<p>As a human being who also happens to be a feminist, I find it incomprehensible that any feminist would hold Hilary’s putting up with Bill’s affairs against her. Aren’t we supposed to honor women’s choices, and assume they know what’s best for them, and maybe, just maybe they can understand the inner workings of their relationships without us dictating what the correct response is supposed to be?</p>
<p>Again–not a big Hillary supporter, but that supposed feminists judge her for this is beyond comprehensible to me.</p>
<p>Garland, I was trying to explain & illuminate the position, not necessarily to agree with it. I don’t find it “incomprehensible.” If find it understandable in the context of self-respect. But you’ll notice, I hope, that I offered two reasonable explanations to her decision to stay in the relationship, explanations based on personal factors we have no access to, and on possibly calculated factors. (Plenty of men have been counseled by political advisors to stay married in a troubled marriage, because of the political negatives of divorce.)</p>
<p>I should have clarified the first part of my post to indicate that I <em>was</em> bothered by it (previously), before I realized that she probably had both political & personal reasons for staying with him. Please don’t confuse me with anyone hoping to represent a Feminist Party per se (which I do think Hilary is surrounded by too often, actually, in addition to being too often surrounded only or almost only by women). I’m not their spokesperson.</p>
<p>I agree that Hillary shouldn’t be held accountable for her husband’s actions. While it’s true that she may have stayed with him for “political reasons,” it’s also possible that she actually loves the guy.</p>
<p>I think too many people (not on this thread) dislike her because of who she is, not because of what she stands for politically. The latter is a much more justifiable reason for voting for someone else than is the former.</p>
<p>I also have never understood the vitriol leveled towards Hillary, for choosing to stay in her marriage.</p>
<p>Whether one considers her a victim, pr her husband a homewrecker, a wanker, or whatever else…feminism is about women making their OWN choices (not the Stepford Wife, whose husband decides for her). If she chose to stay in her marriage, and keep her family together, I don’t understand why any pro-family peeps on one hand, or pro-feminism peeps on the other, are upset.</p>
<p>I agree, MWFN, but “the former” gets in the way nevertheless. And while personality is A Problem when you run for office, I don’t think the animosity toward her is limited to personality. I think that to the Right, she is a symbol. She’s a symbol of “him,” and she’s a symbol of a lifestyle. Unfortunately, I think the infidelity (& her associated tolerance/choice to accept it due to love and/or politics) supports the left’s portrayal of her as a symbol. No, it’s not fair: they wouldn’t suggest that a male candidate who tolerated infidelity was himself immoral or amoral, but it’s the way it works – so far, anyway.</p>
<p>There is absolutely <em>nothing</em> wrong with looking at the actions of a public figure and ascertaining how those actions reflect the words and ideas offered. Many people went through this same thinking process when William Bennett’s gambling addiction was revealed, even as he was speaking (and writing) about morality and family values.</p>
<p>Why should Hillary be exempt from this scrutiny or these questions? IMHO, her personal choices do <em>NOT</em> reflect her self-designed image as a smart, confident, empowered woman. In addition, staying in a troubled marriage in which there has been serial infidelity <em>can be</em> (though not necessarily IS) a sign of true dysfunction. Unless the marriage were declared from the beginning as being an “open marriage,” there has been much lying, covering, and frankly, heartache there. Let me put it this way…if an average (nonfamous) woman were to present to a mental health professional with H’s history, I think she would be counseled to feel more “empowered.”</p>
<p>In addition, I am one who believes that there is some danger when those who hold high public office have skeletons in their closets that can serve as bases for extortion. I prefer my high ranking politicians to be a bit more consistent with regard to words/actions. Unfortunate for me, I know… </p>
<p>I happen to think that Hillary’s choices betray a certain hypocrisy, but that is MY personal take on it. In other words, it is <em>ABSOLUTELY</em> Hillary’s choice to stay in her marriage or leave it. And it is <em>MY</em> choice to examine her choice (because she is running for high public office) and see how it meshes with her messages.</p>
<p>(Neither a Hillary supporter nor detractor here either…in fact, neither a liberal nor a conservative either)</p>
<p>“In other words, it is <em>ABSOLUTELY</em> Hilary’s choice to stay in her marriage or leave it. And it is <em>MY</em> choice to examine her choice (because she is running for high public office) and see how it meshes with her messages.”</p>
<p>I can’t fault your logic in this – but at least you’re comparing her choices to her political stances instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.</p>
<p>"Garland, I was trying to explain & illuminate the position, not necessarily to agree with it. I don’t find it “incomprehensible.” If find it understandable in the context of self-respect. "</p>
<p>My problem with Hillary accepting the cheating and humiliation is that it makes me wonder if there is anything she won’t accept or do to get what she wants. As a New Yorker, it always seemed like she pimped her husband for the Senate seat in my state. That said, she is, heaven knows, a hard worker and her office is accessible.</p>
<p>The gender-based double-standard being expressed in this thread is clear as day.</p>
<p>Forget the scrutiny that the female candidate gets compared to the rogue’s gallery of marital misfits on the Republican side. Let’s simply compare to the Democratic side. It’s unacceptable to stay in a marriage, perhaps in part for political ambitions, but totally acceptable for a male candidate’s political ambition to override family obligations when a wife and mother of his children is diagnosed with short-term terminal cancer?</p>
<p>Folks, nobody runs for President unless they have extreme political ambition. Every one of them makes calculations for political purpose. Singling out the woman for different standards is gender-bias. As a nation, we are not used to female political leaders, thus there isn’t a rulebook on how to view their personal relationships. Again, where was the outcry against Jackie O or Lady Bird Johnson or Coretta Scott King or the litany of women who stayed in marriages with philandering political husbands?</p>
<p>If you think about it, it is the height of hypocrisy to attack Sen. Clinton for her personal relationship while accepting the behaviors of Guiliani or Gingrich or Thompson. Maybe Hillary should dump the big galoot and marry a 32 year old bottle blond pool boy with a penile implant. It seems that would be more acceptable. But, of course, there’s no double-standard.</p>
You have absolutely NO evidence to support this, except your own bias. You have no inkling of how I–or anyone else–feel about the men who demonstrate the same hypocritical qualities. In fact, I specifically mentioned William Bennett in my post, and my feelings about him are identical to my feelings about Hillary.</p>
<p>In addition, when you are “paving a path,” the unfoturnate truth is that sometimes you <em>are</em> held to a higher standard or looked to with special expectations. As an analogy, we are the only Jewish family in our town of 23,000 people. What WE do becomes what JEWISH PEOPLE do. Is it fair? Not particularly. But that is how it is. </p>
<p>What is <em>NOT</em> true is that everyone who disrespects Hillary for his or her own personal reasons is adhering to a gender-based double standard. THAT reaction is the “knee jerk” one.</p>
<p>That’s the thing that floors me, Zoosermom–you presume you know why she forgave her husband his transgressions–I would never think I knew that, or that it is any of my business to know that.</p>
<p>I, as a principle, admire forgiveness. I also admire people who work to stay in a marriage, rather than assume it’s unfixable (I know that sometimes it is, but it’s certainly, again, not my business to assume I know when).</p>
<p>Holding this against a woman, or a man, is still, to me, incomprehensible.</p>
<p>Now, Rudy’s cheating? That’s different. He’s the one responsible in this instance. I am, as I started out this post, floored that the two are equated.</p>
<p>Interesting! I’ve always maintained that it’s her lack of honesty that is at the root of her problem. Is she “sittin’ here as some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette” or not? Is she “staying home baking cookies and having teas,” or not? Who knows? There’s not an honest, genuine bone in her body.</p>
<p>wow, some people here have never had a spouse cheat? or a friends spouse cheat? and then stayed with the spouse? please, statistically, at least some here on this sight have been in that place- either themselves, their parents, their friends, their children- and sometimes, adults mess up big time, and sometimes spouses stand by and work through it</p>
<p>guess she should have been a good repubublican like Guiliani, and dumped her H, or like some of the other mulitiple wedding types who cheated and ran</p>
<p>some supporters of marriage here- hypocrisy abounds</p>
<p>yes, spouses cheat, and yes people stay with them…</p>
<p>zoosermom, if your husband cheated, you would dump him in an instant, is that what you are saying? not try and work on your marriage? and don’t say, oh he would never do it, be intellectualy honest</p>
<p>If my H cheated, i would do my darnest to try and save the marriage</p>
</p>