Nick Benton's Corner: Male Chauvinism & Hillary Clinton
Submitted by: carol white on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 08:02
tags:
Set Up Buzz!
Published with permission of Nicholas Benton, owner/editor of the Fall Church News Press. Benton supports Clinton for president.
Back in the day, feminists and those like myself who supported them, called it “male chauvinism.” It remains a mighty force in our society, so pervasive that few of either gender are really attuned to detect it.
Among men seeking to bond and avoid potential conflict, endless talk of sports and women has always been the coin of the realm. In this discourse, of course, women are routinely “objectified,” as we used to say. While often restrained in the presence of the opposite sex, amongst themselves men giggle and leer over women who live up to some social standard of sex appeal, or the opposite of it.
Does anyone not remember the extent to which Hillary Clinton was the butt of cruel male chauvinist humor during her husband’s first campaign for president and first years in the White House? Somehow, taking sexist pot shots at a First Lady was considered fair game, even in generally mixed company.
In the more recent era, the two First Ladies that drew the greatest derision from the less-than-magnificent male species were Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton. There were elaborate jokes made up about Roosevelt always related to her appearance in contrast to the conventional masculine taste in female beauty.
Many veterans of those earlier days rehashed the same jokes to tell about Hillary.
It comes as no surprise, of course, that what really distinguished Roosevelt and Clinton was the fact that they did not conform to society’s established idea of how a First Lady is supposed to behave.
Roosevelt took a high-profile, independent role in connection with the United Nations, and an array of peace and human rights causes.
Clinton made it clear the moment her husband won the presidency that she was going to make an independent impact in the domain of policy, including taking on the insurance industry with a push for universal health care.
Other first ladies have been respectable and gracious. But none, in the modern era at least, dared step out of the subordinate wife, mother and home maker role expected by Ozzie of Harriet and so forth. Even when Nancy Reagan spearheaded the woeful War on Drugs, it was like that. As a non-controversial cause, who could be against it?
There is nothing that insecure men loathe more than ball-busting women, as they perceive them. One way or another, they threaten something very deep in their psyche. They make it hard for some of them to pee.
But even more secure men, in the spirit of male bonding, tend to cover for their more psychologically “E.D.” brothers, and too often go along with their denigrating swipes at women.
An article called “The Hillary Haters” by Jason Horowitz, published in a recent issue of Gentleman’s Quarterly magazine, underscored this fact. Those men who maintained the most angry web sites dedicated to attacking Clinton could not really explain to the article’s author why they felt so angry about Clinton.
In one way or another, they tried unconvincingly to explain it in terms of policy or petty differences, but often they could not even articulate those. To the author, it became clear that maybe misogynist tendencies were behind some of it.
Of course, if not consciously, the vast majority of women know what this is all about. Many have been conditioned not to make anything of it, others are barely aware, and others feel it keenly.
But the fact is the media, especially conservative pundits, the Republicans and even some in her own party, back-slapping males and their admirers, have exhibited classic and consistent traits of male chauvinism in respect to Hillary Clinton. This persists, despite the fact she’s constantly baffled them with her relentless political rise and success as a leader.
It is never going to be easy for her. But don’t believe for a moment the bleating of the Republicans that they’d rather run against her than Obama in November. They say that in hopes they can dissuade the Democrats from nominating her. They know she’s tough as nails and a real threat to the moneyed interests who back them.
Truly, methinks they protest too much.
Set Up Buzz!
»
- carol white's blog
- Login or register to post comments
At the risk of repeating myself
the Peggy Noonan drek in the Wall Street Journal tells me everything I need to know about the Republicans' plans to attack the Democratic candidate after the Democratic Convention. I definitely agree with Mr. Benton's assessment that the "Republicans protest too much about how Obama is the bullet proof candidate" -- this is no comment on Obama, just that if you believe the sort of spin Noonan writes, then there's this bridge in Brooklyn I am dying to show you.
As I commented the other day:
In Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?, Ms. Noonan seems to think that Obama is "bullet proof" and that the sainted republicans would never go after him:
Forgive me my skepticism, Ms. Noonan, but the swiftboaters do come immediately to mind. Willie Horton comes to mind. I don't doubt for a moment that the Republican dirty tricks folks who brought you phone jamming in New Hampshire, mob shut down of vote recounts in Florida, or secret vote counts in Ohio because of "terrorist threats" will hold back from attacking Obama after the Democratic National Convention -- see Swiftboat and Tang memos for refreshers.
Oh, and for the record, if Ms. Noonan is trying to give democrats advice -- they'd better check the sheepskin to make sure that the wolf underneath isn't snarling with glee and laughing again at the suckers who buy salvation from the repo man.
For sure the Republican Noise Machine is Ready and Waiting
And that's whoever is the candidate
But then again will they succeed again. I naturally have doubts but like is said before ...
Yesterday was a red letter day. 1,3002--no just kidding--but lot's of calls from Sen. McCain the gist of which were "I am following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. One from Bill and one from Hillary. Straightforward vote for Hilary. And then one from Barack and one from Michelle Obama. Their message amazed--dare I say pleased--me. All they talked about was the right to cast a contested ballot, and how to get information on where to vote. ie These really were organizing calls. Not so pleasing was that I also go six calls from various Obama locations--from real live people--who wanted me to vote for Obama. I told them I would be poll watching and suggested they consolidate their lists, but lots of energy there.
In the Kerry campaign it was completely frustrating here during the primary and when he was the official candidate. No action. I got told to do the precinct work with no backup at all. It was really low-energy in comparison.
Even though you are all mad at me, do keep your fingers crossed that I don't freeze to death in our present sub zero weather. They promise me warm cars and hot drinks. I am going to be at my precinct which I did help organize four years ago and poll watch so I am looking forward to it.
Thanks for posting Nick's column
I wish there was more attention to the role that gender has played in this primary race. The role of race has received much attention while sexism seems to be the issue that the country is not yet ready to tackle.
I think we are also seeing the results of a major flaw in the Clinton campaign's strategy. She does not have near the ground operation Obama has put together. I believe her campaign underestimated Obama from the point where the didn't see him running to where we are now, which has her at a significant disadvantage since they clearly did not plan to go beyond February 5.
As far as being mad at you, it's more of a frustration with seeing some of the things you are posting that are part of a larger frustration and disappointment with this primary to date. I feel like I have stepped into a time warp as I watch the coverage of Obama and Clinton on the blogs and sites that I have read for years. It's as if we have thrown out the rules and the work done for years to hold the media accountable, fight back against the propaganda machine of the Republican party and even to build effective activists organizations that will push not only candidates but policies that are important.
For example, the Frank Rich piece you quoted yesterday was simply a Clinton hit piece. Rich has long history of hating the Clintons and was one of the worst when it came to Gore in 2000. Bob Somberby has been debunking and covering this for years. Here are his entries on Rich's latest column yesterday and in more depth today. But in all fairness, you weren't the only one who failed to see this as Rich's column was used or defendeded all over the blogs by Obama's supporters. And the way they have gone after Paul Krugman, one of the Democrats greatest allies for being critical of Obama is unbelievable.
And as much as I hate to admit it, there is even a quite reasonable post at DU, which points out just how irrational the support of Obama has been in "Wow... how many more about-faces can Obama supporters do?. How can people suddenly agree with Obama on points they fought against for years? That frightens me.
There is also the question of advocating for a candidate. Chris Bowers had a post last week that makes an important point.
I would go a bit further than Bowers in saying that Dailykos and MoveOn have been eclipsed into Obama's activist organization. But their reluctance to acknowledge or accept the most reasonable criticism of Obama as a candidate concerns me. We have seen what happens when there is blind faith and allegiance to an elected official with the Bush administration. I'm not saying Obama will make the same damaging decisions that Bush made but will Obama's supporters be able to drop the rose colored glasses when it is important? And what role are they playing in right now in the process of choosing the best candidate? Not a very good one as far as I am concerned. Too much is being overlooked at a crucial point in time where we should be vetting the Democratic candidates.
I read your links on Rich
I have not followed Rich's commentaries over time, and I now will be more thoughtful about what he has to say for sure.
However I think it is fair to say that my views on Hillary Clinton are not sexist. I have listened to every one of the debates and it seems to me that she has endorsed Bill Clinton's record when he was president. My view is that Bill Clinton was really a moderate Republican and only seemed like a liberal or a progressive in contrast to the neo-cons. Most notably I think that he did not build in sufficient protection for single mothers who went to work. They were offered help in transitioning to the work force but this was eroded over time. Similarly I believe that he endorsed globalization through the fast-track NAFTA agreement. Thirdly I did not agree with the way he continued the "containment" policy against Saddam Hussein, the sanctions and so forth.
Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to me to be run by McAulliffe, Mark Penn, and a similar group of advisors who were also tight in with Bill Clinton after the neo-con electoral sweep in his first time.
Whether Obama will be better I don't know. I don't think we should be uncritical boosters for Obama. If I come across that way that is certainly something to criticize.
By the way I vigorously supported the Clintons up to Bill's final confession. I hated and still hate the Republican noise machine and everything the neo-cons stood for.
I think Al Gore made a fundamental mistake taking on Lieberman as vice president but I am very impressed by him as I have written and wished that he would have run for president this time.
One thing I am sure of is we must beat the Republicans this time, capture both houses and the White House. But that is only the beginning.
An interesting take on the delegates
via PensitoReview
“Democrats: Are They Dumber than Concrete?”
At this point all we can do is assume and postulate what may or may not happen. I am still very ambivalent about which candidate is the best.
-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin
If the super delegates decide arbitrarily that will be scary
I should think it would generate anger and disillusion among Democratic voters and lead to people staying away from the polls, if not to more dramatic protests, and...and...and.
However the "super delegates" do not caucus in a body and vote. They are a part of their state's delegation. Let's say Ted Kennedy wants to vote for Obama but his delegation is for Hillary. He has three choices. He may argue plausibly that were the election to be taking place at the time of the convention the majority would vote for Obama not Clinton. He might say my guide is my conscience. Or he could say OK I will vote with the majority of my delegation.
I think that it will be hard for super delegate to keep power in their states if they come across as backroom party hacks.... To my mind Kennedy has a certain stature that gives him more flexibility to go against the flow than most, but what about the low approval rate of Democratic reps and senators for their perceived accomodation or let's say capitualtion to Bush. Can they be reelected if they go against the will of their constituents voting for Hillary as the Democratic "establishment" candidate?
If there is no clear margin between the candidates may that leaves more wiggle room for the supers.
Personally I have been trying to keep my cool by focussing on the need to beat McCain. No confusion there.
The Lucifer Effect is a shocker isn't it. Something like that kind of group dynamic happens in cults I think. I have been reading accounts about the Weatherman and the kind of devestating internal life they led in small groups, that desensitized them to the violence actions that they were into. Food for thought but I do believe people aren't individually prepared to be evil. A situation where you are doing a lab experiment under direction of people you are inclined to respect can certainly lead to dangerous conformity I think. Maybe all of us are stronger for being out of the mainstream. I hope so.
Votes Count, Don't They?
Might be interesting for someone who deals with modern spread sheets or whatever to run the totals on these
Boston.com Super Tuesday
to see what the vote is for who, and where. I think the color scheme of the magazine journalists' covers may have changed. If this doesn't work it is all the results from all the primaries run so far.
I did some unreliable mental additions and comparisons. It is interesting to compare Democratic turnout totals with Republicans, to compare Democratic winners against the total Republican votes, by state, and to compare this cycle's turn out with the last cycle (but those numbers would have to be found somewhere else.
It is all pretty dry and boring but might indicate a sea change underway that is missed by the surface emotional stuff. But of course someone would need to do the analysis, which the major media won't do, I don't suppose. Probably whoever worked out the software and did it could make a pile of money.