Let me venture an opinion here – knowing it will not be popular with the “All-American woman”. I am old enough to remember when women stayed home and raised the children, did the housework, etc. Men went to work and brought home the paycheck. In college, the women stayed in dorms (not apartments like the men) and had curfew hours.

That all started to change in the late 60’s early 70’s – sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, the Woodstock generation. Woman from that era had a hard fight to break the barriers that kept them in a defined role. Hillary is of that generation. Women have been fighting the “glass ceiling” battle every since. While the cause may (or may not) be just, it clearly has produced several generations of very angry women. In many women’s eyes, men are viewed as beasts, crude barbarians that use raw power to hold women back.

From what I have deduced in talking to younger women in their mid-20’s, women are still fighting that battle. If you subscribe to the “subservient woman” cause, then the battle is not yet won – several major hurdles remain in their path, including being President.

Looking back now over the past 40 years of woman’s liberation I still see a major quandary for women. That is, no one, man nor woman, can have a high-paying job, raise children, and keep a nice house. Many women aspire to “have it all” and it cannot be done. Women who attempt this impossible task ask their husband to share the responsibilities. Morphing a husband into becoming an assistant housewife is a very difficult task. Some couples have made the quantum leap, many more have failed (as we see with the divorce rate).

I personally think there are some tasks that women are genetically bred to perform, and visa versa for men. I cannot name one man who mindlessly gets up in the middle of the night to feed the baby a bottle, change the diapers, rocks the child back to sleep, and then falls back into bed again instantly dead asleep. I had two wives who could do this seemingly without effort – there must be many more women in the world with this innate capability.

The point here is that women have rebelled, but they have yet to produce a suitable new role for man and women. A car can only have one driver, but the nouveaux woman has yet to figure out if she wants to drive or ride as a passenger. Of course, most women will reject that paradigm of marriage, but they only offer instead this crazy idea that two people can drive the car at the same time!

Women are leaving the rebellion stage, but can’t figure out where they are moving to. At heart, they are still angry with men and the man’s world as they see it. Hillary just pointed out this fact in her example of the White House. But as things stand right now, we have a bunch of women in America all dressed up to be angry with no place to go. If you look beyond the glitter, even Hillary has her fair share of dysfunctional family traits. Hillary’s relationship with her husband is famously lurid, much of which may be only gossip. Suffice it to say their marriage is not a young person’s model of the living “happily every after story”.

As long as power women continue to wander in a state of flux, without a realistic role in marriage, work, or life in general, they will continue to carry a tone in their voice that signals discontentment. This subtle message comes through loud and clear when Hillary and many other women speak. To me it signals insecurity and perhaps instability. As long as this lack of a role in life continues to produce angry women, none will be able to inspire confidence in a majority of voters. From this deduction, I predict we will not see a woman president in the US for another generation or longer.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club