Candidate Clinton Was Not a Victim of Sexism But Secretary Clinton Is
About this time last year I was still having passionate debates with friends -- fellow feminists -- who were convinced that the reason Barack Obama was on his way to Denver to become the Democratic nominee for president, was because a savagely sexist media had served up the nomination to him on a silver platter.
I disagreed.
As I wrote on the Huffington Post, I believed that Hillary Clinton's problem was not sexism but Hillary-ism, as in the people who were criticizing her did not have a problem with all women, but they did have a problem with her. As proof of this I noted analysis during the primary indicating that while women as a whole were a stronghold for Clinton, younger women were not.
I was particularly incensed at the silliness (bordering on downright offensive) demonstrated by some Clinton supporters, most notably Gloria Steinem, who intimated that the 2008 primary was proof that sexism is worse than racism today. (I wonder how she and others have responded to the plethora of racist comments and jokes currently circulating about President Obama that have become so commonplace that they elicit the same reaction as GOP sex scandals now do -- a yawn.) So it comes as a bit of a surprise to me that now that Hillary Clinton has officially experienced an instance of blatant sexism there's no outcry.
Though we are embroiled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and trying to avoid possible nuclear war with Iran and North Korea, the leading news story about the Secretary of State is that she informed someone that she is the Secretary of State, not her husband. The Associated Press described her as "snapping" and "incredulous." The New York Post and New York Daily News deemed the moment cover story worthy, with The Post blaring: "Blowing a Power Fuse" and the News proclaiming, "Clinton Loses Cool." All I could think when I read that is that she should have.
If someone had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell what his lovely wife Alma thought of a particular policy issue, my guess is he would have been incredulous too. But the reality is no one would ask Secretary Powell that. I know some might argue that it is an unfair comparison, that Secretary Clinton is unique because she is married to a former president, but how many times was the most recent President Bush asked to articulate the policy positions of his father, the former president?
But what I find more disturbing than the question itself (which was blamed on a translating glitch although it now seems there wasn't one), is the reaction to it. Media outlets depicted Secretary Clinton as unhinged -- overcome with jealousy over her husband's recent return to the spotlight in North Korea -- but after watching the footage all I saw is a woman who has spent her entire life trying to be her own person and despite her best efforts, is being deprived of the opportunity to do so.
Secretary Clinton did nothing but tell the truth and if that makes critics uncomfortable then that is a greater reflection on their gender attitudes, than on whether or not she has an attitude.
This piece originally appeared on TheLoop21.com for which Goff is a political writer.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
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
It seems counterproductive for the nation's and world's top leaders to be guided by petty emotions like jealousy and the need for individuality.
This question appears to have touched a nerve that needs resolution through introspection.
You are wrong about the primary, no mail candidate would have been pushed to get off the stage the way Hillary was and the harangue that she was ruining the party. Geez Ted Kenneday went to the convention floor and had about 1% of the delegates. Your sympathy about sexism now is worthless. Good luck when you can't get the same pay or promotion... hope someone is there for you!
I don't see much evidence of sexism in the coveage of Hillary's outburst in the Congo, and believe it is more evidence of Keli Goff's earlier point about "Hillaryism." We need to remember that 3 of the last 4 Secretaries of State have been female. I don't recall major charges of sexism toward Condi Rice or Madeleine Albright, both of whom were qualified for their posts.
If Colin Powell had been asked about Alma's opinion, he would very likely have said, you'll need to ask her.
Only Hilllary and the enternal Clinton melodrama would find offense in the question and take attention away from focus on horrible abuse of women in the Congo, to play the victim herself. Hillary's problem is Hillary, not sexism.
YOU don't see much evidence of sexism in the coverage of Hillary's "outburst"? You're the same guy who attacks her by making cracks about "plus-sized pants suits", comparing her to the "Great Pumpkin" from Charlie Brown when she wore an orange suit, and says she's being "deceitful" by coloring her hair. You're the same guy who, when discussing THIS issue, repeatedly cited an article that concluded: "It's probably that time of the month". http://current.com/items/90654918_hillary-clinton-my-husband-is-not-secretary-of-state-i-am.htm
Of COURSE you don't see it.
Like asking D@vid Duke about racism.
Now that's a response!
Fanned. : )
Talk about irrational responses and putting words into other people's mouths you should work for Palin. First comparing Hillary to Condi and Madeliene is inappropriate. C and M did not rise to prominance because of their husbands. Hillary most certainly did, regardless of her own qualifications it was her association with her husband that got her where she is not her own accomplishments. Therefore it is perfectly expectable and reasonable for the press to ask what Bill's opinion is. There would have been no reason to do so with the other 2. Hillary's defensive response just indicates her complete awareness of that fact and demonstrates her own sense that she has no clout without Bill.
word. i totally agree. this is the ultimate indicator of where are consciousness really lies. she deserves so much more.
I'm having a little difficulty understanding where all this talk about sexism was for Sonia Sotomayor. All we heard from the media day after day was a regurgitation of all this "wise latina woman" nonsense, and no one--and I mean no one--stepped up to say anything about sexism. It's as if Hillary Clinton was the only woman in America worthy of the fight.
http://www.thedeallucille.com
sexism is an excuse for Hillary, who must always have someone else to blame for her shortcomgings. There was little discussion of sexism on the Sotomayor nomination because there seemed little evidence of it. She was reviewed largely on merit and the major reserevations were based on her political views.
Hillary is the eternal victim and uses sexism even when it not a major factor.
Not a "major" factor? So you're acknowledging it WAS a factor.
There may be (a little) hope for you yet.
Sometimes I don't know if it's as much about sexism as it's about media celebrityism. If that's actually a word. Hillary is a celebrity, no matter how you feel about her. She sells newspapers/magazines when you writer about her. A lot of people have strong opinions about her personality, so when she does things that could be construed as "controversial" in regards to those opinions, newspapers know that will catch people's (who hold those various opinions and are looking for reinforcement) eyes and sell product.
Angelina Jolie, for example, has a lot of the same treatment in the press. However, the press rarely pays attention to Valerie Jarrett, who probably has more influence on Barack Obama's decision making than Hillary does, and has said some fairly controversial things...but that's because she isn't a celebrity and can't sell headlines at this time.
And the sad truth, as well, is that when papers shock and offend people with sexism, that's also a kind of marketing. We link to it, people click through, ads are seen and sometimes clicked. People buy a paper even though they're outraged at it. The paper makes money off outrage.
It became "controversial" , in this country because the media twisted the whole incident and took a segment out from the whole Africa trip, and overplayed it. to death.....
Please, I urge you to go back and listen to "Washington Week", from Friday , where Jenine from Bloomberg , did go at length, to set the whole story straight.
You are right about the celebrity part, Hillary Clinton is, which is of course not a fault of her own..
She is a big asset to our President , and to this country and they do get along, no matter what the media wants us to believe, because that`s what sells.
the Clintons both want headlines, and they make headlines. Hillary is a calculator and opportunist, not a victim. But she has very poor judgment, and her strategies often backfire.
She resents iiving in the shadow of a more accomplished, powerful, and popular husband. But she also needs to realize her "career" is largely the result of her marriage. Hillary made her own choices about that. Getting all angry in public won't change it, and won't serve the nation.
I am in total agreement with you. She had every right to answer the way she did. It was an insulting question.
Hillary has turned out to be an amazing Secretary of State. Not that that surprises me. I hope that she runs for President in 2016. I think she would be a better President than her husband was.
so agree with you...
Not a fan of either Clinton. Not for either of them being president - past, present or future but give the woman a break. She was tired and irritable - a forgivable error.
Hillary has done absolutely nothing "amazing" as SoS. your standards may be far far too low.
Her response to the question was over-the-top. Maybe it can be excused as a case of industrial fatigue given her grueling schedule, but still it was a very ungracious response. Kids (college-aged included) make mistakes in judgment when addressing their elders.
The media treatment of Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, has been far more atrocious. Particularly the blatant sexism exhibited by female newscasters - why would they want to not only perpetuate but propagate these types of sexist stereotypes?
Yes, Sexism was a factor during the primary which younger women did not see or understand and they had absolutely no clue, since reaching their goals has become very easy for them . These so-called younger women, probably in the under 50 age group have had it very easy developing their carreers because the "Womens Movement" which Hillary was an active member of, definietely paved the way for them.
They should study their history and they might discover how diffilcult it was for women in the 50's and past decades to be accepted in medical or law schools in this country. The carreers for woman were determined for them, basically, teachers, nurses, or secretaries. I think Maureen Dowd with her cutting remarks about Feminists needs to do some research. Of course her columns are basically
all hyperbole and snark and very few people even bother to read her.
As far as the impertinent question asked of Hillary by the foreign student, I believe it was intentional.
People in third world countries are still opposed to women in power and do not believe that women have the knowledge and intellect to understand foreign policy. Thus, he asked what President Clinton thought as opposed to what Mrs. Clinton thought. She handled the situation perfectly. The gentlemen needed to be put in his place.
"People in third world countries are still opposed to women in power and do not believe that women have the knowledge and intellect to understand foreign policy"
Not necessarily. India had Indirha Gandhi. Pakistan had Bhutto. Israel had Golda Meir.
I'm sur there were many more.
I'm not so sure of my spelling.
As usual the media has gone crazy on a non-story. Whether Hillary's response was appropriate or not does not change my support for her. The only people who are concerned are pundits who need to fill time and space.
It's called, " Distraction from the real issues".
let's just hope HIllary has learned a lesson and keep her bitterness off the world stage in the future.
Absolutely.
She learned that there's no end to the delusions of her critics.
I think she was fully justified in being terse with a rude question. Being a diplomat doesn't mean kissing a**, especially to people with no status, such as anonymous student questioners.
It would be like people asking my wife, as principal of her school, what I thought about a school issue. Asking what her husband thinks is not merely irrelevant---it's condescending and impudent.
Intentionally or not, the questioner was demeaning her status, and she didn't allow it.
If you want her to sit across the table from Putin or Ahmadinejad, you have to allow her to slap people down from time to time.
I don't always agree with her, but she was right here.
A diplomat should be able to put his or her emotions aside, assume the possibility of cultural differences in perspective when addressing people in another country who are speaking a language other than your own, and leave his or her ego at the door when representing the United States. It's not kissing a** to respond politely even to a question that's intentionally impolite (and there's no evidence this question was intentionally impolite). The questioner's status should have no bearing on a public official's courtesy and self-composure. We're talking about the secretary of state here. How does such a reaction advance the interests of the United States? It doesn't. It was a purely self-centered response that betrays her deep insecurity about her qualifications for being offered the job in the first place. A little bit of graciousness would have been a much more strategic way of getting one's point across; being snippy, condescending and downright rude to a questioner does not meet my expectations of diplomacy.
Her mission there was, in large part, to empower women. The question was, on the face of it, demeaning to women. That was the much larger point than politeness.
Advancing the cause of women worldwide advances the interests of the United States.
Sexism did exist in part during the primaries though I agree a large part was not sexist. That being said, I must comment on your statement that the "comments and jokes" circulating about President Obama....are gathering "yawns." During the primaries and general election last year, I observed many Obama supporters crying racism at anyone who simply disagreed with Obama's campaign rhetoric. When the attacks are used on an everyday basis for whatever reason, they tend to be expected and may be in part, cause for the "yawns." My point being that these very strong terms should only be used when they actually apply, otherwise they just become simply words.
Reminds me of the story...of the boy who cried wolf.
Applying your same logic...Each instance of disagreement with candidate Clinton during the primary was not indicative of sexism, despite the protestations of her supporters to the contrary...
The bottomline is that racism and sexism still exist in this country...It does not help the cause to erradicate either of these to get into a match of comparing which is worse. The fact is that they are both ugly, unfortunate and should be stamped out in each instance.
"AbbieXHoffman
Some of what I hear each of these people say was mildly s*exist but they were careful enough not to do it blatently so I will spell it out (although I didn't want to go into it at all)....
I am a fan of Rachel and Stephanie (not olbermann) and all of them went to great lengths to ridiculed HRC for doing what any man would do....point out her opponents weaknesses.
They said how awful and that "democrats don't do that to other democrats". Hog wash! Every dem candidate has done that since the begining of time in the primaries. I believe it was a classic case of not liking a woman doing being a fierce competitive and opportunistic fighter. I think it was s*xist."
All of the criticism that came from the left was aimed at the candidate who was virtually mathematically eliminated, which is what HRC was at that time. Neither Olbermann nor Maddow nor Miller opposed her until she started to savage the democratic front-runner. That is not what Kucinich, or Dodd, or Biden, or any of the other candidates did.
Yes they did. Oh yes they did. And if we're getting technical here, she could have still won up until the final movement of many of the super delegates. It was possible, unlikely perhaps, but possible. Perhaps she was trying to et the VP nod.
The only reason to point all this out is not to say I regret that BO won and wish HRC did. I don't.
I just hate to see a woman treated with s*xism and I hate to see what appears to be a major lowering of the bar what many in this country will tolerate as s*xism.
Presidential campaigns are for all the mables. There are no holds barred. Never have been.
Of course she was subjected to sexism. Being a woman merely heightened the opportunities. And I doubt seriously if our brand of politics could get any lower whether its sexism, racism, ageism or just plain old libel and slander.
How could anyone tell if she was being particularly attacked through sexism? Is not as if any morals seem to be in play when we have office-seekers campaigning.
Its unfotunate that we're not all ouraged by all of it. Personally, I hate to see anyone treated the way our political candidates and even, sometimes, their supporters are.
The media didn't suddenly "go sexist" on Hillary. It was there all along but Goff and others were blind to it.
Goff writes: "As proof of this I noted analysis during the primary indicating that while women as a whole were a stronghold for Clinton, younger women were not. "
That is in fact "proof" that younger women lack confidence in women generally, an unfortunate but predictable offshoot of cultural sexism.
Older women saw this sexism for what it was. Goff either chose to ignore it or could not see it. Now she knows.
YOu saw sexism merely the way you wanted to see it, as an excuse to refrain from holding Clinton accountable for her innumerable shortcomings, and further manner to suggest that whenever things don't go your way, you can always neglect any opportunities for introspection in favor of blaming everything on chauvanism.
It's always easier to whine sexism than it is to take that long hard look in the mirror.
Grow up.
It's always easier to pretend sexism doesn't exist than it is to take that long, hard look in the mirror.
Grow up yourself.
jhamm1, applause.
Younger women including this author did not see sexism as a factor in the presidential campaign because their generation was never exposed to it. Thanks to the "Womens Movement" and discrimination laws, these women were able to avance in their careers, regardless of their lack of intelligence, integrity and professionalism. How did Sarah Palin get as far as she did?
That never would have happened in past decades. Sexism didn't defeat her though; it was just her overall ignorance.
she blew her cool over nothing - thanking god or goddess she didn't get the nom.
gotta agree. the reason she lost the nomination is because she reverted to her old tactics of revenge and continuous simmering angsttoward all who didnt glow about all things clinton. if there was sexism during her campaign i say it was from a few bottom feeders and never was a serious complaint. and really the silly 'plaints about her here and there are from those same desperately bored bottom feeders. its only a hot item on slow news days.
that said i think she seems to be doing a great job as sos and so what if she got a tad testy..it isnt an exclusively female trait. only a serious politician carving their own place in history..seperate from a superstar loved/hated internationally popular spouse can probably understand. i didnt see it as a big deal.
Yeah, .... otherwise we wouldn't have all these broken campaign promises to cheer us up.
can you imagine Hillary venting at White House press briefing if someone mentioned Bill Clinton, "I am president of the United States now, he is not, it's me me me."
You can IMAGINE lots of things.
That's the problem.
okay, so she's in Congo to talk about respect for women and was asked what Mr. Clinton thinks through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton... a little outrage is okay. She didn't freak out. People just don't like when women speak sternly.
She let emotion guide her response. Nothing wrong with emotion, but for the Secretary of State to be so controlled by jealousy that it affects her public behavior seems unproductive (and not something any of us should feel compelled to defend).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
