own it, please

My newest reading venture is a book entitled Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History. I picked it up because this is Women's History month and I happen to like the slogan. It is written by the woman that first penned those words, without the least intention of turning them into a slogan. She actually wrote the sentence in an academic paper focused upon the funeral eulogies given for Puritan women. Some ambitious undergrad discovered it and asked to use it on t-shirts. It just proliferated from there.
Anyway, Dr. Thatcher Ulrich examines the validity of her own statement, attempting to define the term "well-behaved" within certain cultural and societal contexts, and then looking at historical case-studies to determine whether or not well-behaved women made history. Surprisingly, some did.
I'm not intending to make this post into a summary of the book though. I mention it both to suggest it as a reading list item, and also to set up what I'm about to say about her Royalness, Hillary Clinton.
Doubtless, most are aware of another blood-letting incident in the life of Mrs. Clinton's campaign. As she has not had any illicit affairs, and has generally stayed away from prostitution rings, the media has decided to use other indiscretions against her. (Just as an aside, I should probably mention that I use the word "indiscretion" as an understatement.) Mrs. Clinton claimed that she came under sniper fire when landing in Kosovo; she and Chelsea were in grave danger. Actually, according to minutes of newsreel and the eyewitness testimony of tons of people, Mrs. Clinton schmoozed, posed for photos, and did not muss her coiffed blonde hair. Even if there were snipers, there were so many American military personnel around, they could have taken them out with relative ease. I thought the Clintons were supposed to be good liars. My nine year old brother would know not to lie about something that had been caught on tape.
However, I believe this incident not only indicates how trustworthy Mrs. Clinton is, but also confirms her conditional ownership of her gender. Supposedly she lied about the sniper fire to compete with John McCain's military record, and to insist that her foreign policy involvement did not merely consist of tea-parties. "Damn it, I was too Bill's controlling vice-president!" Why is she so hesitant to admit that she was a First Lady, emphasis on the Lady? By attempting to legitimize her experience by throwing in some sniper fire, she is, in fact, lending credence to masculine definitions of experience and bravado. I'm tempted to e-mail her, asking if she has read any Gloria Steinam recently.
Earlier in her campaign, she did the same thing, refusing to appear in Vogue because it would make her look too feminine. Well, Mrs. Clinton, you are a woman. Looking like one is no greater crime than one running for President.
As I mentioned earlier though, Mrs. Clinton pulls out her gender and puts it away, at her convenience, not unlike a make-up compact. When she is behind in the polls, failing in the primaries, she will allow some tears to well up, allow some grind in her throat to convince female voters that she feels their pain. I dare Condi Rice to try that next time she's negotiating with foreign leaders. Everyone knows how emotionally unstable women are; one reason why they are so unsuited to lead.

Although I don't plan to vote for either, I at least have respect left for Barack Obama. He's not using his minority, or underprivileged status like a weapon--something he can wield at will for personal gain.