I think the topic of sexism and misogyny is important and interesting, especially in the context of the presidential race. But I think there is a lot of sloppy and aimless discussion going on, too. It pays to lay out some different areas of focus and to try to analyze the issue in a compartmentalized way. For example, a central premise of the Clinton camp is that antipathy for Clinton’s candidacy is driven in large part by antipathy for women. That antipathy can be of the mild sexist variety or the hard misogynistic variety, but it’s a factor. We should make a distinction between lazy sexism and hard misogyny, and we should also make some effort to decide whether these factors were in any way decisive factors in the failure of her campaign.
We should also distinguish between the sexism and misogyny in the traditional media. And we should ask how that may have influenced the outcome. And when discussing the blogosphere, we should distinguish between the front-pages and the diarists, and between the front-pages and the comment sections. We should also take note of which bloggers permitted sexist and misogynistic comments and which bloggers made efforts to discourage or punish them.
And a last topic is whether the blogosphere was sufficiently active in condemning examples of sexism and misogyny that came up in the traditional media.
On this last point, I remember approving of the suspension of David Shuster when he said that the Clintons were ‘pimping out’ their daughter. But I don’t really remember having much else to say about sexism in the traditional media. My consumption of cable news is sporadic at best, and I let Media Matters and Crooks & Liars, and other video based bloggers do most of the work on watchdogging those programs. I’m a more print based consumer and critic. But I probably didn’t do enough to speak up about some of sexist things people were writing in the newspapers. Having said that, I spoke up and condemned any sexist language I noticed on this blog. I know other bloggers made no such efforts.
My overall view is that Hillary Clinton succeeded in convincing the American people that she was the presumptive frontrunner, which means that people were able to picture a woman president without much resistance. That frontrunner status was so ingrained that I think it actually hurt her campaign, as people rejected a coronation. Meanwhile, the black community displayed a lot of resistance to the idea of a black president. This was evidenced by the slowness with which they rallied around Obama. Prior to his victory in the overwhelmingly white state of Iowa, the polls showed Clinton running even or ahead among blacks in South Carolina. In other words, Obama had a harder time getting people to accept the idea of a black president than Clinton had getting people to accept the idea of a female president.
The Clintons have consistently tried to convince people that a black man is unelectable (whether they sincerely believe it or not), while the Obama campaign has never to my knowledge tried to convince people that a woman is unelectable. The Clinton campaign has used a million and one excuses for their losses, including that certain states have too many black people in them. The Obama campaign did not make the converse argument to explain why they lost any states until West Virginia.
I don’t think there is any comparison between the two candidacies in terms of who was willing to employ identity politics. The traditional media has been more of a mixed bag. There has been plenty of overtly sexist language and very little overtly racist language. But, at the same time, the media saturated the airwaves for over a month with Reverend Wright outtakes. What was that other than an effort to test whether a black man can be elected in this country? On balance, a few sexist comments did much less damage than an effort to vilify the black church and crucify Obama by proxy.
I haven’t seen a single example of a high profile blogger in the left-wing blogosphere using overtly sexist language, let alone misogynistic language. But there have been examples of racist language. So, on the whole, I do not think the case has been proven that Clinton suffered more for her gender than Obama suffered for his mixed race. And I see no convincing evidence that sexism played a big part, and certainly not a decisive part in her losses. In fact, I think her gender is probably the main thing sustaining the high level of support she currently has. I don’t think Chris Dodd or Joe Biden would still be getting donations and votes if they were facing the same math as Clinton has been facing for the last three months.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. What are yours?
We were all pretty much disgusted with Tweety and his rampant, sick misogyny. There were running jokes about him, mainly fanned by Digby and Atrios, but everyone joined in. Remember Tweety having to apologize for saying that HRC owed her whole political career to her husband having gotten blown by Monica Lewinsky? Remember how disgusted we all were with the media coming down hard on HRC for tearing up in New Hampshire? Remember how outraged we were when the media got its undies in a bundle over Clinton having breasts?
Is Tweety’s issue misogyny or sexism? I think it’s a stretch to say that he actually hates women. In fact, I think it’s rather difficult to be married in a modern western context while also being a rampant, sick misogynist.
We do need to clarify what we’re talking about here before throwing these words around.
I can’t agree that it is hard to be married and a misogynist at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense to me. We need to be clear that misogyny involves hate, but not to the point that a man cannot have relations with women. Many, many men simultaneously hate and need women in their lives.
Okay, probably true, but that’s getting too far into psychology than I’m capable.
there are plenty of women around here who can explain it to you.
I believe he’s gay. I don’t know if he knows it, but it seems obvious to me, given some of his comments.
I will readily add I have little evidence but a gut reaction to some of his comments. I have no “proof” or even solid evidence. I just can’t help but think that.
I agree about Chrissy Matthews. But then, half the Republican Party sets off my gaydar.
I object to the use of Chrissy – if he’s gay that’s fine, I have no problem with that. But I think Bob said it best re how that sometimes comes out as a more negative reaction to women. Other gay men reallly identify with Hillary and truly adore her – it’s not so cut and dried.
Do you mean that gay men dislike (hate?) women?
There is a particular subset of closeted gay men who won’t admit it whose self-suppression seems to transform into women-hating. Not sure if that applies to Matthews, but there have been a lot of twitches of a lot of needles on a lot of gaydars.
Re the tears, that’s not a female issue. Muskie’s teary performance defending his wife during his campaign caused his downfall. “There’s no crying in baseball,” nor in presidential campaign politics.
My thoughts are, gee, I never coulda been a philosophy major! Also, I’m glad I avoid the traditional media, except as excerpted by brilliant folks like C&L, Media Matters, etc.
As a (female) constituent of HRC’s, I was more excited about Dodd’s candidacy than hers, because he has actually stuck his neck out for the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.
Do you think a similar split could be made in racist remarks as you’re making between sexism and misogyny? I’ve always thought it’s useful to split personal racism (e.g. David Duke, whoever was behind the Willie Horton commercial, etc.) and hard-to-escape institutional racism (e.g. if I get my big ol’ backpack off the seat next to me on the bus so you can sit down, and we’re different colors, you may assume that I’m trying to to prevent you from stealing it, just because we live in this society… Or the different assumptions people make about a woman pushing a stroller depending on the apparent ethnicities of the woman and the baby… (adoptive mommy? nanny? etc.)).
The most surprising comments I’ve seen in a recent visit to dKos were tons of people saying, but what was so racist in Bill C bringing up Jesse Jackson? (when that to me was THE straw breaking the benefit-of-the-doubt-camel’s back bc it was so flagrant, fanning racist flames…)
Well, I probably let too many of those incidents slide. I guess that’s my mia culpa in this context.
I do think there’s a difference between the overt, Klansman-type racism and the kind of racism that leads whites to be nervous about Obama because of the Jeremiah Wrights of the world (the ones who secretly or not-so-secretly fear that black folks are all black nationalists who hate them). The former people are simply hateful. But you can show the latter that they’re wrong and help them to not let their prejudices get the better of them. The latter, I think, derives more from a lack of understanding through a lack of exposure than from a deep hatred.
What was racist about Clinton’s comparison to Jesse Jackson was that he was trying to dismiss Obama’s win in South Carolina, implying he only won it because he was black (and implying Jesse Jackson only won it for the same reason), and implying that Obama’s campaign would fizzle just as Jesse’s had when they got to white states.
I’m surprised people don’t understand why that comment was so very offensive to the black community.
Hillary’s supporters keeping bringing up the misogyny charge because it’s a convenient way to explain why she’s losing. It’s not easy for the Hillaryites to face up to the fact that she got her butt kicked by a superior candidate, that her campaign was a mess, and that her various personal flaws have been revealed in the course of this primary. That’s a harsh reality and not easy to swallow; they prefer to attribute her failure to misogynistism in others.
And really believe that their heads are exploding because she’s been beat by this particular man, and it’s ugly.
Given some of the statements I read at NARAL’s Blog for Choice, for example, and I honestly couldn’t tell the difference between them and your common Freeper. It was that bad.
Look, she was beaten by someone with superior organization and fundraising, among other things. Period. There’s nothing sexist or misogynistic about that. But it seems that her most ardent supporters want it to be. I suppose buying into misogyny instead of accepting that hers was a poorly run campaign it makes their loss easier to accept.
That she continued to take advice from a really dim and incompetent man named Mark Penn seems lost on them, too.
But whatever. If they want to indulge the fantasy that they are hopelessly oppressed and only Hillary can solve their problems, then they can go right ahead. They want to vote for McSame? Work it out. I just don’t think I care anymore.
We have a presidential race to win. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
It’s not just that Obama’s camp has superior organizing and fundraising abilities, but that Clinton’s camp has been exposed as having deficient accounting and money management abilities. They are $20 million in the hole ($12 million of it Clinton’s own loan) in part because they planned poorly and frittered away what they had. And that doesn’t even include the unpaid bills to their creditors.
I KNOW! But I’ve read comments about how “no other woman will do–only Hillary” and many more comments along the lines of How dare he! He knew it was Hillary’s turn.
And the most disturbing from a commenter from salon.com–and I swear I’ll never forget it: “He has no right.”
Well. If that’s not the very embodiment of Kool-Aide drinkin’ Messiah/God complex! Sheesh!
I’m at a disadvantage because I hardly watch cable news networks. I came to Obama, passing through Kucinich, Dodd and Edwards, so I can’t say that I qualify as a true believer. I used to be regular reader of TalkLeft (for posts on legal issues) and read The Left Coaster for general stuff. I’ve seen a lot of accusations about misogyny and sexism aimed at Obama and his supporters but I haven’t seen much of the actual stuff.
The media’s a little different. I have been acutely aware of Chris Matthews and his view of the world since he started as a columnist for Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner back in the late 80s. He was supposed to be liberal but never seemed to rise above DLC levels. He’d appear on local radio programs which must have steered him towards the little screen. I don’t see him as any different in his politics than he was back then. His tingling leg? I dunno. He’s become a bit of a clown, which at least means that fewer people pay attention to him. But I stopped trusting anything he said a couple decades ago.
The whole Shuster thing seemed a bit overblown since the two twenty-something women in the house and my fifty-something girlfriend all use the expression. As I’ve said, simply pointing out that Chelsea is working for a hedge fund would be damning enough. I’ve come to suspect Shuster was intentional in his “pimp” remark, not so much from the incident itself but just that I’ve seen and heard him a few more times and haven’t been particularly impressed by his virtuousness.
As far as sexism and misogyny on the net, unless you find someone writing a blog who’s committed the act then please don’t start finger-pointing to people posting. I believe that much of the antipathy between the two camps has been caused by Republican trolls saying offensive things to stir up things.
I’m willing to look at examples argued, but from what I can see at TalkLeft and TLCoaster it is mostly the charge of S & M used to raise the energy level of the faithful.
Thanks again for a great post. I read the earlier thread with great interest, and this is an excellent summary and dissection of the issues.
Experiences vary because we’re exposed to different media, but my first recollection of the gender issue in the context of the nomination contest was in a posting by a Clinton supporter which accused anyone who didn’t vote for Clinton of sexism. There’s more that went into my decision on who to vote for — of course — but that blanket accusation stuck in my craw.
I can cite my experiences, such as working on the ERA in the 70s or going to the state convention/assembly as a delegate for a woman candidate, but I don’t think I should have to defend myself for how I vote, and that was the problem with the Clinton campaign. And this was part of pattern with the Clinton campaign and its supporters — I wasn’t seeing sexism but I was seeing some really bad arguments by the campaign and on the campaign’s behalf.
The ‘vote for Clinton or else you sexist pig’ argument was obviously a mistake, and it had an additional problem — it came late in 2007 when Clinton was ahead.
Rather than make the case for why one should vote for Clinton, the campaign waged a Republican style campaign and made inevitability and experience its main arguments. More than anything else, it was these extremely poor arguments that struck me about the Clinton campaign. And the problem was compounded when Clinton and her surrogates engaged in personal attacks, both against Obama and, in the case of surrogates, against anyone who dared question the main arguments for her candidacy.
What tends to be missed somewhat in the explanations for why Clinton failed to win the nomination is how badly the campaign made its case. There was a decision making process (and many people here engaged in a decision making process that was strikingly similar to mine), but the Clinton campaign failed on its own merits. But instead of recognizing their mistakes, their reaction was to go on the attack, and this only made the problem worse. The real problem for the Clinton campaign was never sexism — even though this is quite obviously a fact of society. The real problem was that they ran a campaign that was breathtakingly bad.
I seemed to hear the “don’t vote/love Hillary and you’re a sexist” meme from Clinton supporters before I saw any examples. Maybe I wasn’t sensitive enough to notice, or didn’t go to the right/wrong websites, etc.
I remember when the Shuster thing broke I came across the Robin Morgan “poem” wherein she suggested that the Kennedy girls who supported Obama had a weird, sick longing for the JFKs and RFKs and Teddys, who, Morgan reminded the readers, killed Marilyn Monroe and Mary Jo K. I did a little research about Morgan and was amazed at the depth of anger and hatred against Obama in some Clinton sites, and was pretty shocked at the open racism expressed.
The whole “vote for Clinton or you hate women” idea seemed so heavy-handed as to be intentional. If it was borrowed from the Rovian fear playbook it didn’t work. There were so many better ways that Clinton and her campaign staff (AND HER alleged SUPPORTERS!) could have played this campaign. In fact, sometimes I wonder if this wasn’t some kind of Republican sabotage too.
I was very aware of the possibility of agit prop, in fact I raised the issue here long ago. And I’m still not entirely sure if that’s what Larry Johnson is actually doing (he is, but perhaps for other reasons).
It wasn’t simply a question of rhetorical excesses by Clinton’s supporters or pretend supporters. The campaign itself produced a pathetic parade of spokespeople armed with abysmal talking points.
I honestly think that the one thing Clinton supporters haven’t come to grips with yet is how astonishingly bad the Clinton campaign performed. They were oblivious to how someone like Mark Penn, along with his game of “I’m not going to talk about Obama’s teenage drug use,” looked to Democratic (not Republican) voters. And they therefore couldn’t understand Obama’s appeal to voters because they could see the contrast effect created by comparisons to someone like Penn. My reaction to them was a feeling of overwhelming disgust. The accusations of sexism were just an added insult on top of an already disgusting performance.
was what possible advantage there could be for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to inject sexism and misogyny the way Clinton supporters accuse them of doing. There would be a clear strategic reason for the Clinton campaign to inject race, because it could make the “post-racial” candidate not so post-racial after all and attach to him all the ugly strident identity politics of the past decades that he was so desperate to avoid and that his message was all about getting past. So it would have a strategic value in that it would hit right at the heart of his message and brand and damage them. Sacrifice 13% of the vote in order to win a larger percentage of the rest, and gamble that a significant portion of the black vote could be won back for the general. What equivalent strategic value could there be in pissing off over half the electorate by using sexism? It just doesn’t make any sense or serve any strategic value, the accusation that the Obama campaign would have done such a thing purposefully. Maybe if the supposed sexism took the form of “women are too weak and emotional to be C-in-C” it would hit at her Ready On Day One theme, but after the RW’s 15-year campaign of sexist demonization of Hillary it would hardly be credible – they’ve always painted her as too tough, too hard, too lacking in emotion.
Of course both sexism and racism are endemic in the culture, and it’s not too surprising that they get expressed by people in the media. Both campaigns were quick to jump on whatever incidents came up and use them to their advantage, which I think was fair and probably educational, as long as that didn’t extend to blaming the other campaign for them, which unfortunately supporters on both sides were very quick to do, without much or any evidence.
I think your point is a good one that Clinton wouldn’t have been leading for as long as she did if sexism and misogyny were really significant factors in the failure of her campaign. She was leading dramatically for four-fifths of the campaign. Also I think it’s true that being a woman has been a major advantage rather than any kind of an impediment in keeping her support so high despite the odds at this point. It’s identity politics with a vengeance, tapping into the emotions evoked by the real experiences of oppression and disregard that women face. A very powerful current, and one that it’s very cynical to manipulate for political gain – a further exploitation that can only exacerbate and not help. But it’s worked. As you say, Dodd or Biden would not still be accessing such a fanatical well of support with the math so against them.
AA, that’s very thoughtful. Bottom line, it made no sense for Obama to run a misogynistic campaign. And he didn’t. There is not a co-equal logic to running one versus running a campaign with a racist subtext.
As you point out, there is a clear logic of running the “dog whistle” racist campaign, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere Bob Parry’s piece about Clinton’s “oppo research,” the dirty stuff that the Clinton campaign had ready to go back in December was precisely what has come out against Obama: Wright, Ayers, etc. This gives credence to Drudge saying that the Clinton campaign released that picture of Obama in native garb.
But why would Obama run a campaign to offend over half of the voters?
+++
I think that sexism is a thornier patch to weed than racism because there are, in fact, real differences between men and women biologically, psychologically, etc., and there are differences imposed by culture, and there are different levels of culture (class, ethnic, religious, etc.) and then there is the individual.
Men generally play basketball better than women (being generally taller and stronger), but I have always sucked at basketball and any woman who played the game would make me and a certain percentage of men look like fools on the court. That doesn’t make the generality wrong, it just means it’s not very useful when it comes to specifics.
Hillary Clinton is a person and a politician in this race more than she is a woman. When Clinton panders to the hard-drinkin’ gun-totin’ white man it’s ludicrous to me. Her policy opinions about healthcare, foreign relations, the working class versus the corporatists, those are the things I look at, and while we can look at a group of female politicians and try to imagine how they are different or alike compared to male politicians, it comes down to the individual. I like Boxer, I don’t like Feinstein. I have great hopes for Jackie Speier. All three represent me and all three have publicly supported Clinton although Feinstein has made noises about the race being over.
I would hope that there is a fuller explication of the sexism expressed in this campaign. I see the racist aspect against Obama as being more deliberate and more connected to the Clinton campaign than any sexism coming out of Obama or his staff.
Mrs. Clinton has a husband named Mr. Clinton. No matter whatever dumb and obnoxious things he has done during the campaign he has not changed his name. Nor has she. Her nomination looked inevitable because of her past history and connections. Her gender was always a sideshow, which they now drag out in full sight to prove victimization. Has anyone heard anyone saying that Mrs. Clinton won a state because it full to the brim with white women. No. There are just states with too many black people. Psss, racism? And talking about sexism. There was a column by a woman Hillary supporter yesterday on the front page of the Washington Post online (I’m not sure of the name, Kathleen Parker or something like that?) who put the fairy stamp on Obama and Edwards, the kind of sexism Maureen Dowd uses against men, to question their masculinity while, even if the slur had some basis in fact, completely ignoring the sensibilities of any homosexual man who may feel insluted by his being held up as a less than acceptable person. Is this not sexism: the ladies know who’s hot and who isn’t, they can sepearte the real men from the failed men? This kind of crap is reserved for surrogates. Mrs. Tatcher had the guts to scream it out loud herself: he is a wimp!
You say:
That seems reasonable. You then lay out five areas of focus that I’ll summarize as follows:
5. Was the blogosphere sufficiently active in condemning examples of sexism/misogyny that come up in the traditional media. (For which you give a personal answer but no general analysis.0
You then proceed not to focus on any of those issues but on a comparison of racism versus sexism in the election – focusing mostly on racism:
You then follow up with an answer to question #2:
With all due respect – this is a conclusory answer. It may in fact be correct – but it is still conclusory. Because you haven’t really examined the question of what part sexism played in the election much less whether it was a `big’ part or a `decisive’ part in the failure of the Clinton campaign.
In fact, all of your excellent questions go to naught as you (once again) shift your focus to racism and focus all of your attention to detail on racism. Whether or not Obama `suffered more’ from racism than Clinton suffered from sexism doesn’t logically lead to a conclusion that sexism didn’t play a big, or a decisive, part in Clinton’s loss. Unless you are concluding that only sexism and racism mattered in this election and I doubt you are (for one thing – if that were true and Obama suffered more he should have lost).
But in fact, you have written long and often in other posts about why you think the Clinton campaigned failed. Very compelling arguments. So by simply providing a few links you would have been saved from a conclusory answer – although you would still not have addressed the central issue of how and to what extent sexism/misogyny affected the Clinton campaign. Concluding that it wasn’t decisive in the campaign seems to negate, for you, any necessity to examine whether it existed, how much it existed and what actual effect it had in this campaign.
I get the feeling from all of your posts that you really aren’t interested in writing about that – and if so, so be it. But I don’t understand why you pretend that you are.
my post has two pieces.
it is missing my argument because I’ve made my argument before and because I was more interested in starting a discussion and inviting people to disagree with me than in ramming home my argument.
That’s why I first posted a thread offering people the opportunity to provide evidence of misogyny and sexism. I wanted to see what was out there that I had missed, and where it was coming from.
My conclusion is that sexism did not play a decisive part and therefore does not explain why Clinton lost. In fact, she often surged when under unfair attack, as in New Hampshire. And her gender has provided her an added advantage/rationale for sticking around post-mathematical defeat. So, I totally reject this idea that sexism hurt her campaign in any meaningful way. Now, people are free to tell me why I’m wrong.
I think you are being intellectually dishonest.
You framed a very broad debate.
You offered next to no argument or analysis of the segments of the debate you framed other than defense of your own positions.
You relied in the argument leading to your conclusion on an issue that wasn’t part of the debate you framed (which had a bigger effect – racism or sexism).
You came to a ‘conclusion’ that didn’t address almost any of the facets of the debate you framed except one. You reject the idea that sexism hurt her campaign – but you limit the idea of hurt by looking at the result of the campaign not whether there can be ‘hurt’ to the overall process of the American presidential campaign.
Look, I don’t care that you don’t want to really address sexism and misogyny in any in-depth manner. But I want you to know that you aren’t fooling me into thinking that you HAVE addressed sexism and misogyny as manifested in this particular campaign process.
The fact that you can conclude that it wasn’t decisive because you can offer up other decisive reasons for her loss does not mean that you have discussed or analyzed sexism and misogyny in this campaign and and whether harm was done by it – not only to Clinton but to the progressive movement, to the Democratic party and to the nation as a whole.
In other word you framed a debate that was a forest – but you then missed the forest for the trees.
I’m surprised by these two comment, Mary, because you’ve been here as much, if not more, than I have, and Booman has given his arguments over time. I felt this last post was a good summary of how he set about investigating the issue, and the conclusions he reached, which match my own.
I think the claims of mysogny from the Clinton supporters undermine women candidates in the future, and that woman of conscience should call them on this. It’s a silly premise. Every candidate for office is discriminated against in some way. Too short. Too pale. Too dark. Too ethnic. Whatever. But one’s campaign is not going to live or die on that prejudice. One’s campaign will live or die by how well they campaigned, period. While there will always be side factors, they will never be the main factor.
Booman is right that Hillary’s biggest problem was not that she was a woman, but that she was a Clinton. And the biggest reason her campaign failed was her message, not her gender.
what I’m really interested in is whether the claims coming out of the Clinton camp have any merit. To examine that, it pays to know what they’re claiming and to examine the evidence in different ways in different contexts. I don’t think she lost because she is a woman at all. I don’t think sexism hurt her. I think it sustained her. Obama had no comparative advantage. And I think the real miscreants were not in the blogosphere, or among pro-Obama bloggers, but largely contained in the traditional media.
In other words, their critique seems to be wholly without merit.
Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t more to discuss.
I fully agree that
i) you have to know what they are claiming and
(ii) you have to examine the evidence in different ways and in different contexts.
Part (ii) didn’t happen in this post. You described the contexts in which the evidence should be examined. You then didn’t examine any evidence.
that’s because it is a side argument.
I welcome debate on it. But even if this campaign has exposed a lot of sexism and even some misogyny, it hasn’t been decisive, it hasn’t come from the Obama camp, and it hasn’t come from the Obama bloggers (excepting, I guess, some jerk at MLW).
You are making no sense. You are the one who said:
And when I say you didn’t examine the evidence in different ways in different contexts you say that’s a side argument?
You seem to be much more interested in examining the effects of racism on this race than you are in examining the effects of sexism. That is your prerogative.
But don’t think you’ve fooled me (or any thinking person) into believing that you’ve examined the effects of sexism on this race by simply putting the word `Sexism’ in the title of your post and framing the issue as one of sexism and then NOT analyzing sexism but instead talking about racism.
what?
The point is that by compartmentalizing the categories you can see that just because sexism exists in sector A doesn’t mean it exists in sector B. And you can see that sexism may have hurt some feelings but it didn’t cost Clinton the nomination. And you can see that team Clinton accusations are being misdirected at people that are not responsible for either the sexism or her defeat.
In other words, you can see what are side issues and what are not side issues.
Do your really not see that you wrote a post that was ostensibly about sexism in which you avoid discussing sexism? And instead discuss the importance of racism?
Read it again.
Compartmentalizing categories does not cause anyone to ‘see’ anything. Compartmentalization makes the analysis easier and the analysis caused people to ‘see’ or not ‘see’ something. Here there is no analysis of sexism. Just conclusory statements.
You concluded long ago that sexism didn’t cause Hillary to lose this race – you’ve written about it before. I don’t disagree with that conclusion.
BUT you now write a post in which you claim to be giving her claims of sexism consideration and after doing so you still come conclusion that sexism didn’t cause her to lose the race.
You gave the claims NO consideration.
Your conclusion may still be valid because of the other analyses that you did that had nothing to do with sexism. I agree.
But don’t CLAIM to be analyzing claims of sexism if you aren’t going to DISCUSS the sexism.
I did discuss it. I pointed out that no one could come up with examples of front-pagers using sexism in the context of Clinton. I said that some bloggers were nonetheless guilty of tolerating sexist comments and diaries. I said there was more overt sexism than racism in the traditional media and that I should have said more about it. I said sexism was a factor but not a decisive factor in the race. I said that Clinton actually gained sustenance from what sexism did manifest itself.
How is that not discussing sexism?
conclusory statements. No real analysis. No real discussion. Made so you could get through to your real desire – to analyse racism and conclude it was worse than sexism in this race. And to get to your conclusory conclusion.
And actually there was that Josh Marshall example of sexism. And don’t bother citing what I said about it – that was my analysis not yours. And did you bother to look through the 90 examples to see if there were more bloggers?
I’m done with this.
I’d rather spend time reading Devilstower.
what part of this are you not getting. I intentionally left out the analysis, and said so. After laying out the questions I skipped to my conclusions, intentionally. That was to encourage discussion. I invited people to disagree with my conclusions, remember?
oh puleeeze.
You didn’t leave out the analysis – you put in a RACISM analysis in place of a sexism analysis. Then when I called you on it you said you left out the analysis on sexism intentionally.
The fact is that you aren’t interested in writing about sexism and you are interested in writing about racism. And that’s ok – except when you pretend to be writing about sexism and are really writing about racism.
I said it above. You are being intellectually dishonest.
Maryb, over at TalkLeft there is another post about sexism and readers are using examples of “sweetie” and Obama allegedly flipping off Clinton. The “likeable enough” comment.
It seems that the “sweetie” comment hasn’t pushed Obama up in the polls, wasn’t meant to be sexist and wasn’t directed at Clinton, and considering that the race is all but over now has had no effect on the primaries. Most people outside the Clinton bubble don’t even believe he flipped off Clinton, that he was just scratching his nose.
Now the “likeable enough” comment was made in defense of Clinton during a pre-New Hampshire debate, as I recall. One need only compare it to Clinton’s repeated statements that McCain was qualified to be C-in-C but Obama wasn’t to find a comparison of a candidate evaluating another and see the Clinton and her planned campaign was a lot nastier to Obama than the other way around. Actually, H. Clinton’s high negatives went higher during the campaign precisely because she wasn’t “likeable enough” for the majority of Democratic voters.
Maybe the comment I took from TL isn’t representative of the sexism directed against Clinton that hurt her campaign, and this forum would provide a place where you can argue the opposite of what Booman wrote. But to get angry with Booman because he didn’t see what you want him to describe seems a bit self-defeating. Why not write the whats and the hows yourself?
Again, Bob, you totally miss my point. I agree with BooMan’s conclusion. You seem to think I don’t. I do.
I don’t, however, think BooMan missed my point – he just disagrees with me. And I’m not and have never been angry with BooMan in this discussion. Or at all for the last many, many months 🙂
We are able to vigorously disagree with each other without being angry with each other.
So what’s the evidence, Mary?
If sexism and misogyny are the cause for Clinton’s defeat, and you seem to be saying that they are, or played a part, why not list what you think were the offensive acts and incidents and give a brief explanation as to how they hurt Clinton?
You miss my point entirely.
I guess I did.
Booman says you missed his point.
Is communication impossible?
Well, here is my problem with this. The left is in an act of social insurgency. If you are living in rebellion you naturally attack [or lash out] at where you feel the brunt of your conviction is being produced. In this case – it evidentially, it is anything that makes you think twice about what your are doing before you actually do it; ergo, religiosity – or any social institution that respected and known for its focus on behavior self-governance.
Feminism is a complete thorough an utter disregard for the convention of gender lines, and my problem with writing about it with a focus on their tactics is ignoring the subtle ones that help validate their “movement”. It is the language of the left we have to be extremely careful of adapting. Misogyny is PC extremity at its worst. Why do we need to adapt their language to make or vilify a point? Women aren’t being hated on and abused in that way [if we follow their circular reasoning to its empty conclusion], it just simply happening. As a matter of fact women in America have done more to defeat feminism simply by being what God created… a unique being different from male. Not better, or worse… just different, and should be respected for that.
But alas… if you are going to have a grand social upheaval, there has to be some great injustice being perpetrated on someone because of what they are [albeit in most cases with the left… who you are] – I just feel in the long run we need to pay special attention and to parse the liberal language – it is very telling and even more deceptive. regardless of why is going on in our political realm, or social order… if we unhitch the left side of our brain and and surrender to emotion first over reason… we surrender the ability to focus on what the real problem is, nice article.
That Darn Republican
Sexism vs. Misogyny vs. Racism In This Primary Season? Sexism By A Cant Hair.
AG
“it just simply happening”
sorry for the typo, it just simply isn’t happening.
My apologies.
Clinton has surely been the victim of some fairly blatant sexist sneers, as you’d imagine, given she’s pioneering securing the nomination of one of the two major parties by one of her gender. But I think the cries of prohibitive misogygny against her have come too often and too freely from certain quarters. Her supporters doing most of the heavy lifting on that front are too invested (as Bob put it in the previous thread) in the concept of Hillary as WOMAN. Her struggle for the nomination is the survival or demise of the hopes and dreams of all womanhood, IMO.
But does which woman even matter to them?
Karl Rove has said that Clinton was a “fatally flawed candidate”, but if she is, I think that’s in no small measure due to a widely acknowledged fatally flawed campaign. But as obvious as I see that to be, it’s really neither here nor there by the time November rolls around. This nomination must not be about getting a woman in the White House — or an African American for that matter. The stakes are too high for that kind of self-indulgence. It’s always been about the best person for the job. And Hillary Clinton, who despite all, I still have a a small measure of admiration for, was just outhustled and outmaneuvered. It hasn’t been a battle of the candidates, it’s been a battle of the campaigns. And hers has lost.
I’m sick of some of Clinton’s supporters (and others) holding over our heads the prospect of a spite-driven McCain victory. Let them do with their votes what their consciences compel them to do. Any person of any gender who would support Clinton yet opt to vote for McCain instead has disrespected Clinton’s declared political agenda and identity from the start. The battle for the White House between the presumptive Democratic nominee and McCain is joined, and that Democrat will almost surely not be Clinton — and so, not a woman — not this year. We must win that battle.
Reading Steven and Cokie Roberts made me sick to my stomach. Every bad argument.
I just emailed this reply:
Here’s one to analyze:
Either Obama or someone on his staff said that the Florida primary was “a beauty contest.” This was back in the beginning January or February.
Beauty contests have been attacked by feminists because they are impositions of beauty standards by a male society, ignoring other, worthier reasons for the value of women. In essence, a beauty contest is a worthless “metric.”
Further, the expression when used in politics (and it has been used in politics longer than I’ve been around, which is a long time) is precisely that. A “beauty contest” in political rhetoric embraces the feminist critique of beauty contests. A beauty contest, as per the dictionary, is an election that doesn’t actually count.
So why were people calling radio stations (I heard it a couple of times so it qualified as a “meme”) complaining that Obama used the term to demean Clinton? Taken on face, it is precisely what the definition is. It presumes the feminist critique against beauty contests. I’m old enough to remember bra-burning on the boardwalk in Atlantic City.
It seems, in this case, that some Clinton supporters objected to any reference to anything that might be construed as gender-specific even if the actual meaning and the feminist critique line up. Their complaints sort of embraced the concept of the oppressed being the sole owners of the term of their oppression. (You know, why you hear all the African American characters in the hood using the n-word, but not the cops.)
The problem with that logic is that there are plenty of gender-related terms in the language that are not necessarily or intentionally hostile and negative and if someone starts from the position that anyone who is not supporting Hillary uses any such term is necessarily a “sexist” attack on her, or is a display of woman-hating, then it makes for a very stilted debate.
I’m for keeping the debate above name-calling, but, at least in this example, it the hypersensitive reactions of Clinton supporters seems forced and thus an actual planned strategy against the Obama campaign, not a true complaint about sexism.
That’s an excellent example. In ignorance, not understanding the legitimate political reference, her supporters cried misogyny.
Misogyny is a really horrible thing. It should require a higher standard of proof than it does.
There are lots of ways that the female sex is discriminated against, but few of them rise to that level. That’s like saying a verbal insult is akin to an axeblow to the head. One is quite a bit worse than the other!
I was at the track yesterday (yey, Big Brown!) and noticed some sexism on my program. But I wouldn’t call it misogyny! When a race horse is listed, his sire (male) and dam (female) are listed, but the dam’s sire is also listed. Is that because the dam is not important enough to stand on her own? No doubt some feminists would make that argument.
But the listing just reflects a practicality. A mare can only get pregnant once a year, so her value in terms of bloodlines is limited. A stallion, on the other hand, can sire many progeny a year. So it’s more useful in terms of evaluating the mare and her potential contribution to the horse listed.
When I was in third grade, I was punched in the nose on the playground by a boy because I was arguing the legitimacy of fem lib. Unable to meet my arguments verbally, he simply hauled off at me physically. That really hurt! So believe me, I understand discrimination, etc. But to label all such acts misogyny is the kind of stretch that gets women labeled illogical, and hurts our progress towards full and equal rights. THAT is why I object to its use.
I’m a little concerned that anti-feminism has become synonymous with misogyny. That’s a rather presumptuous leap.
As for sexism – what a loaded term that is! Every rational person should be sexist, women and men are different. Yet apparently it means “not supporting feminist beliefs”.
That said, Hillary’s sex probably nets a positive because of sexism in favor of women.
I’m not sure where feminism began meaning you must support H. Clinton.