Michelle and Hillary: Salt in the wound?
I remember hearing a story once when I attended a women’s conference from a woman who had been working in the secretarial pool at one of the local law enforcement agencies. She had always been handy with electronics — one of those hardy types who could fix her own toasters and TVs — and when a job came up in the motor pool working on the police radios, one of the patrolmen who knew of her talents recommended her for the job.
She left her desk in the office and spent a heavenly week in the garage, up to her elbows in electrical wiring and enjoying the challenges of a new task — and then abruptly found herself back at her desk and her typewriter. Seems the other women in the secretarial pool were so angry that she had been singled out and protested her advancement so vociferously that the chief had rewritten the job description to include a certificate in electronics, which our heroine did not have.
As she sat, bewildered, at her desk, the woman who had complained the longest and loudest sidled up to her and sweetly asked if she’d be willing to share some recipes for the office cookbook. They’d clearly pulled her back in her place, like crabs in a bucket.
I thought of this sad tale when I read about Michelle Obama’s overtures to Hillary Clinton regarding how to be First Lady. I’m not the world’s biggest Hillary fan, believe me, but, after waging a hard-fought and very nearly successful campaign to become President herself, it must have been GALLING for HC to be asked by the victor’s wife about daycare and private schools. What happened to foreign policy and economic renewal? I appreciate the fact that Michelle is more concerned about her daughters’ transition to the public eye than she is about politics, but show a little sensitivity, okay?
I’m also peeved with all the whiny Republicans and McCain operatives who are trashing Sarah Palin. Please. I agree with Nancy Nall that, all the wardrobe nonsense aside, Sarah probably knows that Africa is a continent, not a country, and that a lot of the gossipy stories are likely taken out of context in a feeble attempt to cover some well-exposed red arses. If the Straight Talk Express broke down, folks, it wasn’t because Sarah tinkered with the wiring.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, with all the gains that Americans are cheering about with this election, did the cause of women move forward at all?
Cultural change is much slower than political change. You’ve made some very good points though. Some interesting things to think about.
~*
Chani
November 11, 2008 at 10:33 am
NO it did not. Again we allowed the media to “put us in our place”. Grrrrrrrf. Women have been sent back to the typing pool because someone felt threatened.
Midlife Slices
November 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think it was hard on Hillary to be asked by the wife of her defeater how to be a First Lady, if that is what happened. I wasn’t a Hillary “fan”, because that isn’t what politics is about, but I thought, and think, she would have made a good President. She wanted to transcend the role and be First Lady of a different kind. The President kind.
My view is that Hillary didn’t win because she isn’t likeable. Maybe subconsciously people think it is more important for a woman to be likeable than for a man.
But maybe Americans just want likeable Presidents whatever their politics. Ronald Reagan was likeable. John McCain used to be, but he forgot to show it through most of his campaign. And he’s volatile and he got nasty. I think Americans (rightly) prefer unflappable — like Ronnie, and like No Drama Obama.
McCain’s vice president pick was insulting to women, and yes, it set women back. He picked someone who was not qualified to be President by training or experience, because she was a woman and he saw that women were yearning for that kind of change. For some reason he thought we would just go ahead and vote solely on that basis. That showed a contempt for women, an inexcusable contempt.
I supported Hillary, but I also made a bet against her about 20 months ago when all the newspapers were declaring the smart money was on her (not necessarily for President, but definitely for Democrat nominee). I collected on my bet on election night.
Women are a little, but not much, further forward. But hey, don’t forget, black men got the vote before any woman.
Duchess
November 12, 2008 at 2:07 pm
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I think that’s true for women in this case altho I do think we moved forward. I think Hillary didn’t win the nomination because people were hungry to be inspired. People felt like we were so on the wrong track and they wanted someone who could give them hope that something could be done about it. While Hillary is undoubtedly an incredibly competent woman, I don’t think she was inspiring in the same way as Obama.
But, Hillary has conducted herself admirably in every way. I think she has set a fine example of what women can do and be. Sarah Palin was an extremely unfortunate throwback example to some earlier paradigm of women in the professional ranks where they get by on good looks and winks far more than their actual accomplishments or qualifications.
It does take changes like this a long time to cycle, but I think people ‘got’ the stark difference between the two. I can’t help but think that’s a solid plus in the ‘moving forward’ column.
Just my two cents’ worth.
Allison
November 13, 2008 at 4:43 am
Thanks for the comments. I suppose, on a subconscious level, I might be identifying with Hillary because we are about the same in age and looks, and so I’m feeling rejected along with her. Let’s hope the gains she made can carry over into future elections and with the electorate.
msmeta
November 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m going to buck the trend and say that the cause of women was advanced with Hillary Clinton’s and Sarah Palin’s (I couldn’t bring myself to say Hillary and Sarah, no first-name basis there) running for president and vice president. Hillary was obviously qualified, but she ran against a man who called for change when change is what we need. And Palin, well, with all of the things wrong about her, I don’t remember anyone calling her a b**** who needs to go back to the kitchen (even if it is to make mooseburgers). Neither won because of who she is, and not because she was a woman. That, I think, is a step in the right direction.
Laura
November 15, 2008 at 10:59 am
[...] « Michelle and Hillary: Salt in the wound? [...]
Women and Election 2008: A gut check « Adventures at Midlife
November 18, 2008 at 9:51 am
I was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter. I liked her not because she was a woman so much as because I liked what she had to say, and I had a lot of confidence in her fulfilling her promises. Palin was just woefully unprepared for the job she had been “hired” to carry out. That was McCain’s fault as much as it was Palin’s for jumping into the big leagues before she was ready.
I do think women made large inroads during this election — because or in spite of Clinton and Palin, and even Michelle Obama. Women finally reached the top in a number of ways, and we proved how classy, savvy, driven, competent, tough, and resilient we are, despite our losses.
All in all, I think we came out on top.
KJ
http://www.nanadiaries.com
K. Jayne Cockrill
November 28, 2008 at 9:43 pm