I know I'm a little late with this one, but I got into a discussion about it yesterday, and, well, it's my damn blog.


I was talking to a friend the other day who told me something to the effect of, "If Hilary had become president, I would have fled the country." This friend is not a hard-line republican, or a macho dude - on the contrary, this friend is an independent, intelligent, politically-moderate, ballet-dancin' woman. This friend also told me that she knows Hilary is a competent, unbelievably intelligent politician, but for reasons unknown, she is also "evil," and therefore, she should never be president. I can honestly say that I don't care about my politicians as people. I'll never meet them, let alone become buddies with them, so I don't care if they're manipulative, controlling, whatever. Take nice-guy President Carter: a lot of people consider him a failure as president (I personally think he was fairly lackluster, but not an embarrassment). Then take FDR who was, by all accounts, a really crappy human being - manipulative, secretive, dishonest, adulterous, and one of the greatest US presidents ever.

Hilary Clinton is the most divisive figure in the Democratic Party. Fact. And I think I know why. I used to think that it's because she's a woman and that people are frightened of powerful women, blah, blah, blah. But then Sarah Palin came onto the scene, and lots of people (even Man-types!) like her. So Hilary's vagina is clearly not the problem here. So, then, what could it be?

My guess is that people are put off by the fact that Hilary is not particularly feminine. At least, not in a traditional sense. She doesn't use her child for photo-ops, she doesn't rack up huge bills buying clothes, and she actually understands important issues. Sarah Palin, however, creates a far more feminine image of herself, i.e., she constantly plays the dutiful wife and mother and she's pretty.

So why does it matter so much if Hilary would probably not make a great shopping buddy? Because the bottom line is that the American people, maybe even most people everywhere, can accept a powerful woman, so long as she is a woman first and powerful second.

***While this little anecdote does deal with the same stuff, it's not really relevant to my argument.

A couple of years ago, when it was still between Hilary and Obama, my history teacher asked the class if they would not vote for Hilary because she is a woman. More than half the class raised their hands, including several girls. One lad, who surely has a blindingly bright future ahead of him, pointed out that she would be a terrible president because, as he put it, "...every month, she'd try to start a nuclear war with somebody!"

Not that I expect that cretin to ever read this blog, but here's what I would have liked to have said:
"First of all, it's not that easy to start a nuclear war. Secondly, I'm positive that Hilary does not menstruate any more. Finally, the stereotype that woman become irritable and irrational while menstruating is largely not true, but is propagated by men who are so frightened of people with vaginas that they feel the need to categorically discredit the actions, emotions, and opinions of women. Please go get castrated now."

Then I'd probably have to tell him what "propagated," "categorically," and "castrate" mean.