First Lady Hillary Clinton delivers her speech “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” at the UN Women’s Conference, 1995

Hillary and the Other 1%

There is Nothing More Progressive than Ending America’s Dominant Minority Government

Yes, I know. You’re not going to vote for her just because she’s a woman. “Of course, all things being equal, I’d prefer to have a female President.” Or so begins the refrain of many of my Bernie supporting friends and acquaintances, who often use their next breath to try and educate me with platitudes on just how conservative Hillary really is.

In fact, it has started to seem that among my former progressive allies and within my trusted progressive news sources, deriding Hillary and championing Bernie is a no-question “given.” So much so that friends attempt to pull me into the same Hillary derision without thinking twice. If I’m a thinking person, a liberal person, I must be a Bernie supporter; to think otherwise would mean I was aligning with the 1%, part of the elite and out-of-touch.

Yet I can’t help but feel that we are witnessing one of the most pervasive examples of male privilege and misogyny among liberals that America has ever seen.

On my end, it has begun to seem as though I’m observing my community marching in liberal lockstep, proclaiming with paternalistic declarations that I’m not supporting the wave of progress. Proclaiming in fact that being a “true” liberal is now synonymous with being an adamant Bernie supporter. The Bernie camp’s talking points are now so oft-repeated verbatim that I’ve begun to wonder if they have been assimilated by the Borg: We know the only path to progress. Resistance is futile. (Do I need to start checking for a download port?)

Is there anyone left on the Left who feels comfortable declaring that Hillary’s gender is valuable? That to be a woman running for president at this time is not only radical, but a quantifiable asset to our nation — an asset that should not be apologized for, or weighed-out only in the final reckoning (“all things otherwise being equal”)? Being female should not be viewed as the frosting in an “all things equal” race of Democratic candidates, and not only because such a statement perpetuates the delusion that the race itself — and the government — is not utterly rigged against female candidates.

To be clear — and to attempt to head-off any vitriolic-Bern at the pass — I like Bernie. I don’t agree with everything he says or everything he’s voted for, just as I don’t with Hillary. They’re both imperfect, as people go, and neither is the Messiah (nor the Devil). If the time comes that Bernie is the nominee, I will vote for him with pleasure. Indeed, as a former dedicated volunteer and supporter of both Nader and Kucinich, I’m grateful for Bernie’s impact in pulling the Democrats more towards the left.

But I’m supporting Hillary over Bernie because, unabashedly, supporting pro-choice women to be elected to government is important to me. I say that without the need to emphasize Hillary’s qualifications or liberal voting record because that refrain has become absolutely useless. Qualifications or not, Hillary would be treated differently than any male candidate. To state that “her record stands for itself” seems only to incite more venom about her apparent, self-evident conservatism.

Amidst all the assertions of Hillary being a not-liberal-enough candidate and Bernie the socialist Superman, I wonder: if you had two jars, one for Hillary and one for Bernie, would you put any of your give-a-shit progressive beans into the Hillary jar “just because she’s a woman”? How many beans is having a pro-choice woman president worth to you? Any? It has begun to seem that having a woman this close to the Democratic nomination and the Presidency is so ho-hum for people that they wouldn’t bother even tossing in a bean or two. They’re too busy making-up funny insider quips about why she’s the “dark lady” etc.

It took me a while to identify that the irritation I’ve felt around this battle among liberals is actually anguish. Anguish at the shock of discovering how deep misogyny and myopic thinking goes within my liberal community. Anguish at feeling abandoned and betrayed by people who supposedly espouse the same values as me yet articulate absolutely no interest in electing a woman president for the first time in history. It is not because I want my friends and my liberal news sources to support “my candidate” (again, I like Bernie too) but because I have seen hundreds of expressions of spewing disgust towards Hillary and almost none championing her in support.

“You guys! We may have a woman President for the first time in history!!” Haven’t seen it.

We can’t talk about Hillary’s gender. Why? Because the Bernie camp has been setting the conversation (economics) and the topic of her gender has become taboo. Even the topic of how gender equality leads to economic equality across the board seems off the table. Economics! Economics! (Be careful! Don’t fall out of lockstep.)

The topic of Hillary’s gender has been brought-up and shut-down and brought-up and shut-down so many times in fact that we think we’ve actually had this conversation all the way to its conclusion. We haven’t.

Women have declared the necessity of equal treatment within society and government for so long that it may seem as though we are equal now. But if anyone is drinking the corporate Kool-Aid, it’s those who think we have achieved gender equality and that a progressive male candidate is more progressive than a non-socialist, liberal female candidate. A female Bernie could never get past the starting line. A female Bernie would never be able to rally this kind of emotional support without being derided as too angry or a little crazy.

The “authenticity” that Bernie evokes for people is an enormous male privilege all in itself.

Hillary is not afforded the luxury of having emotions as a candidate: she cannot tear-up without receiving scathing abuse from the media who question her capacity to “handle the stress,” although John Boehner can weep uncontrollably, Obama can tear-up at every music performance, and Merrick Garland can be so choked-up when receiving the nomination to the Supreme Court that he seems almost unable to continue standing, with no questions from the media regarding their capacity to lead — in fact, they tend to receive praise for being emotionally available. (Google any politicians’ name + “crying” and see what shows-up.) Public emotions are a male privilege.

“I’m not going to vote for her just because she’s a woman.” Got it. “You wouldn’t want me to vote for Sarah Palin would you?” Nope. “She’s like Margret Thatcher.” Nope. “Clarence Thomas is to African-Americans what Hillary is to Women!” So many holy-shit-nopes, I don’t know where to begin. And these statements from PhD educated men who actually believe they’re defending feminism by expressing these sentiments to me, a woman.

I wish just one of my progressive friends would make the argument about the value of having a female president without stating, “all things being equal” or evoke Elizabeth Warren. Sorry guys, she’s not running for president. And the fact that she’s pretty much the only alternative you can come up with is emblematic of my point. We are nowhere near gender equality in government or elsewhere, and as a progressive person, that should matter to you. A lot.

“I just don’t think it’s ‘her turn’,” one male friend declared. Agreed. We don’t select our president from a queue because they’ve been waiting a long time: “Next!” Yet while it may be politically irrelevant to declare that it’s “her turn,” I deeply resent the notion that it’s not, in fact, maybe, just possibly, “our turn.” I can only speak for myself, but as a woman in a society in which I have never once looked up and seen a woman in the highest branch of office and only rarely (and very recently) seen them elsewhere in government, the suggestion that her gender isn’t really that relevant in this race is insulting and alienating.

It’s also rather missing the point.

You want a more functioning government? Vote for Hillary. You want economic equality? Vote for Hillary. Yes, women in government actually make quantifiable differences in the functioning of government and the country as a whole. The problem is we can’t get women into government very easily.

The United States’ government is one of the most male privileged systems ever created. It was, in fact, created by and for white men. (That’s historical, not accusatory.) Yet we expect that women are going to want to run for office within this highly masculine system and endure the hatred towards them along the way in order to then secure a spot in a highly un-equal branch of government, only to then endure overt sexism and discrimination while there, meanwhile remaining in all ways utterly-authentic-but-unemotional-or-angry-warm-pretty-and-overly-qualified-but-not-with-a-voting-record-I-don’t-like.

“She’s part of the 1%. I’m just stating a fact.” Thank you for stating that fact. I ask you to weigh your values. What 1% are we talking about here? If you value statistics, and you value equality, the number of women to ever hold office in the United States government is about 1%.

Approximately 53% of American adults are women, yet men have held nearly 99% of all elected federal positions and seats on the Supreme Court. In fact, since its inception, the United States Government has been a government of dominant minority rule. Less than 3% of members of Congress have been women; less than 4% of justices on the Supreme Court have been women; and not a single individual occupying the Oval Office has been a woman.

Moreover, women continue to endure high levels of violence at the hands of men (many of them liberal), and even though the whole planet now understands that the economic success of women is an indicator of economic stability for all (thanks largely to the activism of Hillary Clinton, by the way), women continue to experience economic disparities across the US. (Gender and economics are not so easily separated.)

You want to alter this gender imbalance? Consider throwing a few more progressive beans into the Hillary jar.

We have a short memory of progress. According to many progressive liberals today, “Hillary is part of the establishment.” Forgive me for stating the insanely obvious: Hillary is not part of the establishment. She is not part of the establishment because, simply, SHE is not part of the establishment. Remember: we have never had a female president, not in 240 years. (Women won the right to vote less than 100 years ago, and were considered the property of men not long before that, unable to own property themselves. Economics.)

Don’t tell me again you wish Hillary were Elizabeth Warren because in these arguments of actual reality, you may remember, we cannot use our fantasies. And please, please don’t assert the “Clarence Thomas is to blacks as Hillary is to women” analogy again. It’s so darn paternalistic coming from a man.

In fact, let’s make the value of women in government abundantly clear here: Clarence Thomas would never have been elected to the Supreme Court if more women had been in Congress at the time, or if a woman had been presiding over the Senate Judiciary Committee, or if a woman had been president. The same cannot be said about having more liberal men in Congress. Thomas was confirmed with the support of eleven male Democratic senators crossing party lines, after the public defamation of Anita Hill within the all-male Senate Judiciary Hearings presided over by Democrat Joe Biden. Besides Anita Hill, nearly no female voices were heard because the Senate was 98% male.

Anita Hill in front of the all male Senate Judiciary Committee, 1991 Greg Gibson/Associated Press

Who knows where our nation might be today if Thomas had not been confirmed in 1991, casting votes ever since.

There is no denying it. Equality and progress are furthered by having more pro-choice women in government. In fact, while I have my preference, there’s proof that having even pro-life women in government can get us closer to progress for everyone.

For instance, the 2013 government shut-down was ended by the women in Congress. Female members of Congress crossed party lines — as they do in gatherings on a regular basis — to bring the costly and irresponsible government shut-down to an end. Men did not do this, no matter how liberal or socialist they were. This was, incidentally, a very significant economic issue, one that helped to keep millions of people employed and receiving necessary aid.

Having more women in government is also good for any women working below them, and therefore the cause of gender equality across the board. Women working under men are not only in danger of sexual harassment and assault (see above), but even in totally woman-safe offices (hint: they’re not necessarily Democrats’) women are still pervasively hampered by the “threat” that their gender causes for the elected official for whom they work. In other words, their careers are often stalled or destroyed. This is not true, incidentally, for men working for women. Women in elected office make government safer and more equal for everyone. Indeed, the systemic changes resulting from a Hillary presidency would start the second she took office.

Hillary’s gender is important. Her being a woman, a pro-choice woman, is a relevant issue for achieving progressive goals. Meanwhile, all assertions of being more-progressive-than-thou from the Bernie camp aside, their voting records while in the Senate together were nearly identical.

I ask you, as a progressive, to support Hillary and appreciate that her gender does, actually, matter. That maybe you should vote for her because she’s a woman. That maybe doing so would be the progressive thing to do.

If not, then I ask you to make a liberal concession to further the goal of achieving gender equality and economic equality too: consider actively working to alter the incredible imbalance of power in our government by doing two things.

Do not participate in the hatred or resentment directed towards Hillary. Vote for who you want! But leave the vitriol out of it, it only perpetuates hatred towards women in general and harms the cause of bringing more women into government. Support a female candidate for Congress this election cycle. Women’s current 20% representation in Congress (won less than three years ago) can keep growing. Let’s make sure it does!

Please do these things even if Hillary is not your candidate. Because the United States government is the greatest example of white male privilege our nation has ever established. Because as your liberal ally, it shows me, a woman, that you give a shit. Because you know that we are very, very far from achieving gender equality: that in addition to pay inequity and the small question of whether the health of our bodies is entirely in our own jurisdiction, at least half of women will experience sexual assault and at least 20% have been raped (at least once), that almost all women experience objectification and some degree of physical and emotional danger on a weekly basis, and that these statistics alone (not to mention many others) have a detrimental effect not only on our physical well-being but on our sense of self-worth. Because you believe it’s important for both boys and girls to see women in healthy leadership positions. Because you know that women are shamed all the time for speaking their minds and saying things that don’t conform to public opinion. And because you know that we need women to do just that.

So I am saying it: yes, I care that Hillary is a woman and I’m not embarrassed to talk about her gender or say it’s an important aspect of her candidacy. Let’s stop perpetuating the anti-woman sentiment that, if elected president, her gender would be, at best, a lovely, liberal bow-on-top.