Thursday, January 14, 1999
Whether Hillary divorces is her decision
FEMENISM: First lady’s role as female politician burdened by
Bill’s actions
By Judith Meuli
It seems difficult to decide whether Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
version of "Stand by Your Man" is commendable, or even worth the
effort and embarrassment. As with all questions regarding a
politician, first, we must put this question within a framework of
both a personal and a public calculus. How would each of us react
to the infidelity of our mate? When the spouse admits she or he has
done it but is "sorry," at what point is it feminist to say, "sorry
is not enough?"
The answer is never black or white. If the bond is so deep that
an act of contrition can bring that person forgiveness by the
marriage partner, who are we as feminists to judge it less feminist
to choose to stay in the marriage and work to repair the damage?
Feminism has always been in favor of an individual, equal partner’s
ability to make a choice without moralistic judgement.
Feminism is also based on tolerance so we mainly object to
abusive, violent situations and/or when a relationship is based on
dominance and submission.
What is the contract?
The marriage vows usually include a contractual statement: "For
better or for worse, in sickness and health, until death do us
part," not just until one of the partners succumbs to a weakness,
sexual or otherwise. If, at age 20, one says, "I’d never put up
with infidelity," then I recommend that she or he add that to the
marriage vows. I don’t expect, however, that a newlywed would react
the same as she would after 25 years of marriage.
Do we as feminists sit in judgement because one of our sisters
wants to remain married? No, we are supportive of her decision,
whatever it is, unless again the feminist mantra is invoked, which
means that the relationship involves violence, or is based on
dominance and submission.
Relationships are built on give and take. To be able to survive
25 years of marriage, as in the Clintons’ case, there has
undoubtedly been much compromise by both partners. Working together
on projects of world-wide importance contributed to the longevity
of their relationship. But without the press’ aiding and abetting
of the conservative religious assault on the president, the
Clintons might not have had to face this challenge at all.
I submit that William Jefferson Clinton will have much "make-up"
work to do in the future in order to save this marriage. This
personal process should proceed without critical public opinion and
demand. Unrelated parties are outsiders. Hillary Clinton continues
to make her own decisions, and we must applaud her.
The public is not so kind, however. Indications are that the
political future for Hillary Clinton could include a run for
Senator Patrick Moynihan’s seat (D-NY) or a United Nations (UN)
appointment as chair of the United Nations Children’s Find (UNICEF)
or some other UN leadership position.
The Senate seat, according to some polls, would be attainable
only if Hillary Clinton divorced the president. She may not be
willing to do that, even to save her political future. This would
only leave one of the UN positions viable, and they’re all on the
East Coast, while the president appears to be casting his eyes
toward the sunny California clime. A bicoastal marriage is
doubtful, especially if one of the partners continues his arrogant,
reckless, unsafe behavior.
It is interesting to note that Hillary Clinton and all women
politicians have an unfair encumbrance. Their husbands are more
prone to provide unfavorable publicity, either through business
dealings or sexual misconduct, than the spouses of male
politicians. Will Hillary keep Bill if he essentially poses a
security risk to either her career through negative publicity or to
her body through sexually transmitted diseases? Will he be seen as
an albatross, a weak link? Does she have to divorce him because it
is not "smart" to stay married and to do so would look as though
she makes bad decisions?
The polls suggest this is the case. But to me, as a feminist,
divorce for this reason, even though she personally loves him,
would be her most disappointing move, reducing the process to a
crass charade.
An aging husband (in his 60s or 70s) is an asset for a female
politician.
I’m sure Elizabeth Dole wouldn’t have any poll problems about
bringing Bob Dole into the White House as First Gentleman. And even
if she became president and Bob cast a frisky eye on a Republican
intern, Elizabeth the Great could easily put a cap on potential
trouble by removing his Viagra from the medicine cabinet.
Maybe Hillary Clinton will wait and take a needed rest and a few
years to reorient herself, or wait for Bill to get older, but if
she plans to go for the Senate in 2000, I personally would look for
a legal separation by September 1999. In the meantime, Hillary
Clinton has our best wishes and should know that feminists admire
and respect her, whatever her decisions.
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]