Sexism in Action Part II
Kevin Sullivan writes at Independent Liberal (what are you waiting for? Add it to your daily reads!):
There’s some merit in what Gloria Steinem has to say on sexism in American politics. I think it’s certainly true that Senator Clinton has to engage in a near impossible balancing act between toughness and “femininity.” I think Clinton has been mistreated by the media in ways that have eluded her male counterparts. And yes, I do think there’s some kind of sociological nugget to unearth in the way Obama has been made a darling in comparison to Clinton.
I agree with that, it seems clear to me that we’re seeing sexism at work.
After that, though, Kevin goes on to argue that because Clinton refers to her eight years as First Lady as “experience” she’s basically inviting sexism.
Now, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. Because she’s pointing out that she was the president’s wife, and that she met with a lot of foreign rulers in her function, and that she was one of his closest advisers (she was), she’s somehow making gender an issue? Why?
It just doesn’t make sense.
She needs her husband. Running as the “experience” candidate becomes much more difficult when your most relevant work was being a wife. The Clintons are the ones who took the chance on this message, and it has seemingly backfired. They made it about “them,” because Hillary couldn’t stand on her own two legs. This is why Bill would go all around the world to play the healer. A vote for Hillary would be a vote for pre-Bush glory days. “Two for the price of one.”
The media isn’t reinforcing parochial stereotypes…the Clintons are.
Although I understand Kevin’s reasoning, I can’t possibly agree. She uses Bill because he’s a very popular former president. Not because he’s a man. Other candidates use other people. Obama used Oprah. What does this mean according to the logic described above? That Obama’s a wimp?
She needs her husband as other people need their top advisers. Not only that, the Clintons are, like it or not, a team. They’ve always been like that. In the past she stood by Bill and the press attacked them for it. Back then, however, the argument was reversed. It wasn’t Hillary who was weak and dependent, it was Bill. And now, now that they continue to function as a team, it’s suddenly Hillary that’s the weak one and dependent on her husband.
I agree more with you than with Kevin on this, but at the same time I see that Bill’s role in the campaign has definitely been awkward. There’s always been the problem, of course, of his overshadowing everyone else in the room. But now too, when he helps Hillary it has a different effect than when she was seen as ‘helping’ him by standing by him back then.
When he helps, he tends to look like he thinks she’s needy- I guess that’s the best way I can describe it. Maybe it’s because he so often is quoted as defending her from criticism- so it often looks like he feels like he has to come to her aid and rescue. Mainly I think he needs to learn when to stop talking- which has never been his strong suit.
“In a news conference today Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense.”
She has been getting a free ride on Bill’s coat tails for the past 30 years, has been treated with kid gloves by the media throughout this campaign, and as soon as things go against her a little, they have to trot out sexism? Give me a break. All of the Dems get a much easier pass from the media than Republicans, and Hillary and Obama get total deference, because no one in the press wants to be seen as taking a jab at a woman or a black person, so they self censor even more.
This is a woman who carpet bags to New York to get elected Senator -which would have never happened had she just been plain Hillary Rodham; who has no accomplishments as a Senator; has ethics problems with fund raising and real estate deals – things that would have sunk any other candidate, but she gets off scot free BECAUSE she is a woman.