Hillary Clinton has a lot of support going into the 2016 Presidential elections. Many of her supporters think that electing her President would be some form of feminist victory.
Hillary Clinton is where she is today because of the men in her life. Nothing else.
Her father, Hugh Rodham, was a successful business owner who was able to provide her and her siblings with a fantastic upbringing in the wealthy Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Illinois. But more importantly than her father, her husband, who she was fortunate enough to marry, gave Hillary the national stage to start her political career. Could a random lawyer with no name recognition just pick up a New York Senate seat? No, of course not. Her stature as First Lady guaranteed that, which she only had the opportunity to be as a result of her husband’s political talents. She then became a prominent choice for the 2008 presidency, and Secretary of State as a result of her time in the Senate. In essence, Hillary became who she is not through her own hard work as a ‘self-made woman’ but as a Bill-made woman.
Sure, men are this way too. George W. Bush for example is only where he is because of his family legacy. Same with Jeb Bush, his brother who Hillary may run against. This applies to MANY political figures, male and female.
So here is the message in bringing this up: Hillary Clinton is not, and should not be, an inspirational feminist role model. Someone like Condoleezza Rice for example, would be a much better choice. She is the daughter of school employees, and was born in Jim Crow Alabama as a black female. Rice worked her way up to the top. Hillary was lifted.
Do not let the notion that ‘electing Clinton in 2016 would be good for women’ sway your vote. It won’t be. Hillary is no one to look up to, policy wise, in terms of accomplishments, etcetera….