Hillary Hate: Making Sexism Acceptable

Two great op-eds in the Washington Post yesterday, on the presumptive Hillary Clinton post-mortem: Misogyny I Won't Miss by Marie Cocco and Belittled Woman by Libby Copeland. Both women make the point that dislike and opposition of Hillary Clinton has been expressed in a multitude of sexist ways, sometimes shockingly so. Is it Hillary? Is it sexism? And why are people so stubbornly resistant to allowing that sexism might have been part of this campaign? (By "people" I mean those who insist that there are plenty of reasons to hate Hillary Clinton that have nothing to do with being a woman, and that there are plenty of reasons she (presumptively) lost the nomination that have nothing to do with that, either. (See a collection of them here.) My response is usually that while there are definitely legitimate reasons to dislike/disagree with Clinton, the expression of that dislike is what has so often taken sexist form). For those of you who still doubt, see what Copeland and Cocco have to say about it.

First Copeland:

There is something about that woman -- that woman! -- that refuses to bend, and something about a large portion of this country that despises her for it. The person who once conjured a vast right-wing conspiracy now refuses to exit a race she's almost surely lost, and it Drives. People. Crazy.

"Poor Hillary" is their response, an attempt at death by condescension. "Poor Hillary" means Clinton finally is being brought low (she is forever being brought low, isn't she?), the know-everything who tries so hard but never gets enough votes to be class president.

..."Poor Hillary" speaks volumes about an old truth: Clinton's wounds have always defined her. The haters are always on the lookout for her comeuppance, and the lovers love her more for what she has endured. The women who turn out to see Clinton holler for her to stick it out, tell her they like her grit

Copeland concludes by wondering: "Is it about her womanhood? Or is it about this woman? Is that a false distinction?" Cocco, for her part, thinks it's something that's being wondered far too late in this campaign, and by far too few people.

Cocco reels off a list of things she won't miss once Hillary is gone: Hillary nutcrackers (with stainless steel thighs!), "Bros Before Hos" shirts, comparisons to crazy bunny boiling stalkers, anti-Hillary groups with vulgar acronyms, comparisons to first wives and scolding mothers, whores and bitches. Says Cocco:

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Story continues below

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Two smart op-eds from two perceptive women. I hope someone forwards them to Maureen Dowd.

Marie Coco: Misogyny I Won't Miss [WaPo]
Libby Copeland: Belittled Woman [WaPo]

Related:
Rebecca Traister: "No one is making nutcracker icons of McCain or Obama" [Salon]

Comments

[ObamaEdwards]

Sklar, you and Erica Jong are taking Clinton's campaign way too personally and emotionally. She's a bad candidate, and she's a woman. Get over it.

[KingwoodMom]

My feeling is that when sexism rears its head, it should be addressed specifically and called out but not used as a weapon or a threat or a driving force of a entire campain. Ironically, Obama's success has been the fact that he dealt with racism in the exact opposite way that Hillary delat with sexism. Some of his supporters haven't always been as restrained but Obama himself never came out saying "shame on you" to the dozens of folks in news reports that said they would never vote for him because he is a muslim or a black man. He gave a speech on race. Why didn't Hillary give a speech on gender? I would have welcomed it. I would like to understand better the struggles of the past and where she sees us moving forward. But instead, it seems to me she was quite satisfied using sexism as a wedge rather than an issue.

[KingwoodMom]

It is truly sad. As a woman, I started off supporting her, but a "person" of my generation, that does not hold all the scars and did not participate in the battles of women of her generation (which I am greatful for), I simply cannot support a "person" such as Hillary that brings with her such a divisive and negative and combative and exclusionary tone. Even if you love her, you cannot deny that her management style needs work - her campain problems are proof of that.
Moreover, while many of the criticisms launched against her have been sexist and despicable in nature ( the "iron my shirt" posters from NH made me sick), Hillary complaining of the sexism was never specifically geared at the prepetrators but rather she and her campain would point to an institionalized sort of sexism by the media or the boys club or whatever...that is the problem and where she went wrong. I do not feel that sexism today is institunionalized, although it exists in many circles and should be examined. But there is a difference - a crucial one in how you perceive the reality that is sexism today. Hillary's asssertion of victimhood and her very representation of all of her supporters of her generation that view themselves as "having been cheated" is exactly what turned off younger women.

[KingwoodMom]

One's perception of oneself affects one's decisions and ultimately one's reality. Hillary has always perceived herself as a victim and thus she behaves as one. Her fighting on relentlessly is fueled by her own perception of people being against her and that in turn drives people who could have supported her to be turned off by her. The proof is that her high negatives have not moved one bit in over 1 year and a half of campaining. She is stuck, she cannot re-invent herself or change her ways. If she were a man, I would feel the same way.

[NABNYC]

I hate seeing the issues of feminism and sexism completely wrapped up with the life of Hillary Clinton, who is not a feminist and has done nothing to help other women.

It is, in fact, sexist to evaluate Hillary Clinton based upon sexism in our society because such evaluation assumes gender is the basis to the problem. It may be a small part, but I don't think it's the center. People dislike Hillary Clinton for lots of reasons, but the people who dislike her because of her gender represent a small group. And not sufficiently influential to have thrown the election to Obama.

There is a fallacy at work here. Let's say she was tall. Could a post-mortem focused on "heightism" clarify the voters' decisions? Or would that apply to such a small group that it doesn't matter.

Hillary Clinton comes across as arrogant, condescending, full or herself, cloaked in a self-selected auro of inevitability. People have always liked her husband, but not so much her. She's not likeable. She's smart, she's political. But she's not likeable. Do we need any further analysis?

I wish Hillary Clinton would be a feminist and would devote her energies to dealing with real sexism: the kind that keeps women locked as slaves into violent relationships, that keeps women on the low end of the earning scale, that denies women housing, healthcare, and safety. I wish, but I won't be holding my breath.

[JonathanDS2U]

Clinton provokes outrage when she says the Florida primary should now count. Floridians were told in advance the primary would not count. How on Earth can the vote be thought of as fair under those circumstances?

One can respectfully disagree with a candidate on any number of issues, but there are some positions that are nothing less than outrageous. And if Clinton is capable of so blatantly provoking outrage in a reasonable person on this issue, it likely speaks to her character, implying a tendency not to know fundamental prerequisites for being regarded as a reasonable person. Overall, she injurs the cause of those fighting sexism by carrying their banner.

[Sneakerface]

Well said. How can someone run for President when she doesn't even believe in democracy? To suggest that an illegitimate election that didn't count should suddenly count is not only undemocratic, but un-American.

[skahimself]

I'll say it loud and proud:

I won't vote for a woman.

I won't vote for a woman who stands by silently while her husband cheats on her. I won't vote for a woman who parleys her husband's political career into one of her own. I won't vote for a woman whose only quantifiable quality is her spouse. I won't vote for a woman who decries the "sexism" of the other campaign while employing and allowing racism to persist against her opponent.

I won't vote for THAT woman.

On the other hand, I won't vote for the man who left his wife for the blonde beer heiress. I won't vote for the man who opposes a woman's right to choose. I won't vote for a man who calls his wife a cunt.

I won't vote for THAT man.

If this means I am a sexist, then so be it.

[Sneakerface]

I won't (and didn't ) vote for Hillary in part because of her lack of integrity, but I disagree with most of your reasons, skahimself.
President Clinton's adultery is not relevant to the campaign and does not reflect her leadership skills. It is a private issue. I don't agree that President Clinton is Sen. Clinton's "only quantifiable quality." Her record as a US Senator, albeit short, as well as her record as a lawyer, are certainly quantifiable. Also, I don't recall Sen. Clinton decrying sexism of her opponent - I think you mistake her supporters (and perhaps her campaign members) statements for Sen. Clinton's statements.

[CJGibson]

"Sure, there are legitimate reasons not to like Hillary Clinton -- it's the expression of that dislike that has so often taken sexist form."

You mean like that whole "not voting for her" thing? Yeah, what a sexist expression of dislike.

[frustratedinohio]

No, I think she means the constant barage of hateful comments, like the ones here. Sure, it's sexism, but there is a psychology behind it. Something is driving it. Is it female rivalry, the Hillary is a mirror thing. Hard to tell just yet, but it will be studied and written about and these comments will be so helpful.

[bigbingtheory]

Well give us an example of a sexist comment then. Hillary's earned plenty of criticism that has nothing to do with gender. I think this author is merely hiding behind the accusation but has nothing to back up this charge.

[VicPerry]

I'd love to see the tally taken here on Huffington Post:

substantive complaints about Hillary's policies and actions
vs.
sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton and/or the idea of a woman president.

I predict the former will beat the latter ten to one.

[strifeknot]

Please point out even one sexist response posted here.

[Yodave]

I thought I hated Hillary for her amorality and racism. I don't usually generalize about groups of people, but Rachel Sklar and Marie Cocco have set me straight. I'm going to have to take a closer look at my wife, my mother, my sisters and my daughter. I thought Hillary was acting like this because she, personally, individually, is a lowlife. How blind I have been...

[MichaelDeane]

What I find interesting is the disconnect between the ideals and the actions of the Clinton supporters.

One assumes Clinton supporters reviled the political tactics of Atwater or Rove. Yet her supporters turned a blind eye to the type of campaign she ran.

Clinton invoked negative techniques from race baiting to questioning his competence and patriotism to guilt by association to accusations of drug use to gender issues to plagiarism as well as purposefully misrepresenting his positions.

Many Clinton supporters will NOT even acknowledge she has run this type of campaign. But she did. And this is why an ex-Edwards supporter (me) became an Obama supporter. Some HRC supporters even argue that Obama has played the race card, that he has been sexist and that he started the negative campaigning. What world do these people live in?

What allows one to check his or her own sense of integrity and ethics at the door in order to "win"? Clinton supporters argue it is just politics. It feeds the mythology of her toughness which I think they are confusing with her sense of entitlement.

This is an excuse to behave badly. How these otherwise forward thinking people allow themselves to be part of such distasteful practices is beyond me.

When the autopsy on her campaign is over, it will show that the candidate herself is mostly responsible for its failure. To plagiarize Ring Lardner, I'm not sure she and her supporters will like themselves in the morning.

[susiesorority]

Hmm..well, as an over 45 white woman, I don't like her, but it's got nothing to do w/sexism and everything to do with the problems in her presentation--of facts (the running from gunfire thing,) or of style (that awful gun/drinking thing,) and so on.
If you really wanted to make the case that it was sexism, you'd have to explain the popularity of women in government such as Janet Napolitano or Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in Chicago just to name two. I don't disagree that people will jump on a shrill, obnoxious woman quicker than they might on a shrill, obnoxious man--look at how long it took for Republicans to sour on Bush--but her problems went deeper than sex, and she of all women, was smart enough to know it would be a problem. And she didn't tweak her presentation to overcome it.

[bentenrai]

Soon enough a man in this country will be called a sexist just for going to the bathroom.

[tbone99]

Only if he leaves the seat up
LOL

[PhyllisBurke]

it's both of them on the same ticket, or we all lose

[strifeknot]

Absolutely not Hillary will repel more voters than she would attract. She's rightly hated by so many that she would doom the ticket. She stands for everything Obama claims he wants to change.

[JimR]

NO! No, no, no! Good God, can't you see what a horrible idea that is?

[bigbingtheory]

Hillary rallies Republicans ro vote against her more than Mc Cain can to vote for him.

[SpoxLogic]

Hilalry lost my vote not because she is a woman, but because she belittled Obama's accomplishments when he won Iowa and NC. Remember taht she didn't even congratulate him for his NC victory in her speech that night. That showed no class and then to have Bill followup and try to lump Obama victory in with what Jesse Jackson did, was also dismissive.

Then throw in her kitchen-sink approach after the first Super Tuesday, Feb 5, and her Rove-like tactics. It was jut too much.

HAD SEN CLINTON RUN HER CAMPAIGN WITHOUT THE KITCHEN SINK AND "ROVIAN" TACTICS, SHE'D BE THE NOMINEE AND THIS DISCUSSION WOULD BE MOOT.

[DDike88]

HRC supporters who are insistent on voting for McCain in November would be better served by organizing a Write-In campaign for HRC. Not only would that be voting for (instead of against) your interests, it would send a huge, huge message.

Other than that, sexists and racists are weak. But HRC's (pending) loss has much, much more to do with how her campaign was run that anything else. Once people begin to realize this, everything will fall into place.

[DDike88]

Crud, I hate typos... the 2nd to last line should read: "...how her campaign was run *than* anything else." thx.

[frustratedinohio]

Some people will be doing that. Others will stay home and others will vote for McCain. I personally will be voting for McCain because I want to see Obama defeated.