I’ve read that a lot of Hilary Clinton supporters are unhappy that Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential nomination. IIUC, they feel that Hilary is a victim of a macro-game and a set of macro- and micro-rules defined by men, and biased against women.
There’s a very interesting and detailed article on politico.com by Roger Simon (Relentless: How Barack Obama Outsmarted Hilary Clinton), which analyzes the rise and fall of Senator Clinton’s nomination campaign over the past eighteen months. Mr. Simon’s analysis indicates that Hilary’s campaign was star-crossed from the start. The key people who needed to make the day-to-day things happen in a presidential campaign just didn’t mesh, either with each other or with Hilary. It was just one of those things.
By contrast, Obama’s team members were meant for each other and for Senator Obama. It looks to me like fate; at some point, any great idea needs real people to make it happen, and if those people just don’t happen to work together well, the great idea is forgotten. You can’t say up front that a team comprised of A, B, C, D and E are going to make magic happen, and a team of V, W, X, Y and Z are never going to get it together. Many dream-teams on paper turn out to be losers, and some groups of losers come from behind to pull off miracles. You never know why. You only know it post-facto. As Hilary Clinton now knows, her team was the wrong one; whereas Obama’s team was the right one. It’s not a sexist issue.
But Simon identifies a crucial moment in the Clinton campaign, one that may well have sexist implications. After her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in January, Hilary pulled an unexpected come-back in the New Hampshire primary; most political analysts feel that the ’emotional tear incident’ at the Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth turned it around for her. According to Simon, her staff urged her to keep up the tears, jack up the emotions! The polls indicated that John Edwards and Barack Obama were seen to be “empathetic, sympathetic, caring about me”, whereas Hilary came out more “tough, ready, strong”.
Now that does indeed hint of underlying sexist assumptions and expectations regarding women. Hilary helped pass much more legislation than Edwards and Obama combined to help families and children. Her passion to help needy individuals was clear in her many years of dedicated action. And yet, her unwillingness to satisfy social expectations regarding female emotional vulnerability; and her reward for her one exception to this in New Hampshire, seems to be rather clear evidence of an unspoken double standard in American politics. According to Simon, Hillary refused to play up emotions; she knew that in doing so, reporters would require her to spill her guts about the Monica Lewinsky incident. Senator Clinton wanted to protect her emotional life, and was punished for it.
But — who are the feminists to be mad at? Barack Obama? Howard Dean? Evan Bayh? Bill Clinton? (well, yea, Bill can be a dog). These guys didn’t set the social rules and expectations. The problem resides in all of us, in tiny doses. The situation should be publicly discussed, and may represent a “teachable moment” for our country. But as to taking out anger on Senator Obama because he is a man — well, that seems quite counterproductive.
Next Issue: Above My Paygrade Afterall? In her comment on my last blog regarding the abortion question and my ideas regarding the social determination as to the “start of life” for purposes of human rights under law and social custom, Mary S. says that because I am a man and will never carry a baby, I do not have the standing to discuss abortion policy and the “start of life” question. Mary goes out of her way to express her respect for me, but then says that “if they [men, including myself assumedly] ever had even one period in their life [they] would spend the entirety of the time lying in bed.”
Most interesting. Mary’s views regarding discussion standing are shared by Dr. Leslie Cannold, an Australian bioethicist who has written extensively on abortion and gender issues. Dr. Cannold has a short, readable article about men’s standing in the abortion debate. She concludes:
Men lack moral standing in the abortion debate — indeed are guilty of moral arrogance — when they push for control over a procedure they’ll never have to have because they can’t get pregnant.
Obviously, you can find a variety of views on the blogosphere regarding Cannold’s comments. I believe that there are a lot of good arguments supporting the right, need and duty of men to be part of the social discussion regarding human reproduction. However, I do acknowledge that until the past 50 years or so, the world and its laws and ways were determined almost exclusively by men. And in many places on this earth today, that situation remains. Laws and customs regarding pregnancy that are defined entirely by men obviously aren’t going to consider all of the relevant evidence; they aren’t going to be optimal. As with most things, the extremes are bad, the middle is good. The extreme of men running women’s lives was admittedly injust.
Dr. Cannold’s logic obviously does have an interesting implication, however. Many women have never been pregnant and will never become pregnant, for a variety of medical or social reasons. This would apply to most Roman Catholic nuns. According to Cannold’s reasoning, a Roman Catholic nun should also be barred from the abortion discussion, as much as a Roman Catholic priest and bishop. I myself would think that the voices of both priests and religious women should be considered; sometimes those on the outside, those observing the flow, can point out things that those caught within the flow cannot see.
I do know of one woman who would consider at least one man’s view regarding the point in a pregnancy when full humanity endows itself. That would be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a recent interview with Tom Brokaw, Congresswoman Pelosi made the argument that “life” does not begin at conception, and cites the opinion of St. Augustine that “ensoulment” begins three months into the pregnancy. Well, I myself am neither a saint nor a doctor of the Church; however, Augustine and I came to similar conclusions, interestingly enough (ditto for St. Thomas Aquinas; but yes, I know, Aquinas never got pregnant either).
Back to Mary’s comment for a moment. Mary approaches the abortion question using an analogy to the growth of morning glory vines. Touche; absurdity reveals absurdity. Both morning glory vines and my analogy, jet planes being built in the sky, are shown to be very inadequate. The human situation is indeed more complex and difficult, by many magnitudes.
Congresswoman Pelosi does point out the complexity and difficulty of the abortion issue. However, she does not conclude that because of these complexities, the issue is legally and ethically indeterminable. Speaker Pelosi does not argue that the courts and the legislatures (like her own US House of Representatives) have no right to make determinations and rules that affect all fertile woman AND men. She seems to imply that it’s more a question of getting the decisions right, or as right as possible in a complex world. And to get it close-to-right, it will take an open discussion from all quarters, young and old, fertile and infertile, female and male. For women to imply that men should be excluded from a critical social discussion because of their grandfathers’ sins, is to repeat the mistake of exclusion and censorship that tho
se grandfathers made.
Mary, will all due respect to you and your interesting and well-considered thoughts. Comments, please.
Jim,
I have read carefully the articles you have given links to–except the one on Obama outsmarting Hillary. (Jim, please note that there are TWO L’s in Hillary’s name.) The reason that I did not read the Obama outsmarting Hillary article is that it required PDF format–which I still am unable to get on my computer. (I’m hopelessly in the dark ages, but that situation will simply have to remain that way until some later time at this point.)
First, initially I objected to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church asking theological questions of politicians–and I maintain my stance on that. I think Obama gave a good answer: “It’s above my pay grade.” Thus, I do not think that politics and abortion should be part of the same discussion. So my position will be that when/if I discuss politics (and I have sworn off that but may lift that ban for a few select comments here), I will discuss them separately.
So let me make a few select POLITICAL comments: I am not of the opinion that Obama and his team “outsmarted” Hillary and her team. I just can’t see that. I do think that the point you make–that there was a sexist prejudice at work when Hillary was running–is what caused the problem for Hillary. She could not win. If she was “emotional,” she was a hysterical woman. (Well, I may be exaggerating here, but not much.) If she came on tough, she was just a (rhymes with witch). Some of the political comments, by for instance such men as Chris Matthews, were out and out sexist. He and guys like him could not get away with the kind of thing they said if they said it to a man. A man would simply have sought them out to deck them, pure and simple. There was a lot of disrespect rampant when Hillary was running–and that simply because she was a woman.
As regards Hillary’s speech at the DNC last night. As I watched her speak, my reaction was that the speech in itself showed the reason why she should have received the nomination. I think she has a much better grasp than Obama does of how the issues should be addressed, what issues are important, etc. Initially, I considered Obama might be another Kennedy–with some reservations about his being a Chicago politician. I sincerely hope he manages to do a better job than he has in the last few weeks; I’ve had the impression he’s just another Chicago politician rather than one who would bring another version of “Camelot” to the U.S. Time will tell yet. There are still two plus months until the election; it seems the populace can turn on a dime in their love of a candidate. (Remember Howard Dean?) But things as they are, I must say Hillary showed she was the supreme politician when you couldn’t even see her bite her tongue and swallow what she perhaps really wanted to say when she gave her speech. Now there’s a true politician.
I truly object to politicians having fits of moral shock at the foibles of other politicians–all the while, it so many times turns out, that the “moral shock” politicians are later found to have been doing exactly the same thing they were so shocked at when another politician did them. I speak particularly of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. So many of those who went after him for his indiscretions were themselves doing the same thing–just had not been caught doing them. (And for that matter, Kennedy himself, it is said, was prone to sneak women out one door while Jackie came in another.)
That ends the political discussion.
Now to the abortion issue: And let me note here that there is no possible way I think that the question of whether or not to have an abortion is a simple, easy answer for parents. Abortion is not something that should be the birth control of choice.
I must commend your effort to search out articles that basically supported my position. A noble effort to see my position. Thank you; I always knew you were a good guy.
There is, however, one idea you imply (or perhaps that I infer) from your blog that I seriously disagree wit
Comment by NCS — August 27, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Jim,
I have read carefully the articles you have given links to–except the one on Obama outsmarting Hillary. (Jim, please note that there are TWO L’s in Hillary’s name.) The reason that I did not read the Obama outsmarting Hillary article is that it required PDF format–which I still am unable to get on my computer. (I’m hopelessly in the dark ages, but that situation will simply have to remain that way until some later time at this point.)
First, initially I objected to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church asking theological questions of politicians–and I maintain my stance on that. I think Obama gave a good answer: “It’s above my pay grade.” Thus, I do not think that politics and abortion should be part of the same discussion. So my position will be that when/if I discuss politics (and I have sworn off that but may lift that ban for a few select comments here), I will discuss them separately.
So let me make a few select POLITICAL comments: I am not of the opinion that Obama and his team “outsmarted” Hillary and her team. I just can’t see that. I do think that the point you make–that there was a sexist prejudice at work when Hillary was running–is what caused the problem for Hillary. She could not win. If she was “emotional,” she was a hysterical woman. (Well, I may be exaggerating here, but not much.) If she came on tough, she was just a (rhymes with witch). Some of the political comments, by for instance such men as Chris Matthews, were out and out sexist. He and guys like him could not get away with the kind of thing they said if they said it to a man. A man would simply have sought them out to deck them, pure and simple. There was a lot of disrespect rampant when Hillary was running–and that simply because she was a woman.
As regards Hillary’s speech at the DNC last night. As I watched her speak, my reaction was that the speech in itself showed the reason why she should have received the nomination. I think she has a much better grasp than Obama does of how the issues should be addressed, what issues are important, etc. Initially, I considered Obama might be another Kennedy–with some reservations about his being a Chicago politician. I sincerely hope he manages to do a better job than he has in the last few weeks; I’ve had the impression he’s just another Chicago politician rather than one who would bring another version of “Camelot” to the U.S. Time will tell yet. There are still two plus months until the election; it seems the populace can turn on a dime in their love of a candidate. (Remember Howard Dean?) But things as they are, I must say Hillary showed she was the supreme politician when you couldn’t even see her bite her tongue and swallow what she perhaps really wanted to say when she gave her speech. Now there’s a true politician.
I truly object to politicians having fits of moral shock at the foibles of other politicians–all the while, it so many times turns out, that the “moral shock” politicians are later found to have been doing exactly the same thing they were so shocked at when another politician did them. I speak particularly of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. So many of those who went after him for his indiscretions were themselves doing the same thing–just had not been caught doing them. (And for that matter, Kennedy himself, it is said, was prone to sneak women out one door while Jackie came in another.)
That ends the political discussion.
Now to the abortion issue: And let me note here that there is no possible way I think that the question of whether or not to have an abortion is a simple, easy answer for parents. Abortion is not something that should be the birth control of choice.
I must commend your effort to search out articles that basically supported my position. A noble effort to see my position. Thank you; I always knew you were a good guy.
There is, however, one idea you imply (or perhaps that I infer) from your blog that I seriously disagree with: That Roman Catholic nuns should be included in the abortion discussion–as well as Roman Catholic priests and bishops. I strongly disagree. I think–for the most part–these individuals are the least capable of making informed decisions regarding abortion–or marriage and/or love relationships either. True, there are some of these individuals who have had their own experiences with love relationships and perhaps they can understand somewhat such situations. HOWEVER, I must get personal here: I was a religious for 15 years, I was married for 24 years, I have been widowed for 16+ years. With that life experience and having (still) nun friends and having known many nuns and priests in my life I am here to say that I maintain that the only people who understand what happens in a relationship are the two people in the relationship–everybody else should butt out. I would say that when it comes right down to it, with all due respect to the priests, nuns, monks, sisters, etc., they know the least about such situations.
Basically, I have no argument whatsoever with Dr. Cannold’s point of view. I will admit that in my initial comments on your previous blog I came on very hard in my argument. I should perhaps expand my point: I would EXclude from discussion of abortion any WOMAN ALSO who is not part of the couple that made the baby. My considered opinion is that only the two individuals in the relationship know what the situation is and everyone else should simply butt out.
As to Nancy Pelosi’s remarks about Augustine: She’s 100% correct in her remarks about Augustine. But I would add one thing: Augustine loses his authority to speak, as I see it, for the fact that he loved a woman for years, had a child by her, and then found God and tossed them both over. (I can’t help myself but wonder: Did his finding God come about the time it became inconvenient when it became evident he would be responsible for raising a child?)
Thomas Aquinas too said something similar to Augustine. I think it was Aquinas (however, it may have been Augustine who said–in my dotage I forget which one held the following): Well, we don’t really know if there is life at conception or at 3 months or later–we simply don’t know WHEN there is life. So let’s just settle the issue and decide that it’s at conception, which is the position of the church. (Again, notice that the position of the Church is based on an easy answer to a most complex question.) To my way of thinking that’s just an easy, very convenient, way out of a complex question. Nancy is 100% correct when she states, “I don’t think anybody can tell you when human life begins.”
I would like to see the entire issue of abortion take a different approach–that of life being a continuum. I ask: What is worse: aborting a 3 month fetus or shooting in the head a 16 or 17 year old (which has been happening all too frequently on the streets of Chicago this year)? Frankly, I think the waaaaaay worse sin is the killing of the 16 or 17 year old.
Then too, nobody at all seems to want to address the issue of when the human body becomes a human person. That question involves the difference between a human body and a human person. In settling the issue of abortion at conception presumes that the human body and the human person are the same. I don’t think so. The question of consciousness/soul (whatever word one wants to call it) is never considered as separate from the question of the life of the human body.
And here let me open another can of worms: On this same point of “life being a continuum” I’d include the right of a person to end his/her own life–notice I say the right of the person, not the right of somebody not the individual–when he/she considers that the quality of life has deteriorated to such a point where the person no longer considers life worth living. I am not one who believes that life should be maintained at all costs. The Church u
sed to hold that nature taking its course, even refusing medical care, was perfectly Christian. Lately, the Church has again taken the easy way out, bowing to the conservative opinion, and finds that life must be maintained at any cost.
Let me commend you once again, Jim, for your sincere and noble efforts at trying to understand the “woman’s position” in this last blog. I know you are one of the good guys in this world.
And last of all, let me include a reference to an article on how to lower the abortion rate: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1678
MCS
Comment by NCS — August 27, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Jim,
I have read carefully the articles you have given links to–except the one on Obama outsmarting Hillary. (Jim, please note that there are TWO L’s in Hillary’s name.) The reason that I did not read the Obama outsmarting Hillary article is that it required PDF format–which I still am unable to get on my computer. (I’m hopelessly in the dark ages, but that situation will simply have to remain that way until some later time at this point.)
First, initially I objected to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church asking theological questions of politicians–and I maintain my stance on that. I think Obama gave a good answer: “It’s above my pay grade.” Thus, I do not think that politics and abortion should be part of the same discussion. So my position will be that when/if I discuss politics (and I have sworn off that but may lift that ban for a few select comments here), I will discuss them separately.
So let me make a few select POLITICAL comments: I am not of the opinion that Obama and his team “outsmarted” Hillary and her team. I just can’t see that. I do think that the point you make–that there was a sexist prejudice at work when Hillary was running–is what caused the problem for Hillary. She could not win. If she was “emotional,” she was a hysterical woman. (Well, I may be exaggerating here, but not much.) If she came on tough, she was just a (rhymes with witch). Some of the political comments, by for instance such men as Chris Matthews, were out and out sexist. He and guys like him could not get away with the kind of thing they said if they said it to a man. A man would simply have sought them out to deck them, pure and simple. There was a lot of disrespect rampant when Hillary was running–and that simply because she was a woman.
As regards Hillary’s speech at the DNC last night. As I watched her speak, my reaction was that the speech in itself showed the reason why she should have received the nomination. I think she has a much better grasp than Obama does of how the issues should be addressed, what issues are important, etc. Initially, I considered Obama might be another Kennedy–with some reservations about his being a Chicago politician. I sincerely hope he manages to do a better job than he has in the last few weeks; I’ve had the impression he’s just another Chicago politician rather than one who would bring another version of “Camelot” to the U.S. Time will tell yet. There are still two plus months until the election; it seems the populace can turn on a dime in their love of a candidate. (Remember Howard Dean?) But things as they are, I must say Hillary showed she was the supreme politician when you couldn’t even see her bite her tongue and swallow what she perhaps really wanted to say when she gave her speech. Now there’s a true politician.
I truly object to politicians having fits of moral shock at the foibles of other politicians–all the while, it so many times turns out, that the “moral shock” politicians are later found to have been doing exactly the same thing they were so shocked at when another politician did them. I speak particularly of Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. So many of those who went after him for his indiscretions were themselves doing the same thing–just had not been caught doing them. (And for that matter, Kennedy himself, it is said, was prone to sneak women out one door while Jackie came in another.)
That ends the political discussion.
Now to the abortion issue: And let me note here that there is no possible way I think that the question of whether or not to have an abortion is a simple, easy answer for parents. Abortion is not something that should be the birth control of choice.
I must commend your effort to search out articles that basically supported my position. A noble effort to see my position. Thank you; I always knew you were a good guy.
There is, however, one idea you imply (or perhaps that I infer) from your blog that I seriously disagree wit
Comment by NCS — August 27, 2008 @ 4:42 pm