The "glass ceiling" and H. Clinton

[JohnnyLib2]

DU friends: I will be throwing this term into the endless discussions about HRC's candidacy from now on. The point will be to prompt a look at the issues of "how high the bar" and "how level the playing field?"

For the record, I can support any of our leading candidates, and I do prefer her.


glass ceiling
–noun
an upper limit to professional advancement, esp. as imposed upon women, that is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged.

[Demeter]

1. The Glass Ceiling is NOT Hillary's Problem

Her willful intransigence regarding the grassroots, however, is.

[beaconess]

5. I don't agree

Given the number of posts here - and discussions elsewhere - claiming that she can't win because she's a woman, I think the glass ceiling is still firmly in place. White men running for president never have to prove their gender or race won't be a hindrance. I have yet to see any DU post or online poll or media discussion asking "Should America keep electing male presidents?" or "Are white men given an unfair advantage in the presidential race?" or "Would black people vote Republican if the Democrats nominate a white man" or "Would women leave the Democratic Party if a man is nominated?"

As long as Hillary's gender - or Obama's race - are topics of discussion and the basis for questioning whether they are electorally viable, the glass ceiling is still a problem.

[JohnnyLib2]

6. Agreed. The second part of the definition

has to do with "limits not readily perceived." Seems to me that this is the time to shine the light on that.....

[beaconess]

8. Bingo dat! nt

[saltpoint]

28. A good point. Her campaign team doesn't appear to be a grassroots-based

operation, especially in the way it defines itself and presents itself.

A great deal of the resistance to her campaign in the primary may have to do with Democratic activist-voters' perception that she is a top-down executive personality and not so strong on the people-up community personality.

Other candidates' supporters appear to respond positively to particular energies or areas of experience and expertise.

Kucinich supporters like the feisty principled guy they hear speaking about the urgent need to systemic change.

None of that from Senator Clinton.

Obama's supporters may be drawn to his early and impressive work building communities, an investment of personal skills based on dedication to the ideals that communities require to stay healthy and viable.

Quite a bit less of that from Senator Clinton's campaign.

Edwards supporters may see his decision to emphasize poverty in his campaign addresses, and realize that he wouldn't CHOOSE poverty as an issue to speak about unless he felt he could make inroads against it as president.

I hear none of that at all from Senator Clinton's campaign.

Joe Biden is an adept in foreign policy and has been for some time and will be for the indefinitely future. Foreign policy is not the only failure of George W. Bush, but it is one of the huge and glaring ones, and Biden's experience here may be attracting supporters in increasing numbers as autumn moves in.

Senator Clinton's campaign is not entirely well drawn regarding foreign policy.

I'm not seeing any glass ceiling preventing HClinton from the nomination, but there most certainly is considerable resistance among supporters of other candidates, and it ain't based on gender.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

31. A top down candidate isn't necessarily a bad thing

but considering that is what we have now....

shudder

[Sparkly]

2. Get ready...

I predict you'll be told it's a "card." (As in, "race card." "Gender car" or "sexism card" is my guess.) :hi:

[SaveOurDemocracy]

3. Cards? Cool ... spades or pinochle? n/t

[napi21]

4. I honestly think Hillary is the FIRST woman in the US to ever

achieve sufficient political recognition to ever consider the Presidency. I am divided between Hillary & Biden for my candidate of choice. I think either would make a GREAT President. I have to admit, as a woman myself, it would be nice to see the US finally getting over it's prejudice!

[saltpoint]

7. I don't believe anyone could argue against the numerous and impressive

successes this woman has had.

She's a U.S. Senator, twice so elected by constituents, and from the Empire State to boot -- following a line of distinguished folks like Moynihan and Robert Kennedy.

She's one of the most famous people in the world and almost certainly the most famous woman.

In the arena of heretofore male achievement, Hillary Clinton has demosntrated some tenacity and oompf in the arena of accomplishment and is bearing down on a still-higher prize. She's one of perhaps 6 or 8 people out of 300 million who are likely to be our next president.

That's not a scenario for a glass ceiling.

[beaconess]

16. The fact that she has to deal with the "will a woman be elected" questions in spite of the range and

depth of the experience you cite makes the point that there IS still a glass ceiling. Otherwise, she'd be judged purely on her accomplishments and agenda and her gender would have no part in the discussion.

[saltpoint]

17. I regard her merits and reject her candidacy in the primary accordingly

without regard to her being a woman.

I chose Bradley (unsuccessfully, it turns out) over Gore in 2000 on his merits as well, not based on gender.

I feel that HClinton has a formidable apparatus working in her behalf and this advantage is reflected in the current polling.

Democratic primary and caucus voters might be drawn to Barbara Boxer's candidacy, for example, on its merits, on the virtues the candidate represents as opposed to her womanhood.

I see no feminine archetypal energy exploited by the Clinton campaign and see no sexist opposition among supporters of other Democratic candidates, who just happen to be male.

Sorry. I'm not getting the glass ceiling allusion in the case of Hillary Clinton.

[beaconess]

19. You may not be applying a different standard to her, but plenty of people are

The fact that you don't see it does not mean it doesn't exist. As the original poster wrote, the glass ceiling is "is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged." But it IS there.

[saltpoint]

21. If it limits someone it is there; if it does not it isn't.

I argue that HClinton's supporters like her already but supporters of other candidates are not rejecting her candidacy owing to her bein a woman.

They are rejecting it for other, valid reasons.

The "glass ceiling" is a sexist obstacle.

Rejecting a candidate who happens to be female for other, valid reasons is not a sexist obstacle.

[beaconess]

22. You're right - voting for candidates on the basis of their experience is valid

But given the number of posts here claiming that men will desert the party if Hillary is nominated, or that if Obama is nominated, we'll lose because too many whites won't vote for a black president is pretty strong evidence of the existence of the glass ceiling.

And, in my view, those who claim that THEY would never vote against someone because of their race or gender, but other people will so we shouldn't nominate a black or a woman to avoid this problem, are just as guilty as those who hold race and gender against a candidate.

It's like those storeowners who claim, "I would NEVER discriminate, but MY CUSTOMERS might object to a black salesperson and stop patronizing my store, so I'd better not hire the black guy." Or the homeseller who says, "I wouldn't mind selling my house to a black family, but MY NEIGHBORS might have a problem with it, so I'd better not take a chance." Or the law firm that says, "I'M not sexist and I have no problem hiring a woman lawyer, but she might not be taken seriously by the JUDGES, so I'd better not hire this woman." That kind of attitude perpetuates bigotry just as effectively as outright racism.

So, those who say, "I don't have a problem with a woman or a black president, but there are a lot of people who do and if we nominate one, those people won't vote Democratic, so we'd better nominate someone who's more 'electable'" are just as much a problem (and sometimes worse, because THEY should know better) than those who would just come out and say, "I would never vote for a black or a woman for president. Period."

[saltpoint]

23. With respect, we disagree.

A voter who votes for or against candidates on merit and experience and ideologic attribution is not bound by the apparatus of a gender-biased ceiling.

Accordingly, I may vote for John Edwards in the primary because I am inspired by his remarks on poverty as an essential issue in the context of present social conditions, and not because he has a better or worse chance at the nomination owing to his being a white male.

There's no ceiling there.

A voter may support Barack Obama owing to Obama's deep gift of language and using it as a tool to inspire meaningful reform and collective action, and not because he has a better or worse chance at the nomination owing to his being a black male.

There's no ceiling there.

If a voter casts a primary vote for Senator Clinton, and the vote is an informed vote on her dedication to a national health care policy, then the support of that voter is as earned and pure as the above voters' support for John Edwards or Barack Obama.

There.
Is.
No.
Ceiling.
There.

[JohnnyLib2]

24. In the next 24 hours or so, I'll hear or read some fresh

examples. Perhaps that is tied to my red state residence, or my dealings with a wide range of "the people." But--they speak, they vote.

[saltpoint]

25. I've read the anti-Hillary threads on DU and elsewhere. Her detractors

don't oppose her because she's a woman.

It's much more complex than that, and may not even be a variable.

There were numerous and virulent anti-Kerry threads in 2000. No one suggested a "glass ceiling" based on gender to account for that vitriol, or that level and intensity of vitriol.

Some very raw remarks were tossed at Howard Dean as well. Dr. Dean is a boy. There's no glass ceiling.

HClinton has visible and wide support right now. She's hardly a victim of gender bias.

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Sexism fuels the Hill-Hatred.

Just listen to the anti-Clinton speech here on DU - 'shrill', 'bitchy', 'nag'... disappointing and disgusting.

[Inuca]

26. When the anti-Clinton speech comes.....

from women, does it still qualify as sexism?

[beaconess]

27. Yes. Women can be just as sexist as men.

[Inuca]

29. Actually... you are right. n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

30. That's highly innaccurate

My distaste and opposition to her comes from her total lack of leadership on any real issue and keeping her finger stuck in the wind, not because of what is between her legs.

[MethuenProgressive]

33. Sexism fuels the Hate-Hill fires. Deal with it.

Because you (although you make a sneering "between her legs" remark) claim her gender isn't why you personally oppose her, its "highly inaccurate" to say sexism fuels the fire?
You are either uninformed or in denial.

[knight_of_the_star]

34. So many crimes against logic, so little time

First, I would like to see your empirical evidence PROVING sexism is THE thing that fuels the "hate" of HRC. Go ahead, back up what you are saying beyond twisting and turning my remark about between her legs to fit what you think it says instead of exactly what it says. I'm not going to be PC just because someone will accuse me being blunt and honest of being sexist.

Second, you are painting with a VERY broad brush to assume that sexism is THE cause and applying it to all those who "hate" HRC.

Third, calling opposition hate easily meets the standard of ad hominem and poisoning the well.

Fourth, you are creating a false dichotomy between uninformed or in denial.

Fifth, by refusing to address what I actually said in the post you are raising a nice strawman that has no basis in fact.

And finally, you commit a second ad hominem by implying I am either uninformed or in denial.

[man4allcats]

10. Hillary wouldn't be my first choice, but

I don't think she has any real glass ceiling problems - even in contemporary culture:



Photo from Paris Photo 2007

[JohnnyLib2]

15. Ummm, do you provide those of men, as well?

Heh, heh, heh. :hide:

[loyalsister]

11. obstacles and legacy

I think that as far as a "glass ceiling" Hill's is either non-existant or low. Remove Bill Clinton and all of his connections as a starting point and the formula changes significantly.

Just as removing poppy and the surrounding legacy from GWB change that formula significantly.

Of course, there is a significant and important difference in ability an capacy but I think it is a reasonable analogy.

There is plenty of reason to believe that Hillary could be in a position to run for president. The difference would be a question of her competition. She would be lined up with the other women Senators and Congresswomen who have given it a thought.

I think the ceiling would be higher without that particular legacy.

Who thinks that it would be as much question as to whether Obama could be elected if Colin Powell had been VP?

[JohnnyLib2]

14. Interesting mix of reactions. I don't see the "ceiling" being in play

everywhere or by everyone. I do think it's around (and applied) enough to
matter. Rather than list examples, my plan is to point it out along the way. :evilgrin:

[beaconess]

18. Comparing Hillary/Bill with W/Poppy is apples and oranges

Hillary is not running on a "legacy" - she's not claiming that because she happened to be in Bill Clinton's family that somehow she deserves to be president. Yes, she was married to Clinton, but in her role as his spouse, she engaged in significant public, governmental, and diplomatic work - work that, had someone other than Bill Clinton's spouse done it, would have been extremely impressive.

On the other hand, George W has absolutely nothing to show for his being the son of George H.W. and the grandson of Prescott other than a clear physical family resemblance and a gross sense of personal entitlement. He did nothing during his father's years in public office of any worth, other than to make a fool of himself. For example, I don't think he bothered to visit even one foreign country while his father was president. Chelsea came away from her father's years in office with more world experience than W managed to obtain.

W's claim to fame was "I am the son of George H.W. Bush and it's my turn." Hillary Clinton's message is, "During the past 25 years, I accomplished x, y, and z while I was married to Bill Clinton."

As I said, apples and oranges.

[AlGore-08.com]

32. To be fair, Smirk did not run a "legacy" campaign - - he ran as "a different type of Republican"

He never claimed that he gained knowledge and insight about the Presidency from being a member of the President's family, or that his time as son of the President should be counted as valuable experience.

Hillary Clinton has been running as a legacy candidate, with Bill Clinton's support.

Personally, I think that talking about whether Hillary Clinton is affected by the glass ceiling is too simplistic. She has gotten to the position she's in the same way that most other women leaders have throughout history - - by being a member of a "ruling" family. (Even though there was a much stronger "glass ceiling" preventing Queens from ruling England, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria were able to rule Great Britain. Even if they were the exact same people with the exact same strengths, would they risen through society's ranks to become leading members of the Privy Council or members of Parliament if they had not been born royal princesses? Extremely unlikely.)

If her husband had not been President, would HRC have been able to create the same fund raising and campaign organization that she has now? Would the media obsess over her the same way? I don't think so. If she had married somebody else - - or if Bill Clinton had never run for office - - would she have even made it to the Senate? Probably not - - unless she and/or her husband were extremely wealthy.

[HuffleClaw]

12. *yawn*

well, it was inevitable i guess.

[gulliver]

13. Hillary's way may be the only way.

I think there is in fact a glass ceiling preventing women from making it to the presidency. A female two-term popular governor or Senator would have a hard time getting nominated, regardless of her qualifications or talent. It would not happen of its own accord for another 20 years, IMO. Enter Hillary. She can use a lesser evil (dynastic prejudices and superstition in the electorate) to fight two greater evils, the glass ceiling and the current immoral strain of Republicanism that has so damaged our country and the world.

It is hard to beat this for irony. In an age where competence is a strike against you, arguably the most competent candidate is benefitting from an invalid bias in the voters toward dynasticism and election by name recognition. Dynasticism brought lifelong loser and moron hero George W. Bush to the presidency. Yet dynasticism as a two-edged sword now fights for Hillary.

[beaconess]

20. Excellent point!

The fact that a woman or a minority has not been elected president to date is pretty solid evidence of the existence of a glass ceiling - the only way to argue otherwise is to claim that, until now (and maybe for some time to come), women and blacks have not been qualified to hold the office.