Hillary Clinton’s presidential run was powerful. While not successful, her campaign proved to be a historic milestone for feminism. Despite the failures, we must look back on Hillary’s achievements as the strongest female presidential candidate in U.S. history, especially in terms of the difficulties women have faced in political participation. This article presents a troubling connection between the past and the present with regards to feminism and the women’s suffrage movement.
The American psyche has changed, and so have attitudes towards women in politics. However, the extent of that treatment and diversity is still quite limited despite nearly a century after establishing the 19th Amendment.
In fact, as someone who’s said “Nobody has more respect for women than I do,” Donald Trump certainly sounds a lot like a politician from 1915 (Frank Clark), who shared a similar “sentiment” in regards of respect for women:
I do not wish to see the day come when the woman of my race in my state shall trail their skirts in the muck and mire of partisan politics. I prefer to look to the American woman as she always has been, occupying her proud estate as the queen of the American home, instead of regarding her as a ward politician in the cities … The American mother, the American woman, has my admiration, my respect, and my love—
These statements reflect society’s high expectations on female politicians, yet it appears these words are not reflected in many politicians, and even throughout Trump’s supporters. I do not see these words as matching up with their actions.
How do you think the current political feminist movement will fair under the Trump presidency? Do you think there will be a strong uprising in feminist movements within the next four years?
Since Hillary has a history with white feminists, do you think this loss will push them to help or protect women of color? What changes do you think need to happen? Finally, as asked in the article, do you think women’s suffrage was a failure in this election? Or is gender completely unrelated to Hillary’s loss?
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
Here’s hoping for unity of women and that the current feminist movement will find a unified voice based not so much on race, but rather, a unification where gender identity is on par with ethnic and cultural identity. It seems there are many instances of women supporting other women- some that come to mind are: the Civil Rights movement- white women like prominent singer-song writer Joan Baez and actress Susan Sarandon marched in Selma, and the suffrage movement, when a spirit of inclusion was applied through the tenacity of Harriet Stanton Blanch and her years of studying the social sciences and working class women, and the women of color who voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The antithesis can be found these examples too, but I am searching for points of crossover– places when women supproted other women…
That said, I think we women need to continue to do what Hillary was known for doing so well- listening. Sounds pedestrian, but back to basics: listening to other womens’ stories, especially open to those who differ vastly from us in background, in political views, in class… reaching out to one another in ways that are constructive, creative, and raise each other up- or at least offer an olive branch when the shit starts to hit the fan in a few years.
I was surprised by the media’s instant turn on Hillary days after the election, especially so many liberal leaning female journalists that seemed to throw her under the bus and why? To compensate for a misstep in thier own judgement? Rather than labeling her a ‘flawed candidate’ why not call a spade a spade:
Donald Trump stumbled into a hornet’s nest of anger and fear. His rhetoric, or to be honest, his viscious ad hominem attacks on the “rigged system” and “crooked Hillary” were like a rush of heroine into the veins of suffering Americans- a velvet freight train with a warm feeling spreading out from the center. He created a lynchpin that exploited that anger and fear, some fear about race, some fear about gender, to be sure, but more importantly, he exploited the deep human pain of folks’ economic suffering with an opportunistic zeal that was all about “winning”. Perhaps this was overlooked by the Democrats? He said, when asked (I think on 60 minutes with Leslie Stahl) if he thought the his rhetoric was toxic during the campaign and does he regret any of it to which he responded, “No. I won.” And that win will have uncertain consequences.
Nobody thought Donald Trump would win. Not even he thought he would win (though both Michael Moore and Steve Bannon) claims to have known this would be a Trump victory- interesting?
LikeLike
There is always power in unity and I agree with the sentiment that a move toward multiplicity, a congregation of all marginalized populations is powerful and perhaps eventually necessary. It is just unfortunate that the onus always falls to the disenfranchised to figure out the best way to be heard, rather than the obligation of the patriarchal powers at be the hear and respect the multiple voices of the “other”. Perhaps there is some amount of solace to be found in the idea that the oppressor is he, himself oppressed, and that there is a certain freedom of thought that can come from being the victim of oppression in its many forms. But somehow, even though I know this to be true, I cannot always remember it, especially in this current political climate.
LikeLike
I agree with the fact that it has been the burden of the oppressed (disenfranchised) to prove their humanity again and again. The task is tiresome. That is, to create an argument that persuades one’s oppressor that we are all equally human.
LikeLike
Actually listening – what a novel ideal! Something I still have difficulty with is listening to something I don’t like or agree with. Despite sounding naive, here goes: if listening is the first step towards civility, an actual conversation, and compromise, then it’s paramount that everyone do it in order to move agendas forward.
LikeLike
I think we’ll have to take the temperature of the current political feminist movement several months or even a year into Trump’s presidency to truly see the affects of his administration. Right now, the movement is, as I understand it, unchanged. Are there more roadblocks for women in the political sphere? No more than there were before. And, really, it isn’t solely the influence of a Trump presidency that will potentially alter the movement; it’s the reverberations of a voting populace that elected a bigot over a woman.
To talk about “society’s high expectations on female politicians,” as you aptly identify, we need to recognize that these expectations have always been high and will only escalate as women get closer to the highest office. I think, in many ways, that is why Hillary Clinton failed to win the election. In addition, what has always been missing from the women’s right movement and this political feminist movement are the women that voted for Trump. It is our differences that divide us and until we reconcile these differences, there will always be mounting obstacles, particularly in politics.
LikeLike
“it’s the reverberations of a voting populace that elected a bigot over a woman.” Agreed! I have the same sentiment when it comes to any movement that addresses the concerns of minorities or People of Color. We need to look at those voting and the current state of not only our system but those that vote to keep up the system that discriminates.
LikeLike
Although the election of yet another man to the office of the president does continue to perpetuate that full equality for women has yet to be achieved, it is still crucial to never forget that Clinton won the popular vote and in that sense she did “beat” her opponent. Why has there not been more focus or coverage on this important fact? It may not have won her the presidency, but it certainly should hold some weight in helping to transform our perception of what is indeed possible for women in politics. Maybe it’s time for women to stop talking about the glass ceiling. It is seemingly a self-imposed obstacle that women have put in their own way– a symbol of women not reaching their full-potential. We need to put the focus back on women achieving greatness by working hard, commitment, dedication, sacrifices, and helping each other — all qualities that Clinton has exhibited in her storied political career– and get rid of the “glass ceiling” as a fate defining issue and move away from the idea that if a woman doesn’t break some invisible glass obstacle, that she has failed on some level and that her achievements somehow don’t matter.
LikeLike
“it is still crucial to never forget that Clinton won the popular vote and in that sense she did “beat” her opponent. Why has there not been more focus or coverage on this important fact?”
I agree with you here, and I feel part of it might be some kind of unstated agreement for major news outlets not to comment on the popular vote because harping on it would undermine the current election process, upon which the current two party system thrives. News media is a crucial outlet for transmitting the information necessary for American society to continue as it is now unabated, so these news outlets are part and parcel of the system upon which they report.
LikeLike
I really love your point about the ‘unbreakable glass ceiling’ and how her apparent loss was/is actually a win, given her notable and impressive thumpin’ in the popular vote- and growing. The idea of applied and conscious ‘reframing’ in the face of what our other reading tonight about “Bernie Bros” touches on (with Donald Trump’s extensive use of the masculine coded word ‘loser’ is a psychological mind f*ck, but one that worked for those of his ardent supporters that have their own masculinity to contend with such deep patriarchical underpinnings) is a tough nightmare to wake up from if you’re a woman- or even a man.
And yet it seems its the only way out of the fog. A collective re-framing and careful ‘critique’ as Wilz also suggests.
LikeLike
Hi Michelle,
I must say I appreciate your optimism with respect to how Clinton’s candidacy should help “transform our perception of what is indeed possible for women in politics,” which I’ve been wanting to think but have so far struggled to let myself believe. Part of me fears that if a woman as qualified and credentialed as Clinton lost to him, not just anyone but HIM, then what man wouldn’t a woman lose to, no matter how qualified and credentialed she is? I’ve struggled to celebrate the victory of Clinton’s candidacy when it seems like it will never come to full fruition under any circumstances if not those just past. If it didn’t happen under these circumstances, under what circumstances will it be realized?
But I’m glad to say some of your optimism has rubbed off on me, so thank you. Your point that she won the popular vote and that she did win in a sense is an important reminder of who the majority is. It’s no good to say “the people decided on Trump,” because they didn’t; that will be the electoral college. There are more people who were with her, which I think is an indication of a positive trend and gives cause for hope and will motivate the empowerment of women even more.
LikeLike
Reading this, I can’t help but recall the Onion article “Area Man Considers Self Ally To Women Unless They Threaten His Status In Literally Any Way.” The patriarchal system has to perpetuate itself, and part of it surviving is crucial buy-in from women who subscribe to this mentality that certain genders belong in certain places. The rhetoric some men employ, that they respect women and all that, is a total con. They respect women for doing the things they would not be caught dead doing – the ignominious tasks of raising children and ironing shirts. If they can con women into feeling that they are respected while being relegated to secondary spheres, then the patriarchy can move forward as always.
LikeLike
“The rhetoric some men employ, that they respect women and all that, is a total con” should be a bumper sticker. I don’t think a lot of people, men and women, can truly envision a world where the two are equal. That we need to embrace a woman who works, a woman who mothers, and a woman who does both is tough enough to reconcile; add in the reverse with men working, raising children, and/or both, and it is completely jibberish to some. This brings me back to Professor Hayden’s article and our discussion on inclusive rhetoric. What is missing the current rhetoric that fails to truly define what it means to “respect women and all that”?
LikeLike
I appreciate the hopeful tone of this article. It’s true, women are now present in American political arenas. That is, in and of itself a remarkable form of progress. However, it is also a rather depressing reminder of the painfully gradual pace of change and the unrelenting staying power of patriarchy. I want to be proud of the progress the article claims and I am proud, so incredibly proud of the women who came before me, so incredibly proud of Hilary Clinton herself and the magnitude of her accomplishment, even though she did not ultimately win the election. But to be honest, I hesitate to take solace in these accomplishments, at least not yet. I think comfort and reassurance that change has been made can be a dangerous sentiment if it is not tempered. Yes, there has been progress and yes, I am grateful for it, but no, I am not willing to have that be the end of it. In other words, this is not enough and I cannot allow myself to be comfortable in the knowledge that things are changing slowly and will more than likely continue to change. That is not enough. Not right now and honestly, perhaps not ever.
Anger can be a useful tool when harnessed correctly. More than anything after reading this, I was filled with a sense of dread that through justification and a “look at how far we’ve come” mentality that there is a danger that the anger of this moment will be lost in complacency. It’s true. We just had our first female candidate for a major political party in American history. This is amazing. But the reaction to candidacy was not. The reaction to her candidacy was wrought with the very same gender bias and discomfort with women in the political life that America saw at the turn of the century and that is not something to be proud of, but something to address and address immediately.
All of this being said, rather than the candidacy of Hilary Clinton being the beacon of hope for all women, I find more hope in the subsequent reaction to her loss. In the days and weeks after we have now seen women and other marginalized populations refusing to be quiet and fall in line. They are insisting on having their voices heard. This conversation gives me hope. That women will no longer allow their voices to be silenced. It is no longer as easy to hide the voices of dissent and I believe that in that fact there is a great deal of hope.
LikeLike
Because of the tenacity of elected officials such as Sarah Palin [Governor], Letitia James [Public Advocate for NYC], and yes, Hillary Clinton [Senator], it seems somewhat common to see women elected to these positions. however, the same resistance presented to the idea of a female president was once present for all of these titles. I think it’s important to remember our history, as well as society’s prevalent attitudes of that time, in order to keep striving for improved relations, especially when this ambition is met with derision and abjection.
LikeLike
Your question of how current political feminism will fair under the Trump administration is, to me, a poignant one, though I do believe there will be an uprising in feminist movements in the next four years.
It is poignant because of the message Trump’s victory sends to young people, particularly girls and young women, which in the first place necessitated an article titled “Let’s not overlook the feminist triumph of Clinton’s run.” Clinton’s run set an obvious precedent that a woman can indeed win the presidential candidacy of a major party; Clinton’s loss, however, sends the message that no matter how vile and selfish and repulsive and unqualified and just plain mean (etc.) the opponent is, no matter if the things he says seem to indicate that he is trying actively and deliberately to lose the election, so much so that some people were actually convinced that he is a proxy of the opposing party sent to lose the election on purpose because that seems like a more plausible explanation than that he genuinely believes the vile selfish repulsive just-plain-mean things that come out of his mouth, even in spite of all that, he will still win over a woman so long as he is a He (among certain other “qualifications.”)
Now if you imagine a little girl asking her parent(s) if she or any other woman could ever be president, what, empirically/historically speaking, is the right answer? Theoretically, logically, morally, the answer is yes. But empirically, based on historical observation? Should the answer be “yes” because there was that one time that a woman won the candidacy (with twice the amount of work it would have taken a man to get half as far)? Or should the answer be “no” because that one time that happened, she lost to the most [expletive] candidate pretty much ever?
It’s not hard to see how the election results would have people overlook the feminist triumph and give feminists a sense of futility and despair, but I don’t see feminists rolling over and disappearing under the Trump presidency, and I don’t think anyone else does either. Who imagines that they’ll throw their arms up and accept that the situation is futile? Who thinks they will be pacified? Their raison d’etre in the flesh will soon sit in the oval office.
Some translations of the Tao Te Ching state in verse 60, “Give evil nothing to oppose / and it will disappear all by itself.”
I wonder about this.
LikeLike
This article made me feel somewhat hopeful. Women still achieved great things in this election. A woman has never run as the presidential nominee before and Clinton made great strides. Although it was not the feminist triumph that I had hoped for, you are right that it sets s precedent. I think the answer that families can tell their children can certainly be yes, and eventually America will see a female president, hopefully in our lifetime.
LikeLike
The article is correct. To look at Clinton’s presidential run as simply a failure would be very closed minded. Historically what she was able to do throughout her career as a politician and potential president was immense. WE should all be proud. Her almost win still,” remains an accomplishment for women in politics that shouldn’t be overlooked. ” However what the loss did show us that we still have a long way to go. We still are involved in a system and state of mind that would allow for the overly qualified woman to lose to a most definitely not qualified bigot – Trump. We’re still working to break this glass ceiling clearly.
LikeLike
“…The American mother, the American woman, has my admiration, my respect, and my love–”
Here Frank Clark is expressing his admiration for the archetypal American woman. Since he is arguing against suffrage, I presume the woman, in his mind’s eye, is a white, upper middle class, homemaker. This assertion is very strange. When anyone is put on a pedestal, the person is restricted. That is the pedestal quickly becomes a cage . It inprisons the person, by not allowing her to be fully human. The traditional burden of expected perfection can be observed and analyzed in Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign.
“Since Hillary has a history with white feminists, do you think this loss will push them to protect women of color?”
In American history, have women of color been protected by white feminists? So far conversations by and about oppressed groups are isolated. People seem to be concerned with what the President-elect ( his cabinet and followers) truly think about women, black people, immigrants or Muslims. However, this conversations hardly ever intersect. It is only when one embodies many oppressed identies that one is constantly aware of all of them.
LikeLike
If anything, I believe that this election brought sexism out into the open. It proves that American society can no longer claim that sexism doesn’t exist. Men who may not have used the word “bitch” in public were comfortable wearing shirts that said “Trump that Bitch.” Sexist hostility by Trump voters was and is a common occurrence, for example, the “Repeal the 19th” hashtag. Hopefully this does inspire unity among women on the left and perhaps will spark a new feminist awakening. Today on public radio, Senator Gellibrand spoke about how Trump’s sexist remarks and casual mention of sexual assault actually are a good thing for feminism as it brings these ideas out into the open and creates an open discussion around topics that many people refuse to acknowledge. It made women on the left and right discuss sexual assault rather than ignore it or leave it in the shadows.
LikeLike