[Sigh] Hillary

     In her speech at the Fourth World Women's Conference in Beijing, Hillary Clinton says, "What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on this planet does have a stake in the discussion that takes place here." 

     I understand what she is likely trying to communicate— that women's rights (and the inhibition thereof) affect everyone; but for some reason this part of her speech continues to sit poorly with me. I am angry with the fact that, in this conference designed to advance the opportunities and individual worth and rights of women, Clinton herself insists on so directly tying a woman's contribution ultimately to the family. She lists diverse careers and all sorts of jobs that a woman can hold, but it seems implied that at the end of the day, all of those women will go home to their husband and children. In another portion of her speech, she says: 

     "I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care. I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in safe, and nurturing after-school centers. I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy. I have met with the leading women of my own hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for children in their countries. I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, or rickshaws, or thread in order to create a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have met the doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl."

     Even when discussing women in corporate or government positions, she nearly always brings the contribution of women back to families and children. With the single exception of the women in South Africa fighting apartheid, Clinton emphasizes the true goal of each diverse women's contribution: family. She speaks of women (new mothers) congregating to discuss important issues (about childcare), of working women (who are mothers) having their anxieties soothed by the knowledge that their children are well-tended while they work, of leading women who work tirelessly promoting literacy and healthcare (for their nation's children), of women taking business loans (to care for their families), and of doctors and nurses helping those (children) affected by Chernobyl. What if a woman were to work for something other than her family? Even more shocking, what if she were to achieve something for herself? The idea that a woman can contribute meaningfully to society in a way that is entirely disconnected from a maternal and/or spousal role seems to be unthought of, even at a conference which emphasizes that diversity in definitions of womenhood.

     Perhaps she intended to say that women matter to families, but it felt like she was saying that women matter because—and only because— families matter. To clarify, I'm not disputing the importance of families or family-like structures in society; I just felt as though a woman who went home to her one-bedroom apartment or to her partner was either discarded or devalued by much of Clinton's speech. 

     Perhaps it is not the fact that she took this angle to appeal to her audience, but rather the fact that it was necessary to do so in order for her to be heard, that makes me so uneasy. At the end of the day, the ugly implication of this inspiring speech is that a woman is only worth something as long as she uses her skills to creatively fulfill her role as wife and/or mother. Am I missing something? Of course, children are our future and all that, but men's accomplishments are rarely told in a way that discusses how their actions will benefit their wives and children. Men's accomplishments have merit of their own. Why, then, even at a place like the Fourth World Women's Convention, can women not live their lives the same way? 

Here is an article that examines (briefly) why, even in progressive settings, single women are declared either nonexistent or the enemy. what are your thoughts?