Gloria Feldt on Hillary: “You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.” Read more. Be sure to check out Gloria’s “memos to Hillary” over at HuffPo.
Carol Lloyd at Broadsheet: “Obama and his mama.” Read more.
And of course, Virginia Rutter here at Girl with Pen: “Mind you, seeing Barack Obama win is great for the election, because it keeps the pressure on all around. But there is something else going on, and commentators keep acting like concerns about gender are baloney.” Read more. (Thank you to all who are linking to Virginia Rutter’s post and helping spread the word. And thank you to those who commented–Virginia will likely be weighing in soon, with her thoughts!)
For anyone near San Diego on February 29, do check out the Eighth Annual Women and the Law Conference and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecture at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego (via Feminist Law Professors). The topic is, guess what, “Women in Politics: The Role of Gender in Political Decision Making.†I’d be more than happy to have someone who attends guest blog about it here. Any takers?
Check out this piece from The Onion, “Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement.” Highlights:
“All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business,” said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by “making a few calls to the big boys upstairs.” “In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it’s all about who you know.”
McGowan, who was selected from a pool of roughly 150 million candidates, made eliminating sexual harassment his first priority before working on securing reproductive rights for women in all 50 states, and promoting healthy body images through an influx of strong, independent female characters in TV, magazines, and film.
“It’s about time,” McGowan said upon returning from a golf game with several “network honchos” in which he brokered a deal to bring a variety of women’s sports to prime-time television. “These ladies should have brought me on years ago.”
(Thanks to my man Marco for the heads up. Photo cred.)
Regardless of which candidate you’re gonna support next November, you’ve got to admit that to wake up and see the word “feminist” on the cover of the New York Times this morning is itself a testament of the effect Hillary’s running is having on the presidential debate. I mean, this beats “soccor moms” and “security moms” hands down. The article, “Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama,” suggests that the Obama campaign is “subtley marketing its candidate as a postfeminist man, a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers.” In other words, in the eyes of the postfeminist generation, the best candidate for women might be a man.
But the claim that younger women are less interested in Hillary than Boomer women are seems to go against what the polls are saying. As GWP readers know, I’m obsessed these days by the stats showing the generational breakdown of women’s support of Hillary. I posted back in September about how polls were showing younger women supporting Hillary more than Boomer women were. Has anyone seen the recent stats on this one? I’d be curious to hear.
Photo cred.
