Week 10 ramblings

I still cannot believe that my class time here at the LSE is wrapping up. I have settled on a campaign strategy for George Washington 2008. If you think about it, it's really quite unlikely the people of the U.S. would take to him in this day and age so it makes the essay a little challenging, a little amusing and a little different. Which is exactly what an essay should be.

Anyway...

So I'm about 200 pages into Living History. Here's the thing. I already like Hillary Clinton. I think she's smart and hard and determined and unrelenting - all those things that you had to be to be a really successful woman of her generation. I also think that balancing the "progressive feminist" image with that of "woman as wife and mother" is a difficult balance for any woman to achieve who lives in the media spotlight (because the media likes to compartmentalize people, and cannot reconcile success with traditional femininity). Also, understanding that her memoirs (updated in 2004) are a political tool used for garnering support and sympathy, here's what I think: SHE IS TRYING TOO HARD. She writes in a conversational style. This, of course, is necessary to reach middle America, but I find it difficult because she's sort of dumbing herself down. She jumps around a fair amount and doesn't show her intelligence when presenting and analyzing issues from her past.

She attempts to demonstrate how she really is just like any other woman... My problem here is that she most certainly is not! She is one of those women who have broken barriers and lived and fought against the entrenched all-male professional workforce - and it just bothers me so much that in order to resonate with the American people, she felt the need to diminish those accomplishments.

Also, I recognize that she is a complex person (as we all are), but she doesn't write of herself in a way that reflects that complexity. She compartmentalizes herself: she speaks of herself in her role as a professional, as her role as First Lady, as her role as a lawyer, as her role as a policy maker in one way. But then reverts to a hyper pre-feminist movement perspective on her life with Bill and Chelsea. It's just too soppy to FEEL realistic - even if it is meant with sincerity (which I hope to believe much of it is).

I know I sound awfully feministic here but my problem is this: people are complex, and shouldn't be put into boxes. I find it frustrating when those women who have the capabilities of breaking those barriers down - to present themselves as WHOLLY integrated people, who exemplify the tensions of professional and personal success and professional and personal tragedy as all part of ONE being, rather than dramatically different facets of the same person. All of these things I know reflect an effort to appeal to her constituents and the people of America - I KNOW this is a campaign tool, but that almost makes it more frustrating. The system is so backwards. Do you really think that if she were to simply embrace the fact that she exemplifies these tensions , Americans would resent or ignore her? Although I don't know the answer to that question, I certainly hope that even if they did, it would at least begin chipping away at the compartmentalization that happens to women when they are represented in media and cultural pieces.

Anyway, that's it for now, but I will keep you updated. I'm looking forward to reading her thoughts on the Lewinsky scandal because i feel that will exemplify (or refute) these thoughts...