On Hillary's Femininity (And How She Misused It)

Hillary Clinton's campaign may come to an end this week. And, on the eve of a decisive primary, we can't help but wonder if she made a fatal mistake: downplaying her femininity.

No doubt Mrs. Clinton's womanhood has played a pivotal role in this campaign, but usually on other people's term. Conservative pundits have repeatedly assailed her as an ambitious she-beast. Rush Limbaugh often refers to Clinton in less-than-flattering, testicularly minded terms. Tucker Carlson called Mrs. Clinton "castrating," a proverbial fear for most American men. And the male of the species isn't alone in taking on the Senator.

Who could forget the infamous cleavage upheaval, when National Review online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez derided the Senator for revealing too much chest while on the job? Clinton's campaign seized on the moment, biting back at Lopez's irresponsible gender card. Advisor Ann Lewis bit back in a fundraising email, writing: "Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It's insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting." Too true.

No candidate's gender, race or religion should be used to derail their efforts. While it's unseemly for talking heads to use Clinton's gender against her, it may have been prudent for Clinton to have highlighted her feminine wiles -- or, at least, biology -- to her advantage.

Barack Obama hasn't explicitly used race during his campaign, but the historic weight of his race has very often been used to celebrate his landmark candidacy. The frenzy over Obama's groundbreaking ascension may have eclipsed the relevancy of Clinton's own impact. Here we have a woman -- a strong, smart and perfectly capable woman -- who has a tangible shot at the White House. Clinton's candidacy is just as historic as Obama's. Many people forget that, however, and Clinton doesn't work too hard to remind them. In fact, she often downplays her womanhood, as when she backed out of a Vogue photo shoot lest she appear too "feminine."

The snub led Vogue editor Anna Wintour to blast Clinton - and the media:

Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female presidential hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. How has our culture come to this? How is it that The Washington Post recoils from the slightest hint of cleavage on a senator? This is America, not Saudi Arabia... I do think Americans have moved on from the power-suit mentality, which served as a bridge for a generation of women to reach boardrooms filled with men. Political campaigns that do not recognize this are making a serious misjudgment.

She's talking to you, Hillary.

While we haven't heard every single one of Hillary's campaign speeches, we can't pinpoint any time the Senator -- or the media's coverage -- has highlighted the cultural importance of Clinton's candidacy. In fact, it wasn't until last week that we heard Clinton herself note the relevancy of her political trajectory.

The comment came as Clinton spoke with The News Hour's Judy Woodruff. Toward the end of their exchange, Woodruff asked Clinton, quite simply, "What would be different about having a female president?" Woodruff's inquiry isn't new, of course, but Clinton's frankness and candor are something worth discussing. Said Clinton:

Oh, I don't even think we can adequately imagine the difference it would make. It would be the shattering of the highest and hardest glass ceiling. And it would send such a message of hope and opportunity to every little girl, to every young woman.

That's probably the most common thing that people say to me out on the campaign trail. There's two things, actually. One is that, you know, people say, "Well, I'm here because of my daughter," or, you know, "My little girl just learned that we've never had a woman president and, you know, I want her to know she can do anything."

I mean, it would be a very deep change in how people see themselves and who is able to fulfill this position.

Jim Crow laws aside, women didn't get the right to vote until well after black men. Women continue to make less compared to their male counterparts and women face more physical abuse than men. Having a woman run for the White House, then, strikes at the heart of one of the States' most tenacious forms of discrimination: misogyny.

Clinton eschewed this point for too long in her campaign, however, thus depleting it of its power. Had Clinton highlighted her historic role -- rather than her work during her husband's administration -- she may have captured some of the revolutionary spirit sapped by Obama. She didn't, though, and racial divides came to dominate much of the primary season, making Clinton's candidacy seem like just another seasoned politician's presidential push, not a woman pushing against centuries of oppression.

This post first appeared on Queerty.

Comments

[MenForHillary]

Hi All:

Excuse my second post in just about as many minutes... but the quote "Barack Obama hasn't explicitly used race during his campaign" is really an overstatement.

Take a gander at www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/voices/0,16109,1660030,00.html -- On the Road with Barack Obama, by Gwen Ifill. I quote: Obama -- On how being the first Black president would change the racial dynamics in this country: "But the most dramatic chapter may still be unwritten. As president, obviously the day I am inaugurated, the racial dynamics in this country will change to some degree. If you've got Michelle as first lady, and Malia and Sasha running around on the South Lawn, that changes how America looks at itself. It changes how White children think about Black children, and it changes how Black children think about Black children."

Consistently, in both Obama's and Hillary's campaign, the overt language has been "Help us Make History." Absolutely everyone, but I guess, Mr. Belonsky, knows that those words are clear code for "elect the first black person" and "elect the first woman." Give me a break... just so much baloney from Belonsky.

[MenForHillary]

Hi Mr. Belonsky and All:

My response to your article is titled "On Andrew Belonsky's Asininity and How He Misused It." Now we are going to see a spate of these "blame the victim" articles (this one, even before Hillary's potential defeat).

Andrew would have us believe that "If only Hillary would have played the gender card more often, she would have trounced Obama by now." Uhhhh... what? Then, along come a bunch of responders here (countess, among them) that say "she played the gender card too much." Which is it folks, too little or too much?

Fact is, there is nothing that Hillary could have done with respect to sexism in America that she would NOT get criticized for -- in other words, you can't win that argument in America, because sexism is to pervasive to allow anyone to win on that argument. In other words, men are still significantly in control of the argument.

However, in my idealistic world, I would say Hillary played the gender card too little. I had hoped that Hillary WOULD girlcott the MSNBC debate and make a huge statement about sexism in this campaign cycle. Would that have been presidential? Maybe not. Would that have turned off more voters than it turned on? Maybe. But if you are kind of going down in flames anyway, might as well die for a good cause -- that's my motto.

Other people, and just about all the mainstream media played the sexist card way too much. All you have to do is look at the male voting gender gap, and you will find clear data that men overwhelmingly voted for Obama as opposed to Hillary. Maybe someone like ThatSharkeyGeezer (above) would say that "must be because women are dumber than men or duped more by gender than men." Hmmm... go for it GeezerBoy.

If you want to blame anybody, Mr. Baloney (I mean Belonsky), blame yourself for not stomping on sexism hard enough, yourself. Maybe if you would set an example for your male cohorts, you wouldn't have to blame the victim, because, then there wouldn't be a victim. Get it?

[steve1945]

Mrs clinton always seemed to be a man in a womans body.That may explain her "undestanding'' bills roving interests.

[ThatSharkeyGeezer]

"Here we have a woman -- a strong, smart and perfectly capable woman -- who has a tangible shot at the White House. Clinton's candidacy is just as historic as Obama's."

Two erroneous statements in two sentences.

If Clinton was really "strong, smart and perfectly capable" she wouldn't be fighting a rearguard action now to save her campaign, having blown a 28 point lead in less than a year, and a 12 point lead in less than a month. In fact, her shambolic campaign has shown her to be confused, self-contradictory, deluded and incompetent when it comes to building and managing a team to get her elected.

Second point, her candidacy has been a foregone conclusion since at least December 2004. As she constantly reminds us, she has already spent eight years in the White House. To say her candidacy is "just as historic as Obama's" is simply not true. It is only in terms of respective innate characteristics - his race and her gender - that she can compare her candidacy in historic terms. By any other standards, she is the establishment candidate who had the full might of the DNC behind her from the very beginning, and a former President for a husband and running mate. That at very least qualifies her 'historic' status.

Could we have a little more intellectual rigour in here, please?

[foufou]

People of color do not have the luxury of putting "Jim Crow" laws aside. Do you really think that white women experience more discrimination than African American men? Why should HRC emphasize her feminity when she has made it a point to be the strongest "white man" in the presidential race.

[hopeless277]

What we really need in this country is a naturally blonde president. Being a blonde would be terrific for the country as well as the world. Woman/man, black/white, tall/short. How did she vote when it came time to send young men and women overseas on a questionable mission? She voted for military action without reading the NIE. So that means that she is either way to lazy to be president or that she is too trusting of Republicans. Either way, she is not presidential material. IT'S NOT HER GENDER, IT'S HER RECORD. How many times do we have to tell you people?

[Countess]

The Clintons are great card players. They have played the gender card, the victim card, the religious card, the racial card, the fear card, the militaristic card and any other cards they could get their greasy hands on. Would you like to play cards with people like them?