Women are People Too
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The last push in this Democratic primary campaign by Hillary and her supporters appears to be yet another play of the gender card. As someone who has written about several (though not even close to all) of the instances of sexism directed at Clinton, it would be absurd of me to suggest that she's overplaying it. She's not. The overt sexism, and even misogyny, that has permeated both her media coverage and her overall public image has been nothing short of appalling. But the reality is that, while Hillary has suffered greatly as a result of sexism, I see no reason to give her a pass on the sexism that she's been a beneficiary of.
And no, I'm not talking about any boyzarestooopidanddrool sexism directed toward men, in general, and Obama, in particular. While disparaging masculinity and men--such as they are--would clearly be sexist, the current social power structure is such that I don't care much about "reverse" sexism engaged in by women. Sorry, guys, when we have equal opportunities, equal pay, and you get your g'damn hands off my body permanently, then I'll feel your pain. Until then, you're on your own.
The bizarrely pro-Clinton sexism I have a problem with is the kind that hurts women as much as, if not more than, it hurts men. I'm talking about the "testicular fortitude" kind of sexism that says that, for a woman to be strong, she has to be willing to "obliterate" Iran and be prepared to bowl a 280 after downing a six pack of Bud followed by a few tequila shooters. I'm talking about the kind of sexism that results in Clinton and McCain competing to determine who gets to carry the Rocky Balboa mantle. I'm talking about the girlzarewimpy kind of sexism that pervades Kathleen Parker's disgusting "The Democrats Hug It Out" column about Edwards' endorsement of Obama:
Well, at least they didn't kiss.Ha! Get it? Obama's a wimpy, let's-talk-it-out girl, and Hillary's a real Ahmadinejad's man. And voters don't want a girl in the White House! (Yes, the supposed switching of 1950's-era gender roles is what passes for HI-larious irony among our elite media class.)
I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.
[...]
Obama and Edwards make an attractive picture -- Ultra Brite cover boys of youth and glamour united against old men (and women) who worship the status quo. Obama -- the man who makes Chris Matthews feel a thrill up his leg -- wants to "do the Lord's work," lately pictured in front of a cross illuminated with vanity lights on a flier aimed at Kentucky voters, while Edwards wants to roll out the catapults and nuke the Coliseum.
[...]
Clinton, who got a little face time as reporters took her temperature, was (as always) smooth and cool.
Which puts new thoughts in motion as voters project down the road. Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.
Has it pissed me off that Obama has let much of the sexism directed toward Clinton go unanswered? Yes. Has it pissed me off that Clinton has let much of the sexism directed toward Obama go unanswered? Yes. However, the reason that the unresponsiveness from both sides has bothered me isn't that it hurts my favorite candidate's chances or doesn't hurt your favorite candidate's chances. The reason it bothers me is that, in the end, this kind of sexism hurts me and everyone else who finds this pervasive antediluvian attitude utterly oppressive. And the people who are in the best position to fight against it--the two current Democratic candidates--either promote or ignore it when it benefits them. And pimping sexism really pisses me off.
So, I agree that it sucks when Obama calls a woman "sweetie" and no security issues reporter cares enough to wonder aloud whether or not that's how he'll talk to Kim Jong-il. But it also sucks when Hillary talks about whipping out her nukes to obliterate an entire country full of people (there are still people that live there, right?), and the venerable Mr. Security Issues doesn't seem to mind that either. However, laying it all at the feet of Barack Obama or implying that you'll campaign against him if your woman doesn't win the nomination is as foolhardy as it is foolish. Not only is he not the only Democrat in the race to blame for this problem, the fact remains that this election isn't even about him. As some of our candidates have to keep explaining, this election is about us. So, when we work to elect John McCain's Supreme Court nominees and national security, economic, and environmental policies, we're hurting all people. And no matter what the prevailing masses say, women are people too.
(And no, I didn't even touch on racism in this post because that's not what this post was about. )
UPDATE: An example from the New York Times:
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, many women say with regret, did not inspire a deep or nuanced conversation between men and women, only familiar gender-war battles consisting of male gibes and her supporters’ angry responses. Mr. Obama, who sought to minimize the role of race in his candidacy, led something of a national dialogue about it, but Mrs. Clinton, who made womanhood an explicit part of her run, seemed unwilling or unable to talk candidly about gender.These two paragraphs speak volumes about my ambivalence toward Clinton. Consistently playing around the edges of gender issues without addressing them head-on is hardly a rallying cry for feminists. Using Obama's way of dealing with race as a foil illustrates a clear distinction in the leadership styles of the two candidates. After realizing that he couldn't avoid it any longer, Obama went headlong into the topic of race, delivering the most direct and poignant speech on the subject we've heard in a generation. If Clinton were serious about dealing with gender issues in this election, she wouldn't have continually brought them up and then retreated from them when it suited her. She would have dealt with them honestly and directly. Her failure to do so doesn't exactly inspire confidence in her commitment toward gender issues.
Mrs. Clinton, for example, declined a New York Times request earlier this year for an interview about the gender dynamics of the race; her aides said the topic would be impossible for her to address in a frank way.
Add to del.icio.us
| DiggIt!
| Reddit
| Stumble This
| Add to Technorati Faves
Nothing New byslag
at
3:30 PM
10 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here):
Great post. What's with the sweetie thing? I somehow missed that (I only heard it in passing) and I have no idea what happened. Was it a gold chain, harry chest sweetie?
psilo: I'm pleasantly surprised you liked it. I never saw the "sweetie" in question, but I'd also be surprised if she had a gold chain and a harry chest.
It was dismissive, and it bothered me and I was glad that he apologized immediately.
Great post, Slag. I don't think that Clinton has the moral fortitude to rush headlong into a direct discussion about anything that may turn out negatively for her campaign. So, I was not surprised when she never really talked about gender and instead chose to wield tears and nukes with equal fervor. The way she has handled her campaign has angered me deeply. Honestly I look for more out of Obama on racial issues and I look for more out of Clinton on gender issues. Is that fair? Of course not. It is true. While I was disappointed in Obama (enough to write him an email on it) I no longer expect anything but base politics from Clinton. It keeps me from crying and wanting to nuke things.
Thanks, wng! I agree with your assessment of Clinton's inability to bring us up to a new level on these issues. Theoretically, if she saw heading into the breach as a benefit to her, she would do it. But she hasn't, which means she won't. I think this failure speaks more to her political instincts than to anything else.
As regards expectations from each, I think that the one with the power in the situation has more ability to make changes. For instance, in the case of gender issues, Obama has more ability to inspire men to change. And for race, Hillary may have more power to sway white people. So, I'd like to see them both show leadership on the issues and actually make some big differences. The likeliness of that outcome? Low. But I can wish!
Ok - that makes sense, the power thing, and while I wish it would happen as well, I'm with you that the chances are pretty low...sad.
Slag,
As always, great post.
Several comments.
Graphic: Love it! But to be more grrrl, should be pink (or at least, be offered in a pink-and-fuchia version.
"While disparaging masculinity and men--such as they are--would clearly be sexist"
To expand: There are actually some good things about "masculinity" (e.g. proving for your family; standing up for what's right). And there are several versions of masculinity -- just as there are of "femininity".
"the current social power structure is such that I don't care much about "reverse" sexism engaged in by women. Sorry, guys, when we have equal opportunities, equal pay, and you get your g'damn hands off my body permanently, then I'll feel your pain. Until then, you're on your own."
What you've said is very glib, and said in passing -- but from what I know of you (and your strong reasoning abilities), I don't think you actually believe this.
The direct implication of that statement is that sexual harassment by female bosses is OK.
I think you're confusing social processes in the aggregate, with individual-level social dynamics.
Your underlying argument seems to be that "victims can't be victimizers". Which ain't true.
"testicular fortitude"
GREAT phrase; would also make a good t-shirt. (But one you might not personally want to add to your line of products...)
Also, a good band name.
"Has it pissed me off that Obama has let much of the sexism directed toward Clinton go unanswered? Yes."
Why? NOT his job: it's **Clinton's** job. In the primaries, it's the job of each candidate to defend his/her self against the muckraking of the other side.
Now, to defend his competitor? **That** would be overly "chivalrous". (A man, stepping in to protect a l'il ol' woman...?)
She's a grown-up (as is he). Whether or not a candidate can defend his/her self against misc. guff is part of the weeding-out process. Eh? :)
"Has it pissed me off that Clinton has let much of the sexism directed toward Obama go unanswered? Yes."
Again: Not her job.
"So, I agree that it sucks when Obama calls a woman "sweetie""
Yep -- embarrassing. Unless he calls males "sonny" -- then he's being equitable.
"Mrs. Clinton, for example, declined a New York Times request earlier this year for an interview about the gender dynamics of the race; her aides said the topic would be impossible for her to address in a frank way.
These two paragraphs speak volumes about my ambivalence toward Clinton. Consistently playing around the edges of gender issues without addressing them head-on is hardly a rallying cry for feminists."
Yeah.
OTOH: Granted, she's proclaimed herself as a Woman Running for President. But I agree with her handlers: It would've been a **bad** idea to make it the focal point of the interview.
Tiger Woods probably gets annoyed at being pegged "The Black Golfer". He's a [VERY good] GOLFER -- who happens to be black (plus other misc. races).
I doubt that Hillary's cause would've been served by an hour's worth of "So... what's it like being a WOMAN in a MAN's world...?" Rather, it would've just spotlighted the fact that she's a woman -- which, in order to be good Presidential material, she needs to show that she'd be a good PRESIDENT -- with gender being irrelevant.
(JFK, in his Presidential campaign, would've been stupid to do an interview on "Being a Catholic, Running for President". It's secondary, irrelevant, folks...!)
--GG
Dang! LOONG comment!
Should've been "PROVIDING for your family".
--GG
AND -- when I said that yYour underlying argument seems to be that "victims can't be victimizers" -- it's closer to my meaning to say that your statement suggests that "It's OK for victims to be victimizers."
That is: if you're part of the less-powerful group in society, or have experienced discrimination -- then yeah, be mean to other folks.
I don't think you mean that -- or can justify that.
--GG
GG: I started off trying to make it pink and couldn't go through with it. I just didn't like it, so I went with a light blue. But your point is well-taken.
As re your concept of masculinity: I think I know what you're getting at, but honestly, I don't think of either of your examples as being particularly masculine. It wouldn't even enter my mind to think of those things as part of the masculine mystique. The things I think of are hyper-aggressiveness, ego, etc.
Actually, I don't condone sexual harassment in any situation. But I categorize that as harassment--often misogynistic--and not sexism (although one may lead to the other, I guess). And I'm only talking on the aggregate level here. Women directing sexual stereotypes toward men (eg, "men can be soooo insensitive") doesn't have nearly the equivalent negative social impact (on the aggregate level) as men directing them toward women (eg, "women can be soooo irrational"). That's only the result of the current social power structure. Calling Obama a "typical man" does less damage than calling Hillary a "typical woman." I don't know if that makes sense or not because I'm still trying to clarify in my mind.
The reason I want Obama to stand up against sexism when it's directed at Clinton is that sexism hurts all of us. It's not about protecting her. In a way, it's about protecting me. Right now, both of them have more power to address these issues than I have. So, when these issues arise, I'd like the candidates to take them on. I think that's a key part of leadership. Sexism shouldn't be a socially acceptable weapon, as far as I'm concerned. Nor should racism. Both should be fought at every opportunity.
Good clarifications; thx! :)
--GG
Post a Comment