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
This question appears to have touched a nerve that needs resolution through introspection.
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.
Of COURSE you don't see it.
Like asking D@vid Duke about racism.
Fanned. : )
http://www.thedeallucille.com
Hillary is the eternal victim and uses sexism even when it not a major factor.
There may be (a little) hope for you yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
She learned that there's no end to the delusions of her critics.
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.
Advancing the cause of women worldwide advances the interests of the United States.
Elitism again?
Do we need this?
The "little people" don't count where you come from?
Just good for stepping upon, on your way to the top?
What I'm saying is this: if she's to have any clout, she has to show that she won't be bullied or pushed around.
Her status is her power; the same is true for any diplomat she will meet. Saving face is essential.
Showing anger, when necessary, is a sign of strength. Being too placid can be misread (on the world stage) as meek.
Reminds me of the story...of the boy who cried wolf.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's always easier to whine sexism than it is to take that long hard look in the mirror.
Grow up.
Grow up yourself.
That never would have happened in past decades. Sexism didn't defeat her though; it was just her overall ignorance.
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.