2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"When I Was a Little Girl I Memorized a List of Male Presidents"
by, Melissa McEwan
I wondered when I was a child what it would take for a woman to become president. Now I am watching as Hillary gets closer than any woman ever, and I am overwhelmed by the sight of just what, exactly, it takes.
When I was in fifth grade, I had to memorize the list of US presidents. At that time, there were 40 of them. To help me remember them, I looked at a series of their portraits contained in my parents set of encyclopedias, as I sat cross-legged on the orange shag carpeting of our living room while a re-run of Barney Miller played on the telly.
To this day, I can conjure the cross stare of Millard Fillmore and the Ichabodian visage of William Henry Harrison.
There was something about all those faces, first rendered in oil and then reprinted for my perusal, that made me ask my teacher how a person became president.
Something about the way I asked made her think I was asking what I might do if I wanted to be president someday. That was not what I was asking. I am criminally shy and despise being the center of attention; a position as visible as the presidency would be my worst nightmare. But I also wasnt really asking what it took to become president, either.
I was asking, without saying it, what it would takewas it even possiblefor a woman to be president.
My teacher told me that I should study the presidents, learn their stories and see if I didnt find common threads. Many of them, she informed me, had been lawyers. She made a joke, which I wouldnt understand until years later, about how few of them were teachers, because it helps to be wealthy if you want to be a president.
I thanked her. And I went away, and I thought about her advice, and eventually I went back to the encyclopedias, reading about each president one by one, in the order Id memorized their names.
I dont recall how far I got before I gave up. The answer I was seeking wasnt in their truncated biographies. I wanted to know, more fervently with each day, why they were all men. And my parents encyclopedias didnt have the answer to that question.
Id already learned, after asking directly why there were no female ministers in our denomination, and why there were no female baseball teams, and why there were no women here, and why girls werent allowed there, that asking such questions was much more likely to get me an exasperated look than a straight answer.
So I kept my question about female presidents to myself, until I finally got my answer, which came in bits and pieces, via the incessant drumbeat of sexism that forced its way into my own life, and care of the burgeoning awareness of a thing I would later learn was called feminism.
And once I understood why there had never been any female presidents (nor non-white presidents, nor queer presidents, nor
), I came back to my original question, which wasnt masking a more basic question anymore: Just how does a person become president, if that person is a woman?
Shirley Chisholm ran for president two years before I was born. Ive read about her remarkable runbut reading about it is not the same as living through it. Especially since women who blaze trails are often remembered much more favorably than theyre treated at the time they set fire to the path.
So it wasnt until 2008, when Hillary Clinton first mounted a presidential bidand one that was more viable, for a number of reasons having to do with privilege and progress, than Chisholmsthat I got my first glimpse of just how a woman might become president. Of what it would really take.
Eight years later, I am getting a further education. My question is being answered, in simultaneously the most inspiring and disappointing ways.
What is takes is to be a woman who is extraordinary. A man with a C average and an important last name can bumble his way through life until hes delivered to the Oval Office, accompanied by the sound of cheers and laughter. A woman must have a résumé that slays dragons.
What it takes is to be a woman with unparalleled moxie and almighty gumption. Who is willing and able to weather discreet and explosive attacks on her character, her personal life, her every word and gesture. Attacks so ceaseless and intense they would leave the average mortal cowering in the fetal position, rather than armed with a steely resolve to face more.
What it takes is to be a woman so special that there are scarcely enough superlatives to describe her: Smart, competent, kind, fierce, undeterrable, ethical, witty, wise
A woman who can meet the most unreasonable expectations, and yet still be vulnerable enough to be accessible. Human.
And what it takes, at this particular time, in this particular race for the presidency, for this particular woman named Hillary, is to be a woman who has spent her life grinding against the most sharpened edges of obstructionist misogyny, only to meet the final, pitiless indignity of facing an opponent who wields his vile chauvinism like a proud knight brandishing a battle-tested sword.
A man who wants to persistently and shamelessly use her womanhood against her, while refusing to let her acknowledge being a woman. A man whose central strategy is to try to derail a historic female presidency by trading on the centuries of gender bias that prevented a female presidency in the first place.
It takes a woman who understands what I daresay precious few men who have occupied the office she petitions to hold have understood as keenly as she does: That this is not a job for glory-seekers. It is a job in need of a person who fights, who risks, who prevails.
The job of the president is not a sinecure. It is not a trophy for vainglorious collectors. It is a serious job for a serious person who understands and respects that peoples lives depend on its being treated with gravity.
What it takes for a woman to be president is to have earned it, in a way most of her predecessors have not even been obliged to contemplate.
That is not fair, but it means we will get a president better than we deserve, given the way we have treated the woman who wants the position.
November is still a long way off. I am quite certain that there are yet more ignominies and obstacles to reveal themselves. We will not truly know what it takes for a woman to be president until we have elected one.
And then we will quickly forget what it took for her to get there, what it cost her to be first. She will be just another portrait, in a series of portraits of presidents. And she will be so much more.
read: https://bluenationreview.com/when-i-was-a-little-girl-i-memorized-a-list-of-male-presidents/
Melissa McEwan is the founder and editor-in-chief of Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog community, which she launched as Shakespeare's Sister in October 2004.
Response to bigtree (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Welcome to DU.
Response to Agschmid (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You apparently would be better suited for a right wing site, and luckily I'm someone who can make that call
Later tater.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...on this essay about how only one Jew, Joe Lieberman, ran for president before, and he won zero states.
And now another Jew, Bernie Sanders, is running for president and winning some states but facing a steep climb as Hillary Clinton distorts his record and Donald Trump calls him a "communist" and "crazy."
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)Religion does not belong in government.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I don't want a president that evinces as much lying and corruption as Nixon
cali
(114,904 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)Sarah Palin was a potential "heart beat" away from becoming a President with her VP selection in 2008.
AND while I believe half the US reps should theoretically be women, I would much prefer the positions for which someone stands and fights for over having ovaries any day of the week.
It's probably the single most infuriating item to me about Clinton and her "I'm a woman" campaign. So, f-ing what if you are so wrong about so many things...
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)International relations?
Macro Economics?
Seriously, what are her qualifications as to why I should listen to her?
The only thing I get when o google her name is that she runs a blog, which any 10 year old with access to the Internet can do.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...blocking you.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And now perhaps a female president.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)join all those nations that came before us in this.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)that is not the only criteria.
Much better would be a woman who has not generated a package of unrelated baggage, such as too many ties to Big Bidness and Wall St. tycoons and lobbyists, who has not made millions of dollars off public office, whose spouse is not a problematic horn dog, a woman whose husband is not a former president, a woman who does not tend to alienate people with bad political judgements and tone deaf statements, who does not have an unorthodox charitable foundation with all kinds of dubious ties and activities.....etc.
Also a similar column could be written about the inspirational potential for a LGBT president, a Latino president, another AA president,...a Jewish president, etc.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...about how Democrats should nominate a candidate who stands for War and Pollution over a candidate who stands for Peace and Environmentalism because the former would be inspiring based on identity-politics.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)If she becomes the first woman president, that's probably the only positive thing the history books will say about her.
rock
(13,218 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...they didn't say she was corrupt BECAUSE she's a woman or shouldn't be there BECAUSE she's a woman. Just that she's corrupt and would most likely only be remembered as the first woman president if she gets there.
rock
(13,218 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Are all of the criticisms of Sanders based on reverse misogyny, simply because he is a male?
No, they are basic disagreements with him or dislike of him as a candidate.
Similarly, people are allowed to be critical of Clinton on disagreements or dislike of her as a candidate.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...of benefitting from a famous last name, and arriving at the White House amid "cheers and laughter." Actually, Bush didn't follow the tradition of walking amid the crowd on his way to his inauguration because protesters were so justifiably angry.
Hillary Clinton also has a famous last name and is the only primary candidate (correct me if I'm overlooking one) to have a former president do a lot of campaigning for her during primary season.
In the week before the Iowa Caucus, Bill Clinton did more events in Iowa than Hillary Clinton.
Also, Al Gore is a man with an important last name, and he didn't get to be president despite getting more votes. He also endured "attacks on his every word and gesture." After one of his debates with Bush, the media took his sighs (at stupid things Bush said) out of context to play them all together and criticize Gore for sighing.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Response to bigtree (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and the opponent looks to be Trump.
Plenty of room to celebrate this historic choice; and, plenty of opportunities ahead to elevate women's voices in our political system with the republican buffoon providing a certain and perfect foil in this election.
Response to bigtree (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...might be interesting and instructive to you to read others who might differ.
Response to bigtree (Reply #54)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)A woman as President...what an idea. Since women are over half of our population, why, indeed, have we not had a woman as President?
Good question, eh?
Response to MineralMan (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)You already know the answer, actually.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #29)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)If we survive her presidency (she doesnt start WW3), we'll all be real proud, just as i'm sure the UK were about Thatcher.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I have a vote, too. I'll use mine.
Sounds like you're describing Donald Trump to me. I won't vote for him.
beedle
(1,235 posts)one to which we all know the answer.
The other question would be why would we so minimize that victory by putting in such a horrible representative? Did Thatcher being the first Woman PM bring about some breakthrough for the cause of women in the UK?
Look, there is no doubt in my mind that there are still a significant minority of Right Wing Americans who would not vote for a woman based only on gender, so come GE time the 'sexism' card will come out even more than it is now, and will be rightfully played (although it won't make any difference, playing any 'identity card' in an election is not going to change minds.)
But, during the Democratic primaries, there are very few people who are making their decisions based solely on gender .. no, wait, let me rephrase that ... there are very few people who are making a decision AGAINST Hillary based solely on gender ... I doubt very much that there is a single Bernie supporter who would not vote for Warren over Hillary. I'd even wager that if it were Bernie against Warren, that there would be no such thing as Bernie-or-Bust .... I personally, despite being a long time Bernie fan, would likely look at it as Warren being very similar in policies, just as 'feisty', younger, maybe even a better record in a shorter time -- AND most importantly, after all other issues being very similar, the fact that she is a woman, would cause me to respectfully move my support from Bernie to Warren.
The problem is not gender, the problem is that those pushing for women being elected to high positions are using the wrong model ... in a world where the people are moving one way (progressivism and anti-corruption in this case,) the 'geniuses' playing the 'gender card' are trying to present a conservative women with an appearance of (if not actual) being corrupted by Wall St. and lobbyists as their representative.
Look, you have the corrupted establishment behind you, so you may yet still win ... but it's only the battle ... if you're "lucky" you'll have disillusioned so many people away from political activism that low voter turnouts will be the way of the future and the 'establishment' will have 'won' again for another generation while society degrades ... if WE the people are lucky, then this will be the last straw and the real revolution will take place, the revolution where the Democratic party gets taken over by real progressive, or becomes a small rump party of corporate sell outs far over shadowed by a new 3rd party of real grass root progressives (ie. people who want laws written for the benefit of people first, not corporations.)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)at least this one.
I get it. She's a woman. That would be inspiring if she is elected.
I don't think she is the best woman available to break that particular precedent, however.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)and you might not be able to overlook that on the GE...or after the election if she wins.
Mandatory Disclaimer: She will have my vote in the GE if she is the nominee simply to keep out the Republican. But there is a large share of the electorate who are not motivated by the "anyone but" message)
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...not from the author or this poster.
Sanders supporters have created a caricature of the Clintons to suit whatever they're opposed to, or to suit their opposition to Hillary in this campaign. Much of the pushback on expressions of hope for a woman president, of course, are personalized against Hillary, or at least against the narrative that her political opponents have developed over decades and in this primary campaign.
My qualm about the pushback, at this point in this election process, is that there is an almost certainty that Hillary will be our Democratic nominee. Expressions of support for her need to be seen in the context of the wider campaign, not as opposed to or compared to Sanders.
What I would hope for is that we take time to listen to these women's voices in this election, much more than we attempt to interpret, judge, or argue with them. After all, their support for this career Democrat's elevation to the nominee for our party is going to be a new and important expression for women in America.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Some one put together a very thoughtful piece on what it takes for a woman to reach this point.
And a small subset of Bern-outs rush over to shit on it.
How dare anyone have a positive opinion of Clinton.
And if you mention the historical importance of a woman like Hillary reaching this point ... they become even more upset.
Meanwhile, the rest of DU's GDP is discussing email servers (at least 5 OPs on that this morning) and Bill's dick (two new OPs about that this morning).
Time for change
(13,718 posts)But gender surely isn't the only criteria we should use in voting for a president.
I hate identity politics. I really was hoping that Elizabeth Warren would run for president -- a woman who would stand up against the powerful, especially the financial industry that is so responsible for the woeful state of our economy today. Instead we have a woman who accepts tons of money from them and surely intends to pay them off if she wins, by favoring their interests over the vast majority of her constituents.
Bernie Sanders would be a hundred times better for women than Hillary would be, but the focus on having a woman president today is so great among so many Democrats that that doesn't even enter into the equation in the minds of too many people.
Let's look past the gender issue, to what the candidates intend to do for the people of our country -- both men and women.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...both are extremely qualified and both are well within the mainstream of our Democratic party's politics, however you view all of that.
I don't have any problem at all with you or anyone else's expression of their 'criteria' for voting, but I strongly object to the notion that we should attempt to dictate or project our own 'criteria' on others in elections. The ballots are secret for more than one reason. One of the most important, I think, is the expectation that our vote will be a personal expression which should not be tempered by someone else's judgment or opinion.
I don't really understand the notion you raise that "the focus on having a woman president today is so great among so many Democrats that that doesn't even enter into the equation in the minds of too many people."
That reads like so much projection of your own negative view of Hillary Clinton, and of your own expressed bias towards Bernie Sanders. I'm certain, without a doubt, that you know very little of substance about these supporters to make such a sweeping judgment.
What I would suggest is that you take the time to listen to these expressions, more than you endeavor to rebut them, because those expressions will be an entirely new avenue of recognition for women in America with the historic choice of our nation's first woman nominee for president.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)at this particular time in history, it makes me think that the female gender of her candidate is a far more important consideration than what the candidate will do for women as President. That's why, as I say, I hate identity politics.
Do you really believe that a candidate who accepts so much money from the financial industry is not going to favor her financial benefactors over the vast majority of women who she is supposed to represent?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...at least, most observers are opining at this point in the election on a contest between Trump and Hillary. There's plenty of room for acceptance of this Democrat who enjoys INFORMED and WELL-CONSIDERED support from a majority who've voted in this election.
The gender of the candidate is an important factor in American politics, for women, and for many men.
You keep projecting your own view of Hillary onto this author's expression of support. She evidently disagrees with your negative assessment of our presumptive Democratic nominee. Personally, I think your view is absurd and over the top, but I hear ya.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)Would you care to comment why you don't appear to be at all concerned with a candidate who accepts so much money from a financial industry that has done so much to enrich themselves at the great expense of all of us, including women especially?
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and doing so, in my opinion, amounts to little more than debating someone advocating against our Democratic nominee.
You are, of course, still free to do that here, but you won't find me accommodating or cooperative in that effort.
Propane Jane ?@docrocktex26 Apr 19
What Hillary Clinton gets that Bernie Sanders doesnt: Identity politics http://qz.com/664475 via @qz
Time for change
(13,718 posts)doesn't say a word about issues -- so I can only conclude that she thinks that the only issue is that Hillary is a woman, and because she had to fight so hard to overcome the odds against her, that means that she will be a great president.
No matter if the other candidate has an agenda that will be far better for the women of our country. He's a man, and it's time for a woman to be president.
And by the way, I voted for women in the last two GEs -- not because they were women but because I believed that they would make far better presidents that either candidate from the two major corporate parties.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...you don't know squat about what she believes about the issues.
But because you oppose Hillary, you've projected the worst of your imagination on what she stands for. This is despicable politics and a loser with voters looking to express themselves in this election.
I'd suggest, going forward, that you take more time to listen to these women's expressions than argue with them, especially if your going to do little more than project your own bias.
Btw, the 'other' candidate isn't Sanders anymore, it's Trump.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)women candidates no favors.
I don't want the first woman president to be mired in secrecy, in drama, in criminal investigations.
I don't want the first woman president to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block.
I don't want the first woman president to lead us into more war quagmires.
I don't want the first woman president to further harm our environment by supporting fracking.
As a woman, I want to break the glass ceiling, but I don't want it to be done by a woman who would represent the worst females have to offer.
surrealAmerican
(11,364 posts)as to this:
It has been used as a trophy by some Presidents (most recently G.W. Bush). This is why we need to be particularly wary of "inevitable" candidates.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Who will she fight for?
--imm
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...that whole 'entitlement' thing is moot.
The people appear to have chosen a nominee.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I think we should hold out for someone better.
--imm
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and I mean the Donald and Bernie bros. Some people just freak the hell out at the thought of a woman being in charge. I've had several women supervisors during my life (and authority figures) and I just don't get the men (I'm male) that make a big deal of this.
I can remember one lawyer I did work for constantly belittling all the women judges. Yeah, some were idiots, some made sexists jokes at the expense of men, etc. but they were no better or worse than male judges, except in the area of manners. It is far rarer (in my three decades of experience) to find an arrogantly rude woman judge. Yes, they exist, but it is so rare as to be bizarre. About half the judges in California are women that I appear before.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...great perspective.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)etc. Ah, the good old days. Yes, women judges can be just as dumb and corrupt and biased as men. But just as smart too.