Powerful Women
Nov 9th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 11 Comments |
Time posted an ode to Hillary by Joe Klein yesterday. It’s title? “What Hillary Stands For.”
I was very interested to see what in fact Hillary does stand for, given my recent ponderings on leadership. The best I can gather from Klein’s piece is that Hillary stands for “pragmatism,” and “Getting stuff done.”
As opposed to “ideologues.”
The piece echoes eerily what Arnold told Rush (back in March, I think). I’m not an ideologue like you and other politicians, Rush. I get stuff done.
People who just want to get things done, who are pragmatists, are those who are already in power. They don’t have to present a vision of what the world would be like if they were leading. They aren’t trying to convince you to give them power. They don’t need you. They’ve got the power and want to use it.
If Klein is right about what Clinton stands for, then Conservatives are right about Clinton: she just wants to bask in the glory of her own power. Power for power’s sake.
In a related story, Heather Whipps has some strange things to say about the sexism of ancient Jews in a piece on LiveScience: Queen Jezebel: Biblical Bad Girl Had Power
Unlike Egypt, however, Biblical Israel did not look favorably upon powerful women.
Really? Deborah?
Well, whatever. I’m happy to see archaeologists/historians taking the Bible seriously, at least.
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
The Philosopher Tillman, however, looked with favor on his powerful and sexy wife.
(Jezebel was a foreigner, probably a big reason why she wasn’t so popular. She was also part of an entrenched monarchy, not a judge who led Israel in their time of crisis. The Omrian dynasty were a nasty bunch all around!)
Indeed. You speak truth.
“People who just want to get things done, who are pragmatists, are those who are already in power. They don’t have to present a vision of what the world would be like if they were leading. They aren’t trying to convince you to give them power. They don’t need you. They’ve got the power and want to use it.”
This reminds me of a song lyric by Guster (have you heard Guster?): “The dreamers have the dreams/ but the leaders have the lead/ it’s a frightening, frightening thing”
I am a woman in leadership. But I’d rather just be supportive to leaders, really; I feel more comfortable in that role. (Oh, the feminist in me revolts to my own words!) I guess I am a leader by nurture and a follower by nature. *shrugs* Thanks, mom.
But I digress.
Deborah is exceptional, I think you’ll agree. I think Ms. Whipps is correct that Egypt in general treated women better than any other ancient society (that we know of), probably because Egypt was one of the few who adopted the entirely logical system of matrilineal inheritance for royalty. Even so, sexual specialization prevailed there as it did in every other ancient society. Women still, generally, did the child-rearing and the keeping of hearth and home while men did the rest, and men still held the role as head of the family. (There appear to have been more exceptions to this in Egypt than there were in any other ancient society, though.)
Joanna–
I like Guster. Sweet, sweet Guster. I heard that satellite song on the radio the other day and it made me happy.
You know how we Tillmans are about organizational stuff. You’re right about the nature/nurture distinction with us. Our dear Mother does it not because it’s in her genes, but because it’s her calling. I’m no good at organizations stuff, but I seem to get sucked into it periodically.
Andrew–
Deborah’s the only female judge and warrior in the Bible that I know, you are correct. But there are two books of the Jewish scriptures dedicated to heroic, initiative-taking women (Ruth and Esther).
I thought Whipps’ comment sounded snooty, so perhaps this is all an emotional reaction on my part.
If you’re right about Egypt being the only society in the past that could meet Whipps’ standards (I don’t know enough Egyptian sociology to have an opinion on the subject), then it doesn’t seem fair for her to single out the Jews as being sexist.
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that Ms. Whipps’s comment wasn’t tinged by anti-Judeo-Christianity, because I think it certainly was. The ancient Greeks were much more patriarchal than the Jews, but that goes unmentioned.
The Egyptians wouldn’t match her standards either. (I have read at least one woman claim that Egyptians treated women better than modern cultures. This is obvious nonsense.) Whenever I hear someone complain about how women were treated in ancient cultures, I’m forced to ask what exactly makes them think it was some sort of picnic for men (except the rulers)? Maybe we get this idea because most of the literature that survives from that period tended to focus on the aristocracy rather than the guy who got drafted to serve in the army for twenty years.
Enjoyed your post and the comment section. My brain is too tired this evening to add to a conversation - but I did want to let you know I’ve visited. As for the related link, I’ve never found the Jewish scriptures to be particularly sexist and have been quite happy living with the pedestal, provisions and care they give a woman. Basically, any doof can fail at following what is laid before them…like you said, it is a calling, not in the gene, one either follows through with what is laid before them or they don’t.
[...] a post yesterday about voting your principles rather than voting pragmatically (which reminds me of all that Clinton stuff). It was a fellow Christian who, unlike myself, is a Huckabee supporter in the mode of James [...]
Thanks Ms. Tookshire! (I love the name, btw)
I agree about sexism and the Old Testament (I don’t know if it’s PC to call it “Old,” so no offense to anyone is meant). Being a big fan of my wife, mother, and sister has made the issue an especially important one to me.
Whenever I hear about sexism in the Bible, references get made to Genesis 2-3 and Paul.
One of these days perhaps a little something I wrote about the non-sexism of Genesis 2 will get published. It’s been accepted.
I’ve written up some stuff on Paul for an older blog of mine, which I might eventually republish as well.
Congratulations on your acceptance. I will certainly consider buying your book if and when it gets published. By the by, I had a fantastic religious studies professor, who was Jewish (Jay Holstein, one of the best lecturers I’ve ever heard) who always called it the Hebrew Bible, so that’s the nomenclature I tend to adopt.
Thanks Andrew! It’s just an article that’s been accepted, but I’m excited nonetheless.
And thanks to Dana J. Tuszke for the clip and link in her piece, “Hillary Clinton, What She Believes“