Customer Reviews

Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a fun book, though mixed. (Who cares if you think Hillary is a cat or a dog? or what she eats?) Roz Chast is Hillaryous. Leslie Bennetts' "Beyond Gender" is the longest essay and also the last, so many will never get to it. But it is a scathing, funny, thoughtful review of Hillary's career in the context of feminism's failure, thus far, to change archtypes, stereotypes, and monotypes. She catalogues how the public overlooks or forgives the sins of male politicians while demanding that women politicians conform to society's traditional view of the role of women.

Is there anyone who is neutral about Hillary Clinton? It isn't even as simple as you love her or you hate her, although there are plenty of people who do simply love her or hate her. Many of us want to like her or used to like her or liked her during the brief period between finding out about Bill's Oval Office tryst with an intern and the moment she uttered "vast right-wing conspiracy." Quite a few people would love to see a woman as president but can't bear the thought of that woman being Hillary Clinton. What is it about her? What is it about us?

Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary gathers thirty essays by women who think and write for a living. Most of the pieces here take the subject seriously, notwithstanding a trivial piece by Susan Orlean on whether Clinton is a cat person or a dog person and a mock high school yearbook page by Patricia Marx ("pet peeves: bad punctuation, martial law"). Some essays seem frivolous at first, but turn out to be quite thoughtful, such as Mimi Sheraton's look at Hillary through her taste in food and Lauren Collins on Clinton's apparent lack of hobbies.

Several writers have written about Hillary Clinton before and stand by their controversial opinions such as Robin Givhan on Clinton's cleavage. On the other hand, Judith Warner all but apologizes for her 1992 biography, Hillary Clinton: The Inside Story: Revised and Updated, which at least one reviewer called a hagiography.

There are no right-wing hit jobs in this collection, but Laura Kipnis does a survey of Hillary biographies (many of which fall into the hit job category) and finds they reveal more about the authors than about Clinton. Rebecca Mead examines how women presidents have been portrayed in movies and TV.

Deborah Tannen explores the double standard that women in authority face in the most even-handed piece in the book. Letty Cottin Pogrebin observes that for women leaders, widowhood is a plus. Susan Lehman speculates on how fifteen years as a corporate lawyer formed Clinton's outlooks and habits. Lara Vapnyar gives us the Russian view of women in power (not favorable).

The writers here ponder Clinton's name changes, her changes in appearance, her vote to go to war in Iraq. They consider her marriage, her career as a lawyer, and the compromises she's made as a politician. You may not come to any new conclusions about Clinton, but Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary will give you some original angles on a very provocative subject.

Whether you love Hillary or hate her, no doubt you've got a strong opinion about the woman. But the emotions evoked in you by Hillary Clinton probably speak less to Hillary's character than to your underlying attitudes about strong, independent, self-reliant women. So goes the premise of THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: REFLECTIONS BY WOMEN WRITERS. (And, um, pretty much anyone who's been overwhelmed by the misogyny and racism permeating this year's election cycle, natch.)

In THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, thirty prominent female journalistas wax poetic on what Hillary means to them. No aspect of Hillary's life and character is too mundane or sacrosanct: everything from Hillary's infamous pantsuits to her marriage to Bill (or "secret pact," as some paranoid pundits might call it) and her every-changing coif goes under the microscope. As a result, some of the pieces are rather fluffy (Mimi Sheraton's "How Hungry is Hillary?: Reading the Culinary Clues" and Susan Orlean's "Political Animals: Is Hillary a Cat Person or a Dog Person?" spring to mind), but it's all in good fun. In this vein, Patricia Marx's satirical "From the 1965 Eyrie Yearbook" is especially entertaining; it reads like a transcript of an SNL segment. (Hello, Amy Polar!)

Most of the thirty essays, while entertaining, are far from frivolous. While many of the writers tackle seemingly trivial topics (pantsuits, hairstyles and surnames, oh my!), these are usually circuitous routes to grander points; the way in which changes in Hillary's wardrobe correspond to her increasingly moderate (pandering?) political positions, for example, or what Hillary's favorite books reveal about her child- and adulthood. The pieces of Hillary expounded upon by each individual author also say a great deal about that author; in "Hello, My Name Is...," Cristina (no "H"!) Henriquez speaks eloquently about her conflicting identities as an Panamanian woman born and raised in America.

While I expected that most of the thirty essays would touch upon the misogyny that's colored this campaign season, not all of the writers deal explicitly with the anti-woman backlash that Hillary inspires in so many men (and not a few women). However, there are a few great pieces on the subject, including an essay by the always-awesome Katha Pollitt ("Hillary Rotten: Sexist Sticks and Stones") and must-read from Leslie Bennetts ("Beyond Gender: The Revenge of the Postmenopausal Woman"). Though I'm not familiar with all of the contributors, most seem somewhat feminist-minded, with the sole exception of Robin Givhan ("The Road to Cleavagegate: What Do We Want Female Power to Look Like?"). Givhan, you might recall, is the Washington Post reporter who "broke" the Cleavagegate "story." (Scare quotes because it's neither breaking nor a story. "This just in! Hillary Clinton, the female Senator from New York, HAS BREASTS! More on this shocking development at nine!") She spends much of her essay defending her own misogyny, arguing that it's perfectly a-ok to judge Hillary - and, by extension, all women - on her physical appearance. What's next, repenting to the Fashion Gods for wearing scrunchies and headbands after 1991? I don't agree wholeheartedly with every sentiment expressed in THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, but Givhan's was the only essay that truly strikes me as out of place.

The other twenty-nine essays, on the other hand, represent a diverse and enjoyable read. At the end of the book, I found myself wistful for '70s Hillary, in all her radfem blamer glory. 2008 Hillary, not so much.

Full disclosure: I voted for Kucinich in the primaries. I'm not crazy about Hillary or Barack, but I'll most likely vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Unless it comes out that Barack eats puppies or Hillary is a closet Ann Coulter fan. And, for the record, I'm disgusted with the misogyny and racism emanating from either side of the Dem aisle.

P.S. Dear Mimi Sheraton - If your Boca Burgers resemble "miserably limp, grassy-tasting little disks that might be produced by Rubbermaid," then you're doing it wrong. Unless you're rubbing defrosted Boca Burgers on your lawn, ain't no way they come out tasting like grass. As for the so-called "limpness," the only time I've cooked up a limp Boca Burger is by over- or under-cooking it in the microwave. Grilling and pan-frying them, not so much. So stop hating on the Boca Burgers when it's clearly the cook's fault. (Yeah, I'm a vegan. What of it?)

I'm betting the editors of the recently released collection of essays called Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary were assuming the presidential political landscape would look a bit different today, at least from a marketing point of view.

If the primary race was over and Hillary had become the Democratic nominee after Super Tuesday, as many expected would happen, they probably sensed that this baby would be a best-seller.

There isn't a lot that's particularly revealing about Clinton in Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary. It's more a volume of essays about how the various authors feel about her and view her in ways (usually) not covered by the main stream media.

I was a little surprised at the critical and sometimes flip tone of some of the authors. Some of the essays ponder who is the real HRC? Is she a dog person or a cat person? Is she better or worse than Lady Macbeth? What did she like to snack on in the White House?

(Can you imagine the outcry if someone had written a similar volume about any of the men candidates?)

While entertaining and well-written, I'd like to look at Hillary in a 31st way.

What would her candidacy have looked like if she hadn't married Bill?

What if she had married someone else, kept her name and was still Hillary Rodham? If we take the Bill Clinton lens off the glasses through which we scrutinize Hillary, what would an objective look at her candidacy be? I have a feeling it would be much more charitable in terms of her experience, her personality and her judgment.

To be sure, there are plenty of more serious essays in the Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, but I was saddened that the publisher was more concerned about having people write about Hillary's hobbies, or lack thereof, than taking a real look at this woman and what has propelled her to this place in life.

No, it wasn't meant to be a biography, but when we write about women candidates in this way, do we continue to diminish them, as well as ourselves?

I PERSONALLY LIKE HILLARY CLINTON BUT THIS BOOK GETS IT'S CREDIBILITY FROM THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PRO AND CON HILLARY REVIEWS.
DO I THINK SHE COULD MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE IN OUR COUNTRY AND THE PATH ON WHICH IT IS HEADED....ABSOLUTELY.
THE FACT IS THAT IF BILL CLINTON COULD RUN AGAIN HE WOULD HAVE WON AND I JUST FEEL HIS EXPERIENCE ENHANCES WHAT SHE ALLREADY BRINGS TO THE TABLE.
GOOD READ!!

I was a little bit shocked at the negative ways to look at Hillary Clinton, but there were some balanced articles, especially Dr. Deborah Tannen's, that I thought were informative and eye-opening about the double standards women face. There were a few positives, but not enough for someone who wants a review from the perspective of someone who has actually experienced this campaign, and thinks it has been as revealing about our pervasive sexism and the media's mysogyny, as it has been about political issues and campaign styles.

Not a masterpiece but an interesting and fun read. And balance. Pro Hillary and not so pro Hillary views are shared. While reading it one may think back to Margaret Thatcher who wasn't a beauty but who was as some called her the Iron Lady, because she knew what she believed and wanted and was point blank blunt in telling you. She wasn't wishy washy and certainly wasn't elected to office because of family ties.

Personally, I would vote for Senator Diane Feinstein in a heartbeat because she has proven herself to be qualified, stable, classy and focused. The writers who suggest or say that people don't like Hillary because of her looks or style miss the point that many simply don't like her because she and Bill are a team and as they noted when he ran the first time, you get two for the price of one.

Just as most people don't ever want another Bush in the White House, many don't want another Clinton. And as some writers write or allude to, Hillary is running on Bill's coat tales and his negative stump speeches seem to be proving.

As a woman who hasn't missed voting since I became of legal age to vote, I think its insulting to suggest women should vote for Hillary because one is a woman. Give men and women the right woman to vote for and they will, and in huge numbers. The book is one I liked and one you may like as well.