Sexism: the Retrospective
The Hillary candidacy is safely presumed dead. Long live Hillary! And her eulogy? It's mostly about her gender. Media and speeches today read something like: "Ah, the women who almost did it! How brave! How pathbreaking! She worked so hard! Thanks to her, our daughters will have it different!" That thing we dared not mention pre-Iowa, her femaleness (which the candidate herself quickly learned to deny after her brief "piling on" mishap) is now the siren song of an historic candidate. Last night, Obama said, "No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age." But Senator, what kind of lesson is this for our daughters? That talking about gender challenges is only fit for the retrospective?
On these pages today, Arianna Huffington wrote "there is no question that she has forever altered the way women running for president will be viewed from here on out....She has also forever demolished the question mark hovering over the issue many (wrongly, in my opinion) have felt would be a woman candidate's biggest weakness: the ability to be seen as a plausible commander-in-chief."
Arianna, you write that your youngest daughter is perhaps the best allegory for the impact of Clinton's achievements:
She voted for the first time in this year's California primary, casting her ballot for Obama. Yet hardly a day passes without her speaking with admiration, almost awe, about Hillary Clinton -- how she manages to get up every morning, no matter how hard things get for her, and keep following her dream.
Yes, Hillary worked hard. Never took a day off. She proved the old adage that a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be taken seriously. Yes, she fought. She fought and took the slings, sexist and unfair, and she didn't complain until now. And she still lost, many would say, because voters thought she wasn't genuine. What kind of lesson is that for your daughter?
My colleague Elisa Camahort writes "I hope Arianna is right. I fear she is wrong. I don't think I was honestly surprised that sexism runs as deep and as wide in this country as it does."
Sexism is wide and deep, but it's been also largely undiscussed in the main. This is not to say that there has not been brilliant commentary about sexism during campaign '08. But sexism, gender difference, was never treated as something to be respected or lauded until Hillary Clinton proved once and for all (according to the media, at least) that she could not win. Now that Hillary's candidacy is in the past, we praise her as a pathbreaker. Back when she was viable, only hardline feminists really wrote about her woman-ness. Hillary herself spent a lot of time trying to deflect it. And yet now, why do you think mainstream media is openly talking about gender and 2008 now that it's pretty much over for Hillary? Why is the candidate only now herself bringing up sexism and actually using the word? Why are we, today, hailing Hillary's femaleness with great acclaim? Is it safe because it's not threatening anymore? She was a pathbreaker, but at least in 2008, will be nothing more.
That's not a lesson for the next generation, or this one. Surely it's better to fight the fight while you're still in the game. Only, I understand that it seemed really difficult at the time to bring it up. Smarter strategists than me will have to figure out how to inject gender into a contest of power and not have it hobble the gendered. Maybe in 2012.
Follow Morra Aarons-Mele on Twitter: www.twitter.com/morra_am
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
"Evil is obvious only in retrospect
You asked: And she still lost, many would say, because voters thought she wasn't genuine. What kind of lesson is that for your daughter?
Maybe that being fake and pandering means you lose? Maybe that being genuine is a good value, both personally and professionally? Maybe that just being a woman isn't going to be enough to get you a free pass for bad behavior?
To answer your questions-
What kind of lesson is that for your daughter?
Answer- Don't be fake!
Why do you think mainstream media is openly talking about gender?
Answer- Because Hillary seemingly encouraged all of her supporters to suddenly talk and write about it in a ploy to gain power despite losing... or to avoid the discussions about her real failings on policy and campaigning.
Hillary didn't lose because she's a woman... or because she failed to inject gender into the debate.
Arguing that is the case is sexist.
"She fought and took the slings, sexist and unfair, and she didn't complain until now."
What are you talking about, she was crying about how hard it was months ago. Please don't insult us by trying to rewrite history.
Again, the sexism supposition only undercuts Clinton's electability argument. You folks, by arguing the exact opposite position on electability are really doing a number on Hillary. She deserves better.
"And she still lost, many would say, because voters thought she wasn't genuine."
IMO, Hillary is not genuine. My primary beef with Hillary is the war. Maybe it hasn't affected you. It has affected my family significantly. And horrendously. My sons and DAUGHTERS, my grandsons and GRANDDAUGHTERS. And how many tens of thousands in Iraq.
I personally don't want a President Thatcher. I would gladly vote for a President Pelosi.
Hillary supporters, such as myself, can get even with the sexist media and Obama fanatics by
promising to vote for McCain. I want Obama to plead for our votes. To stop pandering to the rich
and the young. I don't believe Obama really cares for the older voters. I think he is trying to forge a
brand new coalition excluding baby boomers. I think he is going to be sadly surprised in
November.
You have to be an idiot to vote for someone who doesn't want your vote.
John Portelli Albany, NY
He's been talking to you all along... pleading with you to recognize the seriousness of the problems we face... and asking for your vote.
You can demand he stop pandering to others and focus on pandering to you, but since he wasn't pandering to others in the first place as you claim, you're probably out of luck.
Electing McCain won't "get you even" with Obama fans and the media... just put you on par with Bush... regardless of what you "believe" or "think".
Hillary Clinton made reference to her femaleness at various stages of the campaign. It appears that we are talking about it now because having exhausted everything else, her campaign advisors see this as what she has left.
What should we tell future potential female candidates about the fact that Clinton lost in part because she did not appear genuine? Maybe that they should run more genuine campaigns. That is to say they should not pretend they think a gas holiday is good policy or attack their Opponent for mentioning Reagan in much the way that their husband had done earlier without complaing.
Clinton seemed to be running on the fact that one of her strengths was that like a Republican she was willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. That turned out to be a bad strategy. I would hope that future female candidates don't emulate it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
