Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hillary's Loss and the Politics of Sexism

The "Hillary lost because of sexism" meme simply will not die.    I keep seeing diary after diary rehashing this subject, with bloggers repeating the same arguments over and over again.  

In this diary, instead of engaging in a fruitless attempt to prove or disprove the role of sexism in Hillary's loss, I want to address the appeal and attraction of the sexism meme.  Why have Hillary supporters made sexism the primary reason for Hillary's loss?  My thoughts:

1. The "sexism destroyed Hillary" narrative has a lot of legs because it's a powerful and convenient tool to accomplish one fundamental goal - to continue to attack the legitimacy of Obama's victory over Clinton.  

2. Those who keep using sexism to explain Hillary's defeat simply have not yet been able to accept the fact that she lost the race and that the primary race is over.  Finished.  Kaput.  Done.  It's as if in writing these "Sexists destroyed Hillary!!" diaries, they are continuing to make the case to superdelegates that they should realize that Obama won unfairly and switch their votes to Hillary.      

3. Sexism has been seized as the "true" cause of Hillary's defeat because it imbues the continuing ugly attacks on the legitimacy of Obama's victory with a false sense of moral superiority.  It also has more resonance than the FL/MI "disenfranchisement"  meme and the "caucuses are undemocratic" meme.  Notice that we don't see many diaries raising those issues anymore.  

4. The sexism charge is about creating scapegoats for Hillary's defeat.  Most people analyzing what went wrong with Hillary's campaign point mostly to the mistakes Hillary and her campaign made.  Except for Clinton supporters.  For them, Hillary and the way she managed her campaign are beyond reproach; she did nothing wrong.  She lost because Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Maureen Dowd, the NY Times, Tim Russert, et al, sexists all, had it in for Hillary.

5. The sexism charge is a way of denying and obfuscating the significant role race/racism played during the primary.  Obama's race did not matter.  Ultimately, Obama benefited because of his gender.  Actually, those that argue Obama's race did matter contend, a la Geraldine Ferraro, that Obama doubly benefited from being both male and black.  Hence, all these posts noting all those positive stories about Obama in comparison to Clinton, as proof that the media was biased in favor of the black man.  

6. People jumping on the sexism charge have done so only as it relates to Hillary Clinton.  They don't have very much interest in discussing sexism when it has to do with Michelle Obama, for example.  These very same people writing diary after diary talking about sexism in relation to why Hillary lost have written few, if any, diaries about sexism and anyone else but Hillary.

7. Clintonites who see KO and Chris Matthews as sexism personified oddly ignore the person whose sexism probably had the biggest impact on Hillary's campaign - that would be the sexist statements and antics by Bill Clinton, both past and present.  That guy almost single-handedly brought down his wife's campaign, and yet, I don't think I've seen a single diary by a Clintonite critically examining Bill's role in Hillary's defeat.  

Bill Clinton should be public enemy number one for those who contend sexism defeated Hillary, yet he's getting a total pass.  I'm not totally sure why, but my guess is that as long as Hillary is married to Bill, any attack on Bill amounts to an attack on Hillary's judgment, and so that can't be done.  

8.  Hillary hate gets conveniently conflated with and reduced to misogyny.  People can't or refuse to accept the very simple concept that some people may hate Hillary because she's Hillary Clinton, not because she's a woman.  It would be just as silly to say that all those people who hate Obama must therefore be racists.



Display:


YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (2.00 / 12)

Sexism did influence some of the media coverage against Hillary Clinton. Why is it so hard for people to accept that?

I'm an Obama female supporter, and I can see how the coverage was sexist in some places, and I know it wasn't the main reason why she lost.

Hillary did not lose because of sexism, but she certainly was affected by sexist coverage.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:01:03 AM EST

Its so hard (2.00 / 6)

because of a benign social acceptance of sexism in our country and in our politics....


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, it is still hard (2.00 / 4)

I'm a third wave feminist, and sexism is still very prevalent in this country.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, it is still hard (2.00 / 2)

Who says my diary in anyway contends that sexism is NOT prevalent in this country?

For your information, I do believe that sexism, or more specifically, patriarchal norms, are deeply embedded within the fabric of American political and civil society.  Otherwise, why is it only in 2008 that we've finally had a serious female candidate for president?  Many other nations have elected women to their highest offices.  But, not the United States.  That's because traditional gender norms are still strongly held and accepted in comparison to other nations.  

Yet, I can still believe sexism is deeply ingrained within the American polity and still conclude that sexism did not play a significant role in Hillary's defeat, at least the way that Hillary supporters understand feminism.

I actually do believe that sexism undermined Hillary's campaign, but not in the way people have been arguing here and in the media.  But, that's a topic for another diary.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, it is still hard (2.00 / 4)

there are many factors that lead to ones demise in politics and all those factors are collectively the end result. You diary discounts one those factors... and hence is demeaning to her supporters.

but don't fret they are used to men telling them what to think and what not to ...just like you!


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, it is still hard (2.00 / 1)

I agree absolutely with your comment up to the word factors.

I disagree completely with all of the comment after that.

The diarist is saying what the diarist thinks.  To read your comment you'd think the diarist said: "Now you little ladies need to accept what I am telling you as the one and only truth."  Personally, I think that holding the position that expressing an opinion around women is giving them an order and that to be honest and frank around women is demeaning is actually insulting and truly demeaning.

That's what a conversation/ debate is.  It is an attempt to express one's point of view in the hope that others will choose to accept it with full awareness that they might reject and rebut it.  Why should someone's gender affect whether it is demeaning to engage in such a conversation with them?  Women aren't somehow feeble and unable to discuss this topic without it being, as you say, "men telling them what to think and what not to".  It is a legitimate exchange of ideas.

I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the comment to which you are responding here, but I definitely disagree with your characterization.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, it is still hard (none / 0)

The diary did not discount the sexism factor, as you imply. Rather, it questions the prevalent obsession and selectivity over this one factor while all others are ignored.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its so hard (2.00 / 1)

Why is it so hard for people to actually read the diary and understand what it says or does not say?  Did you actually read the diary or did you just jump to conclusions based on the title?  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why is it so hard for you (2.00 / 7)

to realize that your entire diary is focused on the singular point of tearing down arguments against sexism?  Wow- I wish you were actually kidding.


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:10:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it so hard for you (2.00 / 1)

Why is it so hard for you to understand my point?

I repeat: I AM NOT DENYING THAT THERE WERE EXAMPLES OF SEXIST COVERAGE IN THE MEDIA.  

You with me?  Good.

Here's the argument that I am tearing down - the sexist coverage in the media that did occur did NOT contribute in any significant way to Hillary's defeat.  

I repeat - sexist coverage in the media occurred during the campaign, but that coverage did not significantly contribute to Hillary's defeat.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it so hard for you (2.00 / 5)

How do you know it did not contribute to her defeat?

I cannot say sexism did or that it didn't contribute to her defeat.

People like you keep making that statement as if it is fact. Where is the proof sexism does not play a role in shaping the attitudes of voters or influencing how they vote?


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:32:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The same proof (2.00 / 1)

Clinton used to claim poor whites weren't going to vote for the black guy.

Exit polls.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:46:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The same proof (2.00 / 1)

Poor whites did vote for Obama. So I would not consider your statement factual either.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well (1.00 / 0)

I wasn't clear.

Clinton used exit poll date that concluded those not voting for Obama because he was black were poor whites.

However those same exit polls clearly indicate that gender had nothing to do with why people didn't for for Clinton.

I would argue had sexism been a contributing factor it would have registered in those numbers.

After all, the people making the argument for sexism playing a role claim people are much more open about it than race.


by Is This Snark on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (2.00 / 1)


Exit polls showed 20-25% of whites said race was a factor in most polls.

I have seen exit polling where blacks who supported Obama said race was not a factor in their choice. There were polls where not a single black person or very few were willing to admit it.  

Exit polls have an honesty gap and should not be relied upon as fact.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

 You're basically calling black people liars for saying they didn't consider race when they actually did.  And this is based on what?  The fact that blacks voted for Obama instead of Clinton 90-10?  Roughly the same percentage of blacks who voted for Kerry against Bush?  So, please, tell me, on what basis are you contending that blacks liked in significant numbers in exit polls?


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

Actually, the salient point is that blacks supported Gore 90-10 over BRADLEY, the other Democrat.

Same with Kerry and Dean.  Same with Clinton and everyone else.

Whether you know this or not, the idea that black people won't vote for a white candidate is absurd and insulting.  That's all they do.

And in a diary devoted to sexism it seems that people are still trying to sweep racism under a rug, or act like Barack Obama won because he's black (!?!?!), and it drives me absolutely insane.  You are absolutely KILLING the feminist movement with the resentment you're breeding.

Not you.  The person above you.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

You are also willfully ignorant.

The comparison you make don't make sense. Neither of those candidates are black and neither is female. In none of those primaries were voters asked if gender or race was a factor in their vote.

It is DUMBER than DUMB to imply I have said Obama won because he is black. I have never written anything of the sort. This is another attempt to shift the discussion by throwing out something inflammatory and a bald-faced lie.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (2.00 / 1)

You know its a lie. You know this is a show of racial solidarity. To pretend otherwise means you are glaringly unable to be honest in this discussion.

You are being willfully ignorant.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your hood is showing. (2.00 / 1)

Your refusal to acknowledge black voters as fully human voters--with the ability to choose candidates based on factors other than "he looks like me"-ness--would make Geraldine Ferraro proud.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your stupidity is glaring (none / 0)

Your refusal to acknowledge that blacks would not support THE most viable black candidate is a show of willful ignorance.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Quarter is calling. (2.00 / 1)

I started out for Edwards. My father was neutral. My mother was one of the strongest Clinton supporters you'd ever find.

None of us became Obama supporters because he was 'the most viable black candidate'. But don't let reality get in the way of your racist worldview.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your stupidity is blinding (1.00 / 0)

You so-called progressives think Bill Clinton comparing Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson is racism. As long as that is your standard, I am not worried.

You wouldn't know racism if it kicked you in the butt with a pointed toed shoe.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your bigotry is saddening. (none / 0)

Your post had nothing to do with mine.

I started out for Edwards. My father was neutral. My mother was one of the strongest Clinton supporters you'd ever find.

None of us became Obama supporters because he was 'the most viable black candidate'. But don't let reality get in the way of your racist worldview.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your ignorance is on display again (1.00 / 0)

There you go being willfully ignorant again. You said I had a racist world view. I responded by telling you you are clueless as to what racism is.

I don't believe you are in a position to speak for  "us."

I believe race was factor in black support for Obama. How you got racism out of that is your problem.

That's all.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your prejudice is crippling. (none / 0)

Hopefully someday you'll see black people as human beings instead of race-based automatons.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:23:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

oh wow - give me a break!


by swissffun on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)

Well, being white and male I can say that sex and race did affect my preference.

I thought a woman prez would be a nifty thing for little girls and that might have tipped my hand toward Hillary against any other contender.

However, I felt Obama would be a much greater good for black kids.

But kids feeling good isn't really that high among my concerns.

Obama's race and heritage gave him a huge advantage as far as my hope for repaired relations with the rest of the world.


McCain just lied again
by wrb on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (none / 0)


I think stating race could be factor is always presumed to be a negative based on the comments I have received. It unfortunate how people make those type of erroneous assumptions.
"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.00 / 1)

I don't want to inject myself too fully into what is already becoming a bitter debate, but women can be sexist also.  And I mean sexist against other women, not just against men.  There are undoubtedly some women (no idea how many) who voted against Hillary because, for whatever reason, they don't want any woman to be president.

I think a lot of the irrational Hillary-hate does come from latent sexism still around since 1992, and if Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer were running, I believe there would be quite a bit of vitriol against them also.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Hillary supporters are not trying to deny (none / 0)

that incompetence in her campaign was likely the determinant factor in her loss.  Your persistent attempt to conflate these two issues is beyond frustrating.


by dbrown04 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it so hard for you (none / 0)

ok - if that was your point then, , , really bad writing!!!!

the title frames the main argument and that clearly belittles anyone discussing sexism in the campaign as just proffering an excuse.

that is wrong, and insulting.


by swissffun on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is it so hard for you (none / 0)

your entire diary is focused on the singular point of tearing down arguments against sexism

Wow. Click here for a better understanding of what the diary actually said.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its so hard (none / 0)

Either everyone is blind to it, or it didn't really exist. There's no accurate way to determine this, so we each get to pick our own mythologies.

Next.


by Rationalisto on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (none / 0)

No, you're missing my point.  I'm not arguing that sexism didn't have an effect.  I'm pointing out the reasons why Hillary Clinton supporters have seized upon sexism as the primary explanation for Hillary's loss.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:03:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they ARE NOT SAYING THAT!!! (2.00 / 4)

They're saying that sexism did influence the coverage of her campaign. They are not saying it's why she lost.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they ARE NOT SAYING THAT!!! (none / 0)

I disagree.  They are arguing that it is why she lost.  Go read the comments in those diaries.  See how many are using sexism to rationalize Hillary's defeat.  There will be many.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:06:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, they're not. (2.00 / 5)

THey're talking about how sexism affected her campaign. They are not saying why it's she lost.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, they're not. (none / 0)

I disagree.  I've read numerous comments and diaries that either explicitly or implicitly keep raising the meme to argue that sexism played a significant role in Hillary's defeat.  

I'm too tired to do so right now, but I'll refer to some diaries and comments where they make these arguments.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:14:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IMHO, diarist is one of the more... (2.00 / 5)

...obvious Clinton-haters on these boards.

There was sexism. The media was sexist. Therefore, if you acknowledge that--as you say you are--it would be a given that the sexism permeated (i.e.: was pervasive in) the so-called objectivity of those very same members of the fourth estate with regard to their coverage of the Primary, too.

You're acknowledging there was sexism in the media (not unlike folks such as DNC Chairman Dean and many others, etc.), which is tantamount to acknowledging bias.

So, if there was bias in the media--in terms of sexism against Hillary--then it may be said that there were certain members of the media that were biased against Hillary.

Are you saying the media had no influence in the outcome of this Primary? Apparently, you are.

So, therefore, I'm calling a bit of b.s. here, overall, as far as this weak diary's concerned, too.

For a "professor," I see absolutely no links nor references to anything supporting your claims.

IMHO, I'm chalking it all up to Clinton-hate.

Just more of the same...


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:41:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMHO, diarist is one of the more... (none / 0)

Classic ad hominem attack.  When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.  You just undermine the credibility of any substantive point you make when you resort to such lame "arguments."

I did not say the media had no influence.  Of course it had influence.  

I am saying, however, that it did not have any significant influence.  I can point to a dozen or so reasons that were significant.  Sexism is not one of them.

But, like I said, that's not the point of my diary.  My point is to point out the reasons why Hillary Clinton supporters have seized on sexism to rationalize Hil's defeat.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Defend your diary with more than bloviations. (2.00 / 4)

Please.

You revert to this ad hominem b.s. without offering one shred of proof to support your remarks.


I am saying, however, that it did not have any significant influence.

Your pretzel logic fails to accomplish anything.

If you're going to make claims, support them! Or, attack commenters for stating obvious things about your weak and lame conclusions. (i.e.: no links to support claims, acknowledging media was biased but saying they didn't affect the outcome of the election.)

Face it, you hate everything Clinton. I offer as proof your entire set of comments and diaries here on this blog. (That's my "link." I'll let the audience decide.)

You constantly offer opinion, making a lame attempt to contort/conflate it as fact, but without a single iota of tangible proof to support your claim here!

You acknowledge (or are you just placating) that there was sexism in the media. And, then you try to explain it away as not having any effect upon the coverage of Hillary Clinton during the Primary?

That's like saying, "So and so's a racist. They're a member of the media. But, their coverage of Barack Obama was evenhanded."

Same shoe...but on the other foot.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. And, you don't go selling these woof tickets 'round here without at least making some effort to support your claim with something other than just your opinion...on top of attacking those that have "the audacity" to point this out to you, to boot!

Pretty freakin' obnoxious, IMHO!

The nerve of me, huh? Not taking your opinon as face value factual information! LOL!

Ad hominem attack my ass.


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:08:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defend your diary with more than bloviations. (1.00 / 0)

I don't think you know what ad hominem means.


by catalysis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The diarist makes ad hominem statements... (2.00 / 1)

...then accuses those that confront the diarist with the reality that it's the diarist making the ad hominem attacks, and not those commenting on it!

Total projection, IMHO.

From Wikipedia, with the full definition of AD HOMINEM linked HERE.


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMHO, diarist is one of the more... (2.00 / 2)

Professor, Classic cognitive dissonance on your part rather?


by gorgias on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMHO, diarist is one of the more... (none / 0)

Btw, if you want to look at the effect of sexism in the media on voters, go check out the exit polls.  All of them asked whether gender was an important factor in making their decision and show whether these voters who said gender was an important factor voted for Obama or for Clinton.  

I'm sure you know what the results of all or virtually all the exit polls are.  And if you don't, here's a hint - they sure don't help support the theory that media sexism significantly hurt Hillary's candidacy.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:04:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're just digging a deeper hole! (2.00 / 2)

When was the last time you saw or heard the answer to a question--any question--in an exit poll: "I voted for so and so because of the media coverage?"

That does not happen!

Almost everyone votes for a given candidate due to that candidate's media coverage (whether it's personal or issues-related, it doesn't matter).

Where are you taking this dialogue right now?

Let me answer that for you: down a bunch of dead-end avenues of conversation...all to arrive at the same conclusion.

Professor, where are the citations to support your off-the-wall claims? I sure as hell don't see 'em in your diary.

In fact, I've seen you have these circular arguments with others; and, I'm done expending energy on this matter.

The facts speak for themselves. You have not one damn shred of a citation for your claims (too late now, the diaries already published...and with not a damn cite in it).

You then fall back upon bogus, off-the-wall commentary about exit polling which is completely irrelevant (see my words a few paragraphs up).

Yep...I won't be answering any more of your comments herein.

In the battle to defend your baseless comments, you are defenseless.

I'm beating my head against a wall here because it feels so good when I stop.

And, stopping is exactly what I'm doing now. G'night!  


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just digging a deeper hole! (1.00 / 1)

I can only hope.  j/k


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IMHO, diarist is one of the more... (none / 0)

Are you saying the media had no influence in the outcome of this Primary? Apparently, you are.

I think you're being overly simplistic. I don't think racism in the media, i.e. "Obamas Baby Mamma", has any effect on Obama's campaign. It only appeals to people who are already inherently racist. And those people aren't going to vote for him anyway. Likewise with sexism.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, they're not. (2.00 / 0)

SORRY - but no - you make NOT like the comments made, but I haven't read any comment like you have described.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:45:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're the one that is advancing the arument (none / 0)

You need to go produce the evidence.  Tally up how many comments complain about sexism and how many actually blame sexism for her loss.  If you do this task honestly, I think you'll find very few of the later.


by dbrown04 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (2.00 / 1)

Sexism was part of the reason Clinton lost.  Women voters frustration with sexism is bigger than the Clinton campaign and will continue long after she has left the race.

Its not going away, its the giant whale in the living room for the Democratic Party.  Its not about Clinton, its about women and the Dem Party. They're tired of accepting the crumbs from the king's table.


by Betsy McCall on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (2.00 / 1)

Why is it when a woman loses fairly to an exceptional candidate, it's "accepting THE crumbs from the king's table"?

Bullshit. She just got beat, she ran an incredibly incompetent campaign and she lost. It happens.

There is nothing inherently unfair about a woman losing to a man. She lost because more people preferred Obama over more of the same.

And that's the truth. We want a change, and Clinton by tying herself to the anchor of the past in her husband's presidency doomed herself.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crumbs from the king's table? (none / 0)

Really. So it's the democratic party that's sexist now? I suggest you keep the current female speaker and the scores of female congressional democrats apprised of the situation.

Who'd have thought that the real villains were the party of Woodrow Wilson who urged the passing of the 19th amendment, the party that pioneered equal opportunity and affirmative action - and has battled tirelessly to sustain these.

Yes, we should abandon these "inadequate" types in favor of the party of those that refer to women as c*nts and trollops and feminazis - presumably that would be your favored party?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crumbs from the king's table? (none / 0)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/peop leevents/p_paul.html

Paul organized the "Silent Sentinels," a group of women who protested in front of the White House, holding banners which proclaimed, "Mr. President -- What will you do for woman suffrage?" The picketing continued even as America readied for war. The suffragists were first harassed, then arrested. Sent to the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia along with many others, Alice Paul began a hunger strike. Force-fed through tubes and threatened with commitment to an insane asylum, Paul remained steadfast. Wilson was offended by Paul's tactics, but he was also keenly aware of the suffrage movement's growing political strength. By the end of 1917, Wilson finally announced his support for the suffrage amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote passed in 1920.

Actually, Wilson was not particularly supportive of women's right to vote by personal inclination, as you can see by the above recitation of history by PBS-women protesting at Wilson's gate were harassed, incarcerated, force fed, etc.  I hardly call that 'supportive'.  He was protested and browbeaten into support.

It's telling that no one has proposed an Alice Paul holiday, similar to the MLK holiday.


"There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up" --Rex Stout
by LIsoundview on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think we have room to address things (2.00 / 3)

related to the media, but if we do this I think Edwards received some unfair treatment as well. They used the hair moment over and over again. While most sexism is thought of as being against women could you not include that moment as one against a man?


by AHiddenSaint on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we have room to address things (2.00 / 2)

In fact, Edwards got treated unfairly by the media in a far worse way then Obama or Clinton - they simply ignored him. He wasn't presented as a serious contender in the way that O and C were IMO.


by animated on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:39:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think we have room to address things (2.00 / 2)

Ohnonono... Edwards got tarred with a "pretty boy" brush before ANY of them did, which was also sexist. Ann Coulter called him a faggot and it was reported. LOTS of people talked about the fancy lawyer with the pretty face and the finely coiffed hair. While he was taking a tour of impoverished cities in America, they were talking about how much he paid for his haircut.

Now use that prism and look at the coverage of Hillary. Go back all the way to 2007 and even beyond. Look at what memes they spread about her, think about the choices of words. There was sexism there. Plenty of it.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, thanks for that, slinkerwink. (2.00 / 2)

Some Obama supporters are so galled every time sexism is mentioned (not necesarily the diarist -- I got fed up with this rehashed topic and quit reading). You're right, Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, but we certainly saw quite a bit of it in the MSM.

You post more often at dKos, don't you? Very nice to see you here.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:11:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, thanks for that, slinkerwink. (2.00 / 2)

Well, very often (in fact, nearly always), it's discussed at the express expense of sexism.

Gloria Steinem lobbed the first bomb right after Iowa in "Women are Never Front-runners".  In it, she argued that sexism was worse than racism, and posed the question of where Obama would be if he were a woman (nowhere), without posing the obvious followup, "and where would Hillary Clinton be if she were black?"

Nowhere.

I was afraid this was going to happen: whichever candidate won was going to be interpreted as a sign that their demographic had reached full equality and the other one had been set back and thrown out of the Democratic Party and political society.

It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and it's happening in real time.  "Wow, Barack Obama won the Democratic primary.  Problem solved!  Let's all give ourselves a big pat on the back now: yay America!"

I've just skimmed this thread, but a few posts above is someone arguing that there was pervasive sexism in the primary (very true), and then trotting out the tired old "black people are racist because they supported Obama".

People forget that in general, discussing racism was verbotten in a huge part of the progressive blogosphere, and anywhere where Clinton supporters held sway.  You couldn't even suggest that it might have had something to do with West Virginia and Kentucky without getting banned, if Jerome had anything to do with it, or getting ridiculed, despite the fact that people in Hillary Clinton's OWN CAMPAIGN (Ed Rendell, Sergio Ben Dixon, Hillary Clinton herself if Mark Halperin is to be believed) argued that Obama didn't have a shot in November and would likely lose the primary because there are too many people that won't vote for anyone black.  Yet if you said the same thing, you got "omg, you call everyone who doesn't vote for Obama a racist".

In the end, and hopefully, just for the time being, racism has been pitted against sexism.  It's the most destructive thing that could have possibly happened.  Good-bye, common causes and alliances.  Hello mutual recrimination.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, thanks for that, slinkerwink. (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I read that Steinem column at a time when I was still undecided and thought, "Oh sh**. Here we go." It was a very unfortunate piece that played into the hands of those who would divide and conquer.

I'm very glad that Steinem has come around and is supporting Obama.


by MikeNY on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, thanks for that, slinkerwink. (none / 0)

I knew she would.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, thanks for that, slinkerwink. (none / 0)

Yeah, me too.

On the subject of sexism, Susan Faludi's got a piece in today's NY Times about how the McCain campaign and the media will be using the gendered aspects of America's frontier mythology to paint Obama as insufficiently masculine. It's well worth reading.


by MikeNY on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was afraid of this, too: (2.00 / 2)

I was afraid this was going to happen: whichever candidate won was going to be interpreted as a sign that their demographic had reached full equality and the other one had been set back and thrown out of the Democratic Party and political society

Hillary didn't lose because she's a woman, and Obama didn't win because he's black. I fear that people will become complacent about race. It's tragic that Hillary's historic campaign and Obama's historic campaign were pitted against each other. Someone had to lose, after all, and a lot of people are searching for reasons -- they want someone to blame. Most of the blame falls on Hillary. She made a lot of mistakes -- ignoring the caucus states was the biggest one, I think.

People don't want to talk about racism because it makes them uncomfortable. It's especially sad that progressives have adopted this mentality. It's lazy and cowardly.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (2.00 / 1)

Sure. And if Obama and Wright were white, the rantings of his preacher would just kind of be accepted as a "Metaphor".

The Wright story wouldn't have had any legs if it didn't have the liberation theology of the black church behind it.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (none / 0)

THANK you for this comment!!

Sums it up in a nut-shell.

This campaign coverage revealed a nasty acceptance of lingering sexism in the USA, at least it's acceptable when the woman is someone a 'journalist' doesn't like. But that does not bode well for any woman - if they like you they won't be sexist is not in my book an acceptable frame of thought.


by swissffun on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT (none / 0)

I never thought I'll rec'ing slinkerwink ever..her coverage of HRC on Dailykos still stings me...but here she is absolutely right..here's looking forward to more rec's for slinkerwink.


by louisprandtl on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I may come from a unique position (none / 0)

I have to go to bed because of fathers day we are spending it with my father as a family, but when I get a chance I plan to write a diary on the subject. I need some time to lay out the words.


by AHiddenSaint on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:01:31 AM EST

Alright (2.00 / 2)

what is going on here tonight?  What the hell is with the barrage of 'you don't know what feminism/sexism' diaries?


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:01:33 AM EST

It's navel-gazing (2.00 / 1)

and it's what liberal bloggers do best, they navel-gaze while they miss the forest standing in front of them.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:02:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alright (none / 0)

Sigh.  This is not a "you don't know what feminism/sexism is" diary.  Did you even read the diary?


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and (2.00 / 2)

now that I have finished reading all of the 'points' of this diary, I can quite honestly say that I find it extremely sexist.  Thank you for making the point that we have a long, long way to go and a great deal of work to do.


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and (none / 0)

I was right.  You didn't read the diary before making your accusations.

And now, of course, all you can do is what Hillary supporters have been doing - criticizing anyone who is critical of Hillary Clinton as sexist.

Unless you believe in making baseless accusations without any support, please explain why you think my points are "extremely sexist" so that I can respond in a substantive way.  Unless, of course, you are making the accusation without any real basis for making it.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:08:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Get over yourself (2.00 / 1)

you have one point and several examples, there is not reason to read the entire diary.


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get over yourself (none / 0)

Figured.  No actual arguments to support your baseless sexism charge.  

The way you just casually cry "you're diary is sexist" without any explanation just supports my point, since that's what Hillary supporters have done - argue that sexism contributed to Hillary's defeat without explaining why or how.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

is this how you teach? (2.00 / 1)

you are right and everyone else must be wrong and must fit into your perception of them?  How on earth do you know that the sexism that permeated this primary did not contribute to Hillary's defeat?  You do know that she barely lost, don't you?  I will readily admit that sexism might not have been a deciding factor in Hillary's loss, I have never had a problem with that.  However, your diary is so absolute that it seems to me that your purpose is not to make this point, but rather to defeat the discussion of sexism in the primary at all, the discussion being only meant to somehow passively attack Obama- its weird, its unwittingly sexist- I am sorry.


by linc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:19:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is this how you teach? (none / 0)

Probably for the same reasons that you are readily admitting that sexism probably wasn't a deciding factor in her loss.  

As for the purpose in writing this diary, in part, it is to try to separate the issue of sexism in media coverage of the primary from Hillary Clinton.  

What do I mean?  People seem to use sexism as a way to talk about Hillary Clinton and she was treated.  That's all backwards.

I'm all for using Hillary Clinton's treatment in the media to talk about sexism in the media generally, and not just for Hillary Clinton, but for other female political actors, including Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy McCain.  Like I said, I would love to see diaries start to use their analysis of the primary race and coverage of Hillary to critique and raise awareness of how the media has and will engage in sexist coverage of Michelle Obama.  

In that way, people would be taking Hillary's advice to heart and would not be letting the past get in the way of moving forward.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is this how you teach? (2.00 / 0)

the only female political actor in your list is Nancy Pelosi.  And yes, she has been slammed before in the media

hey - look, it is our good friend tweety leading the charge

In November 2006, shortly after the Democrats took the majority in Congress, Matthews asked a guest if then-presumptive speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer (D-MD) were elected House majority leader

sound familiar?

http://mediamatters.org/items/2008011100 10


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary supporters on this site had already (none / 0)

separated the issues of sexism in the progressive community and sexism as a cause of her defeat.  Your diary attempts to reintegrate the two discussions.


by dbrown04 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get over yourself (1.00 / 0)

Also, I just want to add that your otherwise respectable comments are marred by immature statements and personal attacks ("get over yourself"; "arrogant"; "is this how you teach?")  Not cool.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I got a couple of paragraphs (2.00 / 1)

into your diary and then stopped reading. Seriously, if you don't like the "sexism made Hillary lose!!!" diaries, just ignore them. WTF is wrong with y'all? IGNORE IT.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:07:30 AM EST

Re: I got a couple of paragraphs (none / 0)

This isn't a blog where people can say stuff without consequences.  There are serious consequences with people continuing to use sexism to delegitimize Obama's candidacy, and so it's important to address what is really behind these sexism diaries other than a pure concern about sexism in politics.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is still doing that? (2.00 / 1)

I thought most of the people who were trying to use sexism to "delegitimize his candidacy" had left. Seriously, if you ignore it, it will go away. I was a Clinton supporter, and I don't even bother to read or comment on that stuff anymore.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:13:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is still doing that? (none / 0)

Those people who left are the ones who are more explicit about making that argument.  I'm addressing those that write diaries and comments that seemingly are addressing, in a non-partisan manner, sexist coverage in the media.  But, go read my points again.  There is an underlying agenda behind these diaries.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is still doing that? (2.00 / 1)

yes, the underlying "agenda" is to fight sexism and the disappointment that some progressive  bloggers helped push the sexism and misogyny themes this primary season.


by colebiancardi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:51:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yep. (2.00 / 2)

this is ridonculous.  almost troll-ish - non?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:14:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha, you made me LOL. 'Night! n/t (2.00 / 1)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:15:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. (1.00 / 0)

Why am I not surprised at your comment?   And it's trollish to criticize those who continue to de-legitimize Obama's victory in the democratic primary?


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:21:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. (2.00 / 3)

see this is the problem.  how does admitting that sexism occurred delegitimize anyone?

and the premise of this diary is nonsense - how does anyone know how sexism affected the outcome?  we dont.  we can only reflect on its meaning in the framing of progressive thinking - can we?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm one step away from giving diarist 2 TR's! (2.00 / 2)

One for his baseless attacks on anyone that disagrees with him, while he continues to rant.

The SECOND one for that huge chip on his freakin' shoulder!

Good god, man! The diarist needs to get a grip!

Like I said at the outset of my comments...sure walks, talks, looks and smells like Hillary-hate to me!

All one has to do is read through a few pages of this diarist's previous diaries and comments to understand there are "issues" here.


by bobswern on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one step away from giving diarist 2 TR's! (none / 0)

Classic - when you have no substantive response, use the "Hillary hater" card.  Do you have anything substantive to say at all?  

I swear, you sound like that appeaser guy on Chris Matthews' show.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. (none / 0)

No, the problem is you keep mischaracterizing my argument.  To say that there were sexist incidents in the media doesn't delegitimize anyone.

But, when they say that the media was biased against Hillary and biased for Obama, a claim i believe you make, you are de-legitimizing Obama's victory.  You're saying Obama did not win fairly, but was given preferential treatment.  He did not "deserve" to win.  

And you can measure the effect of sexism and racism on the outcome.  You just need to define your terms in ways that make them measurable, and then see the effects.  

I referred you to exit polling data before.  Not  conclusive, but they provide some empirical evidence of the effect of sexism or racism on how voters voted.  For example, a substantial number of people said that race and gender were important factors in choosing who to vote for.  There were even questions directly related to media coverage that you can use to draw some implications regarding biased media coverage.

No, you won't achieve scientific certainty by examining exit polling data, but they can help to support or undermine certain theories or hypotheses.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (2.00 / 5)

I would argue that the sexism HELPED Hillary in her campaign, especially in the New Hampshire primary and the March-June period. It eventually became so obvious that woman rallied to her.

Hillary was let down by her campaign. They failed to understand that delegates from the uninhabited red states were easier to come by than delegates from the populous blue states. They wasted money and underestimated Obama. They could have knocked him out early if they had recognized him as the real threat he was. Alternatively they could have listed to Mike Henry who wrote a memo recommending they skip Iowa. Obama's Iowa victory (if he even won) in a race without Hillary would have been seen as hollow and $25 million would have been saved which could have been used to pump up the numbers in the February 5 states.

If I am wrong and sexism had a negative effect, it was not determinative. If you want the meme to die, I suggest you stop writing diaries about it and commenting on others.


by STUBALL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:24:52 AM EST

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

I agree with your analysis.  I also agree that most diaries trying to refute the meme actually end up reinforcing it.  That's why in this diary, I'm not even addressing the question directly, instead, I'm addressing the underlying functions, purposes, and effect of using sexism as an explanation for Hillary's defeat.


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (2.00 / 1)

Nevertheless you are discussing it and giving it life. Let's just say that the horse (Hillary, no disrespect intended) might have won if not for the jockey (Mark Penn, et. al - much disrespect intended).


by STUBALL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

We're going to have to agree to disagree with your first point, but i agree with your second point.  

I actually do think sexism undermined Hillary's campaign - but it was the sexism of two people in particular - Mark Penn and Bill Clinton.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

nuh- uh. Name the specific incidents that illustrates the sexism on behalf of the two in question. and read my post below---


by alyssa chaos on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:08:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

I laid out my bill as sexist theory below.  

As for Mark Penn as sexist, he's the idiot who said Hillary needed to run as a quasi-incumbent and to make sure that she comes across as "tough."  He vetoed Patti Doyle Solis' contention that Hillary should run as a change candidate and explicitly refer to the historic nature of her running as the first serious female candidate.  Penn basically wanted to erase Hill's gender and make her act "more like a man."  The decision to go with Penn instead of Solis, imo, was probably the most important reason for Hillary's loss.  And Penn's campaign strategy reeked of sexism and gender stereotypes.  

Of course, the question that arises is - why did Hillary agree with Mark Penn rather than with Patti Solis?


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (2.00 / 1)

that incident being labeled as sexism is a stretch at best. In fact the choice to not run as the 'woman' candidate is the same approach Barack took. he didn't want to be labeled as the 'black' candidate, so he ran past racial divides, and from the example you provided it shows nothing of blantant sexism--- that move could be inferred as a ploy to fight off sexism. rather than running as just the 'female' candidate they imployed that she run past gender divides (which is hard to imgaine, i mean the divide between feminity and masculinity is a tough bridge to gap);


[I implore you to look at the situation from another perspective.]
by alyssa chaos on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

Why are you seeking to minimize what clearly was a sexist moment in Hillary's campaign?  

Think about it - a man tells a woman that she must erase her gender identity and take active steps to act "tough" (i.e., masculine) in order to be able to win the election.  What perspective do you think Mark "let me poll it and get back to you" Penn was coming from?  Was he making his campaign pitch from a feminist perspective?  

By accepting Mark Penn's suggestions, she was internalizing sexist norms and trying to work around them.  I don't blame Hillary for making that decision, but, it's a tragic choice, one that institutionalized sexism impose on professional women on a daily basis - to get that partnership, to win that election, the message being given to women is that they must deny their womenhood if they are to compete in the male-dominated world.  

The worst part of it all is that Mark Penn gave really bad advice.  Hill should have listened to Patti Solis, who was clearly coming from a feminist perspective, and embraced her gender identity, something hillary ended up doing anyway, but when it was too late.  


by ProfessorReo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (2.00 / 1)

awww.

i plead: double standard!

Did you get the similarities in the campaigning style between both candidates? the choice they made to not run as what they are-- ???

I mean by your reasoning you would conclude that barack refused to embrace his AA heritage by opting to run as post racial.


[a recipe for disaster----just substitute 'black' for 'female'; 'Barack' for 'Hillary'; 'post racial' for 'gender neutral']


by alyssa chaos on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sexism as Convenient Truth: Rationalizing Hill (none / 0)

Yes, I do see the similarities.  There are also key differences.  One being, Obama's "post-racial" style was one that's consistent with his overall political philosophy of unity, non-partisanship, and anti-essentialism.  

Hillary's