There has been nothing about the MSM's spin on the pantsuits or laugh or tears that has motivated me in the least. Cheap sexism, and blatant, and hence, easy to dismiss.
What Ms.Pendleton via Ms. Hopkins fails to do is show that those characterizations have in anyway hurt Hillary. When talk of these issues was at it's height, what evidence was there that voters swayed? In short, they were not. Republican talk show hosts, including Hillary's new best friend Fox News, ran almost daily recaps, but the voters demonstrated no real response, and Clinton's fellow candidates did not use this material against her.
As to her ambition and qualifications, I am holding her to exactly the same standard I would ANY candidate. Hillary's smear campaign against a fellow Dem is worthy of the opprobrium it has so rightfully garnered from pundits and voters alike. Her claims of greater experience have, similarly, invited scorn as she tried to spin a stainless steel teapot and some polite but stilited conversation into forging peace in Ireland. Laughable.
As to her supporters being scorned, now the Ms-s Pendleton and Hopkins are trying to use the modern convention of the blogosphere, and the largely unmoderated comments that populate it, as a means of condemning the Obama campaign. I am not a betting woman, but, if I were, I would wager that neither of these women has considered the vitriol spewed by Hillary's supporters in the opposite direction. If they had, of course, they could not consider Hillary to be singled out, as is so important to their thesis.
I HAVE read many posts from women regarding their opinions of Mrs. Clinton. The consensus I see, while based on anecdotal evidence, is that women would LOVE to see a female president and many might give a female candidate preference over a male candidate, _but_ not_this_candidate_. THe argument that because Hillary is a woman who CAN run for president she is necessarily the best woman TO run for president is insulting.
Unmasking Sexism In Media Coverage Of Hillary Clinton
Deeply rooted sexism in the US as seen in the campaign coverage of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "hurts us all," Bradley University professor emeritus Barbara Pendleton told the Peoria chapter of the National Organization for Women at a March 8 meeting to commemorate International Women's Day and Women's History Month.
Pendleton, an award winning professor, offered a hard hitting analysis of the sexism in the campaign coverage of Clinton. Her talk was called "Sexism and Politics in the Media."
"The press has been brutal to Sen. Clinton. Consciously or not, many reporters, commentators and pundits appear to be unable to criticize her without dusting off their favorite sexist clichés, stereotypes and insults. Together they create an environment of hostility toward all women, not just Sen. Clinton," she said.
Gender bias: discussion of how Clinton looks, laughs, wears, talks, behaves, "even how she claps."
"A man demonstrates roughness and strength. A woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid.
"His behavior shows compassion and warmth, her behavior shows emotions and weakness. He knows how to work the system, she is manipulative" and "calculating."
Discussion of ambition, motivation and drive: "Frequently Sen. Clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win. When she campaigns hard she is often described as strategizing, calculating or fake. But when men campaign hard it is refusing to cede an inch."
Discounting of qualifications and accomplishments: "Since her first run for the Senate she has been presumed to be where she is today because of her husband. They discredited her achievements and implied that she never could have made it on her own. There were no such implications that George W. Bush got a leg up because he was the son of a president and a member of a powerful, rich family."
Attacks on supporters: "There is the claim that women who voted for her are somehow irrational, and voting only on the basis of gender. They implied they were stupid or shallow."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Frequently Sen. Clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win."
You say that like it's not true.
I am a woman and I have this to say:
"Gender bias: discussion of how Clinton looks, laughs, wears, talks, behaves, "even how she claps.""
If Barack Obama clapped like a deranged circus seal, the media would comment on it. He doesn't, so they haven't.
"Frequently Sen. Clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win."
When the message of her campaign has changed with the polls and she keeps trying to find something that works, that's how it comes across, especially when her competition has been pretty narrow-focused.
"There were no such implications that George W. Bush got a leg up because he was the son of a president and a member of a powerful, rich family." "
Of course there were, by anyone who had questions about his fitness to run.
"There is the claim that women who voted for her are somehow irrational, and voting only on the basis of gender. They implied they were stupid or shallow."
And Obama supporters have been called dupes, naive, etc.
"We all know that part of oppression is to convince the oppressed to internalize their own subordination and to some degree accept the old stereotypes as valid descriptions of themselves," she said. She noted New York Times columnist Maurine Dowd commented, "unfortunately for Hillary there is no White Bitch Month."
But, "bitch is the new black" is ok?
One of Clintons attack dogs, Geraldine Ferrarro, just said that Obama would not be where he is if not for the color of his skin. (I guess this elliot spitzer thing really seems to have frightened them)
Give me a break on this sactimonious crap about sexism. It's not even REMOTELY about sexism. it's about the fact that Hillary is beneath contempt, and most people know it. It's about her utter lack of guilt about selling her political clout to the highest bidder. It's about how the ENTIRE NATION saw her political ineptitude and hubris as she turned the entire subject of health care reform radioactive for almost 2 decades as the result of her hamhanded and narcisistic political tactics.
Get a grip. She's losing because shes a BAD politician with no personal vision and no guiding moral perspective. As Larry David said, it's been virtually FRIGHTENING watching her Sybil-like various personalities come out during this campaign. She has NO vision other than that which her PAC contributers define for her, and that is NOT the type of leader that most people EVER envision voting for.
I am a woman, and I am a professional and I am an Obama supporter, I am also 52 years old. And, I am tired of second wave feminists discussing sexism in the coverage of Senator Clinton ... Instead of discussing rather anachronistic paradigmatic location identity politics it would be nice to talk about bias in reporting in terms of all interanimating categories --- race, class, gender, sexuality, region, religion, age, historicity etc etc ... I really do not think second wave bourgeois white feminism ever discussed who washed the windows or watched their kids? To say that Senator Clinton speaks for the downtrodden is frankly hegemonic and patently absurd (this is to Bionic woman) ...
Hillary Clinton's victory is not important to all women ... especially to those of us who recognize she is not a feminist and she does not support poor children, poor mothers etc ... she is deploying feminism as a means to a political end ... yet her life history does not hold up to this scrutiny ... As far as discussing her appearance well yes I do but I also discuss how pale Senator McCain looks, and how short he is ... how Bill Clinton looks like WC Fields, how Huckabee was getting heavy again during the campaign, and how Romney looks like a department store mannequin .... so, what?
I have called Bush a m*****ker and Clinton a B****tard ... and I have been called a bitch in my life and I have always taken it as a compliment ... this pc police stuff does not speak to sexism but is calculated and used not to advance anyone's rights but in a more cynical and divisive manner ...
This article applies to comments made by a politician from NY (Geraldine F. )saying "If he weren't black he wouldn't have a chance in this race against Hillary" .................Hmmmm ...
Deeply rooted racism in the US as seen in the campaign coverage of Sen. Barack Obama hurts us all," .
Should have been what Bradley University professor emeritus Barbara Pendleton TOLD the Peoria chapter of the National Organization for Women at a March 8 meeting to commemorate International Women's Day and Women's History Month.
Go Obama............................
I'll give you a few points, but I strongly disagree with others.
I agree that criticizing her looks, laughing, clothing, clapping is uncalled for and sexist. Her behavior criticisms have nothing to do with her sex - she is just completely inconsistent in her own persona, and this could just as easily apply to a male. One minute she's honored to be on the stage with Obama, the next scolding him like a little boy, the next mocking his speeches.
Ambition, motivation, drive - These criticisms are completely valid. Her own yearning for power has led to completely unpresidential behavior. If Mike Huckabee had been "throwing the kitchen sink" at McCain when he was behind, people would have been criticizing him for the same reason - bringing down the whole party and being willing to sacrifice the general election for the chance of power.
Qualifications and accomplishments - Her big public policy endeavor during her husband's administration failed miserably. She trumps up her experiences and pads her resume by taking credit for way more than she actually did. And I agree that GWB got a leg up because of his family connections, and that wasn't right, but just giving another example doesn't mean that it's not true in Hillary's case. Because of her last name, she was able to move to a state she had never lived in, win a senatorial race, and be the inevitable candidate for presidency.
Supporters - I would only criticize supporters who vote for her ONLY because she is a woman. And one of her biggest arguments she makes as to why she deserves to be president is because she is a woman. She has NOW, Emily's List, etc harassing women all over the country to vote for her under some false feminist pretense. I would equally critize people who only voted for Obama because he is black. And you don't see him sending blog after blog from his campaign talking about how black he is.
Hi drmavis and others: Americans seem to have such a short memory -- it was Obama who bragged he could bring in 30% more black voters -- see this quote "I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum" at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/21/obama-says-he-will-raise-black-turnout
If that isn't a "racist" statement, what is it?
Additionally, you must be aware of the huge black voter gap between Hillary and Obama. I suppose you could try to explaint that somehow, but the most significant explanation so far has been identity politics and racial-bias among blacks.
I don't criticize it. It is to be expected, and people have a perfect right to use their vote anyway they want to.
You say you "would equally critize people who only voted for Obama because he is black." You would? Or you do? How do you explain the huge black voter gap?
It isn't just "Hillary sexism" that is affecting Hillary's campaign. Several studies confirm that we, the people (both men and women), still, for instance, overestimate the intelligence of men. It is a hangover from centuries of patriarchy. Unless you are aware of your potential biases, you won't be able to examine them and think more clearly about what influences you when you make your judgments about intelligence, qualifications, personality, etc.
In a very real sense, given the legacy and long history of sexism, we are all recovering sexists, some recovering better than others, and some more committed to recovery than others.
Ok, so if a black person wants to celebrate the larger than statistical numbers of professional athletes who are black, he is racist???
Uhuh, Men. Racism necessarily implies a negative connotation derived from an unrelated superficial characteristic. I fail to see what is negative about more black voters participating in the election, unless you are one of those people who are AFRAID when more people take part.
As far as intelligence goes, I am a woman and very intelligent; have been all my life, and it is not the quality of intelligence that is perceived as more masculine, but perceptions regarding the relative abilities in certain areas of intellectual pursuit (largely math and science) which still need some reform. That said, young women today can draw inspiration from more women as they achieve prominence in both academia and public life. Try as you might to claim that I am unaware of my biases, you cannot make that unsupported claim stick since your unnamed studies are not linked to any voting trends, hence they have no statistical basis. Sorry!
Your closing statement takes a very self-satisfied tone. Clearly you see yourself as "recovering better" and "more committed". You go on and pat yourself on the back. Your argument has done nothing for your case.
Yes, there is sexism but there's also a tendency to see it where it might be something else. When you says that Hillary Clinton's clothing or appearance are judged more than a man's, you're ignoring the range of styles available to women that aren't available to men. If a man were to deviate in appearance from what was accepted, he would be lambasted too -- and several in this campaign have been (Edwards on his haircut; Romney on his clothing choices and perfect hair/otherwise perfectly groomed appearance; McCain for just plain looking old). Although not in this campaign, I remember reading quite a bit about Bill Clinton's socks, a couple of years back, and how they showed skin when he crossed his legs during a Chris Wallace interview.
You also make your case for misogyny with this statement: "Frequently Sen. Clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win." You ignore that Sen. Clinton has EARNED that charge in her campaign tactics. You also ignore that the same charges were leveled against Bill Clinton on her behalf -- and he's not running (well, sort of not-running). These are the charges that have been made against Republicans for years. In each case, it's because the person -- man OR woman -- is perceived to have crossed a line. I perceive the leak by Hillary's campaign of that Somali-dress photo (her campaign manager pretty well admitted they had done it); the red phone ad and the claim that only she and McCain are ready to be president, along with her "As far as I know" after saying Obama isn't a Muslim, all to have crossed that line that should not be crossed, regardless of gender. There is no double standard here, merely smear-campaigning behavior by a candidate who happens to be female.
So, is there misogyny evident in the way some people speak of Sen. Clinton? Sure. There is also racism evident in how some people talk about Sen. Obama (and in Clinton's own strategy against him), and ageism in the way some people talk about Sen. McCain. I believe that the sexism, racism and ageism will figure into the nomination and eventual presidential race about equally and therefore, be a wash. And the reason I believe this is because we have a woman, a black man, and a senior citizen in the race for president -- and all of them have bested younger white men. That says a great deal about the fact that Americans -- a majority of them -- are judging people as people, not as labels. That gives me hope. Maybe we SHALL overcome racism, sexism, ageism, and other isms. That doesn't mean that everyone will but if a majority can, then we're evolving as a nation. One last thing: remember, Clinton had the majority of Democratic support until December -- and only recently lost it, to a black man. If prejudice were truly the deciding factor, we'd have a race to the wire right now by two white guys. Younger white guys.
For someone who has run a lousy campaign, Hillary Clinton has done pretty well for herself. I think that proves that she's not hurt by sexism. The thing that hurts her is that she's a terrible candidate. Can you imagine how well she would have done if she were able to come up with a positive message instead of constantly attacking her opponent? Or if she had tried to reach out to other demographic groups instead of polarizing them? Sexism wouldn't have affected her at all if she hadn't constantly played the gender card.
I am a successful professional woman and I have personally experienced the disparate treatment that successful women can endure.
However, I have studied and watched the candidates carefully and have chosen to support Obama, because I believe he is the right candidate for America at this moment in time.
One think not mentioned in the article is that many feminists supporting Hillary are trying to make Obama supporters like myself feel guilty for not supporting Clinton. Those that do this are truly doing a disservice to the cause of all women...no one should receive support, or be denied support, on the basis of their race or gender.
I am not saying this to disagree with the premise of the article, only to point out that there is a counter-issue that non-Hillary supporters are facing. That simply because we are, after thoughtful consideration, choosing another candidate, we are somehow "deserting the sisterhood."
Peace, all.
I'm amazed that many women I talk with don't think it's sexist to discuss Sen. Clinton's wardrobe and hair style as though she were running for America's Top Model.
Thank you for this! As a male Clinton supporter I have felt this way all along about people's attitudes towards her. I oftentimes find myself doing the same thing to my ambitious female friends and classmates and have to remind myself that such characterizations are not fair. While in Clinton's case some of the "manipulativeness" and the "doing anything to win" characterizations stem from the political history of both Clintons in the past, but even that is not fair. She is constantly being attacked for the sins of her husband as though he will be really running things when she gets elected. Yet Michelle Obama can say ridiculous things like "this is the first time I have every really been proud to be an American" (or something like that) or engage in ridiculously condescending talks with working class women, but Obama doesn't get any grief about her since she is only a woman and as First Lady, won't have any policy power. Why would electing Hillary mean electing Bill too, yet electing Barack doesn't necessarily mean electing Michelle?
Thank you Elaine Hopkins for this article. It will probably get buried. Huffingtonpost is extremely biased against Hillary. Men do not want to be responsibile for their sexist behavior. They think women are too sensitive - or that we have our own issues. The "its just you" mentality is rampant. Its not going away either. Younger women take their freedom for granted. They don't recognize the sacrifice of women like Hillary and easily step over the downtrodden. The reason older women flocked to Hillary is that she is the only one who got within reach of the Whitehouse before time ran out for our generation. But, younger women cast us aside anyway. We never had a chance. They don't understand how important this is to all women. It would change the page for them in every sphere of influence. Women's rights and choices are a luxury of an affluent society. These opportunities are the first to be sacrificed in hard times. If Hillary doesn't lead us to an even playing field - these girls will find out the hard way.
Yes, the younger women don't understand feminism!
We should tell them how to think, how to act, and what to wear. Nevermind that a true feminist believes that women have the power to think and act for themselves. These young girls should conform with out old ideals... if they're not with us, they're against us.
BionicWoman -- your kind of "feminism" (if you want to call it that) makes me sick.
Elaine -- Hillary is not the only one who critiqued. Obama's demeanor has been scrutinized as much as Hillary's. Some pundits have even gone so far as saying that his feminist approach to campaigning is his greatest stength/greatest weakness. And while I agree with you that Hillary's accomplishments cannot be discredited, nor can you discredit the possibility that being married to Bill has aided her in her runs for office.
"Attacks on supporters: 'There is the claim that women who voted for her are somehow irrational, and voting only on the basis of gender. They implied they were stupid or shallow.'"
I find it ironic that you point out these views when BionicWoman uses these very same tactics to attack young women voters. BionicWoman claims that young women who vote for Obama are somehow irrational and take things for granted, implying that they are unenlightened or ignorant.
By this logic, you're arguing that women should not forget their past, because others who share a similar identity to their own had to endure struggles, they should remember those struggles and vote for a candidate on that basis alone. Would you then argue that black people should vote for Obama on a similar basis? Because blacks had to overcome obstacles in the past, any blacks who don't vote for Obama now are taking their freedom for granted and don't recognize the sacrifices?
Loading comments…
Posted March 11, 2008 | 10:15 AM (EST)