Maybe that's the real divide over Clinton:

It strikes me that the split between women moved by Hillary's NH plight and those unconvinced by it mirrors the split in their basic political viewpoints. The women who were drawn to Hillary seem to be the same ones who support the old, big government, liberal ethos. The women who rejected HRC's vulnerability moment seem to have a much more libertarian streak.

The Paglias of the country want to take responsibility for their own actions and face their own consequences on their own terms, while the Steinems want Big Brother to make everyone play nice.  It's the old big vs. limited government argument, writ in terms of gender.  The Obama side stands for the development of a grassroots movement in which Americans take an active part in their governance and are complicit in its actions, while the Clinton aesthetic demands a government that does everything for everyone and thereby enforces some kind of equality.

That's a helpful distinction. Of course, I've long sided with Camille Paglia on this question. I belong to a minority, but I've always insisted on playing by the same rules as straights. I want no special privilege and no government discrimination either. My libertarian-conservative approach to gay politics was laid out in Virtually Normal. It's one reason I don't fit in with the Human Rights Campaign people either. I'm happy to live my life, and let others live theirs'. I don't want or need the government to love me, make me feel better or tell me how to live. My deep difference with Hillary Clinton is precisely this. In my view, it takes an individual. And that's not a function of misogyny. It's a function of believing in liberty.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.