How is her (wrong) observation any different than the comments for which Matthews was forced to apologize? And don’t misconstrue. I’m not asking her to apologize anymore than I would have asked Matthews to apologize. But in truth, the observations are nearly identical and yet because Paglia is a woman she isn’t held accountable for what is essentially an angry missive at a woman threatening to succeed. Paglia is a professor and a mostly shrewd observer of the human condition, but apparently she is no more immune to the underlying personal petty jealousy women tend to feel toward each other than the assistant whispering to her female co-worker in the break room about how the boss’s choice in suits makes her look fat.
In some sense, both Matthews and Paglia were fostering certain stereotypes while missing the point that a woman taking advantage of her husband’s connections turns tradition on its head perhaps but it is hardly a sin. No one makes it on his or her own these days. Support systems vary but everyone needs one. Maybe I haven’t read the latest manifesto, but I didn’t think women were ever fighting simply for the right to go it alone.
The final irony is that in defeat Clinton is now being praised by those who criticized her for the role model she really has become. No longer an immediate threat to succeed, it’s fine, even expected for them to give her the hardy pat on the back for fighting the good fight. But a woman is no closer to the White House as a result and while the “atta girls” may be gratifying to Clinton personally she’d be fully justified in asking where were these women when she needed them most?
Article comments
1 - Chris
Clinton did not make herself a good enough role model to get behind for all women. SHe lied, wanted to cheat, gave the impression that she had no honor and would do anything to win. As much as you want to win sometimes you want it done honorably and in a way that you could be proud of. Hillary did not make me wish I were like her.
Also, do not forget that the majority of blacks did not support Obama until he proved himself worthy. Maybe if Clinton had proved herself worthy then more women would have voted for her.
It's very contentious and divisive to say that women didn't vote for her because they were hating and trying to keep her down. This is just a part of the usual rhetoric used to keep women down. We aren't brainless, we can decide who we want and we have to vote for a woman if we don't believe in her.
2 - Gary Benz
Far from trying to keep women down, my real hope is that they see their failed support as a chance to reflect on why one of their own didn't do better. You can find enough flaws in any candidate to justify your decisions, but Hillary was a strong candidate, not perfect, and could have used a little more support.
3 - Marny
I found Paglia's brand of "knotty psychodrama" journalism repugnant, and not anything I relate to either as a woman,or a feminist.There is nothing noble in her hyena-like tirade. Even points well stated were, to use your word, "catty" beyond reason. And if there's "no one better at flattering and soaking the rich and famous", as Paglia states, can we then assume that Obama got Oprah in his corner solely on presidential merit and not even a scosh of blackness? And oh, I guess milking having been a prisoner of war till all the tits run dry is somehow not the cash cow for McCain that I think it is?[And has it really made him an expert on Iraq?] Paglia is no sister of mine, not in spirit or otherwise.Hillary Clinton has devoted a large chunk of her life to very real public service and has been a tireless advocate for those without a voice. I, for one, am glad she has one.I am still thinking about your article, Gary--I have only touched on one point. And--I agree with your response to Chris.
4 - Marny
My expression of contempt for Ms. Paglia for her attack on hillary Clinton, in what I saw as vile, got me thinking on the point of Gary's piece, or as it were, the question of why women resent other women in power.[I think "hate" is untrue and provocative, Gary]. While I don't think either sex has a monopoly on jealousy, ambition, or competitiveness, I do think men and women often view themselves differently. I think women are more prone to self-loathing than men are and therefore loathing of one another. Anorexia and bulimia are always on the rise in our young girls, as is self-mutilation. Our children, male and female, are bombarded in every form of media by emaciated 15-year old girls selling wrinkle cream etc. Those women who choose to have children and invest their time and energy in being stay-at-home-moms, are still too often thought of as not having lived up to their own potential apart from that role. [I realize that 2-income homes are more the norm, and there are more single parent households than ever.]Women who choose a life path that does'nt include having children of their own are still often thought to be somehow incomplete without them. Women who try to do both, often don't feel they excell at either. Women often become defensive about their choices, or the circumstances they find themselves in. There are exceptions ofcourse, and lives with the kind of support that allows everyone involved to flourish.What I'm trying to say is self-image is everything. I worked with emotionally disturbed girls, aged 7 to 17 who could not function in society. When I told a 14-year old who was too self-conscious to be seen in a dark movie theater--that she did'nt have to cut "help me" into her arm with a knife, she could come and ask me for help instead next time--I could'nt help but think of all the girls who feel unworthy and worthless because they don't fit a mold or measure up to the media message of how they should look. We must praise our children, girls and boys, in abundance for the gift they are and the gifts they have. And just maybe they'll grow up to feel their value and to praise one another for all the right reasons. Every child is worthy of our love and a life of dignity and compassion.