I get the feeling though, that there is pressure from so called young feminists to not vote for Clinton, to prove we do not vote with our vigina's. This is really sad, cause what we should be doing it turning the arguement around and not allow ourselves to be defined this way.

What we should be saying is do men vote their penis? There is DEFINATELY more proof of that. Just how many men would go see a movie that starred women? Last year some writer stated that the Harry Potter phenomenon could not have happened if the main character what female. His claim was that boys to not relate to women.

Why is there a stigma to women who want to vote for Clinton?

Is is wrong for a woman to want to be great? That is what is the real issue. I think that women are shrieking frm the idea. What if she is a bad president?

What if she is? Bush Jr. and Nixon, haven't hurt men's chances at becoming president.

I guess what confuses me most, is that here we are on a peek of something really amazing: A woman and a black man are running for president. So why are we shaming women for wanting the woman to win?

Or better yet, why two states that are disproportionately lily-white when compared to the rest of America apparently gets the privilege of weeding out most of the Presidential candidates. One big super-primary now!

As for orange's question, if we allow the race to be reduced to Steinemisms and Jesse Jackson Jr.isms, damn the consequences, our country could find itself in perpetual war in the Middle East instead of merely a really really long war in the Middle East.

For any Dennis Kucinich supporters: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/dennis-kucinich-endorses-_b_77226.html

Kucinich and misogynist Larry Flynt are friends.

If it wasn't about sex or race as far as voters were concerned everyone would be saying the women would be voting for the most attractive candidate. The politics haven't changed, but we have candidates unlike any other at this point.

Hmmm, a lot of voters swung away from someone else and toward Huckabee to propel him to the win in Iowa, and I don't remember reading any stories about Iowa or Huckabee voters being "wishy-washy." Men or ungendered voters change their minds, women are wishy-washy.

why are we shaming women for wanting the woman to win?

As someone who's still undecided, I want to second this observation. I think reacting to the misogyny of the media and Clinton's opponents by leaning toward voting for her (many other things being equal in my mind between her and the other front-runners) is not a lame or frivolous reaction. But women's political decisions seem to get painted as lame and frivolous across the board, so why am I surprised at the media/politicians failure to actually take women's anti-sexism sentiment seriously as an election issue?

It seems like "women vote for Hilary Clinton" has turned into another story about how reactive and emotional we are, rather than a story about how our guts react when we see the misogynist vitriol directed toward a woman running for president (and how legitimate that reaction is!).

Also, there is no article about which way men are voting, because it is assumed that they just do vote and have the authority to already know what candidate they are voting for and it is not to be questioned because of their gender.

Very well put. I think the media keep on trying to shove this story into nice little bites so that people can easily digest it. Unfortunately, that means over simplifying the issue, to the point where all they are doing is creating and perpetuating sexist stereotypes, and false dichotomies.

So glad to see that not everyone is buying it.

Does anyone have a link to a site that actually breaks down the percent of men vs women who voted for each candidate? I can't seem to find that, and none of the news articles actually say how many men voted for Clinton.

I did find a lot of articles about a "gender gap" between the number of women who would vote for Clinton for president and the smaller percent of men who would vote for Clinton.

Gender gap, my ass. What a nice way of glossing over sexism.

My honest reaction when I saw the changes between the Iowa and NH primaries had nothing to do with women swinging their votes in response to the sexism. It makes more sense that women in Iowa would have different agendas than women in NH for starters. Second, many Iowans may have swung their votes against HRC because of campaign efforts in the past, like when Bill was running and passed on visiting Iowa. Third, and I don't have the data to back up this theory either, but it also occurred to me that the sexism might not be swinging that many votes, but it might be pushing more women to vote in general. Point is, all three of my theories are mere speculation on my part, just like the media speculation has no true factual base. If the reporting keeps going this way, then maybe we'll see even more women getting out to vote however they want and an eventual boycott of sexist media outlets. We don't need feminism anymore, my ass.

Women are seen as not only unjustly homogeneous, but also as "wishy-washy" in their choices
Women would be wishy-washy if they voted one day for one candidate, then another day for another candidate. Since *everybody* has only one vote, it's impossible to be wishy-washy :P

How amazing that people in different areas of the country would have different opinions! *sigh*

Hmm. Well, in fairness, the article doesn't use the term "wishy-washy" (or if it did, my control-f did not pick up on it). What it DID do was repeatedly refer to HRC as "Mrs. Clinton," which I found irksome.

I agree with annajcook that I don't think this perceived reaction, if it is true, is illegitimate. Okay, some feminist bloggers haven't changed their vote, but that doesn't mean it is illegitimate if someone does. What I found more irritating about the article was its pitting my generation against my mom's. It created the impression that women who notice that there are still major barriers to women are "out of touch," and the younger women "understand" that, actually, it's not that big a deal anymore. If it's true that women (or men) my age DO have that attitude, then I am seriously worried about my generation.

I started off this campaign with a big fat Obama crush. I don't trust the system, and so I tend not to trust those who have been successful in it for significant periods of time. I believed that Obama was genuine and sincere in his stated desire to take the ugliness out of politics and actually treat each other with respect and reasonableness. And I still think that, for a while, he really did live up to this. But things started changing in the last several months, and I'm a little horrified by what I see. Obama isn't just ignoring the sexist attacks on Hillary -- he is using them to his benefit, which sickens me. Telling her she is "likable enough"????? And the unfriendly sneer on his face when he said it... I, a longtime Hillary non-fan, started cheering her on and pumping my fist in the air when she got in a good remark or made a good point.

This is a legitimate reaction. As I've said before, things like gender and race ARE valid considerations in this election. They shouldn't be the only considerations, but they are valid. If two candidates are equally good, but one is black and the other is white, or one is a woman and the other is a man, it's absolutely legitimate for the minority status to tip my vote in favor of that candidate. What has happened here is that the weight of these factors, and the balance among the candidates, has now shifted. Gender has become *more* important, because the media has made it more important. This has nothing to do with "solidarity" or some womanly mystical telepathic feeling that's overtaken us ovary-bearing folk. This has to do with the stark reminder, shoved right into our faces, that gender IS a pretty big fucking deal, and we ignore it at our peril. For purposes of this election, then, I do think that gender is gaining the edge on race as a more important factor. Race is still important, as the whispers (now mostly gone) about Obama's upbringing remind us, but gender has figured far more prominently in this debate. If the media wants to make gender more important, fine. I'll go with it. I absolutely do think that the sexism and anti-womanism that has increasingly permeated this race shifts the balance. Gender has more weight, because the media has piled that weight on -- NOT because women have.

The second factor, for me, is Obama's (and Edwards', for that matter) absolutely callous, cynical abuse of the sexism to his own advantage. For me, it's enough of a turnoff that I can no longer support him. Even if I do like his policies or speeches better, or even if I do have less mistrust of him as a person generally, he has now demonstrated that he will throw women under the bus for his own ends. As a woman, I CANNOT ignore this. I CANNOT discount it in the face of other variables. It would be foolish to do so, just as it would be foolish for an atheist to ignore the highly Christo-normative rhetoric in Huckabee's campaign. As a woman, even if I don't particularly like Hillary, she is one of the very few candidates who has NOT betrayed women in this campaign. Which means she has not betrayed me, but Obama and Edwards have.

So has the sexism in the media made me change my vote to Hillary? Yes. And I am not, nor should any thinking woman be, remotely ashamed of this.

Thanks, Samhita, for this. So well put. All of it.

Amen! This issue has been making my blood boil--I hate this condescension towards women.

Apparently the spin my father got this morning was this: "Women saw Hillary crying and they related to her for showing emotion and decided to vote for her."

I spent an hour this morning arguing with him that, no, women didn't swing to voting Hilary because she cried; they swung to her because of the crap she got for showing emotion. They related to her because they've been treated the same way--everything they do is either "too masculine" or "too feminine." His response? "This is a presidential election, for Pete's sake. People should vote on the issues, not whether someone cries." Infuriating!

He also said that Obama's "likeable enough" remark cost him the election in NH: "He should have been nicer to her. Women get offended so easily." He then concluded that the question must have been planted by Hillary "to draw out emotion" (never mind that the moderator asked the question and not some random audience member; "moderators vote, too.") I want to scream--and I don't even like Hillary!

TLF, your thought process on the election is identical to mine.

I went from a strong Obama supporter to an even stronger Clinton supporter in a matter of 48 hours.

If you are an undecided voter because you generally support all candidates equally, what is the problem?
We finally have our chance to elect a female POTUS who is intellgent, tough, passionate, dedicated and experienced.
We will never have a female president if we tell ourselves the rest of America isn't ready for it. That just ALLOWS the rest of America to say "See. A woman can't get elected president." It's a vicious cycle.

I would be happy to see any of the Dems win. I finally decided on her because I want to see a woman win the White House. I would not fault a black person for doing the exact same thing re: Obama because they deserve to feel represented as well.

As I came to my decision re: Clinton I also realized that Obama is not the messiah everyone makes him out to be! I feel like everyone under 40 is caught up in the Obama-mania; I myself just snapped out of it! But has he ever seriously detailed any policy details? It's all about "hope" - but hope is not enough to change the world unless you actually have an execution plan. And as far as I can see, he does not have one. Furthermore, after doing some research into his "present" votes in the Senate, I am horrified by how cowardly he is when it comes time to take a stand.

If there is anything Clinton is not - it's a coward.

Question: What has obama said that is sexist in order to advance his campaign? I'm curious if there are any links or instances, as I haven't heard this yet..

And a side note, is it just me or is anyone else pissed that Kerry is now endorsing obama? It makes me not want to vote for him anymore. Kerry makes my blood boil.. grr...

Gail Collins also published an op-ed saying women were giving hillary a free pass. Who has gotten the free pass anyway, I would like to know. Obama is the beloved by all including david brooks and bill kristoff. Boy, I am so sick of this of the sexist venom, that I could shoot some innocent people, except that only guys do such crazy things.

You hear a lot about women voting for HRC because she's a woman, but you don't hear anything about men NOT voting for her because she's a woman.

Kmari, I think it's not so much that Obama has *said* anything sexist as that he is not doing a damn thing about the constant, constant sexist attacks on Hillary. He is acting just like any other cynical, self-interested man would when confronted with a formidable opponent of the female persuasion. And that's what's disappointing. For someone who purports to be such a champion of "change," I guess that change doesn't extend to finally treating women as full, equal, first-class citizens.

Here's a great piece that goes into it more eloquently than I ever could. (I also really liked the Steinem column he links to at the end).

The Left has proven in the past few weeks that it is just as sexist as the Right.

"Progressives" may not come out and say "Women are not fit to be president," but they have visciously maligned Clinton using gendered insults and perpetuating sexist stereotypes about women. That Obama's supposedly "hopeful" & "liberal" supporters are doing so is dispicable.

"I'm a lefty" is not proof that you have progressive attitudes about women. We must not let this sexism slide.

Huh... I guess I never thought of it that way, surprisingly.. Thanks for the article law fairy, now I don't know who I'm going to vote for!!

For me, it's pretty much all about health care. I was for Edwards at first because of that, and am now for Clinton because of that. What sex or race they are has NOTHING to do with it.

People dying from lack of care is my big beef. If Obama had a decent health care plan that would cover everyone, my choice would be more difficult. As it is, it's easy. No universal health care, no support from me.

People dying from lack of care is my big beef. If Obama had a decent health care plan that would cover everyone, my choice would be more difficult. As it is, it's easy. No universal health care, no support from me.

But why do you support Clinton, then? She's been an opponent of universal health care since the early 90s. Her current plan, if you can call it that, is to simply subsidise private insurance companies by making it mandatory for people to buy their product.

There is no pro-universal health care candidate amongst the current front runners.