Sexism, the Women’s Vote and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy

[Emit]

Sexism, the Women’s Vote and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy
by Stephen Zunes

I recently received a short note on a list-serve from a New Hampshire woman - a committed progressive and peace activist - who, despite Hillary Clinton’s unapologetic support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and other right-wing foreign policy positions, decided at the last minute to cast her vote for the New York senator in the Democratic presidential primary. A deciding factor for her was that, just days before, she had been bypassed for an anticipated appointment for a position in her town government in favor of a younger unqualified male.

Many of us who continue to be disappointed by the strong support Senator Clinton has been receiving from politically left-leaning women despite her militaristic foreign policy positions and pro-corporate agenda often forget how the prospects of electing a female president constitutes a powerful contradiction to the pervasive sexism in society.

~snip~

Historically, it is unusual for women - who tend on average to be more liberal on foreign policy matters than men - to support the most hawkish candidate in the Democratic primaries. Still, many female Clinton supporters hold on to the belief that she is actually far more progressive than she is letting on and that she has to appear tough on foreign policy to overcome sexist attitudes about having a female commander-in-chief in a time of war. This may be naïve, but it is widely-held among liberal and progressive Democrats, particularly among women middle-aged and older.

~snip~

Defensiveness and Sexism

I have often found many female supporters of Clinton very defensive when I have raised these and related concerns. Indeed, as a result of my outspokenness in opposition to Clinton’s candidacy - particularly her militaristic foreign policy agenda - I have even been accused on the pages of at least one national magazine of being sexist and opposing her simply because she is a woman. ...

As a result of the vehemence of the anger and distrust many of us direct at Hillary Clinton for her support for the Iraq war, her threats against Iran, her poor voting record on human rights, her opposition to the enforcement of international humanitarian law, and related issues, it has become difficult for many of us to fully appreciate just how serious the sexist attacks against her have been, how that must feel to millions of women in the Democratic Party and how that brings up a lot of old resentment regarding their own sexist treatment over the years. As with walking alone along the street at night, there are certain fears and perceptions I will always have hard time fully appreciating about what it is like to be female in a sexist society.

Indeed, I’ve begun to recognize that the way in which I essentially “forget” that Hillary Clinton is female is not a sign of a lack of sexism on my part, but a lack of awareness that contributes to the climate of sexism which has permeated the campaign...

What it does mean is that we need to recognize that not all Clinton supporters embrace her militaristic foreign policy agenda, but in reaction to right-wing sexist depictions of her and her fitness for office, many Clinton supporters are in denial as to just how far to the right her international agenda is. We need to understand that the excitement, especially among women middle-aged and older, of seeing a woman elected president - and the despair that would result if she lost due to sexist depictions and attitudes - has made it difficult for many to recognize Clinton as not just what she symbolizes, but where she actually stands in terms of her foreign policy.

It also means that - both in order to stop Clinton and simply because it is the right thing to do - those of us critical of her candidacy from the left need to acknowledge how serious sexism remains in American society, how it is manifesting itself in the personal attacks against her, and how we must challenge such sexism whenever and wherever we come across it. We must make sure whatever criticisms we make of Hillary Clinton be about her policies and not about her personally. We must listen, listen and listen some more to women who might feel compelled to vote for her despite her militarism and validate their concerns, even as we share the often hard-to-hear reality of where Clinton is coming from politically. And we must remember that the issues that face us today - from sexism to imperialism - are much greater than anything that can be resolved simply by electing a new president.

More detail at link, including Foreign Policy Implications, Global Feminism in an Imperialist Context
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/27/6657/

[Emit]

1. Wow - a post about Sexism gets zero responses?

I would like to hear some opinions on this piece. Anyone care to respond?

edit spelling

[Emit]

2. I'm really surprised more people aren't interested in this topic

The cries of sexism, whether warranted or not -- and many are, no doubt, warranted; and many are not -- has been frequent here on DU, and I thought this article offered an interesting take on the subject.

[Voice for Peace]

8. I think it's an interesting post, thank you. I'll k&R

It's a reminder also of how much the divisions between people spring
from misunderstanding. being unable to walk in the other's shoes.

Sometimes I feel that someone else is just SO WRONG.

But I don't have their history, their stories, I didn't experience
their childhoods, their sorrows and abandonments, disappointments,
wounds. I don't know what they know, or feel. How can I judge them?

There is "life" -- that which furthers happiness, health, wholeness,
joy, possibilities, wisdom

There is "anti-life" -- that which furthers destruction of life, hate,
pain, cruelty, ignorance, sadness, cheat and deceit

Apart from those distinctions, what's right, who's wrong?

On edit: we have to examine the fruits. There's the evidence.
Sometimes it takes time, even several generations.

[Emit]

14. Thanks

and thanks for your input on the topic, Voice for Peace (I love that name, btw) :hi:

[cliffordu]

3. K&R

[Swamp Rat]

4. "many Clinton supporters are in denial as to just how far to the right her international agenda is."

YES! She is way too hawkish for my tastes, and I also believe some people (including loved ones) have turned a blind eye to this.

[CTLawGuy]

5. if she must be militaristic in the campaign to prove how "tough" she is

unfortunately that will have to continue if she were to get into office. I'm sorry she feels she has to do that, but we as a country cannot afford more destructive foriegn policy.

[femrap]

6. The article is over 2 months old...

ever think that The Corporation is backing BO so we can rape the final continent of its remaining oil and vast array of minerals?

And so many of the young see an idol who doesn't have a bad bone in his body....what a joke. How naive.

[Emit]

What does the fact that it was written in January of 08 matter?

Did you even read the piece? Care to comment on the subject posted rather than responding with "but, Obama..."?

[femrap]

10. I did.....2 months ago.

I have enough fucking deja vu in my life already....fighting the same shit we did in the '60's and '70's...but now I have to listen to whiners.

Not anymore....

[Emit]

11. Who's whining here?

It's a discussion board. We come here to discuss issues. If you care not to, why post here? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[dailykoff]

7. Being female gives her a certain amount of teflon, like Condi,

and don't think the money boys behind aren't counting on that. Basically it's a gimmick that didn't work, like the Clinton name, though it appears to have hooked a sizable number of loyalists.

[cbayer]

9. A couple of comments/questions.

First, I have yet to see any substantial difference between Clinton's and Obama's Foreign Policy stances. I'm not particularly taken with either one. How is hers more "militaristic" than his?

Secondly, I find his discussion concerning sexism in this campaign very intriguing. Many here at DU (and elsewhere) argue that sexism is not an issue in this race. He makes a very compelling case not only for it's existence but it's tremendous power and influence. His last paragraph, in particular, is excellent. He is using it to bolster his argument that she is a hawk and needs to be exposed as one, a premise I reject, but his advice to stop the personal attacks seems very wise.

One of the issues is that those that do not see the sexism do not see the personal attacks either. The lack of vision of the first cancels out any opportunity to see the second.

The fact is, Clinton is breaking ground that has never been walked on before. It makes many people, including women, very uncomfortable. It has stirred up quiescent sexism, just as Obama's campain has stirred up quiescent racism.

I am glad that you bring this to the table for discussion. I hope it gets play.

(Much better than the other one, BTW) :hi:

[Emit]

12. Thanks for your civil discourse, cbayer

On your first comment: I just want to say that I was a Kucinich supporter before I was an Edwards supporter before I was a Clinton supporter before I was an Obama supporter. I threw my preference ballot in for Obama in my early caucus when neither of my first two choices were viable (and when I just could not bring myself to vote for HRC due to her IWR vote and my anti-war tendencies).

In a nutshell, Obama's and Clinton's Senate Records are similar, and neither offer much difference in foreign policy, with the exception of HRC's war vote and Obama's anti-war stance, and HRC's tendency to support and display the same hawkish tendencies of our current administration and Obama seeming to be more diplomatic. Some believe, however, that "Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches;”and is more open to diplomatic solutions. (These two article are written by the same author of the two pieces I posted earlier, iirc). Getting out of Iraq may prove difficult for either.
Passing health care reform will be difficult for either, too.

However, Hillary is a longtime DLCer, (not a good thing, IMHO) associated with the Third Way, Neoliberal Clintonianism that many liberals are aware has not lead to the necessary split with the Bush Sr./Reagan/(Clinton 3rd Way)/Bush Jr. conservatism and neoconservatism -- aka the elite status quo who manipulate the masses with populist messages, but fail to deliver on their promises.

Although I agonized over my decision on caucus day, and had considered voting for Hillary, I went with Obama, for many of the reason discussed previously and articulated so well here (an article I highly recommend reading if you are the least bit interested in considering Obama).

On your second point: I will only respond from my own experience with regard to the sexism issue. I find that many Hillary supporters on DU are quick to make the charge, without desiring to really discuss the matter (wait for the pages to load, it's a big thread.) I have commented on the general topic before, and on that same thread, I asked for examples from others (having no teevee, I was out of the loop as to what specifics some Hillary supporters were referring to as far as sexism in the media), and was pointed to this article. I really don't think many Obama supporters would deny the sexism in some of the things pointed to in the article; and it is likely that the author of the piece I posted in this OP is aware of those things, as well. I see some sexism. But, I don't see it everywhere. I think we have a right to criticize her policies just as we would any other candidate.

I am not certain by what you mean with this comment: "One of the issues is that those that do not see the sexism do not see the personal attacks either. The lack of vision of the first cancels out any opportunity to see the second." So, I will let you further explain if you want before I respond further.

Thanks for your response. :hi:

[cbayer]

13. I greatly appreciate your civil response.

This is a subject which I wish to discuss, but, alas, can not do so further tonight.

So, unless you object, I will read and respond tomorrow. You have clearly taken the time to craft a thoughtful reply.

I think I will enjoy talking with you.

:toast: