articles re: hillary and sexism

[jerryster]

I am posting these articles not as an endorsement of hillary, but because I found them both poignant. both are from the Chicago Tribune, 1/27/08. 2nd article in separate thread.

Sexism is dealing Clinton a bad hand

By Jessica Reaves | Tribune staff reporter
January 27, 2008

A few months ago, a colleague posed this question: "Let's say the Democratic race comes down to Obama and Clinton. Who do you think could win?"

"Obama," I answered, without hesitating. "Definitely."

My co-worker, who happens to be a black man, looked at me as if I were crazy. And then he told me I was crazy. "You think this country would elect a black man before a white woman?"

After Obama's victory in Iowa, the same colleague came back.

"When I'm wrong," he said, shaking his head, "I'm wrong."

He was surprised, he told me, not by Barack Obama's ascendancy, but by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. I wasn't surprised at all, I told him. But I was royally ticked off.

From Day 1 of this seemingly endless election cycle, it has been clear that the media don't have any idea how to handle Clinton. She was first lady for eight years, so it's not as if we haven't seen her before. It's just that we've never seen her like this: a candidate on her own terms, the equal of any man, with a real shot at the presidency.

And so we did what we've always done to women who overstep their bounds: We picked her apart, piece by piece, ignoring the substance and pouncing on the superficial. We sniped about her hair, her laugh, her pantsuits, her voice (which Chris Matthews, MSNBC's resident blowhard, likened to "nails on a blackboard").

In other words, we resorted to every cheap trick in the book. And virtually no one called us on it. Gloria Steinem wrote a blistering Op-Ed on the subject for The New York Times. And several women's groups demanded apologies from Matthews for his numerous idiotic comments. But for the most part, the onslaught has gone unchecked, because women have remained largely silent.

Which is weird, when you consider that we Americans love finding commonalities with our politicians.

Part of this means we want a juicy, identifiable, personal story from our candidates (just make sure it's not too juicy). Have you conquered an addiction? Risen from poverty? Congratulations! We want to hear all about it (as long as it doesn't involve sex).

We want to applaud our politicians, but we also love to commiserate with them. Our current president, for example, was a decidedly mediocre student who drank too much and probably dabbled in some very illegal drugs. Then he got married, became a father and found Jesus. His life is the classic, universally appealing redemption story, and his admitted weaknesses make him, despite his wealth and privilege, more accessible --identifiable -- to anyone who has ever screwed up.

Following this line of logic (as it were), John McCain becomes the shoo-in for the veterans' vote, Mitt Romney wins over anyone who has ever been accused of either being in a cult or overusing hair product, and Mike Huckabee has the support of all the country's jolly, Chuck Norris-obsessed homophobes.

Meanwhile, across the aisle, identity politics have proven kinder to Obama than to Clinton. Black voters, invigorated by his surprise win in Iowa and his strong showing in New Hampshire, have rallied to Obama's side. National polls show 60 percent of black voters prefer him, while 30 percent favor Clinton.

Women simply aren't showing Clinton the same kind of love. Women older than 45 (regardless of race) feel conflicted about Clinton's candidacy; they say they want to support her because she's a woman, and they appreciate firsthand the challenges she has faced, but they're not totally sold. Some cite Bill fatigue, or say they worry that less forward-thinking countries won't respect a woman president. And sometimes you can hear resentment in their voices: Why am I expected to support a woman candidate just because she's a woman?

Here's the thing: You're not. But you are expected not to dismiss her outright because you think you know her. Whatever Clinton was as first lady is a far cry from what she has proven herself to be -- good and otherwise -- as a U.S. senator and attorney.

Let's go back to those comments -- about Clinton's hair, voice, wardrobe -- and imagine if the tone had been racist rather than sexist, and they had been directed at Obama. I have enough faith in this country to believe that the outcry would have been loud and swift.

Any outcry from Clinton, or on her behalf, regarding the persistently sexist tone of so-called political commentary, has been brushed aside, dismissed as political correctness run amok, or as the whining of feminists (the second-dirtiest word in American politics, just behind "liberal").

And that leaves us with a lot of questions and no answers: Is Clinton taking it on the chin from the media because she's a Clinton, or because she's a woman? Does Obama owe what's been a relatively smooth ride to his considerable political acumen or to the fact that he's a man? Should we consider the possibility that his opponents (and the media) tread lightly in his presence because they fear charges of racism -- far more than charges of sexism?

Unless John Edwards pulls out an upset of epic proportions, Democrats will put forward a historic candidate in November. And it may be that Clinton will be that candidate, having successfully quieted the pervasive, insidious sexism we have allowed to overwhelm our cultural vocabulary. But it seems more likely that the country will celebrate another, equally inspiring milestone, while conceding a point to Gloria Steinem and Shirley Chisholm: In politics, gender remains a more profound obstacle than race.

[ursi]

1. Things might have been different for Hillary if she lost Bill

[Captain Hilts]

4. All those pro-family people would be criticizing her for that too. nt

[aquart]

2. Have you noticed that also applies to the treatment of her husband?

I realized it last night. Bill has taken the wife's role and is also being treated as someone who has violated every social decorum. How dare he not behave as a standard ex-president. When he gives the spouse's stump speech, it offends one and all...but not when Michele Obama does it. Or Elizabeth Edwards.

People are as profoundly uncomfortable with Bill in the "woman's" role as they are with Hillary in the "man's" role. The venomous irrational hatred I have seen directed at them is astonishing.

Obama's solution has been to pretend he's running against the couple, and not Hillary. Which I find deeply and profoundly insulting. Yet which his supporters have accepted without question. They now refer to "The Clintons" and not "Hillary." Yet, in its intent, it's the sexist equivalent of "nigger."

[jerryster]

5. Interesting point

I hadn't thought of that. Now that you mention it, you make a very astute observation. Thanks for the reply and the insight.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Women have never voted as a bloc. nt

[jerryster]

6. True n/t