Memo About Hillary Clinton: Guys, Get Over It

Sex educators (before the abstinence only people made them stop talking about sex at all, which is a whole other story), use a technique called "desensitization" to help people get to where they can talk sensibly about previously verboten facts such as the proper names for body parts. Secrecy creates mystery and imbues a word or object with powers it doesn't deserve. Because America's social discomfort about sex makes us so nervous about dealing with the facts of everyone's life, teachers sometimes have students say words like "penis" or "vagina" over and over until these words lose their mystical power and become simply the proper names for body parts. This allows learning about physical growth and development to proceed without twitters, just like learning about math, health, or social studies.

We're going through the same process in the presidential politics. Presidential elections in the U.S. have up till now been a totally male paradigm. Oh, there have been the occasional Donna Quixote candidacies, starting in 1872 when Victoria Woodhull ran on the Equal Rights Party ticket with abolitionist Frederick Douglass as the vice presidential candidate (harbinger of a Clinton-Obama ticket, perhaps?).

So it's no surprise that male politicians and media mucks so often pounce upon Hillary Clinton's gender-based physical characteristics with the same discomfort previously reserved for middle school sex education students:

* attire (as in John Edwards disparaging her pink jacket)
* aural cues (such as her laughter -- women do tend to laugh more in conversation and it seems to drive every male pundit from Bill Clinton's former sleazeball political consultant Dick Morris to fake news purveyor Jon Stewart into pure apoplexy)
* or gender distinctions in physique (heaven forefend, Hillary has breasts and therefore cleavage).

And when all of that razzing fails to topple Clinton's front runner position, they get really nasty, as witness Tucker Carlson's recent tete-a tete with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and Cliff May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies :

... [H]ost Tucker Carlson said: "Gene, this is an amazing statistic: 94 percent of women say they'd be more likely to vote if a woman were on the ballot. I think of all the times I voted for people just because they're male. You know? The ballot comes up, and I'm like, 'Wow. He's a dude. I think I'll vote for him. We've got similar genitalia. I'm -- he's getting my vote.' " After asserting that "the Clinton campaign says: 'Hillary isn't running as a woman,' " Carlson stated: "Well, that's actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. 'You should vote for her because she's a woman.' They say that all the time." May responded: "At least call her a Vaginal-American.".

...Carlson also asked: "Do you think that people who are voting on the basis of gender solidarity ought to be allowed to vote in a perfect world? Of course they shouldn't be allowed to vote on those grounds. That's like -- that's moronic. I'm sorry. I know I'm going to get bounced off the air for saying it, but that's true."

At first blush, it's May and Carlson who sound moronic. But really, we are dealing with hard-wired cognitive dissonance that affects all of us to some degree.

Leader = man in our collective primordial brains. Yet it has not always been thus, nor will it forever be. It simply falls to Hillary to be the paradigm shifter-in-chief.

Is the only difference genitalia? Obviously not, or Tucker and friend wouldn't have reacted so viciously. Are some men still uncomfortable with a public leader who has cleavage? Sure. Yet in how many baseball games have women quietly endured watching male athletic leaders adjust their crotch cups, and, quite frankly, watching the metaphorical equivalent in male talk show hosts as they preen their vaunted power to attack and control?

Get over it, guys. If you don't like Hillary's positions on issues, that's fair game. But stop the genderized insults, for they are not only irrelevant, they actually cause women like me and an increasing number of men to rise to her defense.

In his unsuccessful efforts to make Hillary's laugh look ridiculous, Jon Stewart said, "She'll be our first president you can't spill water on." I don't quite get Jon's point, but I do get that it has to do with his response to her uniqueness as the first viable woman presidential candidate.

Get used to whatever it is that jars your preserves here, fellows.

Some things will be different when we have a woman president. Every time I see Hillary Clinton's well rounded, brightly attired, obviously female body in front of a crowd, surrounded by all those angular dark suits, I think yeah, well, this breaks the mold quite nicely. And isn't it about time? How refreshing is that?

How long will it take for these distinctions to be irrelevant to our assessment of a person's leadership? How many times must we repeat the words "laughter, breasts, woman president" before we are sufficiently desensitized that we can focus instead on the substantive issues?

For now, perhaps what matters most is that no one disputes Hillary has what Stephen Colbert so sensitively calls "Lady Balls".

This is part one of a three, or maybe four, part series. Don't worry; I'll challenge the women too in future posts.

Follow Gloria Feldt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Heartfeldt

Comments

[bavg]

Right on Gloria! You hit the nail on the head. Hillary is by far the strongest candidate and has worked for years on issues of benefit to women, children, families, working people, edcuation and health. She is being castigated for being ambitious, but we seem to admire that quality in men. She is criticized for standing by her husband, but if she had left him it would have destabilized the entire country. I am proud to have a woman candidate as strong as Hillary, but that is not why I am looking forward to voting for her. I support Hillary because she is the best person to lead our nation out of the mess Bush has gotten us into!

[drblack]

I don't care what gender a candidate is. I do expect integrity and most of all support of the US Constitution. I also want a candidate who is consistent in their votes and views.
I also expect a candidate to support the American people over Big Business. i do not support any candidate who accepts most of their money from weapons manufactures , big media, and insurance companies.
Hillary falls down in every respect. She is sold out to big money and has no integrity or consistency.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was a guy named Harold.
There is nothing lower then someone using race or gender to defend those who have low character and would sell out the American people and their freedom and prosperity for power and money.
Kucinich, Edwards...­.heck even Ron Paul ( I can't believe a republican has more integrity and supports Freedom more then a Democrat)are better candidates.
I will vote for a women if she is not a corporate sell out and supports the Constitution. Hillary does neither.
If you like war, injustice and a Soviet- Chinese style government and the destruction of the US economy.. vote Hillary or any Republican except Paul.

[lentinelia]

In American politics when someone is designated a "frontrunner" by the press the result is that the tough questions cease. The press is still giving Bush a free ride.

The single instance I have witnessed of an exception to this pattern of sychophantic behavior by the press was Tuesday night's spectacle.

Anybody can draw whatever conclusions they want - but my conclusion is that men who are powerful, or seek to be powerful, experience aggressive hostility to powerful women.

[research]

So women have special rights? They get to wear cloths men may not? They get to be protected from harsh attacks? Hillary can take it.

The real question is Hillary who we want?

Not If people would choose the candidates that share their values: the line up would be almost perfectly inversely proportional to the money race.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

In a poll of nearly 10,000 people, Kucinich wins hands down, with Gravel about half as good, Obama 1/4 as good and the rest less then 1/10th as good.
posted 10/31/2007 at 15:14:47

[Lon]

The water reference seems to be a suggestion that she is robotic after a bit in which one gets a robotic explanation of her delayed laugh.

But anyone who thinks that the media is singling out Clinton in this regard doesn't remember the coverage of Gore. Or for that matter Edward's haircut from this election cycle.

[SkimaskBob]

Funny that your argument - criticism should be based on policies/actions as opposed to gender/looks - is exactly the same as Carlson's.

He thinks it's idiotic to vote for someone based on their sex in lieu of their policies. You think it's idiotic not to vote for someone based on their sex in lieu of their policies. Yet you deride him for his "vicious" reaction. And next time, try listening to his argument before you call him a moron and a sexist.

[JoeCHI]

I think the "throw water on" comment referred to the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz.

[mvpeach10]

IN DEFENSE OF HILLARY: Men have always been uncomfortable with bright and accomplished women. This pile on, that not only includes all the candidates, Republican and Democratic, but also the media, men and women, and the vociferous Clinton hater, Chris Matthews. What is his problem? This will work to her benefit. As a woman, I am furious with these unprecedented attacks on her.

When women also get upset calling her ambitious and out for power, how the hell do they think men rise to leadership. Do they believe it happens as a gift to them for being humble? They are elevated to high positions by seeking them, driven by ambition and a desire to lead.

Men need to give it a rest, and women need to get real. Ladies, do you want to break the glass ceiling? Then get ambitious, and go for it, and don't criticize women who do. One more request, stop the jealousy and the back stabbing of other women when they succeed. And stop hating her for staying in her marriage. Most of you would have done the same thing, and been encouraged to do so by your priest or rabbi. I want my own name on this one: Barbara LeBey

[falco]

I would not vote for Hillary for the mere reason that she is too closely affiliated with the Bushes. Daddy and Barbara treat Bill like he is one of their sons. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? Yikes!

[jake1az]

This country is never going to be united again....T­he Conservatives will never agree with the Liberals and we are always going to have that divide.

[longislandlol]

Oh-- stop picking on her--- we all like to win-- we all want to be smart, rich, have a good-looking husband, a samrt kid, health, etc...

[davidly]

I suppose this post has something to do with equal rights. I find Hillary Clinton equally disappointing as a candidate as I do almost all of her counterparts (no pun intended).

[RobertaInCT]

Gloria,
We must face the fact that in America it's all one big frat party and the main frat hole is the White House. Matthews, Russert. Carlton and other MSM frat boys are afraid of women in power.

[PeaceCzar]

I couldn't care what set of chromosomes she's got. I DO care that she's the most hawkish, right-wing candidate amongst the Democrats, and contrary to her mega-bucks campaign, does NOT represent real change.

[mexamerican]

my opposition to hillary clinton has nothing to do with her being a woman. it has everything to do with her being a calculating warmongerer.