Friday, January 11, 2008

THE PRIVELEGE OF THE PATRIARCHY

This has got to stop:

Gloria Steinem… asks whether a woman born in exactly Barack Obama's circumstances would ever have made it to the U.S. Senate, much less have a shot at the presidency, but she never stops to ask whether a black woman with Hillary Clinton's bio would ever have enjoyed the advantage of her husband's success at the highest level of politics to slingshot her on her way.

The point is that Hillary's path is the privileged one here, in a way that only a female candidate could be. She emerged into regional and national prominence because of her husband, not because of herself. His career opened her door, however admirably she has taken advantage of that fact. (Chris Crane via Andrew Sullivan)



To say that “she emerged into regional and national prominence because of her husband” is reductive and misleading, and has gone on unchecked throughout this entire election. Bill Clinton's career succeeded in large part due to Hillary Clinton’s hard work behind the scenes, her firm grasp of policy, and her clear vision for the future. To imply that Clinton just “slingshot”-ed her way to the top makes denies how instrumental she was in her husband’s ascension, and how much political acumen and experience she has because of it. Read the Carville/Matlin book, where Carville talks about how Clinton’s smarts and grasp of the issue helped Bill Clinton run a successful campaign.

Read Sullivan himself, who just yesterday said, “[Bill] Clinton will be deeply involved in a possible future Clinton administration, just as his wife was in his.”

Read any number of the conservative critics who, in 1992, said "that the Clintons may have pushed too hard on the concept of an unprecedented partnership in the White House,” They called her:

"a hall monitor" type whose drive and earnestness are off-putting: "She doesn't complement Clinton because she appears to be another liberal policy wonk. It doesn't seem like a family -- more like a merger." (NY Times, May 18 1992)


When she was involved in her husband’s campaign and presidency, she was a meddling power-hungry bitch. Now she’s a privileged lady who gets to side-step all the “real” work while her husband - ever so chivalrously - "opens the door" for her to waltz right through.

Calling another Clinton presidency represents a "dynasty" – a word used by both Democrats and Republicans – is just as frustrating. It implies that Bill has taken all he earned and handed it to her in a neatly wrapped package. The truth is that she and Bill earned it together, and now it’s her turn to step up. Using the term "dynasty" implies a sense of entitlement and privilege which completely disrespects the hard work she’s done for the past 40 years.

Hillary Clinton did what a lot of women of her generation, and the generation before that, ad nauseum did: they married a man they loved and believed in, did what they could to support his career, then allowed themselves to be the center of attention once his goals were achieved. Now the same people who endorsed and imposed that system are trying to punish her for following their rules. It's enough to make you want to cry.

REVIEW: HOW TO LOOK GOOD NAKED

"How to Look Good Naked," the new Lifetime reality show with former Queer Eye Carson Kressley, is a culmination of several recent, irritating, cultural trends: “love your body” gimmicks featured in every women’s magazine, Dr. Phil pop psychology, unscripted filler makeover shows, gay man as fairy godmother archetype (fairy god stylist, as Kressley himself says), shopping as panacea and rah-rah feminism lite. And man, is it fantastic.

90 percent of the half-hour show features a short, heavy woman in her underwear. Along the way, she learns how to wear a bra that fits, how she misperceives her own body shape, and how pedestrians respond to the 30-food projected image of her on the side of the building. The whole thing culminates with a tasteful nude photo shoot.

The description makes the show sound horrific. And vapid. And exploitive. And maybe it is. Still there’s something so endearing about seeing the show’s subject feeling so attractive in her new bra and panties set that she walks out of the dressing room to show it off in the store.

Compare that with the horror show a few channels down on MTV’s "Made." That show gives high schoolers six weeks and the help of a coach to reach a transformative goal – the drama nerd wants to complete a triathlon, the girlie girl wants to learn to breakdance. In a recent episode, a Goth girl wanted to transform into a beauty queen – and had a full on meltdown when faced with the prospect of modeling her swimsuit. “I just don’t want people to laugh at me!” she choked out between sobs, cowering half naked in a department store dressing room. Her self-loathing and body hatred were so palatable it was painful to watch.

On "How to Look Good Naked," have Kressley asks a woman to point out her flaws. Gently as can be, he then tells her why she’s over-reacting, while pointing out her stronger assets. “Are you perfect?” he asks. “No. Are you beautiful? Yes.” When was the last time women and girls got 30 minutes of that message? This is by far the least mean-spirited of all the body-focused makeover shows. While that may be a low mark to shoot for, it shouldn’t downplay how sweet and positive and enjoyable it is to watch.

Yes, the “big is beautiful” ethos still celebrates superficial beauty and sexuality in women. Yes, it changes the emphasis from unattainable weight loss standards to attainable beauty care of MasterCard, where all one needs to love oneself is a day at the spa and super expensive undergarments. (And if you don’t shell out, you don’t respect yourself). And yes, the show’s cutesy body-positive message is broken up with cutesy weigh loss commercials.

But what’s wrong with feeling good in your own skin, with deriving both power and bride from your body, and with not wanting to cry when faced with a dressing room mirror?