Author
|
Topic: Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 03 March 2008 06:12 AM
I was just doing some research for work about the sexism Clinton's been facing and thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to simply recording articles about and incidents of sexism during Clinton's campaign.This thread is not about who you support in the primaries. In fact, I support Obama, and I know lots of other babblers too. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is also not about whether it's harder to be a black man or a white woman. This thread is simply about recording and discussing the sexism Clinton's been facing during her campaign. Some interesting stuff I've found: Rhymes with "rich" quote: In the most recent Pew Research Poll, eleven out of 629 people, when asked for one word that describes Hillary Clinton said "rhymes with rich." Sixteen found her untrustworthy and six each said, "dislike her," "power hungry," "selfish/self-centered." When it comes to denigrating Clinton, one word is rarely enough.Of the two men and one woman the Pew respondents were describing, only one was called "ambitious," although they're all running for the same office, and it's not McCain's first time. Guess who got the "ambitious," tag? What are McCain and Obama? Apathetic? Lazy? Unmotivated? No, they're men. They're ambition is expected, taken for granted, applauded and unremarkable. Of the two men and one woman, only one was called "power hungry." Yep, Clinton again. She's called power hungry, but both Obama and McCain are called "leaders." No "leader" word given for Clinton, because, well women aren't thought of as leaders. When we try for the leader brass ring we're called "power hungry." What will Clinton do with all that power she's starving for? She'll be "manipulative" and "overbearing."
The Double Standard quote: The media coverage of the Clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. Women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office. On the one hand, they have to appear tough, nothing at all like a sniveling female, and when they do talk tough, they are called "shrill."
Hillary sexism watch: Bill Maher edition quote: Bill Maher: I’m not trying to be sexist here, but I’m just saying that women try a lot of different tacks when they’re in arguments.Harry Shearer: Do you remember the website in the 90s , where it was all her different hairstyles? Maher: Well, hairstyles. Harry Shearer: Yes, but now there’s going to be a website with all her different personalities. Maher: Well, we made a montage, actually. Just to show you that, just — I’m not being sexist — I’m just saying that men, when we argue, we’re kind of a one-trick pony, we try our one thing, and then we — Shearer: We yell. Maher: And then we sulk when we don’t get our way. [Plays a clip of Hillary, misty-eyed at a campaign event] Maher: But look at Hillary Clinton. Because the first thing a woman does, of course, is cry. [Affecting a dramatic, teary voice] “I just want to be happy. Why can’t you just love me?” Maher: And then they go to sweet talking. [Plays a clip of Hillary complimenting Obama at a recent debate] Maher: “You’re the best thing that ever happened to me! And you look so handsome in that tie!” [Plays a clip of Hillary saying “shame on you” about Obama’s “Harry and Louise” brochure] Maher: And then they throw an anger fit totally unrelated to anything. “Stay home and watch the game. See if I care.” [Plays a clip of Hillary mocking Obama’s soaring rhetoric] Maher: And when it doesn’t work, they bring out the sarcasm. “Oh, I’m just a woman, I couldn’t possibly understand the issues like you could.” Don’t write me, please ladies, don’t write me. Christopher Hitchens: And then if you say “whine, whine, whine,” they say that’s sexist.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 March 2008 03:23 AM
As is usual with these commentaries, Michael Enright's did not only note the sexism out there.I don't have the wording at hand, but we referred to an LATimes study of some sort where Clinton beats MCCain on issues, and Obama does not beat McCain, yet Dems are choosing Obama anyway. Which is supposed to be more evidence of sexism. Ony one problem. Presumably some individual pundit did say Clinton outdoes Obama against McCain, but all the polling indicates the opposite. No one should bow down before that, but it is disengenuous at best to try to argue that Democrats vote against Clinton even though she is 'obviuiously' the superior candidate. There are some defenders of Clinton who do not stoop to this nonsense- Bob Herbert of the NYTimes comes to mind- but most people who head down this road [and I think everyone around Babble] will drag in anything as 'evidence'.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 March 2008 03:36 AM
I mean really, how is this suppossed to be a surprise.Races for president bring out tons of trash talk. Sexism is rife in the culture. Sexist digs at 'uppity women' are fair game in the popular culture. This is surprising? It is certainly a good opportunity to point it out. But to argue that the fact Clinton is losing 'despite everything she has' is just whining crap. A lot of those suppossed assets of hers- which are not linked at all to the 'bitch' and 'ice lady' images- people reacting negatively to the content, such as it is, of those presumed 'assets'. There is a dotted line between the pre-campaign Clinton stature as THE candidate; to the present, where those suppossedly unimpeachable 'assets' she has, are rejectec by the unwashed, which is in turn argued to be evidence of their sexism. [ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 March 2008 03:51 AM
OK, maybe I should. But I was making specific reference to what Michal Enright's essay. Granted, no one specifically referred to that part of Michael Enright's essay- so if I was to bring it up at all I should have kept it to to a simple statement that Enright's essay was an example of stretching things to the point of arguing that but for sexism Clinton would be winning.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 March 2008 06:45 AM
This is part of the problem with using the Clinton campaign as an example of displays and manifestatios of sexism in the culture.The kind of examples Michelle posted are clear cut, and they are legion in their own right. The kind Martin tends to post, he makes the case are less direct manifestations. And so they might be. But they also tend to point to circumstances where what happens to this particular candidate is not all unique or necessarily related to her being a woman. Clinton made the choice to wrap and package herself as the inevitable candidate- the candidate with it all, to whom no one else really compared. Male or female, such figures get especially melodramatic attention if they fall. Whatever people think of Mitt Romney, he was never that kind of candidate. Most Canadians now watching this did not get exposed to how Clinton chose to portray herself last year. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I know that giving attention to the pervasiveness of sexism is an uphill battle at the best of times. Trying to do it in the middle of a partisan battle is really hazardous boulder rolling. There is a reason that the argument is now getting slagged even by people who normally support it strongly. It's not like there is no reason to see a certain taint to the argument. [ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 04 March 2008 07:07 AM
I can understand you would see it the way Michelle- and there is certainly some general truth to what you say.But you wouldn't say it if you were an activist in the US. I'm not arguing that its some kind of chracter flaw of Clinton's. And it made strategic sense for her. I'm just saying that it is a choice she made, and one of the inevitable consequences is that if it doesn't work, the fall from grace is going to be harder than it is for someone like Mitt Romney. And all of this is examplary of the problem of disentangling what is going on. There is no question that the bulk of the left in the Democratic party is glad to see Hillary Clinton fall. There is an assumption made that this is rooted in essentially the same relishing the right wing media takes in watching her fall. The assumption is not only potentially ungrounded, there is an inherent problem that the people pointing it out have a partisan interest in doing so. Mind you, I'll readily admitt that this gets really post-modernist when we look at whay this debate happens in Canada. Even when you make allowances a lot of us can get partisan about things we aren't involved in, there has to be something different going on her. And I wouldn't be surprised that if you scratch the surface a bit you'll find the discussion here in Canda is an indirect manifestation of the many ways people relate to feminism. IE, strip away Hillary Clinton, and reframe the questions in a general way... and you'll be able to predict where people are going to line up.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 04 March 2008 08:58 AM
A little something for the ladies by Joel Stein, LA Times, Feb. 29 quote: You know how ladies, when they don't get what they want, can go a little crazy? Am I right, fellas? Right now, they're pretty upset about losing their first chance at a female president. This would have empowered little girls, shattered sexist beliefs about female incompetence and forced men around the world to view a woman as an agent of power instead of a sex object -- all of which, it turns out, are important to women even though they buy Star magazine. Ladies are complicated. Because women do most of the voting, and the shopping and the TV watching and the book reading -- porn really must take up a lot of men's time -- they need to be placated. Which shouldn't be hard. You know how when your dog dies, your wife wants to get a puppy right away? That's what America has to do. We need a replacement Hillary. Because while women are sad that Hillary Clinton seems poised to lose the Democratic nomination, they're even more dejected that there appear to be no women with enough political stature to run for president next time. That's why Barack Obama and John McCain need to pick female running mates. Either that or we're going to have to find some money in the federal budget for 150 million flower bouquets.(...)(and on and on, ad nauseam)
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 04 March 2008 10:41 AM
I don't think this has to take us very far from the thread topic. Whenever I have posted articles about sexist bias against Clinton outside of Babble, you have raised the straw man that babblers weren't attacking Clinton on a gender basis but because of her stands on issues, etc. (you never went into much detail, just denied that it was sexism). Now you acknowledge that not only does the Democratic Left have it in for her in the U.S. but that, in Canada, Hillary-bashing is an "indirect manifestation of the many ways people relate to feminism". Yessss! That was the point of most of the articles I reposted here, and I am glad to see you come around, sort of. But since I imagine your opposition to Clinton remains unabated, I am deducting that you are including yourself in your assessment of Canadian Leftist opponents, i.e. that opposition to Clinton describes the way you yourself "relate" to feminism. ETA: This may be a mischaracterization, and I apologize if you are, in fact, profeminist yourself.[ 04 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 04 March 2008 01:19 PM
I'd support Obama over Clinton but the sexism she's facing is pretty unbelievable. Especially when contrasted with the racism Obama's encountering - or not encountering.For example, bumperstcikers that say this:
Or this:
Or t-shirts that say this:
Or web-graphics that say this:
Or "gag" gifts like this:
We kind of just ignore all of this stuff as noise. Contrast that with the genuine outrage - from all corners - when Obama's ethnic or racial background is brought up.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:07 PM
Just to bump this thread...Thoughts on Tina Fey's attempt to reclaim the b-word? Watch it here. Some pundits claim this helped Hillary win in Texas and Ohio.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 06 March 2008 08:07 PM
A post on DailyKos I don't think anybody would mind me reposting it here. It's not exactly copyrighted.Ms. Clinton, you are not a victim--nor are you a champion of beleaguered women's rights. When you jumped ahead of far more deserving women like Barbara Boxer to run for president, simply on the basis of having been First Lady, you were not a victim, but rather a setback for the millions of deserving women who make their way on their own names rather than those of their husbands. When you and your husband claimed that the entire Lewinsky scandal was the product of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, you were not victims. When you and your husband created a crack team to tamp down any bimbo eruptions and silence Bill's former girlfriends, you were not victims--and certainly not champions of oppressed women. When you crushed the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans--including a large number of minority women--with welfare "reform" and neoliberal trade policies just to secure a few more white conservative and corporatist votes, you were not victims. When you and your husband helped create and chair the most effective group in destroying the Democratic Party from within, all to ensure the election and influence of more southern, white, conservative men in the Democratic Party, you were neither victims nor champions of the oppressed in America. When you elbowed out other deserving Democrats to run for New York Senate despite not being from New York, and used your influence with your husband to trade four corrupt pardons for votes in a community where women are to be unseen and unheard, you were not a victim, nor a proponent of women's rights in chauvinist, fundamentalist communities. When you chose to use your position of influence within the Democratic Party to vote to allow Bush to send thousands of young women and men to die in the sands of Iraq and create widows and orphans of countless Iraqi mothers and children, simply so that you could look "tougher" on national security, you were not a victim. When you inexplicably voted for Kyl-Lieberman to allow Dick Cheney to create even more widows and orphans by bombing Iran, you were not a victim. When you spent much of the rest of your time as Senator censoring videogames and sponsoring flag-burning amendments, you were not a victim. When you used your name recognition as First Lady and wide variety of favors owed you and your husband to take the Democratic Establishment and jump to 30-point national poll leads early in this nominating contest, you were not a victim. When you took advantage of anti-African-American sentiment in the Hispanic community to "earn" vast percentages of their votes in spite of you and your husband's having done almost nothing substantive for their communities and allowing Bush to rack up between 39% to 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, you were not a victim. When you and your husband did everything in your power to make Obama the Jesse Jackson candidate, you were neither victims nor advocates of the oppressed in the United States of America. When Fortune magazine said that business loves you, you were not a victim, but a corporate insider. When you hired the biggest union-busting asshole this side of the Democratic Party to run your campaign and its message, you were not a victim. When you used the corrupt Nevada machine to cheat and suppress votes in over 1600 instances in the Nevada caucuses, you were not a victim. When you doctored Obama's face to make his skin darker and his nose wider in an attack ad, you were not a victim. When you used a kitchen sink strategy to trash Obama in any way possible even as he ran a high-ground campaign, no matter the cost to the Democratic Party, you were not a victim. When you endorsed the misogynist-backed, warmongering Republican nominee over Obama based on the distorted notion that you both have more "experience", you were neither a victim nor a friend to women. When you used fearmongering tactics in the worst tradition of political advertisements, you were not a victim. When you not only supported the death of the American Rust Belt with NAFTA, but then attempted to say were against it even as you took credit for all the other events of your husband's presidency, then assured the Canadians that you really did love NAFTA after all, and then lied and accused the Obama campaign of having done what you did, you were not a victim, but a lying, disgusting cheat. When you used fearmongering and potentially racist coding by accusing your opponent of not having been "vetted", in spite of your campaign having raked him over the coals for anything and everything you could, you were not a victim. When you reserve the right to overturn the will of the majority of voters and pledged delegates to steal the nomination with insider superdelegates, you are not a victim. And now that you are lying by saying that you're just too busy to release your tax records before April 15, all while claiming that your opponent isn't sufficiently vetted, you are NOT a victim. You and your husband are masters of making vicious attacks and engaging in scurrilous behavior, all while painting yourselves as victims of an anti-Clinton bias or even conspiracy. You are not victims; you are perpetrators. You are not advocates for the battered and under-represented; you are the batterers. You are not the ones standing up for the oppressed; you are the oppressors. And if you do manage to steal this nomination from a campaign of Hope that will almost assuredly have more pledged delegates and votes by the time it's all over, no one will fall for your claims of victimization when all the mistakes you made during the primary campaign get repeated in a disastrous campaign against John McCain. Many of us Democrats fell for your victim line during the 90s; we will not do so again. It is high time that you suffered the slings and arrows of the same abusive tactics that you yourselves have been the masters of. And this time, no one will be crying for you but yourselves. The hyperlinked version is available here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/151730/0689/218/470663
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 March 2008 03:31 AM
Hey Adam T, thanks for posting this example of people denying all the sexism Clinton is experiencing, complete with comments about what a bitch Clinton is by some of the resident misogynists at Daily Kos. That's the spirit! Actually, there are quite a few points in that screed that I agree with, which is why I would rather see Obama win the nomination (not that I'm under any illusions that Obama is any more "oppressed" than "oppressor"). But just the fact that this person is denying any and all sexism that Clinton is facing is sexist if you ask me. You can not like Clinton and still be able to see where she is being attacked by the media, by Republicans, and by some fellow Democrats in sexist ways. Ah, Daily Kos. Home of the sexist attack against any woman who has the nerve to speak the truth, whether about sexism they've experienced or against war. The place where you can read about how it's no big deal when female bloggers get death threats and are hounded off the internet. The place where activists like Cindy Sheehan get torn to pieces with sexist attacks. Yes, that's an excellent nomination for this thread, Adam T. Thanks! [ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:01 AM
Obama aide quits after calling Clinton "monster" quote: An adviser to Barack Obama has resigned after a Scottish newspaper quoted her calling rival US Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton "a monster".Samantha Power has expressed "deep regret" over the comments and said she had tried to retract them. The Scotsman newspaper quoted Ms Power as saying: "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything."
My theory is that the real reason she was fired is this: quote: Ms Power said the Illinois senator's position that he would withdraw all troops within 16 months was a "best-case scenario" that he would revisit if he became president.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:35 AM
An older article from NOW:Hillary Clinton and the Media: From Intelligent and Fair to Appallingly Sexist and Pointless quote: Clinton is no stranger to this kind of treatment from the press. An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her "frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure." Political cartoonist Nick Anderson created an animated cartoon which ran on the Houston Chronicle website featuring a curvaceous Clinton being asked, in the words of a popular song, "What you gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?" Without the accompanying drawing, one could have assumed that Anderson was referring personal baggage, but the cartoon made clear that he was also making a sly dig at her shape. When was the last time an opinion piece or cartoon commented on a male candidate's figure? Adding insult to injury, The New York Times published a Maureen Dowd piece (titled "Mama Hugs Iowa") on Jan. 31 charging that as First Lady, Clinton showed off "a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos." So we not only have to hear about what she's wearing today, but what she wore (and how she styled her hair) in 1992. On Feb. 9, Reuters news agency reported fashion designer Donatella Versace's advice that "Hillary Clinton should tap into her feminine side and wear dresses and skirts instead of trousers." A Florida paper, the Sun-Sentinel, chimed in on Feb. 16 with an article by Jura Koncius about Rosemarie Howe, Clinton's interior designer, and how she helped the Senator decorate her Embassy Row house in a "comfortable yet elegant" scheme of "camel and coral." Fuentes' USA Today op-ed provided a much-needed reality check, pointing out that "Women in government stand out because of their strength, intellect, and ideas — not because of their hemlines. Yet here we are in 2007 still treating powerful women like a novelty." She expressed justifiable concern that "focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious," something these reporters and editors know all too well.
Also, a good pointer on how to address Clinton when talking about her: quote: In a Feb. 14 Seattle Post-Intelligencer column, Susan Paynter notes that the language used to discuss and refer to a candidate can affect public perception. Of recent modes of addressing Clinton, she suggests "for title, try Senator, not Mrs. or Mama."
[ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:17 PM
That's fine.In a country with 300 million people like the United States it's natural there are going to be a whole bunch of sexist jerks. However, that does not mean that all the criticism against her is sexist or that she can hide behind that to avoid criticism. Given that you seem to have fallen into the camp, that every criticism she's received is based on sexism, I'd hardly say that you're a credible judge of what is and what isn't sexism either.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Adam T: Given that you seem to have fallen into the camp, that every criticism she's received is based on sexism, I'd hardly say that you're a credible judge of what is and what isn't sexism either.
But you, as a man, are a credible judge of what is and what isn't sexism?And you, as a man, feel you have a right to tell a woman, that she does not know what is, or is not sexism? Well, I will now tell you, as a women, your comments are an excellent example of sexism.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:43 PM
I don't think it was off topic at all.I agree there is genuine sexism against Hillary Clinton. I've read about some of it myself. I do have to admit, I'm not 100% sure what the point of this thread is. Is it just to be outraged by the sexism againt Hillary Clinton? As I said, in a country with 300 million people, there are bound to be a lot of sexist jerks. I don't say that to dismiss it, just to point out that most of it is made by idiots who have absolutely no influence whatsoever. If you, for some reason, want to give those people a forum by reposting what they say, that's fine, I'll stay out of that. If you are trying to make a thread, however, that says Hillary Clinton has been the 'victim' of some large sexist campaign, which is where I thought this thread was going, then my first reply is completely valid, and I'm going to strongly dispute that. I see absolutely no evidence that any of the serious criticism she has faced has come from anybody with a sexist agenda or that her campaign has been damaged by sexism.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 08 March 2008 04:47 PM
quote: And you, as a man, feel you have a right to tell a woman, that she does not know what is, or is not sexism?
Uh huh, I have a "friend" who is Jewish, and I'm Jewish myself. He is older than me and for about 20 years he was absolutely convinced that every German he met was a former Nazi. Now he is absolutely convinced that every Muslim he meets is a terrorist, including the local former N.D.P candidate in the riding Itrath Sayeed. There is a well known saying "if you look for something hard enough you are bound to find it."
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 08 March 2008 05:11 PM
You may be right, I think it's always a balance between shining a spotlight on it to fight it, and just giving it more of a forum.I don't really know the answer. The National had a similarly themed story on that yesterday with the use of the 'N' word. I will say taking another look over the forum, that all of the examples of the real sexism posted here are from very fringe writers, excluding the Bill Maher and Harry Shearer thing. Harry Shearer is a satirist and was probably mocking, but Bill Maher is a well known jerk. There was an example in Canada too with Ezra Levant saying on the Charles Addled show that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both got to where they did because they were in the right identity groups. I didn't hear that show, but CKNW here repeated that as a teaser for the Addled show. I was outraged by that and maybe there is a need for a forum to express outrage at these sorts of things. I still think it's important though to draw a distinction between highlighting idiotic comments and using that as an exuse to bash all legitimate criticism.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rural - Francesca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14858
|
posted 08 March 2008 05:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Adam T: I still think it's important though to draw a distinction between highlighting idiotic comments and using that as an exuse to bash all legitimate criticism.
yeah you would think wouldn't you...... quote: Originally posted by Michelle: I was just doing some research for work about the sexism Clinton's been facing and thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to simply recording articles about and incidents of sexism during Clinton's campaign.This thread is not about who you support in the primaries. In fact, I support Obama, and I know lots of other babblers too. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is also not about whether it's harder to be a black man or a white woman. This thread is simply about recording and discussing the sexism Clinton's been facing during her campaign.
From: the backyard | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 08 March 2008 05:40 PM
My 'yawn' comment was solely in reference to Hillary Clinton supporters who try to argue that every critisicm of her is sexist. It was not to deny that there is real sexism against her.However, on the broader point, I just disagree that sexism, or racism for that matter, seems to be having much of an influence on the Democratic primary. I would think that is something to be celebrated actually. When it gets to the general, it may be more of a factor.
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885
|
posted 08 March 2008 06:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Adam T: My 'yawn' comment was solely in reference to Hillary Clinton supporters who try to argue that every critisicm of her is sexist. =
I've seen very few criticisms of her that didn't use some sexist rhetoric or ideology. I agree that, in theory, she could certainly be fairly criticized on the merits of her arguments just like any other candidate. In practice, is that occurring? No, not even close. Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview. This is unsurprising, given the extent to which fundamentally sexist worldviews permeate North American society.
From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 14 March 2008 04:34 AM
On selfishness, I would dispute that calling her selfish is automatically sexist.One of the reasons that the 'netroots', and liberal-left, of the Democratic Party is pro-Obama and anti-Clinton is due to his "50 state strategy." One of the reasons they don't like Clinton has to due with her ""insult 40 state strategy." So, when it comes to the American left anyways, Clinton's 'selfishness' is seen as something that has been apparent in Bill Clinton's political history and is likely to be apparent in Hillary Clinton's political modus oporandi too. After all when you vote Clinton you "buy one, get one free." Hillary Clinton may get votes from the blue collar, "low information" voters, but unlike Obama she gets the vast majority of her money from large donations. Essentially her campaign is about her, whereas Obama's campaign is about himself but he also tries to make it about the people supporting him too (by, amongst other things, saying things like "Yes we can")...to make it more like a movement and thus less "selfish."
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 March 2008 06:36 AM
I'm trying to find an article that I stumbled upon a couple of weeks ago, where they were talking about the polarization among female voters in the US. It was interesting because the article featured quotes from female Obama supporters who were handing out literature near polling stations, and they described female Clinton supporters as "angry" because the women wouldn't stop and talk to them or take their literature. I wish I could find it because the description of "angry women" who support Hillary Clinton was interesting. Basically, the tone of the article was that these poor, defenceless little women who support Obama were being treated so rudely by all those nasty, ballbusting, bitchy Clinton supporters who refused to take their Obama literature on voting day. Even women who support Clinton are bitches! [ 14 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 15 March 2008 09:30 AM
Draco: quote: I agree that, in theory, she could certainly be fairly criticized on the merits of her arguments just like any other candidate. In practice, is that occurring? No, not even close. Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview.
In practice you say, no criticisms of Clinton that have any merit that does not "spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview." Well I invite you to use me as a demonstrtation, as a laboratory. I've got lots of posts criticising Clinton for you to choose from. So show us how I, for example, while seeming to say something of merit am actually expressing a fundamentally sexist world view. [And not simply, "here's an example". For educational purposes some kind of where and how is required.] ETA: We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism.
...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing. [ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 15 March 2008 10:18 AM
quote: Draco: Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview. KenS: In practice you say, no criticisms of Clinton that have any merit that does not "spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview."
KenS, you should have stuck with your "big deal" summation, a few lines below, because it says a lot more about your position than this pathetic new straw man. What I hear Draco saying is that even arguments of merit against Clinton get lost in criticisms that overtake it, and that appeal, instead, to the fundamentally sexist worldview that facilitates bashing a woman as woman. I have noticed the same. There is sometimes a kernel of possible value in an argument, but it is most often merely used to reactivate a host of stereotypes and attacks steeped in misogyny and, in some cases, overt antifeminism. These overtake what could have been a valid assessment and the criticisms turn into one more rant against Clinton. But, as you say, "big deal," right?[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 16 March 2008 02:09 AM
"Big deal" to what? You are utterly incomprehensible. Mind you, I hesitate to encourage you to sort out what you are saying. Because it looks like where you are going would almost certainly entail another total distortion of what I said... which I can't address without derialing the thread. Here by the way is the "big deal" comment which you referred to but didn't quote: quote: : We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism. ...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing.
I would think you understand the meaning and just decided to [try] to make your own use of my using the words "big deal" irregardless of what I actually said. But just in case you didn't get it, I'm saying that we should not throw away the message because a couple of the messengers are so extreme as to in practice portray all criticism of Clinton as sexist.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 March 2008 04:11 AM
Thanks, Martin, that WAS the one! I skipped past it a couple of times in google searches, not sure why.Anyhow, yeah. Obama supporters keep saying that it's not their fault that the press is being so sexist, and that the difference between Clinton and Obama is that the Clinton camp is being racist, but the Obama camp isn't being sexist at all. Well, of course the Obama camp doesn't have to be sexist - the media is doing all their work for them. Also, Obama's clearly smarter than Clinton (which is another reason why he should get the nomination, I guess - he's way better at smearing while looking perfectly innocent). Clinton's high-profile people get in trouble for racist smears. Obama's camp leaves the sexist smears to the people in his campaign who are lower-level so that he can't be accused of smearing. (Not that sexist smears get any media attention anyhow, other than being printed straight without any acknowledgement of sexism.) So, in the article that Martin posted, the sexist smear has been done by a no-name district captain, who complains about what a bunch of bitches those nasty feminist Clinton supporters are - but then after her sexist smear, she magnanimously says that after Obama wins the campaign, she'll do her best to help woo them back: quote: Julie Acevedo, a precinct captain for Obama in Austin, noticed that things were getting uglier on Friday, during the early voting, when she “saw some very angry women just stomping by us to go vote for Hillary. They cut us off when we tried to talk about Barack.“I’m 46,” Ms. Acevedo, a fund-raiser for state politicians, said Tuesday night. “Maybe I missed it by a few years, but I don’t know why these women are so fueled by such hostility and think other women are misogynists if they don’t vote for Hillary. It’s insulting and disturbing.” She said that if Obama definitively outpaces Hillary, she will work to “heal the wounds” and woo back women who are now angry at him.
Goddamn feminist bitches, hey? Always so angry and nasty - must be because they're old hags, unlike the young Acevedo who, luckily, missed the feminist bitch thing "by a few years". All those nasty old crones supporting Hillary. Surely you don't want to be one of THEM! Better vote for Obama. He's the choice of nice, younger women who haven't given up all their charm to becoming bitter old bags. [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 March 2008 04:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: ETA: We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism. ...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing.
Or YOU could skip the thread drift entirely by just staying the hell out of this thread, instead of constantly CLAIMING that you want to avoid thread drift. It's really annoying - you just post your point of view, then declare that it's going to cause thread drift if anyone argues the point with you. YOU are the one causing thread drift. YOU are the one who is off topic. Please stay out of this thread from now on since you just can't seem to help yourself from posting self-admitted "thread drift" posts and from starting pissing matches in this thread. We get it. You really can't stand Martin. You've made your point. [ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 12 May 2008 08:45 AM
Sexism On Parade Guest post by Grey, May 11, 2008It was just a matter of time. First came the nutcracker; then they called her "sister Frigidaire," crazy, grossly ruthless and a shrill, petulant, whiny spoiled brat. Hillary Clinton is such a girl that her voice makes "a politically progressive man" fight the urge "to punch her in the face." It's the cackle, you know? Bob Ellis compiled a list of what he doesn't like about her: quote: Her towering frigidity, blazing hubris, bellowing mendacity (...)
[Go to webpage for lots of links within the story.]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401
|
posted 20 May 2008 08:36 AM
Clinton decries sexism in the White House race quote: Hillary Clinton called sexist attacks on her campaign "deeply offensive" Tuesday, as female supporters sprang to her defense, saying she speaks for all women and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.ADVERTISEMENT In what appear to be the waning days of her historic White House bid, the former first lady spoke out for the first time about what her supporters have long condemned, including derisive T-shirts, novelty items and commentary focusing on her gender. "It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said told The Washington Post in an interview, in which she pinned blame primarily on tolerant attitudes in the media.
"I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press," Clinton said of the contest that will crown either a black or a female presidential nominee for the first time in history.
Clinton said she did not believe the campaign had been tainted by racism, adding that racism is apparently less tolerated in US society than sexism.
"There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said.
"It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."
Female supporters of Hillary Clinton have sprung to her defense, insisting she should stay in the Democratic primary race to the end, June 3.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 20 May 2008 11:17 AM
quote:
Hillary Clinton called sexist attacks on her campaign "deeply offensive" Tuesday, as female supporters sprang to her defense, saying she speaks for all women and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.
I can see that Clinton has had to deal with sexist attacks for many years now. And these attacks should of course be confronted whenever they occur. But it's these kinds of statements from her supporters that i don't understand. How can they say that: 1. Clinton speaks for all women 2. Clinton should stay in the race even though she has no chance of winning, and that she should take things to "the bitter end"
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033
|
posted 20 May 2008 03:11 PM
quote: When was the last time an opinion piece or cartoon commented on a male candidate's figure?
Male candidates get comments on their weight and appearance all of the time. For instance, Al Gore's weight was a frequent topic of jokes and comments from talk show hosts and other media. Some examples: quote: "Remember Al Gore? Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman "Al Gore has put on 40 pounds since losing the election and experts contribute this to depression. That's right. In a related story, Michael Dukakis now weighs 12,000 pounds." --Conan O'Brien "He's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al Gore?'" "It's kind of ironic. He always wanted to distance himself from Bill Clinton. Now that he's out of politics and overweight, he is Bill Clinton." --Jay Leno
If these same comments above had been made about a female candidate, would they be sexist?
quote: She expressed justifiable concern that "focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious," something these reporters and editors know all too well.
Male candidates also face endless discussion over their clothes... Here's some examples: quote: Stitch in time produces new classic Chicago Sun Times May 6, 2001 by Lisa Lenoir http://www.oxxfordclothes.com/suntimes.aspPresident George W. Bush steps into the spotlight looking like a man fresh off the pages of GQ magazine. His black cashmere overcoat delicately drapes his shoulders, the blue stripe tie radiates against his white shirt and the suit perfectly fits his fit form. What a contrast after seeing Bush's hokey business and Western attire on the campaign trail. The 10-gallon hats and cowboy boots caused many fashion watchers to shake in their boots. But Bush's past style lapses are forgivable because, since his inauguration he's been wearing some of the best tailored garments -- Oxxford suits.
quote: Fashion Watch: Harper most stylish of the bland Updated Mon. Dec. 19 2005 8:50 PM ETCanadian Press TORONTO -- While the electorate is still deciding on the country's new leader, Stephen Harper is being seen by some fashion analysts as the most stylish of a bland bunch. Despite a "noisy tie," Harper's pocket puff allowed him to emerge as the most fashion forward of all the "white guys in dark suits" in last week's English-language debate, said Sally Ritchie, a clothes-savvy television producer at TVOntario who's been watching what the leaders are wearing. "Overall, Harper was the snazziest dressed," she said. "Yes, he was the clear winner -- the least bland of the bland." Fashion designer Paul Hardy agreed that Harper was the most stylish. "The pocket puff totally won my vote. He had the perfect shade of blue shirt," said Hardy from his studio in Calgary. "Frankly, I just thought (his outfit) was so modern. I was very surprised because I wouldn't expect him to be on the pulse."
quote: Stephen, what the heck are you wearing? LEAH McLAREN March 31, 2006 at 8:56 AM EDTStephen darling, can we talk? What I and everybody else back in Canada really need know right now is what the heck are you wearing? Don't give me that "who me?" look. It might work on Laureen, but it won't work on a style columnist. I know you got into Cancun late Wednesday night. I know you haven't had time to shop since Afghanistan.You're Prime Minister now -- it's time to dress that way. I don't mean to be cranky, but you're testing my sartorial patience. First there was the hair issue (ongoing), then the series of mock turtlenecks that made you look like an assistant golf pro at Club Link, then the Lone Ranger getup at the Stampede, and now this! Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse, you show up for an official visit wearing a fishing vest and clashing bottoms.
[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: Dana Larsen ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 20 May 2008 09:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Excellent article by Antonia!
quote: She's too hot, too cold, too hard, too soft, too weak, too strong, too feminine, too masculine ...
I recall criticisms of P.M. Kim Campbell ran along similar lines. I have to admit I have not been investing a lot of time watching US politics, I switch the channel when the primary highlights come up on CBC. Politics usually brings out the worst in pundits. It was not until I read some Marilyn vos Savant (1996 - The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning…and Hard Facts about Its Absence in Our Lives) that I realised how sexist society is toward women, in politics, in academics, and in public life. Marilyn herself (apparently having the highest IQ in the world : Guinness book of world records) had her gender attacked and maligned ('female logic') and not her solutions, proofs and procedures. Marilyn's plumbing is wrong, therefore her solutions and analysis are as well.
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 21 May 2008 08:02 PM
I was involved directly in politics and campaigning at one time way back when. Sexism does happen and it's annoying as f**k. I have first hand experience. Excuse the language, but it is real sore spot. I still have a media article which talked about my hair. I can tell you that being on the receiving end of this type of crap is very disconcerting and DOES have an affect on thinking. It actually is a distraction and when one is supposed to be focused on the issues and the actual people there's this niggling thing in the background that one has to contend with and try to push out of the way. 'Is my hair okay today? Choice of clothes etc etc. Of course image is important but I personally feel that because of this there is an extra amount of pressure that males don't have to contend with as much. Honestly though the media is one thing but dealing with some of the other males involved was way worse. I didn't have any problem whatsoever with the other women, especially those in opposing parties. Any discussions were about the actual issues and I never had to deal with comments about my looks, 'Oh a good looking women like you, etc etc.' Yes I suppose one could come back and say well thats just complimenting but there is a difference between just complimenting and having such 'compliments' contextulizing what your actually saying and the actual discussion. Not sure I explained that right, it's a nuanced thing and hard to put into words. The worst though came from a conservative senator, who in discussion about Kyoto and the Cons supposed 'plan', constantly referred to me in a condescending manner as young lady. "Now see here young lady, you are blah blah this, Now see here young lady...blah blah that" Everything was in context with me being 'female' and in this case also young, which is another issue. Oh and just to note, I did not let him get away with it and refused to be demeaned that way. I calmly pushed my points and yes I *ahem* did throw in a calm but pointed, "Now see here old man..." Considering that some of the people listening broke out laughing at this I think I made the point which was basically, 'screw off and cut that crap, you sexist pig' without having to say the actual words. Bleh though and grrr...
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 22 May 2008 01:37 PM
More sexist crap from Rush Limbaugh: quote: LIMBAUGH: You know, the feminazis forgot one thing. Well, one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. And it's -- one of the things is affirmative action is exactly -- it's, you know, liberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. There's no question, the way he is being treated by the drive-bys and so forth and so on. The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed. So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today.
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 25 May 2008 10:18 AM
quote: MR. RUSSERT: Maureen Dowd, "misogynist," "gender bias," it seems as though the Clintons are being--trying very hard to lay that out as a premise for Hillary Clinton's difficulties in this primary contest.MS. DOWD: I think it's poppycock, really. I mean, Hillary Clinton has allowed women to visualize a woman as president for the first time, in the way Colin Powell allowed people to visualize an African-American. And she dominated the debates, she, she proved that a woman can have as much tenacity and gall as any man on earth. We, we can visualize her facing down Ahmadinejad. But the thing is, Hillary hurts feminism when she uses it as opportunism. And she has a history of covering up her own mistakes behind sexism. She did it with health care right after health care didn't pass. She didn't admit that she was abrasive or mismanaged it or blew off good advice or was too secretive. She said that she was a Rorschach test for gender and that many men thought of a female boss they didn't like when they looked at her. And now she's doing the same thing, and it's very--you know, in a way it's the moral equivalent of Sharptonism. It's this victimhood and angry and turning women against men and saying that the men are trying to take it away from us, in the same way she's turning Florida and Michigan and riling up and comparing them to suffragettes and slaves. And it's very damaging to feminism.
meet the press transcript from today webcast of same
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 07 June 2008 09:10 AM
Woman In Charge, Women Who Charge Judith Warner, The New York Times, June 5, 2008Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of "Sex and the City," the movie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that Hillary Clintons candidacy imploded? Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I'm not so sure. And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deserved to lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about the outcome of her candidacy - mistakes were made, and she faced a formidable opponent in Barack Obama - but rather about the climate in which her campaign was conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and "Sex" is now flourishing. (...)
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 07 June 2008 03:14 PM
quote: Have we ever seen the MSM discussing how a man, in politics, package is hanging, or protuding in his pants?
if you mean on fox or cnn not so much, but a lot of comments, usually derisive, were made about the codpiece effect of Bush's flightsuit on "Mission Accomplished" day. Although, of course that was on Randi Rhodes/ Stephanie Miller/ Olbermann, etc. you tube sexism sells but we're not buying it. Marc Rudov's the biggest pig in here. The ignorance is mindblowing. He speaks about PMS being a problem with Hillary as president, which, of course, instantly demonstrates his total ignorance of human biology as it pertains to 60 year old women. But, then again, Hitler loving/ holocaust denying Pat Buchanan still gets to be allowed on 'respectable' news networks so I guess the bar is pretty low. Interesting note about Rudov. His wiki bio mentions how he writes for "Mens News", which rung a bell for me. Its a GOP/ Karl Rove front site, famous as the former home of .... Jeff Gannon!! You may remeber Jeff: he was the fake reporter, planted by Rove in the press room, that was always called on at difficult White House press briefings when the questions were getting too tough. Jeff was soon revealed to have a second life as a gay prostitute and gay armyporn star. I dont know why this connection would pop up in my mind after watching the appallingly misogynist Mr. Rudov speak. I mention it only in passing. [ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 08 June 2008 06:27 AM
Forwarded with B.L. Wagner's permission: quote: Hillary Hate-OnU.S. media’s treatment of Clinton shows the political gender gap is going strong Think it’s any different in Canada? Nuh-uh! by Bernadette Wagner In January, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews succinctly dismissed Hillary Clinton’s talent, skill, political acumen and U.S. Senate experience as factors for her frontrunner status in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination race. Matthews said, “The reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.” It’s typical, really, of how women are treated by the media and others when they enter political life. In the United States, the Women’s Media Center (WMC) joined together with prominent U.S. feminists and feminist organizations to extract an apology from Matthews. Then, on May 23, the WMC released a video of news clips called “Sexism Sells — But We’re Not Buying It”, featuring five minutes of sexist commentary by various male and female newscasters and commentators in the U.S. The clip is viewable online at http://womensmediacentre.com and it provides examples of how commenting on a woman’s appearance — her dress, her cosmetics, her cleavage — is apparently newsworthy, somehow related to her ability to perform as a politician. If Hillary Clinton has conceded to Barack Obama by the time you read this — and there’s a possibility she will have if it didn’t go well for her in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, June 3 — you have to wonder just how much a factor systemic sexism was in her defeat. Think it’s any different in Canada? Nuh-uh! Just ask Sheila Copps, Belinda Stronach, Amber Jones or Deb Higgins. When Sheila Copps was a member of the federal Liberal Party’s “Rat Pack” in the House of Commons, she was particularly good at getting under the skin of the Conservative members of Mulroney’s government. At one point, John Crosbie, a cabinet minister, told her to “quieten down, baby.” Admittedly, that was 20-some years ago, but still, that attitude reigns supreme. During the 2006 election campaign Belinda Stronach, a Liberal MP who entered the political sphere when she ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, commented in a CTV web story that, “Sometimes it can be a little bit frustrating when you’re trying to get a message out and people are focusing on your personal life or the shoes you’re wearing.” Certainly, the media made much of her personal relationships with Peter McKay and Tie Domi (neither of which compromised national security, as far as I know). Even as recently as last fall a CTV story reported on Stronachs split with Domi and included a description of her attire at a charity gala. Amber Jones is the new leader of the Green Party in Saskatchewan. She is also a new mother. After she breastfed her child and passed the baby to her partner (likely for a diaper change), the child was returned to her arms. She was attacked by the producer of a radio show for not only breastfeeding her baby but also exploiting the youngster as a “political prop” because this was a media event. Apparently in Saskatchewan, demonstrating the reality of your life as a breastfeeding mother involved in politics is a no-no. And let’s not forget Saskatchewan Party MLA Mike Chisholm’s insult of NDP MLA Deb Higgins. Higgins, lauded by many as a hard-working and intelligent woman and as a former Minister of Labour, rankled Chisholm’s feathers with her questions and comments during the discussions of Bills 5 and 6. He responded by calling her a “dumb bitch”. Coming on the heels of Premier Wall's apology to the people of Saskatchewan for his role in the sexist, racist and homophobic 1991 videotape found by the NDP and released to the public, the premier had no choice but to “accept” Chisholm’s resignation as Legislative Secretary. Nice start but he should have tossed Chisholm from caucus. Equal Vote Canada is an organization working to promote women’s involvement in politics. Their website cites several international sources which add credence to their demand for more women to be involved in political decision-making. Like the UNICEF report which says that legislatures with a higher participation of women produce better policies to fight child poverty. And the World Bank report that says legislatures with higher involvement of women are “more productive.” That report concludes “women are effective in promoting honest government and national parliaments with the largest numbers of women have the lowest levels of corruption.” Equal Voice says Canada is falling behind on women’s representation in government. Where once we placed much higher, now we are 48th in the world. The number of women elected to our federal Parliament has hovered around 20 per cent for more than a decade now. Is it any wonder? Why would a woman want to run for election if she has to fund her campaign from wages that are 30 per cent less than her male counterpart’s? When she must endure harassment from within the party and the members opposite, as well as from the media if she’s elected? It’s an uphill battle all the way, especially to the post of the most powerful person in the world. Just ask Hillary Clinton. [email protected]
[ 08 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 21 June 2008 07:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deserved to lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about the outcome of her candidacy - mistakes were made, and she faced a formidable opponent in Barack Obama - but rather about the climate in which her campaign was conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and "Sex" is now flourishing. (...)
Are you saying this series and now the movie is somehow questionable?
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|