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

advertisement

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

[CoachDWhip]

It's not about sexism, at least with me it's not.

It is about the continuation of politics of fear, hate and lying. It is about a poorly run campaign that panders and plays to demograhic groups that seperate the electorate and polarize many.

Hillary started with every possible advantage and blew her lead. Once behind, she went negative in her tactics and polarized the electorate. She has pandered to those who do not understand the long term consequences with a gas tax cut propoal. She has, and continues to lie about winning the primaries (big states, most votes, never counting caucus states in total) . She has flip-flopped on positiions (not counting FL/MI prior to voting, then wanting them counted even though she signed an agreement not to) and caused hysteria among voters over them.

This has nothing to do with her sex. It has everything to do with her principals. The fact that even one voter would refuse to support Obama because they feel Hillary has been mistreated is proof of what she has been doing. The fact that millions affirm this position is proof of how terribly devisive and selfish her campaign has been.

[BlueOnBlue]

OK, there's sexism in the world. But Hillary Clinton has lost this race among the least sexist portion of our society - Democrats. Want to argue that Republicans are less sexist? Go ahead. I dare you.

Clinton lost to a better candidate, who ran a better race.

The facts are against her and the rules are against her. All she can do now is pound on the table and complain that it hasn't been fair.

[disgustedbyitall]

Good point. I don't see who Senator Clinton is trying to convince when she accuses the left of being sexist simply because they don't support her. Seems to me she was Obama's chief contributor in the delegate count.

[rbdc]

So much heat in these comments that I'm sorely tempted to get out of the kitchen -- instead I think I'll just move to the kitchen doorframe and comment from there. There is sexism and racism in America, so, of course, there will be same exposed in a national campaign. What I find interesting and hopeful is what group has become the staunchest HRC supporter -- working class men and women, a demographic that I'd bet dollars to donuts didn't give her much credit back in 1992 when Bill first ran and she made her "stay home and bake cookies" comment. Certainly, a lot of that is attributable to a change in her persona, but nonetheless, this is a good thing -- if working class people (I don't discount my own biases here, but it's my impression that culturally they would be the most resistant to a female President) can in good measure support HRC, and since to me it's not hard to envision the Obama supporter demographics going for a woman, this will likely happen someday soon -- probably in my lifetime, and definitely in the lifetime of my two teenage daughters.

It's my perception and recollection that HRC was not a favorite among the working class men and women in 1992, but I'm wondering if anyone out there has any hard facts about a shift in their perception of her.

[Veeve]

"...and since to me it's not hard to envision the Obama supporter demographics going for a woman, this will likely happen someday soon -- probably in my lifetime, and definitely in the lifetime of my two teenage daughters.­.."

I totally agree with you. In fact, I can almost guarantee that a woman will be the Democratic nminee for president within the next 12-16 years.

[Hoelder]

I hate to be drawn into a sexist debate as a tool to make Senator Clinton into a president. The implication of if you do not vote for her you are against women. The problem is that she is not showing to me to be democratic and fight on sacrificing changes to return the White House to a President who actually is educated and a champion of the people. Her slash and burn attitude is quite appalling. She has an appearance problems. The facts are against her as a person and politician. Making that into male supremacy issue, misses the point and does not help if she became president the mending of the sexist charge might be to hard to do. In the end the question: is she a viable solution might harm a future female candidate more than if she stepped back.

[dartagnan]

There is a difference between determination and pigheaded stubbornness. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to understand that, and neither do many of her supporters. This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with personality and character.

[LionEater]

This is a presidential contest. Time to stop whining. How many times have you heard Obama whine about all those racists in Appalachia that won't vote for him?

[Bibbo]

Great point. BTW its never been the gender thing thats been the problem its the person she is...eliti­st,selfish­,greedy and vindictive. All the while stutting and posing herself as a "giver" anr railing about the "obscene profits" of th e drug co. and the oil co....what about Her obscene profits ?110,000,000 dollars in the last couple yrs. Please just go away.

[BMSstudy]

How do you tell the people from Appalachia that didn't vote for BO because they liked another person versus those that didn't vote for him because he is not 100% white?

[LionEater]

exit polls. 20% in WV ADMITTED his race was a problem. If that many admit it, you can estimate that its more like 50-60%.

[cog1000]

I do think Rachel Sklar is right about one thing. In Sen. Clinton's case, the "expression" of dislike of her often was sexist. But I think that could also be said of Sen. Obama. The "expression" of dislike in his case often took the form of racism (although I admit it was sometimes more subtle). I'm not sure that means much except that this was once again often all about identity politics. And that this country is still racist and sexist, no big news there.

[studio2054]

Dislike of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her sex. She ran a nasty campaign that turned many people off, men and women alike.

People like you, who were determined that Clinton be president because of her sex are now crying "sexism," when in fact your obsession with gender is inherently sexist and a bane to real feminism.

[csepwede]

As a black woman, I took a lot of offense to the Gloria Steinems of the world, who write op/eds saying things like since black men got the right to vote before women, sexism trumps racism.

give me a break... she never heard of Jim Crow or segregation, which just ended in the LATE 1960s????

My father couldn't get the jobs he wanted because he was black, and that was in the 1960s.

PLEASE!!!

The biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women.

[DennyCrane]

Here are my reasons for not supporting Hillary:

- She voted for the war without reading the NIE report first.
- She lies about her experience. e.g. her trip to Bosnia
- She surrounds herself with incompetent people, hardly a good indicator of someone who's ready to lead on day one.
- She talks tough like Bush, e.g. obliterating Iran.
- She takes advantage of racist sentiment instead of being a true leader and condemning it.

Now tell me where is the sexism in those statements.

I don't deny that there's sexism out there directed at Hillary and that a lot of the media are part of the problem, but I think Hillary supporters are quick to accuse her critics of sexism instead of taking a good, long hard look at their candidate.

[Abo]

Clinton is a dispiccable human being. That she happens to be a woman only serves--when the gender issue is pushed as cover, to make women feel ashamed and resentful of their gender exploitation by Clinton. As a woman, I despise Clinton--and just watching her makes me whince.

[csepwede]

People aren't rejecting Hillary because she's a woman. They're rejecting her because she's Hillary Clinton.

[cog1000]

Of course there was a lot of sexism and racism in this race. We had a female and a black candidate. No avoiding either. The point is that Sen. Clinton's supporters are constantly saying that we are ignoring the sexism or discounting how much that mattered in this race. It sure matters a lot to Sen. Clinton's supporters. To Obama's supporters racism seems more prevalent. IT'S NOT A CONTEST. Just once it would be nice if both sides would agree that SOME PEOPLE may have supported or not supported a candidate FOR OTHER REASONS. Did sexism and racism have a role in these campaigns? YES. Am I sexist automatically for preferring Sen. Obama? NO.

This is really getting old because there is no answer to this problem. It's not black and white, no matter how many times a Sen. Clinton supporter tries to make it so.

YES SEXISM IS A BAD THING. No Obama supporters would disagree. But you ARE NOT really discussing it. You are simply accusing one side of ignoring it. I have yet to see a thoughtful, nuanced discussion of race and gender in this nomination process. And I'm sure I won't until it's long over. Identity politics is SO much a part of this race that no one has any perspective. And I include myself in that.

But pls stop accusing. It's pointless.

[cog1000]

Actually I sound pretty accusing myself, so I apologize for that. I wish we could have a real conversation about this. It just would be nice to hear some analysis of Sen. Clinton's merits from well-known feminists that doesn't immediately begin and end with sexism. Other issues are out there as well.

[WoodyCPM]

Perhaps its because I don't watch television. I get all my news from the Internets. But I just don't get what these women are talking about. Have there been some expressions of sexism? Some, I would agree, but these articles go on and on about it as if every thing written critical of Hillary Clinton was forthrightly, intentionally and unfailingly an attack on her gender. That is just purely ridiculous. In the same way that one can criticize Israel and not be an anti-Semite, it is entirely possible to criticize Hillary Clinton, even to discuss the role that her gender has played in this campaign, and not be a sexist. This constant accusation of sexism directed at those who disagree with Clinton's Senatorial votes, or the way she ran her campaign or how she spoke about Obama or why she won't give it up when she clearly can not win, is just so much BS.

[cog1000]

Well, if you tune into Chris Matthews or Fox news it's pretty heavily sexist. But to be fair, they have (I think) attempted to tone it down. Problem being that a lot of these men have a generational problem that they don't even realize what they are saying is sexist until explained to them. May father was like that. Never thought he was sexist. But in writing recommendation letters for men he would say, "bright, ambitious, creative"; for women he would say, "bright, friendly, attractive, creative." Very weird to witness. When I pointed it out to him, he was mystified that I would find it not ok to use attractive and friendly in one letter but never in the other.
Sort of a digression. But a lot of the problem is different people have SUCH different perceptions of the same statement. So a discussion IS important. I just don't think it's possible in the midst of a heated race between a female and male candidate (leaving out of the picture the whole other spectrum of racism).

[cog1000]

And before I get slammed. I am NOT defending sexism from men. Just saying they can be pretty blind. Not all of it is purely hostile.

[RobBob]

I thought Cocco's article was silly. She pointed out lots of ugly incidents that happened, implying that Hillary was beset on all sides by blatant, unrepentant sexism throughout the campaign. First off, most of the incidents were so small and isolated that hardly anyone had ever heard of them (ball-busting nutcrackers?) Beyond that, any time someone in the media ever said anything that could be remotely interpreted as sexist they were immediately chastised by the media as a whole. It's not as if people said that kind of crap and didn't expect a huge negative reaction.

What I really object to is the underlying notion that Clinton lost the nomination because of that sexism, because she had to overcome incredible odds that her opponents didn't face: if it wasn't for that prejudice, she would have had it in the bag. This is absurd, because the one guy who didn't have that sort of "historical baggage", and also had the media considering him a true contender (Edwards) was out of the contest before Super Tuesday. And Obama, ..., well, if you think that he's not had to overcome some extraordinary prejudices in the last year, then you haven't been paying attention.

Bottom line is that Obama and Clinton both had lots of obstacles to climb. Obama was just better at it than Clinton.

[kohoutek]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the "gender-based hate". Lots of posters have submitted good rebuttals. For my part, I think of my daughter. A very strong-willed 12-year-old who obviously doesn't know much of anything about the "Clintons," she found herself relating to Obama and not Hillary. And this is a girl who loves movies where "women kick ass." I actually agonized over whether to support HRC instead of Obama after Edwards dropped out because I was concerned over what message I might be sending my daughter. She solved that dilemma for me.

Hillary's problem is Hillary. At a time when we have more women than ever in leading political positions, the idea of rampant sexism somehow being a real feature of this campaign's dynamic is DOA. Is there sexism? Sure. Racism? You bet. What is happening to HRC is what many, including I, predicted early on. She's polarizing. Love her, hate her...It's about her, not her gender.

The "Shame on you..." bit wasn't odious because HRC sounded like a scolding mom. It was odious because it was a perfect example of opportunistic, say-anything BS.