Hillary and the Feminine Gaze, Up Close and Personal
MORE
Book Review
THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: REFLECTIONS BY WOMEN WRITERS
Edited by Susan Morrison
HarperCollins, 254 pages, $ 23.95
Let’s imagine this book’s concept—30 well-known women writers talk about how they “feel” about Hillary Clinton—applied to 30 male writers and a male presidential candidate. Adjusting for gender, the essay titles would now read: “Barack’s Underpants,” “Elect Brother Frigidaire,” “Mephistopheles for President,” “The Road to Codpiece-Gate,” and so on. Inside, we would find ruminations on the male candidate’s doggy looks and flabby pectorals; musings on such “revealing” traits as the candidate’s lack of interest in backyard grilling, industrial arts and pets; and mocking remarks about his lack of popularity with the cool boys on the playground (i.e., the writers and their “friends”). We would hear a great deal of speculation about whether the candidate was really manly or just “faking it.” We would hear a great deal about how the candidate made them feel about themselves as men and whether they could see their manhood reflected in the politician’s testosterone displays. … And we would hear virtually nothing about the candidate’s stand on political issues.
Susan Morrison, the editor of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary (who’s also the articles editor of The New Yorker, and former editor in chief of this newspaper), defends the absence of political analysis in the book thusly: “There’s plenty of Hillary Studies literature out there that parses the candidate’s stands on policy issues, her Senate votes, and her track record as first lady. This book isn’t aiming at that kind of op-ed territory. Rather, it’s an attempt to look at the ways in which women think about Hillary (and why they think so much about Hillary), how they make their judgments about her, which buttons she pushes in them and why.”
Actually, the op-ed territory is awash with exactly the same sort of trivializing dissection. Hillary Studies pundits are obsessed with the candidate’s hairdos, outfits, cookie-baking comments, supposedly “cold” personality and even, most recently, her failure to apply “The Rules” style of dating in her politics. The ratio of trenchant political commentary to personal pot-shotting on the subject of Hillary Clinton in the larger media realm is precisely echoed in the pages of this book, which seems intended to reprise the op-ed fixations, not to bury them. The result is a good deal of convenient psychologizing, self-absorbed meanderings and unearned snipes—and a handful of efforts to take a respectable step back from how-do-I-personally-feel-about-Hillary thumb-suckery.
MANY OF THE writers in Thirty Ways are busy reviewing their own lives and taking their own temperatures, some with notable self-regard. Others are preoccupied with such pressing questions as, is Hillary a dog or cat person? Does she like olive burgers or Boca burgers? If she did have a hobby, what would it be?
Thanks to its more insightful contributors, Thirty Ways does provide grist for thought. Among those writers who thankfully manage not to dwell on themselves are Katha Pollitt, who considers what the torrent of sexualized epithets about Hillary Clinton suggests about male hysteria; Deborah Tannen, who draws on actual interviews she conducted with actual women to diagnose the double bind that all female professionals face; and Leslie Bennetts, who argues that Clinton’s many self-appointed psychoanalysts have woefully “missed the point” by asking all the wrong questions: “The real problem is our own schizoid relationship with female gender roles—and the fact that we don’t even recognize the true nature of what’s bothering us.”
Nor does the first-person perspective that prevails in this book always dead-end in easy self-congratulation. Jane Kramer turns her fixation on Hillary back on herself for a moment of self-examination. (“None of this answers the question of why I continue to subject Hillary Rodham Clinton to the kind of scrutiny I would never think to apply to men,” she writes. “In matters of sweet and steely, I also disappoint myself. Maybe I have not evolved.”) Amy Wilentz uses her own experience as a springboard to empathy. (“What if you had to operate in a universe where you were never allowed to say what you really felt?... Could you, as I often do, miss three consecutive appointments to get your hair cut? And really: what if you had to wear pantsuits or a turquoise jacket with a turquoise necklace and turquoise earrings?”)
THE VERY PREMISE of Thirty Ways invites us to disparage Hillary Clinton as a political candidate and induct her instead into a reality show pageant. More often than not, the contributors take the bait, passing judgment on Clinton’s femininity (“unnatural” and “contrived”), looks (“passably attractive”) and sensuality (“it is difficult for me to imagine her in an embrace, motherly or otherwise,” Susanna Moore writes). Reading through these pages, I wished for a companion volume, Thirty Ways of Looking at Women Looking at Hillary, which answered this question: Why do so many of these women writers—who have shown themselves to be graceful essayists and well-reasoned analysts in other contexts—resort to unfactual and illogical thinking and, in many cases, downright 13-year-old cattiness when the topic is Hillary? Next Page >
Gosh, what a navel gazing, awful article. Faludi is right, women are their own worst enemies. But to say that there are not any strong matriarchal (read:female) figures of authority would tend to overlook the MANY women who have entered the public arena since 1990. While 1992 was hailed as year of the woman, more women were in fact elected in 1994 as Republicans; that not withstanding, women on both sides have been entering the arena, at EVERY level, and fighting the good fight, making names for themselves. Has it ever occurred to anyone that Hillary just is not likable; she is the Democrats' 'Richard Nixon.' Did you ever think that there could be a likable, more electable woman out there than Hillary? The first woman president is not going to come from the Barbara Mikulski mold, it's going to come from the Nancy Kassebaum mold. Just like Bob Dole was perceived as unlikable with the inevitable results, the same holds true with women.
And, in the Billary POWER bubble, Hillary has had little incentive to actually WORK on improving her likability and/or character -- as we all must do. She has been accomodated for so long and able to assign the dislike of her that people feel, to anti-feminism. She can actually CRY when things do not go her way -- for herself. She feels entitled and has carved out a special place where she gets to play at the game of life by HER own rules. This is the REVERSE of how most women live our lives in every way -- and, modern women do not want it ALL their way. Hillary deflects the fact she isn't likable during the debate and how she conducts her campaign. Most of us have to improve and adjust. Hillary hasn't had to and, after the personal Bill challenges, is not inclined to do so.
Someday soon the same fresh breeze that is rushing through our political arena may hit the literary scene. Why should we care what these women think? We already know. Someone open a window.
As a small public service, I've designed a Q & A for those who are are not fans of Hillary Clinton. It's available on a wallet-sized, laminated card and I offer it free to any of the writers the anthology under review. (If Gaylord and Renatam, above, want copies, all they need to do is do what they do best, shriek.)
What's your occupation? I hate Hillary Clinton.
What's your hobby? I hate Hillary Clinton.
Do you do volunteer work? I hate Hillary Clinton.
Do you love children? I hate Hillary Clinton.
How's your sex life? I hate Hillary Clinton.
Do you believe in God? I hate Hillary Clinton.
When Hillary 'works' on her likability, she is then branded 'fake.' When she focuses on policy, she is labeled 'unlikable.' Hillary actually never did 'cry,' she got emotional momentarily. How do you know if 'she feels entitled'? What evidence can you present to support this claim? What has she said specifically that leads to this claim? You comment is dubious at best and specious at worst, and really seems to me to partake of the irrational 'nyah nyah' attitude about which Faludi writes.
Furthermore, Hillary actually IS likable. I'm wondering whether the folks who think she is not 'likable' think, say, George W. is. Is W the model of likability? People like pompous, assholish, frat boy fakes? Is that what Americans think is 'likeable'?
Thanks for a great article. I read The Terror Dream, or rather savored it, because it presented a counter to the overwhelming mass of opinion and media. Some have called that mass the Mighty Wurlitzer, after the cold war CIA opinion shaping operation.
The current tune is being played out through the smirking face of Bill Kristol, the leering pants of Chris Matthews, and voices of some many others who sing along. It's all about how the country must be tired of dynastic politics (no mention of that in 2000). Or, how Bill's going to have a lot of time in the White House with interns once again. Or how Hillary (and perhaps no woman) can measure up to the "have a beer with" type of feeling that warms what functions as hearts for these fools.
They love this game and are just warming up. If they succeed against Clinton they'll crow gloriously and then move on to the game against Obama. Much better to have McCain, an angry, ancient advocate of endless war as their buddy and our President than either of the other choices. And McCainlove is another great tune they love to play - he's Mr. Straight Talk.
I've gone back and forth trying to decide how to go on Tuesday. I lean more and more to Hillary, not only because her health care policy is superior and universal, or because she's got more experience in the Senate, but because she's actually had to face more substantial opponents. Twice today Obama used his Senate race as an example of how he beat the right wing machine. Please! He ran against Alan Keyes.
But most of all, I distrust this current tune of inspiration, sung by the Kennedy's and echoed by Frank Rich and many others. But outside of his personal story and persona, what is there to be inspired towards? Specifics, please. And I would love to see Susan Faludi look at this apparent desire by some to be led by a new messiah to the promised land.
The Hillary haters are so tiresome. I've never met one who can give a real, substantial, fact-based reason for their hatred. And if Katie Roiphe and her friends don't like you, I think that's a sign you're doing something right.
I'm continually stunned at how little correlation there is between the actual human being and the press blather/framing of that public person. Examples: Gore in 2000, Bush in 2000. Reagan, McCain, and JFK just about anytime. This year, we can add Hillary and Barak.
I started with Edwards, but I began to react to the anti-Hillary critiques after Iowa. So many of these knocks bear zero resemblance to the actual woman that I watched and listened to in the debate (particularly last week's), in her stump speeches, in her autobiography, in Senate hearings on C-Span. She was astonishing--her vision, grasp, those nuanced policies, her depth of knowledge, her grit and spirit.
The Presidency is the most high-stakes, high-impact job on the planet. That seems to get lost in all the superficial, horserace, who-do-you-like, wall-to-wall coverage.
I'm hoping that there are voters just coming to the process who listened to Clinton and Obama on the Kodak stage, and consider both candidates without the hype.
That's what I did, and I'm voting for Clinton tomorrow in the Massachusetts primary.
I'm continually stunned at how little correlation there is between the actual human being and the press blather/framing of that public person. Examples: Gore in 2000, Bush in 2000. Reagan, McCain, and JFK just about anytime. This year, we can add Hillary and Barak.
I started with Edwards, but I began to react to the anti-Hillary critiques after Iowa. So many of these knocks bear zero resemblance to the actual woman that I watched and listened to in the debate (particularly last week's), in her stump speeches, in her autobiography, in Senate hearings on C-Span. She was astonishing--her vision, grasp, those nuanced policies, her depth of knowledge, her grit and spirit.
The Presidency is the most high-stakes, high-impact job on the planet. That seems to get lost in all the superficial, horserace, who-do-you-like, wall-to-wall coverage.
I'm hoping that there are voters just coming to the process who listened to Clinton and Obama on the Kodak stage, and consider both candidates without the hype.
That's what I did, and I'm voting for Clinton tomorrow in the Massachusetts primary.
Thank you Susan. The press has been taken up with the subject of race (no one is allowed to say anything about Saint Barack), but everyone is allowed to comment on how Hillary is "Shrillary" or how -- in the words of one male MSNBC commentator -- she "reminds you of your first wife waiting for you at probate court." (Of course that elicited laughter from the male and female anchors). Imagine the outrage if someone said something similar about Obama.
Why is it anti-feminist to dislike Hilary Clinton? Why can't I just dislike her because I am tired of listening to her speeches which don't motivate me and frankly are so shrill that she could peel paint off of a wall.
I want a candidate who is smart AND who can work with Republicans and world leaders. She does not impress me as someone who is a natural uniter. I want to get our troops out of Iraq and I want a candidate with a realistic health plan.
If Hilary runs I feel sure that McCain will win and then more people will die in Iraq. Obama isn't perfect but he does appear to have more integrity and credibility. His lack of of Washington experience is exactly why he is more appealing to me. I think that she is business as usual, except that she happens to be female.
GuavaJuice said:
"Why is it anti-feminist to dislike Hilary Clinton? Why can't I just dislike her because I am tired of listening to her speeches which don't motivate me and frankly are so shrill that she could peel paint off of a wall."
Your reasons sound pretty anti-woman to me. Don't like the speeches? Shrill voice? Please. Just spare me.
This article's right on. The irrational Hillary hatred is all about individual Mommy issues. Grow up.