Steve M. makes a point about sexism and Senator Clinton:
And where are, say, Condoleezza’s Rice’s “Fatal Attraction comparisons”? Where is the “locker-room chortling on television panels” about her? Rice is a national figure, an architect of the worst foreign-policy disaster in living memory, a top aide to possibly the most hated president ever — where’s her nutcracker?
A lot of us keep saying this and it falls on deaf ears, but here I go again: Quite a bit of the nastiness that’s uttered about Hillary Clinton is uttered specifically because she’s Hillary Clinton (even if it relies on readymade sexist tropes) — or because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife. (Remember, the people who helped paint the negative portrait of Hillary in the 1990s were painting one of Bill at the same time.)
This is pretty much was I was saying here —
I think some of the vile remarks aimed at Senator Clinton are expressions of dislike about her specifically, not of women generally. The problem is that our national political discourse has become so polluted that many who express dislike of Clinton believe they are supposed to toss in some vulgar personal insults of her.
Put another way, righties (and some pundits, like Chris Matthews) fear and hate Clinton specifically and fall back on sexist language as a means of expressing their fear and hatred. Yet many of these same righties are capable of admiring other women and addressing them in respectful language. [Update: Well, OK, that last statement does not apply to Chris Matthews.]
In rightie world, conservative women are beautiful and accomplished. Liberal women are harridans and ball-busters.
As I recall, a couple of years ago some of the same righties who can’t use “Hillary” in a sentence without throwing “bitch” in as well were floating the idea of Condoleezza as a presidential candidate. I believe there are some who still think she’d be a swell veep candidate on a McCain ticket, and of course I think that would be a grand idea, too! Let’s hope it happens! Nothin’ like tying McCain to Dubya’s office wife to sink the ticket!
Of course, IMO there’s another layer of sexism under that. Condoleezza is “OK” because she is so obviously subordinates herself to her boss. Strong, opinionated women are acceptable to right-wingers as long as they are tethered to a powerful, conservative man to keep them in line. Think Lynn Cheney.
There’s no question that many have a problem with powerful women. Note that one of the most common insults tossed at Hillary Clinton is that she’s ambitious. Heaven forbid that a woman should be ambitious! If we say a man is ambitious, that’s a compliment, but ambitious women are scary.
Again, think Lynn Cheney. There are few women in Washington who are pushier and more opinionated than Mrs. Cheney — not to mention more powerful, in a behind-the-scenes way — but she’s seen as being pushy and opinionated on behalf of the cause of conservatism, so that’s OK.
(Years ago, I read a sociological paper about a tribe living in near stone-age conditions. The women of the tribe were not allowed to leave the village and enter the nearby forest; only men could enter the forest. This was not because women were weak and needed protection. It was because of what we’d call magic. The tribe believed that female power is stronger than male power, and if female power were to combine with forest power all hell could break loose. Since males have less magical power, it doesn’t matter if they enter the forest or not. Sometimes I think our psyches haven’t progressed as much as we’d like to think.)
What does this say about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign? On the one hand, many of the people who strongly dislike Hillary Clinton do so out of a kind of sectarian sexism. To right-wingers, all liberal women are unnatural creatures who not only abort all their babies, they also desire power for its own sake and, once they get it, they cannot be controlled by the hand of man. But at the same time, all liberal men are Frenchified wusses. And I think a lot of righties confuse liberal with libertine, although somehow being a libertarian is OK.
In other words, gender role bias is subordinate to ideological bias. Righties don’t hate her because she’s a woman; they hate her because she’s perceived as a liberal woman.
I agree with Steve that it’s illogical to think that, if Clinton loses, it will be years before another woman can contend for the presidency. She came damn close. For a time she was considered unstoppable. The sexist knives didn’t come out in media until after her own campaign blunders revealed her vulnerabilities.
But the pundits are not exactly gentle with male front-runners who stumble, either. And if it’s a Democratic man who stumbles, pundits will look at the camera and intone, “Is Joe Blow losing this election because he’s a Frenchified wuss?” You can count on it.
Quite. And that awful poster you linked to sure didn’t look like it was made by a Democrat.
The simplistic caricature that all Obama opponents are racists or all Hillary opponents are sexists are certainly absurd.
At worst, those groups are measurable by the percentages that say they won’t under any circumstance vote for the other. I believe that’s 20% or less. And some in those groups are simply pro-Hillary or pro-Barack to such a degree that the actual percentage of racists and sexists is lower than even that.
With more than 80% in each group not guilty of such bias, it’s gotta be insulting to major majorities to be treated as suspect, simply for having a political preference.
I’m dismayed by the sexist MSM and the sexist culture we – and most nations – have. But it’s illogical to think this is Obama’s burden to resolve. It does take repetitive advocacy to raise such an important issue, but ultimately it takes a village to cure itself.
So what does a supposed fear of powerful women have to do with Mrs. Clinton? Nothing, Mra. Clinton is a weak, abeit mean and vile person, who is trying to get elected president based on her husband’s accomplishements, such as they are.
The most powerfull woman of the last few decades, has been Phyllis Schlafly. While she has never held political office, she stopped the Equal Rights Amendment dead in tts track. Schfafly stopped a run away freight train and when she got done the ERA was farther away from ratification than it had been when she started.
Then of course gender feminists loath Schlafly. So just who is afaid of powerfull women?
David L — Power and strength are two different things. For example, George W. Bush is a very small, ineffectual, weak man, but he’s POTUS, meaning he has power. Hillary Clinton is a U.S.Senator with connections and an enormous following, meaning she has power. Whether she is weak or not is another matter.
Phyllis Schlafly, on the other hand, is a tool of the Right who had some influence 25 years ago, but now she’s a relic of a bygone era with neither strength nor power.
Strong, opinionated women are acceptable to right-wingers as long as they are tethered to a powerful, conservative man to keep them in line. Think Lynn Cheney.
Or Margaret Thatcher.
Tom — I thought about Margaret Thatcher. I think in the rightie mind she’s linked in some mystical way to Ronald Reagan, which made her acceptable.
Barbara – I have to disagree and call it wishful thinking on your part. Sure, some of it was pure Clinton hatred – the old “backwoods” non-insider stuff from ’92 and the later post-Monica stuff as well.
But so much of it was pure sexism – we have to face facts, and it’s terribly sad: much of the country’s not ready for a woman to be president.
The outward sexism throughout this campaign has been shocking to me – the mocking signs, the vile t-shorts, the Hillary nutcracker, the locker-room boys on TV, the Fatal Attraction memos, and yes, even “likeable enough.” Now, it’s moved beyond the campaign – and it’s a disturbing piece of American political history. I hope Obama addresses it.
Tom W. — maybe I’m not shocked because I’ve lived with this crap for all my 56 years. None of it is new to me. Same old, same old. Where have you been?
And exactly why Obama in particular needs to address it any more than anyone else in this country needs to address it escapes me.
I ask this question with all respect — since the sexism was directed at Hillary Clinton, and is an extension of all hatred directed toward the Clintons, does that make the sexism directed at her Okay? Rationalized, because she’s Clinton and and people believe they are supposed to toss in some vulgar personal insults, so it’s not all women, it’s just Hillary?
You call these remarks vile, but you say they are dislike of Clinton specifically, not of women generally. But the nutcracker, the cunt tshirt, the leg crossing, the voice complaint, the cackle complaint, all of them are used against women generally. And they’re waiting to be used against the next woman.
I want to say that this sexist attitude would not arise against a repub woman, but only a dem woman. The msm doesn’t attack repub women as it does dems, as you say Lynne cheney. But I’m not sure. I think it would arise against a repub woman, from the Dems, just as the dems have been attacking their own woman candidate. You refer to Condi as W’s “office wife.” Isn’t that similar sexism?
I’d like to refer to the rev. Wright. I agreed with 95% of what he said, when his videos were all the rage weeks ago. I was very disappointed when Obama distanced himself, and then repudiated the reverend.
the 5% he was wrong about was his statement that “Hillary doesn’t know…” what it’s like.
Every little girl over the age of 10 knows what’s like to walk down the street and be catcalled, evaluated, judged, objectified, dissed, made proud or brought to tears, just cuz she looks however she looks and was walking down the street, and some jerk guy drove past and had some cunt remark to throw at her. It doesn’t matter what neighborhood she lives in, how much money her parents make, what year it is, what color or nationality she is. ALL women know what it’s like to be objectified. They learn at very young age. Hillary, too, I don’t doubt.
I’ve loved this site for a long time, it reaches out. But this primary season has, I don’t know, trailing off — something about blinders.
Like I said at the beginning, with all respect.
Strong, opinionated women are acceptable to right-wingers as long as they are tethered to a powerful, conservative man to keep them in line.
Though they were (and are) quite fond of Maggie Thatcher, who doesn’t fit that description….
Steve M — as I said to another commenter above, I think in the rightie collective reptilian brain Thatcher was mystically connected to Saint Ronald. That made her OK.
I ask this question with all respect — since the sexism was directed at Hillary Clinton, and is an extension of all hatred directed toward the Clintons, does that make the sexism directed at her Okay?
All due respect, my ass. That is such a vile and stupid question, and one that shows you didn’t give the post an honest reading, you just earned yourself a spot in the twit filter. Bye.
…Thatcher was mystically connected to Saint Ronald. That made her OK.
Good point. (And Jeane Kirkpatrick too.)
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I suppose I don’t think it’s either sexism is the cause of Hillary Hatred or it’s just a rhetoric in which that hatred is expressed. I think it’s a complicated combination of both.
Sexism lies near the heart of many people’s hatred of Clinton, but I also think it’s a language in which some people express a hatred of Clinton whose roots lie elsewhere.
One of the lessons of this campaign is that it is more acceptable to engage in openly sexist rhetoric than openly racist rhetoric (the racism we’ve seen aimed at Obama has been a bit more dogwhistley than much of the sexism aimed at Clinton). Yet I don’t think that means that sexism is a worse problem than racism…or vice versa, for that matter. Sexism and racism are apples and oranges, two different economies of privilege each with its own rules and rhetorics (public and private).
I certainly don’t think that one can conclude from any particular person’s dislike of Hillary Clinton that that person is unprepared to have a woman for president. I’d love to have a woman president. If, say, Barbara Lee were the Democratic presidential candidate, I’d be devoting lots of time and money to getting her elected. But I can’t stand the kind of “New Democratic” politics that the Clintons pioneered; I left the Democratic Party as a result of them, in fact. I look forward to the day when both Hillary and Bill Clinton play a much smaller role in our public life.
Ben — Very well said. And may I say your comment is a welcome contrast to the blinkered stupidity of comment #8. Certainly sexism is a big factor in Hillary Derangement Syndrome, and I believe I stated that clearly. But it is far from the only factor. And it is way too simple to say that Hillary Clinton is losing the nomination battle because of sexism, or that the failure of the Clinton campaign proves no woman could be elected president.
Cloistered, Barbara – cloistered away!
I have to stick to what I said – I expected plenty of Clinton hatred, a little from the left and a ton from the right. But I didn’t think it would have such horrendous sexual overtones. The sheer overwhelming size of the sexist reaction to Clinton’s candidacy – and it’s surely not the only reason for her defeat – was what stunned me. That and the tacit ok that many of her leftist opponents (especially the younger demographic, frankly) gave to the incendiary language used against her. It’s one for the history books.
I’ll gladly support Obama, but if he wants to truly lead the Democratic Party, he should speak out, in my view.
Cloistered, Barbara – cloistered away!
I’d say you have been, yes.
I have to stick to what I said – I expected plenty of Clinton hatred, a little from the left and a ton from the right. But I didn’t think it would have such horrendous sexual overtones.
Then you were naive.
It’s one for the history books.
I can only assume you’ve been caught off guard because you haven’t seen the sexism that’s been with us all along. It’s been a lot more blatant and public regarding Clinton’s candidacy, but as even a somewhat public woman I assure you that I’ve enjoyed garbage just as vile aimed at me since I’ve been blogging. Any woman who become the least bit public gets it, publicly, and if you aren’t public you can still trip over it from time to time. You get used to it.
So, dude — wake up.
he should speak out, in my view.
That would be fine, but I still don’t understand why it is his unique responsibility to address nonsense that’s been going on since before he was born.
Don’t forget Maureen Dowd, she is know in some circles as an influential woman, yet she herself is obviously terrified of strong women. It’s not just her hatred of Hillary Clinton, Dowd frequently exposes her “fear” of women when she writes her vile and petty articles.
Samizdat!
a whiff of subversion in the morning.
I stopped visiting Lance Mannion’s site because the subtle undertow of evaluating women by their physical appearance was encouraging female commenters to make points such as (partially paraphrasing) “Mo Dowd writes like a bitter, ugly woman.” I loved Lance’s cultural and (general) political commentary, but in the end I learned one thing at his site: some women feel very put-upon by the resentment of other women, who hate them because they’re beautiful. Nice catch-22, that; only a “bitter, ugly woman” (not paraphrased) woman would criticize the shallow thinking of these put-upon princesses. It’s enough to say that Mo Dowd and Phyllis Schlafly think and write like flaming hypocrites.