WOMEN VOTERS: DUMB AND FLIGHTY
As counterpoint to an essay by anti-feminist woman who claims women to be intellectually inferior to men, editors of yesterday's Washington Post Outlook section ran a piece by a self-described feminist who describes women voters as fickle. Wow. I feel so much better.
The essay by Charlotte Allen of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum, offered this: Women swoon (particularly at Barack Obama rallies), have more automobile accidents, and can't do math.
The ostensible balance on the page was provided by Linda Hirshman, who asserted that Hillary Clinton's campaign is suffering because of the migration of "fickle" white women voters, particularly women from the "educated classes" (composed of women with college degrees) to Barack Obama's camp. According to Hirshman, this has to do with our seduction by Michelle Obama's Jimmy Choo shoes. That and the fact that we care little or nothing for the plight of the working-class woman.
Hirshman, who graduated from Cornell, first fails to recognize that the plight of many a college-educated woman is not dissimilar to that of a working-class woman. Just ask you local social worker. Or your college-educated administrative assistant. Hirshman also ignores other demographic indicators -- for example, age. Perhaps the migration of female voters has less to do with class than age: Obama's appeal among the young is already legend, and data seem to suggest that young women voters possess college degrees in greater numbers than women voters over the age of 50.
Hirshman is particularly peeved by a group of feminists who published a petition in support of Obama on the eve of the Super Tuesday primary contests, and seems to blame them for a more general drift of educated women toward Obama. (I'm sure these women could only wish for such power.) Singled out for special ire is The Nation's Katha Pollitt.
In championing the cause of working-class women, Hirshman shows a certain contempt for them in her assertion that foreign policy is a luxury concern of educated women. Tell that to the working-class women in the armed forces, or the millions who have family members fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or the families of the janitors, waiters, and administrative staff who were killed on 9-11.
Aside from Pollitt and Clinton, only two other women are mentioned by name: Maria Shriver and Michelle Obama. The first is reduced to a description of her hair, and the other to a description of her shoes.
--Adele M. Stan
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (9)
I ask you:
What incentive does the Post have not to publish this tripe? Is all publicity good publicity? Are the hundreds of outraged blog posts about it (I've seen six or so pop up overnight in my personal browsing) not effectively free advertising?
Of course Allen is an idiot. She's not really in a position to argue, since that's essentially half her thesis. That said, I'm struck by how this very inanity seems to become an asset for the Post.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | March 3, 2008 10:49 AM
You know ... I think you do Hirshman a disservice. Her comments were a lot more nuanced than you let on here.
Posted by: Tracy | March 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Is this not the same Linda Hirshman who wrote the book Get to Work as well as a handful of articles for TAP such as Homeward Bound? That being said, I'd have to agree with Tracy.
Posted by: Derrick | March 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Why do women have to defend their choice of candidate to anyone?
And why can't Linda Hirshman or Gloria Steinem or anyone else forthrightly address the issue of Hillary's notoriety and so-called experience and accomplishments as being almost completely derivative of her husband's (unlike their own)?
Linda Hirshman is an example of someone who often says things I agree with in principle but whose delivery is so obnoxious I can't bring myself to defend her.
Posted by: Barbara | March 3, 2008 4:40 PM
I agree with the original post. Hirshman's basic argument, as i read it, is: any woman who doesn't think exactly the way i do is stupid, flaky, and elitist. Her arguments are totally superficial and there is no attempt to actually engage with any real issues. It's unfortunate, because the class difference between clinton and obama supporters is actually worth discussing and she completely trivializes it.
Posted by: amy | March 3, 2008 4:55 PM
Hirshman is just clearly convinced that HRC is better for working women than Obama. I'm not at all convinced of that and evidently that fabulous labor historian, Alice Kessler-Harris, is not much convinced either.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM
Hirshman and Allen are just a disgrace. Women like this embarrass me.
Posted by: Z | March 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Women wake up. Did you know that the frist black man vote Nov. 16 1867. The frist women didn't get to vote until Aug 31. 1920 5 days after the 19th amendment was siged. At 7am in pouring rain Mrs Marie Ruoff Byrum cast her vote. It took 53 years. Lets be frist in 2008, not another 53 years
Posted by: Saundra Carver | March 4, 2008 3:02 PM
Well said, Saundra C. My sentiments exactly.
Posted by: Debi | March 5, 2008 10:55 PM