Misogyny, Momism and Militarism
Elton John recently expressed surprise at the misogyny of the American media as it relates to Hillary Clinton. I have been stunned by it -- especially the random physical put-downs that are everywhere. Matt Taibbi* refers to "flabby arms" in his latest Hillary obit. Who cares? I want to ask. But apparently Mr. Taibbi does. (And how would he know? Hillary is always encased in a blazer).
Physical mockery ended in seventh grade, I thought -- but apparently not where women pols are concerned. I find it bizarre that a grown man would invoke a physical put-down in an opinion piece. It smacks of a complex of some sort.
Disturbing enough that magazines like Star show telephoto close-ups of women's stretch marks (Cindy Crawford is the latest victim) -- but what is the meaning of this mockery of age-related or even genetic (chubby ankles) flaws? We know that ankles have no impact on the ability to do a job well. (Katie Couric has great ankles and is not getting the ratings CBS wants). And HRC is not auditioning for American Idol or a modeling contract or even gazillions as a news reader.
Look at a room of middle-aged male politicians -- paunches and liver spots abound. Pathetic comb-overs that turn to greasy streamers in a high wind. Skin cancers turning to melanomas, flat feet, bursitic elbows and shoulders -- who cares? Ronald Reagan got elected with a wandering mind. And that does impact performance. So this is more than a double standard. It's a kind of obsession with female youth and perfection -- which, of course, would disqualify a candidate too.
Do we want to live in a country where women's brains are judged by their arm flesh and the trimness of their ankles? I don't. I am writing from Rome where the men are just as sexist as they are in America yet there is no physical mockery of female candidates. The Italian elections are on Sunday and Monday and most of the women candidates are between forty and sixty plus. Yet no one makes fun of their looks. They are not movie stars. They wear glasses and don't all have facelifts. Nobody expects them to look like Sophia Loren. And nobody mentions their physical attributes one way or another.
So what is wrong with American men? Particularly male journalists. I think it was discovered long ago and labeled "Momism" by Philip Wylie in a virulently sexist book 1942 book called Generation of Vipers. The book went through many, many printings in the forties and fifties. It apparently struck many nerves. Momism is a kind of Oedipal obsession with the bad mother -- to counter a boy's attraction to his good mother.
Wylie's book is as livid as the Malleus Malificarum -- that textbook for witch hunters. No one could hate so much without having loved. And love is the problem, of course. You cannot fuck your mother so you must revile her.
A few months after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, I found in the bathroom of my Connecticut house a New York magazine I had not read when it appeared. It contained an article of advice from Benazir Bhutto to Hillary Clinton.
Bhutto, of course, came from a society where western educated women leaders were not uncommon -- their tribal credentials being more important than their gender. Benazir Bhutto suggested to HRC that she evoke the strength and caring of a mother in proceeding with her campaign. Perhaps this is possible in Pakistan and India with their myriad female deities who embody the mother as creator and as destroyer. But in uptight American Christianity, the only role for the mother is as puritanical disciplinarian who eschews sexuality in favor of punishment. Punishment evokes rebellion. And tender little boys grow up to be Momists. When a powerful woman comes along -- whether Hillary or Eleanor Roosevelt or Gloria Steinem, the reaction is kneejerk. The rage against her spills over into idiotic name-calling, which only reflects badly on the name-caller. And we are all the losers. We get mediocre male politicians with comb-overs and drinking problems rather than acknowledging that women have brains that might be put to use to save us. Goddess help the U S of A.
* Corrected to reflect that Matt Taibbi, not Mike Taibbi, made the reference, in a Rolling Stone story that can be found here.
Related:
Matt Taibbi Responds: Erica Jong Thinks I Want to Do My Mother
Erica Jong Responds: Eight-Hundred-Year-Old Jong Responds to Callow Youth Taibbi
Matt Taibbi Responds: Erica Jong Rolls Out Every Liberal Cliche in Existence
Loading comments…
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
You can count me as a male of middle age who agrees with the fundamental argument of Ms. Jong's post but who wishes she would lose the references to Comb Overs, drinking problems and, especially, cancer; note to Ms. Jong "Comb Overs = Funny; Drinking Problems and Cancer = Not Funny."
But, otherwise, Ms. Jong's argument is on the money. I'm going to be interested to learn how many of the registered Democrat "guys" who are choosing Obama over a woman in the primaries will end up voting for McCain in the General.
They'll vote for McBomb over HRC because HRC doesn't have a Y chromosome and McBomb has an extra one? Very unlikely, and even if true, they really belong in the Repug party anyway.
Whatever..
Misogyny? Please ... How's this for some old school misogyny?: "I took her stuff and I left." Uttered with all the feeling of a bar of soap. To cover up a blatant lie.
I'm a 52-year old woman. I've experienced sexual harrassment on the job and all the rest of it. I've also lived abroad and have seen what constitutes real, active misogyny. None of what's presented in your piece comes even close in the land of grown-ups.
Senator Clinton is playing us -- or attempting to. I'm not in the mood to be played. Especially not by someone who appears to have zippo in the integrity department.
Good post. The Clintons have been playing us all for years (as have the Bushes). They're 'Playas'.
"Katie Couric has great ankles and is not getting the ratings CBS wants."
Erica, you undermined your premise with that comment.
Paparazzi, msm, theatre photographers catch it all, and sell it to US. If your mission is to outlaw sexism and ageism, why don't you start with the docs and cosmetic industry who make a living selling botox and peels and tummy tucks?
Your premise starts far too late in the game of beautification. That ship sailed. The parasitic industries that feed off "beauty" in this culture began long before Sir Elton took to wearing his hair piece -- and that industry will be around long after your hair and mine and Hillary's finally turn white. And, I ain't crying about supermodels and their woes about wrinkles. Maybe they saved some $$$ from their youthful photo shoots.
That's the way the game is played in 2008. People who pursue the public's attention must indeed bear responsibility for what the public wants/pays to see. Why do you think Hillary is never seen in anything except garments that cover her legs? That's her choice. Why are models thin to the point of illness?
The great public wants thin bodies, wants no wrinkles, wants plump lips, big boobs and no gray hair. Don't look like that? Cover it up or fix it with surgery. It's stupid and patronizing to blame photographers for their subjects' appearance.
Well. it's certainly true that the media -- and society at large -- holds women to a different standard of physical appearance than they do men.
Regrettable, but scintilatingly irrelevant.
Nobody is basing their decision about her because she is, or isn't a babe.
And Hillary's scorched-earth, McCain loving, if- not- me- then- no- Dem, campaign is her main problem. Look Ms Jong, quit embarrassing yourself with your increasingly absurd efforts to justify the smear and fear Karl Rove inspired campaign of Hillary Clinton. At some point, the fact that she's willing to jettison all ideals, lie, cheat, etc. just to fulfill her monumental, power lust to be President has to count more than the fact that she's got a vagina.
I mean, is that it for you? If a candidate has a vagina then you back her no matter what?
Come on, girl. You have to realize that MS. Clinton's antics set feminism back a decade or more if she's your standard bearer.
In fact, if you would advance the cause of women, then the best thing you could do is get Clinton out of there, quickly. Every moment she's on the public stage she confirms the worst stereotypes that people have of a powerful woman.
There was no endorsement of Clinton here, just an observation that the playing field is filled with men that seem to be acting like little boys and I couldn't agree more. The fact that Clinton has and is continuing to run an awful campaign is neither here nor there really.
Just out of curiosity, where's the Obama 'acting like little boys'. He seems to have kept pretty well above the fray.
The sad & seeminglly weird (though hey look at me, many things seems weird) thing is that I don't think any of this suddenly emergent and apparently persistent hate mongering vs Hillary has much to do with her as it does her husband. These are late hate shots at Bill for being an intelligent, earnest, successful, and truly righteous president by those who are shown up for what they are by such a man, with HIllary being the fall girl for still being associated with him. She is too, but in her own way, a capable, concerned, truth loving person whose persona has been, hopefully temporarily, warped by the requirements of the seedy presidential campaign process in America. God bless Hillary, may you go far, and God bless you and Bill for standing up to the Republican bullies.
That strains credibility well past the breaking point.
JBatch, what a solid comment! Jong and Marsh are bringing tedium to a new level. Just absurdity in print from them, every post every time.
It's good in a way, because younger women seem to see through this Jong drivel and they don't fall for it. They appear to have an easy enough time avoiding the posers as well as the temptation to join their ranks.
I am not entirely sure that I think this problem is about sexism. When Murtha endorsed Hillary, the comments were equally hideous about his age. It seems to me that the problem is unbridled disdain for anyone who has a differing opinion. The art of being able to discuss differences has, somehow, been tossed aside for virulent labels and criticisms.
A conservative talk show host yesterday discussed the attacks on several liberal senators who dared to support one or another particular law promoted by Bush. The attacks were on white men, by the way, and ranged from taunts to death threats. As an African American talk show host who does not support Obama, he reports that he receives no less than 20 charges of being an "uncle tom" daily and also regularly is told that he is evil.
Demonizing the opponent is the way of the world right now? I think back to my own youth, and I suppose we did the same in spirit, anyway, although our language wasn't so exaggerated or mean-spirited.
What's disturbing to me is to see people calling themselves progressive while simulaneously flinging sexist, agest, and racist remarks with glee. Calling others racist without proof is so regressive. I laugh to think these people actually fancy themselves progressives.
What I agree with you about wholeheartedly is that a great many of the "news" personalities feed this intemperance.
Wholly Cow! Let me wipe my screen so I read it right...
This is the first post I can agree with you on. I would also say that calling someone sexist w/o proof is equally regressive. This campaign has brought out the best and worst in bloggers, and certainly thoughtful criticisms w. facts are more meaningful to the conversation.
I'm not advocating that there should not be conflict, tension or debate.
As MLK quoted Socrates in his letter from a Alabama jail.
'it is necessary to create tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal.
Lastly, the media is a business and ratings and advertisers drive their news. I feel people fail to see it sometimes.
My wife, a beautiful ex-model says "It's these ugly women who've lost their looks (if they ever had any to begin with) who are to full of spite that they can't even see straight."
Wow......i
Heaven knows their attitude is not remotely close to being pro-women.
I would think aging sort of softens us all on the whole looks deal. I mean......
One would hope. Brings to mind the whole 'right to work' argument. The right to work for slave wages, that is.
Simone de Beauvoir had this thing sussed out long ago, yet it gets lost in translation somehow.
Feminism has become a trademark with content to be filled in by anyone who cares to try. The word is used to stifle debate and dialog.
Clinton, there's a truism that says that women dress and use make up to compete with and impress -- other women. That truism is more than a cliche; talk to anyone in the 'beauty' or fashion industries, and verify that. They'll likely agree.
And, in capitalism we can count on these industries to make fashions obsolete and/or trendy. So we should consider these issues, as well as sexism and ageism. Does it sell? If so, then influence the purchaser to support the trend; and we purchasers always do, despite our losing some self-respect in the process.
It's so obvious that the fashion thing is a vehicle for female competition, but it's a trivial game.
And I would say that any womans self respect is infinitely more valuable than the products she buys. But then, talk about a slippery slope. Maybe Andrea Dworkin was right after all, it starts with the little things.
so apparently your wife is someone who made a living on her looks, selling the fantasy of what woman are supposed to aspire to as well as a sexist.
Good, you two should get along well.
Erica, imagine my shock when I joined to Blog in the Huffington Post. I am a Democrat and never I have been exposed to such degrading insults by so many bloggers. That comes about when one says anything positive about Senetor Clinton or contradict some of the Obama supporters. So many of the blogs should have been chucked as offensive have free flow in here. Personal opinion is very important but vile language, not....
Did you read the article? Erica was pointing out that this culture has lost its sense of female divinity, and because of that we are left with a screwed up society. People support Obama not because they hate Hillary, or the fact that she's a woman - and to suggest this is the case smacks of a larger than life ego. Further, Erica points out that the Christian narrative is the background context that informs how women are treated and viewed in the U.S. While this might be true for white America, it is not so for black American and some other non-European cultures - yet another point she makes by referring to the letter to Hillary from Benazir Bhutto.
Take your frustration and anger and turn it into knowledge - blame and victimhood will lead you nowhere.
beright, your blog is welcome. Off topic I know, but a decent article to blog in.
May be you can teach a thing or two to some other bloggers, how to diagree or criticise others, and still remain civil....
Indeed. One of the first acts of victimization is when (American) women collude in their own deception about their worth by allowing themselves to confuse their mere presence with actual achievement. It belittles all women when a few losers attribute their own shortcomings to malign motives they have no way of actually verifying. Jong has been writing trashy pseudo-intellectual culture criticism for decades, and victim blather is her stock in trade.
People have the right to dupport Obama or anyone else, that's not in question. The vitriol that has been expressed in this website is against Senator Clinton is ugly and unforgivable and is likely to hurt the democratic party in November.
Senator Clinton is an intelligent and hard working woman who has been a tremendous senator for New York. This website and its venomous participants ignore all her accomplishments and paint her as a corrupt and worthlees politician. As a New Yorker I reject this as nonsense and pure misogynisn for she has been a great public servant for our state.
We must also not forget the accomplishments of the Clinton administration: eight years of peace and prosperity. Which part of that do these hate mongers not like?
Vile or not vile is a subjective description. A true believer in democracy would not be concerned with quieting any voices.
Too true. They will quiet themselves when it becomes apparent that they are benighted. Then, seeing the error of their ways, they will modify their positions accordingly. At least that's what's s'posed (sp?) to happen.
A male candidate busted on video making multiple "false valor" claims would be shamed out of a race for dog catcher. I am not sure if HRC remains due to being a women or due to being an institutionalized candidate representing a third Clinton restoration
I agree. Hillary Clinton really has seen a huge amount of nasty comments. I do have to ask, however, why she's gotten so much more antipathy than say, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Madeleine Albright, or Nancy Pelosi? There might be less to the argument that Americans 'have it in for' strong women and more to the argument that Clinton might have characteristics that touch off widespread and extremely negative reactions. I'm hopeful that the day we inaugurate our first female President is not that far off and that woman is somewhere among us even as we blog each other. But it won't happen this year and it won't be this candidate.
HRC doesn't belong in the same sentence as Ginsberg et al. The HRC characteristic that is so provocative is a penchant for exceedingly unethical actions. Many people have a problem with that. Go figure.
I am a professional woman with children in her 50's. As a professional woman, I have seen the misogyny that is ingrained in American society, and it has been in full, sickening force throughout this campaign. But that fact alone is not going to determine my vote. I will not vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman, or simply because the media is misogynistic, and I am not voting for Hillary. I do not like the Clinton brand of politics (Clintons before everything else, including the Democratic Party), Hillary's war vote, the triangulation on virtually every issue, and her (and Bill's) close relationship with the lobbying community.
Several months ago, I predicted to a friend of mine that we will see a black male become President in America before a woman. In my gut, and based on my own experiences in and out of the work force, I believe that many white males, in particular, would never vote for a woman. They can overcome their racism, but they cannot overcome their negative perceptions of women. However, consider what this race would look like if Madeline Albright were running for President. Now THAT would be a contest I would love to see. Perhaps you should consider that the wrong woman is running for President. And perhaps all the criticism is not misogyny.
Obama '08.
Excellent comments! I've wondered the same, which is strongest, racism or sexism? I find my self watching young up & coming women wondering who will be next. Years ago (before getting to know her A LOT better) I thought Condi might just be it. And soon, I'll guess she will be. For right now I think the right vote is for change, not gender or race.
Thanks
Good news, among next generation , racism is less evident.
Sexism is alive and well and in this Country a good candidate will never be a President if that candidate happens to be a woman....
I am young mother in her 30's and I am not a Hillary fan, although I ardently wanted to be. The thought of a female in the white house was really exciting to me ( I am a mother of two daughters ). But...bein
That being said, I find it outrageous how often she is called the B word, and the discussion about her looks is disgusting. Maybe us women should throw ourselves under a bus after we reach 40, so as to spare everyone the pain of seeing an aging women.
The people that talk like that only help the hillary campaign by making women pissed off and wanting to unite against the oppressor.
Obama '08
As a father of daughters, nothing disheartened me more to get into dicussions with my voting age daughter about the pit falls of voting for Hillary. Probably within a week of Super Tuesday I did not take much solace when my daughter confirmed that she thought I had been right.
Obama '08
Hillary is not hated because she is a woman, she is hated because of her lack of integrity. Playing the gender card is self-exonerating BS intended to divert attention from the reality of Hillary's behavior.
No one is saying she is losing because she is a woman. This issue isn't really about HRC, it's about the blatent and accepted sexism that exists in this country. I'm a man and I most admit that I was blinded by a lot of it. Until I started talking to more femails about the issue and then started playing closer attention to it. It's seriously bad and I think we are so used to it, that we don't even see it. Just watch TV over the weekend and look for what might be determined sexist, you'd be amazed. For guys, listen to the way you and your buddies talk about females in private. It's pretty bad actually. A majoirty of white men, are disgusted when someone uses the N word, it makes you cringe, but no such reactions occur when woman are degrated. Also, why isn't rape considered a hate crime? Millions of woman are attacked simply because they are woman. Just for a second put down your hatred for HRC, and attempt to see a real embedded problem with our society.
Wrong, lots of people are saying she's losing because she's a woman. This one post by Jong should be compared with all the other posts by Jong....se
For once I agree with you Erica.The adolescent and oftyen downright snake-ish mentality of american journalists towards female politicians is embarrassi
However,I am still voting for Obama .
You want to really hurt the women's movement?
Elect a woman who only gets the job because of who her husband is...
Waaaaaaa! Waaaaa!! Waaaaa!!!!! Whine, whine, whine . . .
Is this all the Clinton campaign can come up with for daily talking points?
I know that analysts have pointed out that undereducated voters tend to support the Clintons, so I'll try to explain this as simply as I can -
People don't like Hillary b/c she's a phoney, an opportunist, a pathological liar, and she's a dangerously disturbed egomaniac like her husband -- it has nothing to do with her being a woman, for chrissakes!
Why do you think a recent poll showed that only 27% of women support her? 27%!! -- that's ALL!!!! And that's her CORE support!!!!!! Yikes!
And yet, she & Bill continue to bully super-delegates by arguing that Obama can't win but she can!??? How do they justify that claim? Wishful thinking?
I'm all for a woman prez -- just not her -- not Hillary. She's too divisive (35 years of experience at it!!) and too weak a vessel to represent the sex.
This response is typical of not addressing what the point of the blog is. Jong isn't talking about whether Clinton is the right candidate, or woman candidate, but about how she's attacked over the way she looks, and by the way, she looks fine for a midlife woman. The US of A is a very ageist, immature culture, and needs to grow up fast but I won't hold my breath.
Obama has run a clean campaign and Hillary has not.
I've listed his BS so often.....
I've failed! LOL*
A genuine East Coast elitist, meaning one with real brains, is a lot better than what we've has for the past 8 years, a lot better than a nutty old fart who wants to bomb Iran, and definitely better than HRC (for all of the obvious reasons).
Wow. As a woman, I don't really know where to begin.
First, misogyny is not the same as sexism. I do see a lot of sexism in American society, very little, if any, misogyny. Stereotypical expectations and characterizations, no true hatred.
The anti-Hillary sentiment seems on first glance to perhaps be anti-female. I don't think this is true; it is purely anti-THIS female, anti-Hillary. The American public has a long history with her and judges her accordingly.
As for males not being judged for appearances, this is not entirely true: When Reagan was President, talk about his hair being dyed and his jowly face (he should only be photographed from the front), Donald Trump's hair, Bush SR and the "wimp factor", Bill's pasty jogging legs, Romney's plastic perfect looks, Edwards as Breck girl, etc. It is there for men too. But the difference is how men perceive themselves when something is said about their appearance. It is just that, about their appearance not their essence. Women tend to conflate the two. Of course, this could be cultural conditioning, but it is internalized and perpetrated by women, grown adult women, on themselves. I don't think anyone thinks Hillary won't be a good leader because she has elephant ankles and thick thighs.
AS A WOMAN ---- YOU still aren't convinced there is no SEXIST problem in the USA
John McCain answering “How do we beat the bit* h?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bast* rd?” McCain will be a joy to the war-mongers but no woman's advocate.
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles ----- a t-shirt with a murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina.
an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments www.womens
This is not CLINTON hating it is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals.
don't forget "bitch is the new black".
or, is it ok when it is used by a supporter of your candidate as some sort of "positive"?
You misread what I said. Reread it. I said that there is sexism, stereotypical judgments and expectations, but not true misogyny by in large, which by definition is _hatred_ of women. I don't see the two as being the same. BTW, don't you get that South Park is satire, lampooning all of those negative images about HRC that you mentioned?
You are right about that if the ad hominems against HRC were replaced by another group people would be outraged. All there are sick voracious true haters in any group, they bulk of people using such language don't completely get what they are doing. They aren't haters, meaning they don't personally feel hatred towards whomever. yet they employ language and modes of thinking that can be. That is the insidiousness of all the " _ism's"--racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. And may be one reason why it is so hard to get an revelatory dialogue going.
don't forget the popular opinion that Kennedy beat Nixon because he looked better during the debates. if they were both women, this would be considered sexist.
Your distinction between sexism and misogyny is an interesting one. My own sense is that both are overblown. The press and public accept -- even embraces -- any number of women in power -- Pelosi, Albright, Rice, Germany's Chancellor, etc etc. etc.
Ms. Clinton's problems have more to do with her endless equivocating, her willingness to run a dirty campaign, and her willingness to lie about her past positions on everything from NFTA, to Iraq, to her "35 years of experience
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
