Don't miss Judith Warner's awesome piece on Hillary, and so-called "women's issues." An excerpt:
Women's issues are being framed by this administration in terms of realpolitik: U.S. security depends on women's empowerment. Global economic growth depends on women's participation.Women's empowerment won't be delivered at the end of a gun or through economic sanctions or even overt criticism, if it cuts into accepted cultural practices. This is messy stuff; some of our most sensitive allies have horrific records on women's rights. Programs that show success tend to be slow-moving and incremental. Can all this complexity attract -- much less sustain -- the attention of the public?
Maybe -- if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Hillary and the Quest for Gender Justice.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15493
That article is so right. But why is Clinton treated differently in media than former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice? And I prefer to refer to her as "Dr. Rice" or "Condoleezza Rice, PhD" despite her being a conservative with whom I disagree. Is it because Clinton married Bill (wink wink), or was better known as wife of a President than for her own career?
"Women's empowerment won't be delivered at the end of a gun or through economic sanctions or even overt criticism, if it cuts into accepted cultural practices."
Sorry, but to me this is *fail*. If we can't even use "overt criticism" what IS going to cause change? Especially if women's DISempowerment *IS* a "cultural practice".
I'm personally tired of being given permission to beg and to ask very nicely if people would please pretty please stop being big meanies.