Viewport width =
October 4, 2015 | by  | in The Week In Feminism |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Would Hillary Clinton be a feminist president?

Democratic leader and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton running for President has caused a much-needed discussion about feminism to surfacethat is, the concept of corporate feminism. I started thinking about this after hearing someone sarcastically state that Clinton should win the election simply because she is a woman. To be fair, many of the articles covering the debates and campaigns from a left-wing perspective have taken this stance seriously. Obama’s election brought with it many celebrations and challenges simply because he was the first person of colour to be elected as President. For some, the next logical left-wing step would be to elect a woman, specifically Clinton. But would this actually be good for women’s rights in America?

It’s important to mention that Clinton has already done loads of cool shit for women in America during her role as first lady to hubby Bill. During her 1995 speech in Beijing she declared that “women’s rights are human rights”. She also helped to form the US Justice Department’s Violence Against Women Office and partnered with a domestic violence trust to organise a series of conferences devoted to promoting female leaders and encouraging women to get involved in politics. However, after leaving the White House and entering the US Senate, her female-centered agenda seemed to disappear altogether. When she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2009, her goals appeared more centre-left than ever. Aside from a few nods to the widening pay gap between white women and women of colour, Clinton failed to take any memorable stance on intersectional issues. Many feminists of colour became sceptical of her and wondered “whether she will be a champion or a voice for themor only for white women”.

This time around it seems Clinton is making more of an effort to redefine her feminism to become “all-inclusive”. Her announcement video took great pains to mention almost all minority and marginalised groups living in the US. She mentioned police brutality and a more in-depth look at income inequality between gender and races during her speech at the Women in the World Summit. Seeing a woman as president would be awesome, there’s no questioning that. But she may not be our saviour. A feminist student from New Jersey put it perfectly during a recent interview: “It’s problematic to assume that just because she’s a woman, she’s the best spokesperson for all women.”

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent posts

  1. Work
  2. Editorial—Issue 22, 2016
  3. I, Daniel Blake and the Welfare State
  4. Young Voters: Waking the Sleeping Giants
  5. The Sky Is Falling
  6. Tell us about Talis
  7. Vic group launch their Reclaim-munist Manifesto
  8. Bye Bye Little Karori (in two years time)
  9. Students seize opportunity to rant at Grant
  10. Binge drinking is still a bit bad for you
i-daniel-blake

Editor's Pick

I, Daniel Blake and the Welfare State

: Recently at the NZIFF I was fortunate enough to see Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake, this year’s winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes. By the end of the film nearly everybody seemed to be in mourning and most of the people seated around me were sniffling and wiping their eyes. I,

Viewport width =