As much as many Hillary supporters might be loathe to admit to it, Hillary Clinton remains as much a slave to the same gender constructs she so passionately claims to be breaking. The creed of the second-wave feminists has been breaking the gender constructs. But what does it mean to be breaking gender constructs when you are defining yourself in 'male' characteristics?
As a recent article on Huffpost noted, Clinton is demonstrating her strength by engaging in a most bizarre performance, inhabiting the attributes and supposed 'strength' demanded of male nominees in an off-putting caricature of male showmanship.
Laying aside what this means for men in a moment, what does this mean to women?
She has abandoned the vestiges of whatever gender construct women have ascribed themselves to. As much as women look up to Hillary it still comes across that she is trying to break this gender barrier but in doing so she de-legitimizes the female experience in this country. What does it say to tell my daughter that her strength will only be recognized if she defines herself as a man? What makes Obama such a trans-ideological trans-racial candidate is that although he is black, he has not made it the focal point of his campaign. People are not voting for Obama because he is black, they are voting because of the content of his promises, his character, and whatever record he has.
Hillary has not done the same thing. She is not transcending the limitations society places on women but rather reinforcing them by proudly proclaiming through her actions that the only way a woman will get ahead in the world is by acting like a man.
This is not true. It is not right and it is not true. A woman's experience is no less inferior to a man's. A woman's gender performance is no less capable than a man's to lead a country. But rather than championing these empowering, new feminist virtues Hillary remains beholden to the central irony of the second wave feminists: that they continued to define strength in largely 'male' terms.
Eventually there will be a female candidate like Obama. Who speaks through her actions and words that a woman's perspective is no less legitimate than a man's. That the notion that just because women don't strong-arm, they are weak is foolish, and that the time of pandering to the symbolic American meta-narrative of the cowboy presidency is a time long since past. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. But I can tell you that when that woman comes along who insists - as Barack Obama has - that strength is not the exclusive property of the masculine gender, well that will be the day.
