I Am Woman...Misogyny, Ambivalence and the Clinton Campaign
"How do we beat the bitch?"
That's the inflammatory question a Republican asked John McCain at a televised November campaign meeting in South Carolina. Lousy language. Bad form. Worse, the questioner was a woman who looked like your next-door neighbor. The one who gets her hair done every week and never misses a Sunday morning at church. Video of the historic/hysteric moment was posted on Youtube; the thing was viewed nearly a million times.
Candidate Clinton is the woman everyone loves to hate. Hillary-for-President? They're fightin' words.
Internet social networking sites are especially fertile ground for misogynist seeding; anti-Hillary groups spring up like ragweed in pollen season and, before you can get your hankie out, everybody's sneezing. Facebook is the home of groups like "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" and "Life's a Bitch, Why Vote for One? Anti-Hillary '08". Myspace hosts "Citizens United Not Timid"-- catch the acronym. It's enough to make you sick. It's largely male rage, both inexplicable and vicious.
Off-line, more than a few Southern gentlemen have told me "I'm sorry. I simply will not vote for a woman for president of the United States." They can't say why. When challenged, they revert to "There's just something about [Hillary Clinton] I don't like. (Read: 'If there's anything I can't abide, it's a woman with PMS and a smart mouth.').
Pollsters and media talking heads have slavishly postulated the odds of a woman winning the White House (Are We Ready?) and the percentages have been all over the map. On a good day, somewhere around 60-67% of Americans, give or take, claim they'd have no problem voting for a woman. Easy enough to say, of course, and P.C. But a finger to the touch screen, in the privacy of the voting booth, may tell another story altogether.
What about the other 33-40%? The ones who won't say they'll vote for a woman? Does that mean any woman--or just the one who's running now? Sociologist C.J. Pascoe, researcher with the Digital Youth Project at Berkley's Institute for the Study of Social Change, has said, "This would not be happening if it were Elizabeth Dole [running for president]." Can we take that to mean a conservative woman seeking the highest office in the land might not provoke the rabid misogynist reaction Hillary Clinton does? Why is that?
How has the Clinton campaign responded to Feminazi Fever? What positive steps have been taken to ameliorate a bad situation? To describe the campaign--and the candidate--as ambivalent is an understatement. There have been missteps along the primary path that nearly put their campaign cart in the ditch.
Hillary tells us, in no uncertain terms, she's smart enough and tough enough to serve as our first female president. From Day One. And she's absolutely right. Nobody knows the issues any better and nobody seeking the nomination, on either side, is quicker with a sharp comeback or an equally sharp elbow to the ribs. Like the low blow or not, "This is politics, not bean bag..." as the HRC team likes to say.
Point taken. But she can't have it both ways and here's where Clinton campaign ambivalence kicks in. The gender game is in play, and HRC won't pick a side.
First it was a debate last fall. John Edwards challenged her, on her record and on her rhetoric, fair and square. She bristled, and by the next morning Clinton surrogates were crying foul, accusing the "bad boys" of ganging up on the lone woman.
A third place finish in Iowa added impetus to the gender game. By the time Hillary got to New Hampshire and South Carolina, hubby Bill was in full armor, astride his white charger and going after his distressed damsel's enemy with a lance as big as an intercontinental ballistic missile. Sir William would eviscerate all comers, and he wouldn't necessarily play by the rules of chivalrous behavior, either. Hillary's response when it backfired? "He did it because he loves me." A fluttering, feminine Hallmark moment for the masses.
The NY State Chapter of NOW sprang to Hillary's defense, too. When Senator Edward Kennedy, a longtime proponent of women's causes, endorsed Barack Obama, they attacked. Ted Kennedy was a traitor, a betrayer of all women, they cried. Whatever candidate he (and niece Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg) believed was best for the country, he should have supported the woman, because she's a woman.
We have loathsome, mindless misogyny on one side of the bell curve and gender ambivalence on the far side. We have woman-bashing "Get thee to the kitchen, wench!" on the one hand and "I'm as tough as you are, buster, get out of my way!" coupled with "I'm vulerable, too--and that ain't no way to treat a lady!" on the other. Both are destructive and dishonest. Both are bad for the process and bad for the country. Intellect, strength, character and capability know no gender. There's no logical or practical reason a woman can't run this nation as well as any man. Better than most.
That said, a strong, smart woman who's well-qualified to serve as president doesn't need to play the game on both sides of Gender Street. If she does, she gets the disrespect she's got coming, adds momentum to the misogynist movement. The Clinton campaign cannot control the knuckle-dragging misogynist. What they can control is an unfortunate pattern of ambivalent behavior that feeds the beast-- and take their campaign setbacks on the chin, like the other guy has always had to do.
In the Promised Land of enlightenment and gender parity, what's good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Has Hillary Clinton been asked recently if she was a feminist, and if so what was her answer? Considering how she said she was a progressive when asked if she was a liberal, and considering how "feminist" has been even more demonized than "liberal" by the rabid right, I'm wondering what her answer was or conceivably would be.
Ms. Hansen, I don't understand why you, like so many others, can't comprehend this basic point: what a candidate says, that candidate is responsible for; what "supporters", "surrogates", or even spouses say, the candidate is not responsible for.
Why is this so impossible for so many of you to get?
Racism and sexism are alive and well in our society. So yes, there are going to be those neanderthals who ask, "How do we beat the bitch?", and those who ask, "How do we beat the nigger?.
Probably they're the same neanderthals, more often than not.
The REAL question is: how do these two candidates - and their surrogates - respond? Do they stoop to the lowest common denominator, and place the race card or the gender card?
Or do they rise above, and demonstrate their CHARACTER by running a campaign that refuses to pander to identity politics..
As an independent who is not particularly an Obama supporter from day one, and who voted for Bill twice - it seems crystal clear that the two candidates (and their surrogates) have take two very different paths here - faced with the common darkness of racial/gender bias.
Hillary (and Bill and their team) have chosen to wallow in the mud - not only claiming she should be elected because she's a woman, but playing the race card over and over again. I could start with the despicable Mark Penn, move right on over to Billy Shaheen, and then go right to Bill himself.
Barack, on the other hand, has chosen not to wallow. He has NEVER said, nor implied, that being black should be a consideration for voting for him. In fact, he has said the opposite: namely, that no one should vote for him because he's black. And when Hillary and her team have attacked, he has truth-squadded them (as he should) , but he has not taken the low road as she did.
Hillary may have more years in Washington - but there is a vast gulf between her and Barack when it comes to this indefinable, yet all important , quality that I call CHARACTER. She has shown herself amoral, willing to abandon simple ethics in order to win...and he has shown himself moral.
After the failed machiavellian state of BushCo, we need - first and foremost - someone with MORAL credentials - and then the capacity to govern as well.
Nice article. i think you hit the nail on the head. Hillary is a woman scorned and, when on television, tries her very hardest to hide the fact (see fake smile). I find her "tough as nails" demeanor far more believable than the lost, weak woman. The irony of this is the feminists, or women who simply side with her because of her gender, seem to overlook her insincere manipulation of the gender card. Her husband is clearly out of control/un
and most of all, I DON'T WANT AN ANGRY PRESIDENT!! (this was part of Edwards miscalculations as well, although his outrage was a tad feigned). Hell hath no fury..
I welcome a woman president, and for those who think a female persepctive would be refreshing, I agree with you. But Hillary brings a female perspective I could do without. Since when is leadership based on knowledge and experience alone??
Here is one white male who will be voting for HRC in the primary and in the general election. I'm not threatened. I'm ready. We've had men running this country for 200+ years. It's time for a woman to have the opportunity. It is less than 100 years since women could not vote in the United States. A shameful disgrace. The lame jokes about PMS aside, how many men have been influenced by the Macho factor. George Bush is one for certain and where has that taken us. No place good. Bring on HRC.
You say, "Off-line, more than a few Southern gentlemen have told me "I'm sorry. I simply will not vote for a woman for president of the United States." They can't say why. When challenged, they revert to "There's just something about [Hillary Clinton] I don't like. (Read: 'If there's anything I can't abide, it's a woman with PMS and a smart mouth.')." I say, right on, sister!
How much more of On The Bus could this post be? If you like Hillary's politics, vote for her. But this issue of how historic a woman is, what an advance for women is no more than gender discrimination and you don't bother with that aspect.
"Can we take that to mean a conservative woman seeking the highest office in the land might not provoke the rabid misogynist reaction Hillary Clinton does?"
We can be sure of it.
"Why is that?"
Because someone like Liz Dole is seen as a "real lady." As in, someone who knows her place and who wouldn't challenge male power.
"By the time Hillary got to New Hampshire and South Carolina, hubby Bill was in full armor, astride his white charger and, etc."
Bill is supporting his spouse on the campaign trail. Were the genders reversed, no one would be saying this. Though, were it Hillary aggressively defending Bill, she might get the Mrs. Kerry treatment.
It sounds to me like you're trying to play down the incredible misogyny on display by making it equally a matter of, um, "gender ambivalenc
Yes, sexism exists and would hamper the efforts of any woman. Yes, it is exacerbated by HRC's position as a former First Lady during a time of polarizing politics.
But, despite the fact that this is true, or perhaps because it is true, she has only a slight chance of winning against McCain. And, even if she wins, she will be constrained by constantly having to fight back against relentless, if unfair criticism. It will be a miracle if she got anything accomplished.
One doesn't have to be sexist to know that all this means that she is not the best person to take on the Republicans this year, and getting a Dem into the White House and building bigger majorities in the Congress are goals too vital to risk.
So you want people to like Hillary more, and your strategy is to call her critics misogynists.
How do you think you're doing?
People dislike Hillary for the same reason they dislike Bill. Both are simply awful human beings. They only care about their personal power, they have no respect for the little guy, and the get power by selling government as the solution to every problem. At least some people genuinely believe that government is the solution to every problem. Such people get hooked by the Clintons.
http://www
If Hillary is on top and Barack is on the bottom - it is very attractive to me. They look good together. If Barack is on top, I'll sit this election out. Barack has painted himself clean by painting Hillary as dirty. As a woman - this sounds too familiar to me. I don't like the way Barack has conducted his campaign against the Clintons. For example: "Young people unite and do away with the old people! Tear down the bridge to the past and follow me! I will deliver the power to you, you so deserve." Who said this? Isn't that what Barack is saying?
This election is like no other - it is exposing the great generational divide. I dare say it might be greater than the racial or sexual divides.
I used to think that I could not trust anyone over 30, because they must have sold out. Now I don't trust anyone under 30 to vote, because they must have sold out. Sold out? - sold out their ability to think and giving in to the media messages they carry around in their pockets like little red books.
Hillary is ready and prepared to make decisions on day one. I like her having President Clinton to consult intimately with. I like the stability of Hillary at the top of the ticket.
If Barack could be disciplined enough to prove himself over the next 8 years of a Hillary presidency, I would see him as more attractive.
hillary
obfuscation,
vacillation,
prevarication,
u owe me nation
This white man has no problem with Hillary. Its the people who own her I don't like. Pretty much the same people own Obama. The only reason this primary is about race/gender is the corporate media (five white guys) want it that way.
I'll tell you exactly what I don't like about Hillary: she voted for war and against the Levin amendment because she thought it would make her look Presidential (read: macho) now she won't admit it was a mistake because she thinks it would make her look weak (read: female.)
She's triangulated her image, her positions and her language to tailor herself for the office, rather than running to transform the office based on principle.
This basic inability to admit to a mistake - any mistake even when asked directly in a debate - reminds me way too much of the Current Occupant.
It's not a question of gender, but of character. Romney has the same failing. McCain, less so.
JP
If there is one thing democrats are virtuosi at doing, it's screwing up the sensible best thing.
Karl Rove's little raison detre, how we inevitably divide ourselves so his ilk can conquer.
I saw Bill Maher last night opining on how blacks had it worse than women. Say what?
And that would be the criterion to vote for a President?
Jeez, it's like Queen for a Day. With Karl Rove getting to wear the tiara.
Let me say it again. The election will be between McCain versus a democrat.
How silly can you be to think that those who won't vote for a woman will not find some prejudice not to vote for Obama?
We have eight years of daily reasons not to vote for another war president.
It would be nice if we could manage to find a candidate who knows bigtime how to connect the dots and where they lead and comes with a side order of genius and how to cut the deal that works best.
Obama is a triumph of optimism and otherwise unproven. Running him against the GOP is putting up the proforma we've been stuck with for 8 years against some pundit-approved rosy rhetoric.
Obama, nice guy that he is, can't trump an old warrior. Most of you simply don't know the small town view that I get to hear --and heard in former elections. Do you really want to gamble on sunshine and lose?
There's a reason there are no student drivers in Nascar races.
Hillary doesn't just know how and when to checkmate, she is the Endgame. She has a track record.
So stop dissing the way to win and get Darwinian, or get ready for another 8 years of regret.
gala
Loading comments…
Posted February 1, 2008 | 08:18 PM (EST)