So let me guess, we should just chalk this one up to another example of a free-market economy, capitalism, and free speech, right?
Seriously though, I don't think we live in a world (as sad as it makes me) where we can actually argue that people don't hate Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I'd truly love to believe that people hate Hillary Clinton for her politics, but considering that individuals are actually making and selling urinal targets with her face on them, I have to say that her gender is a large part of why she is so hated. And this is a hatred that, as Harrogate has correctly pointed out many, many times, is irrational and unexplained--but then isn't that the basis of sexism and misogyny? What irritates me the most about this is not that the urinal targets exist, but that no one (save Melissa McEwan, Harrogate, myself, and some others) are talking about it. What pisses me off is that if someone were selling an image of Barack Obama dressed up like Uncle Tom everyone in the country would be up in arms--and you can bet that the MSNBC reporter who commented how funny such an image is would get fired (and I would say, should such a thing ever happen, rightfully so). And what really pisses me off is the Clinton campaign's refusal to address such misogynist images. As Harrogate and I discussed yesterday, Hillary Clinton needs to respond to this irrational, unexplainable hatred that people fear for her if only to address the irrational, unexplainable hatred that many Americans feel for all women in positions of power.
14 comments:
That's horrific and disgusting.
I think it's too easy and simplified, though, to say that it's a woman in power thing in and of itself. To me, this has less to do with the fact that Clinton's a woman per se, and more to do with the fact that she's not the type of woman that this country likes to like.
Don't get me wrong, that's irrational and misogynistic, too, but to claim that it's about all women all the time somehow does a disservice, to me, to the argument. This is a really complicated, gray-area kind of issue that has everything to do with gender, but the focus seems to be more on gender and personality type than gender on its own. Personally, I love Hillary's tough persona, but there's something about it that makes people nutty. Maybe she's too hawkish, maybe she's too power hungry. Probably, its a combination of lots of things.
Harrogate would like to look at these two parts of your response, megs, and ask brief questions in relation to them.
1)[S]he's not the type of woman this country likes to like." What type of woman does the country like to like?
and then
2)"Maybe she's too hawkish, maybe she's too power hungry." Harrogate assumes you speak of foreign policy when you say "hawkish." So lots of Demos voted for Iraq, do all of them make "people" nuts for that reason, or is it just her? If just her, why?
As for your statement that "maybe she's too power hungry," hmmmm. That's the money right there. Harrogate asks, is she more "power hungry" than say, John Kerry or George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama or any other we could name who has aspire, or aspires to the Presidency?
Do you think there is anything, in short--anything a'tall--to substantiate the wide perception that Hillary Clinton is uniquely power hungry?
If your answer to this last question is no, then a can of worms, as they say, opens before you.
It's interesting, Harrogate, that, when I criticized our country's "irrational and misogynistic" opinion about Clinton as a woman, you attributed the very attitudes I was criticizing to me.
I'm certainly not condoning this form of misogyny. I'm just saying it's more complicated than we might think and it needs to be addressed in all of it's complexities. Sweeping blanket statements about women in power just don't do the trick--for me, at least--in justifying this very particular response to Hillary Clinton.
I seem to need to reiterate that I actually like Clinton, both as a candidate and, I think (without knowing her personally), as a person. I appreciate her strong stances, even when I don't agree with them. She isn't the candidate that I voted for in the primary, but I think she would make a very good president.
Why, on this blog, does it seem so impossible to remain in between the extremes? I'll continue to try to do so, even when the powers that be try to place me at either end!
Now, I'll answer the questions, to the best of my ability:
1. I think our country likes to like a very conciliatory type of woman, one who gets the job done without seeming to do so. A big part of my dissertation looks at the pressures that sort of typecasting puts on women in this country. I DON'T think that this is ethically right, but I DO think it's the way it is.
2. When I used the term "hawkish," I was referring to her war votes. "People" (and your quoting of that makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable, like I said "my friend" and you're convinced it means me) do, indeed, seem to pick on her more than others for this. Again, I'd say it's because she's a woman, but even more so because she's a particular type of woman who doesn't back down or justify. The kind that really is admirable, but not likable to those who subscribe (as I do not) to a specific set of gender roles. There are other hawkish WOMEN in the party and they don't get this kind of criticism, either. Maybe that's because they're not running for president, but I think it's more complicated than that. She was criticized for this before her bid for the presidency began.
Finally, no, I do not think there is anything to substantiate the claims that Clinton is any more power hungry than any other candidate, past or present. But, alas, there it is, in the public perception.
And we're not talking about my opinion, here, right? We're talking about the public opinion, which is what I was criticizing to begin with.
To illustrate the difference, I'd say look at Nancy Pelosi's press coverage and the general public perception about her. Her votes are fairly similar to Clinton's and she, too, earned a position at the top of her field. Republicans criticize Pelosi rabidly, but Dems tend to like her and her public persona doesn't receive much criticism at all. So there's something about Hillary Clinton, in particular, that incited this hatred.
I'm not saying it's not a woman thing, but it's certainly not an everywoman thing.
I might as well comment on this...
I think that, first, you should not include free speech with a discussion of the economy. The virtues and vices of "freedom of speech" are vastly different than the virtues and vices of a free market economy. You may disagree with the symbol or the vulgarity of the image, but not everyone will. It is best to have an absolute approach to freedom of speech to allow people to determine for themselves what is good and what is bad. As dangerous as it may be, it would be much worse to allow some people to make this determination for other people, especially when it comes to tastes...
And M, in a comment on another post, you stated that we all know what misogyny is and we should know it when we see it. To make a controversial topic self-evident glosses over the nuances with messages and removes the audience's agency from the interpretive act.
As for the misogyny in the campaign, here are a few thoughts. 1) Hillary does not want to look weak when complaining about attacks. In the research on political attacks, there are times when candidates do not respond because if validates those attacks and that the candidate can appear weak complaining about unfair treatment. This argument has nothing to do with gender.
2) There are times when Senator Clinton relies on these attacks to gain votes. I say this in two ways: when a candidate receives unfair treatment, sometimes people switch their vote to support their candidate, as Harrogate suggests. Next, Senator Clinton makes argument based on gender and uses gender-based arguments to gain votes. The attacks based on gender will get her votes from people sympathetic to those views.
3) The claim that dislike for her is "irrational and unexplained," as Harrogate "correctly" points out, attempts to foreclose debate on why people do not like her. It makes your argument seem that if people don't like her it is only because of her gender. By taking the extreme example as being representative of all the "hate" for her, as you do in this post, you make all opposition to her unreasonable, adopting the strategy of those who endorse the urinal, i.e. "hate Hillary."
People have disagreements, this is quite common. But to make all opposition to your point as being "blind" to the treatment of Clinton will not the debate over the extent of sexism in the primary.
"A big part of my dissertation looks at the pressures that sort of typecasting puts on women in this country."
Kudos, megsg-h, for having a big part. My dissertation still only consists of small parts.
Oxymoron: As they say in the theater, "there are no small parts."
Megs:
Your middle-ground position has come through for Harrogate, and likely for everyone following this blog. The one thing Harrogate most wanted cleared up was your use of the term "power hungry", because the way your sentence is constucted, it isn't clear whether you're stating, this is how she is percieved, or this is how she actually is.
And Harrogate deeply hopes that his own middle-ground status, and more importantly his respect for those with whom he has been sparring on this group blog, is not being too undersold here, all Rhetorical fireworks notwithstanding.
Should Barck Obama take the nomination you will see Harrogate use the awesome power of this blog to his utmost to sing the virtues of voting Obama. And this action will not be solely out of contempt for the GOP, though Harrogate's conviction on that note, as well as his untroubled belief that the Democrats are much better, is of course quite palpable.
Harrogate's preference is no more of a secret than yours, but like you, he has tried consistently to communicate his admiration for his second choice at this point. His criticism, moreover--from its most sincere to its most exaggerated-- has always been much more about Obama's political style than about his message, and aimed especially at the take-my-ball-and-go-home Rhetoric of Obama's most zealous supporters.
Solon, you write:
"By taking the extreme example as being representative of all the "hate" for her, as you do in this post, you make all opposition to her unreasonable, adopting the strategy of those who endorse the urinal, i.e. "hate Hillary.""
If you are interested in more than simply denying and deflating, then Harrogate invites you to follow the link Harrogate provided in the "Cha-Ching" thread, to McEwan's site. It's pretty damned silly to suggest that M's example is extreme to the point that it doesn't exemplify a pattern, and an irrational one at that.
And again, we are cultural critics. Who on this blog ever said anything about banning the urinals? We have every right, as well as a duty if we are to take ourselves seriously as cultural critics, to excoriate such things, to seek to marginalize, through argument, those who trade in them.
I never said that people should not be allowed to create and/or sell these sorts of things. I was merely offering an example of the misogyny that is being displayed in the current campaign. Furthermore, I do agree with Megs that misogyny and the hatred for Hillary Clinton is much more complex than I've alluded to in my post. That said, I also stand by my point that in a lot of cases people feel an irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton and I would say for a lot of women in power. It seems to me that what Megs is talking about is what I call the "bitch phenomenon." Consider the way men and women in the business world are perceived. If a man is demanding, difficult to please, impossible to work with, but still successful he is called, well, a man. If a woman is equally demanding, difficult to please, impossible to work with, but still successful she is called a bitch. As Megs rightly points out Americans tend to prefer women who while strong don't overtly step on peoples toes. It goes to the old axiom "kill them with kindness," which I would argue is an axiom that Nancy Pelosi lives up to. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a tell it like it is sort of a woman. She doesn't pull any punches, and she often doesn't take the time to paint a pretty picture before she offers her opinion. That is why she is disliked.
But, and I will stand by this because I know too many people (not just men, ironically enough, there are people who hate her just because she is a woman who has overstepped her boundaries (which is part of the focus of my dissertation). I think a lot of the hatred can be traced back to when Bill Clinton took office and gave Hillary Clinton the task of reforming health care. Not only did the First Lady have an actual political role, but for the first time in history her offices were in the West Wing of the White House rather than the East Wing. She is seen as power hungry, and she (as are many, many other women) is judged for it in a way that men are not. After all, couldn't we say that anyone, male or female, running for president is power hungry?
M, you raise a really good point that it's not just men that dislike Hillary. I find it really interesting that there are so many women in that camp. I know more than one that doesn't like her because she's "bitchy." Do women really still buy into the roles that much? I shouldn't be surprised, but I continually am.
M.-
I think that your comments of about Hillary having an office in the West Wing and responsible for health care are quite problematic. As someone who studies issues of representation, the law, and political institutions (I had to throw this in here since everyone else did), Hillary's role during Bill's first term is quite problematic.
Hillary want to transform the role of the first lady. The means by which she choose to do this was through health care. Here is why this is a problem:
1) Constitutionally speaking, there is no role for the first person.
2) Elected officials face some form of accountability test. Judges, Presidents, and VPs can be impeached. Reps and Senators can be censured or voted out of office. In her role, Hillary had no check on her power. This is bad when anyone gets in this position-- what could the public demand that Bill get a divorce? (I am not joking here.)
3)Bill was irresponsible for appointing her to run this task. This form of domestic policy needs to begin with Congress, those who make the law, and not the executive, the branch that enforces the law. We have problems when the judiciary "makes law." When the President does, it is just as problematic. Further, I believe this "appointment" undermined her credibility, diminishing the ability and desire for Congress to work with her. it could be easily argued that she was doing their job.
4) The perception of her work is that is was carried out through back-room deals. A lack of transparency by any branch of government is bad. Imagine if the Supreme Court rendered decisions without opinion... The same applies when Cheney met with Energy Execs behind closed doors.
Hillary Clinton attempted this when she tried to reorganize health care for the country. This is not wise. At least through Congress, there would be some transparency.
So, in conclusion as my students would say, there were many problems with her having a political role and attempting to reform health care. This is not something she should have done and the Clintons really botched this.
Solon,
Once again you misread me. Reread my comment. At no point did I say it was a good thing that Bill Clinton gave his wife such a vocal political voice in his administration. I said that is where I think you can trace a lot of the hatred of her back to. At no point did I express an opinion about that role.
I was not attempting to misread you. If you feel that way, I apologize.
I attempted to point out there may be good reasons as to why people dislike her, especially from an institutional stand point. These reasons have nothing to do with gender. In fact, my post was to move the topic off of gender for a second.
Post a Comment