Author: has written 5281 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

193 Responses

  1. pennylane
    pennylane April 21, 2008 at 4:56 pm |

    What the? While I would question whether the New Republic should be called progressive, this is grotesque.

  2. ccuomo
    ccuomo April 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm |

    Call me Pollyanna, but I would love to see progressive allies who are not white women (i.e., African-American leftie men) take a stand against this sort of crapola. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I’d love to see the progressive left continue to take advantage of this opportunity to educate the general voting public about issues of race and gender in the U.S.

  3. Abby
    Abby April 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm |

    can more computer-savvy people tell me how to enlarge this photo? i can’t even find a bigger picture on tnr’s website. i read the article, but i’d like to see what they have popping out of her head.

  4. rhiain
    rhiain April 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm |

    In what universe is an image like this okay? Seriously. I want to make sure I never move there by accident. Or by banging my head against the wall one too many times; I think it might open up a portal one of these days.

  5. felagund
    felagund April 21, 2008 at 5:13 pm |

    I’m a white guy, and an Obama supporter, and it pissed me off. There are plenty of reasons to dislike HRC’s close ties to corporate and Likud interests; this sort of jejune sexism makes it more difficult to articulate such arguments.

  6. Daisy
    Daisy April 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm |

    Really, that is like a cover of the National Enquirer.

  7. Dianne
    Dianne April 21, 2008 at 5:15 pm |

    I would love to see progressive allies who are not white women (i.e., African-American leftie men) take a stand against this sort of crapola.

    Me too. In fact, if Obama made a statement condemning this sort of crap, I’d probably change from “eh, he’s ok” support of him to enthusiastic support.

  8. Dianne
    Dianne April 21, 2008 at 5:20 pm |

    In what universe is an image like this okay? Seriously. I want to make sure I never move there by accident. Or by banging my head against the wall one too many times; I think it might open up a portal one of these days.

    Hate to tell you this, but I think it’s too late…you’re already there. I suspect that 99% of Americans think that this image is funny and don’t see anything wrong with it.

  9. Lauren O
    Lauren O April 21, 2008 at 5:41 pm |

    I’m with Abby. How can I see a bigger image?

  10. Nathan
    Nathan April 21, 2008 at 5:45 pm |

    Has anyone got another link to the cover? I can’t find it on the magazine’s website, and that photo is much too small for me to read any of it.

  11. Astraea
    Astraea April 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm |

    It’s especially lovely when you compare it to this cover with Obama.

    And they don’t appear to post a very high quality image of their cover on their website, unfortunately.

  12. pennylane
    pennylane April 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm |

    Yeah–I didn’t mean it as a critique of your post but of The New Republic. You’re right that this cover is indistinguishable from the cover of an Ann Coulter book and it is appearing on a magazine that is identified as (and more importantly identifies itself) as progressive. And that is so so sad.

    They’re both running against a guy who made fun of Chelsea Clinton’s looks when she was a teenager and refers to his own wife with the c-word. But Hillary’s the dangerous one. Sigh.

  13. Liz
    Liz April 21, 2008 at 6:03 pm |

    Wow, really? That’s what the think is going on inside the Hillary camp?

    And people wonder why this election is so fraught with chaos. Hello, the media.

  14. Rika
    Rika April 21, 2008 at 6:07 pm |

    “It’s especially lovely when you compare it to this cover with Obama.”

    Seriously? Jesus in front of an American flag? He’s a tortured martyr now? That’s ridiculous.

  15. anythings.org » No, absolutely not.
    anythings.org » No, absolutely not. April 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm |

    [...] Via. addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fanythings.org%2F2008%2F04%2F21%2Fno-absolutely-not%2F'; addthis_title = ‘No%2C+absolutely+not.'; addthis_pub = ‘eabinante'; [...]

  16. Liz
    Liz April 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm |

    I managed to snag a login for a bigger cover. View here: http://anythings.org/2008/04/21/no-absolutely-not/

  17. evil fizz
    evil fizz April 21, 2008 at 6:18 pm |

    Third on the need for a bigger image.

    But based on what I can see “The Voices in Her Head”?!?! Next to that picture, the only conclusion I can draw is that the TNR wants everyone to see Hillary and think “raving lunatic”.

  18. Hawise
    Hawise April 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm |

    I can’t even respond to this. Just asking for people to be civil has become a reason to be attacked out there and this sort of thing just makes me want to throw things.

  19. Kevin Moore
    Kevin Moore April 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm |

    I can’t see the cover very well either, but the press seems to use far more unflattering photos of her than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Unto itself, the use of such an image has satirical intent, which is legitimate; but in the larger context of very unequal treatment, it’s one more shovel-full on the pile of crap. It’s a shame. There are better avenues of satire regarding Clinton (and the other candidates, of course.) The “voices in her head” plays into the old “she’s hysterical” dismissal women in power receive as a way of trivializing them. Frankly, McCain is a better target of the “crazy” caricature, given his bellicosity and temper.

  20. catfood
    catfood April 21, 2008 at 7:36 pm |

    What felagund said. Bleah.

  21. Pitseleh
    Pitseleh April 21, 2008 at 7:47 pm |

    If we can’t get an enlarged image, can someone tell us what the boxes say?

  22. Manju
    Manju April 21, 2008 at 7:52 pm |

    And we can cut the whole “She’s tearing the party apart!” nonsense.

    this is a legit concern, especially regarding the 3am/”threshold” argument that essentially cedes the commander in chief issue to mccain over your party’s most likely candidate. Its one thing for a republican ot say this about a dem, but for a dem to attack another dem this way makes for a perfect ad for Mccain during the general. and of course there’s this.

    the clinton campaign is in the gutter. some issues are legit, like ayers or wright, but they are still low-level stuff that also stinks of hypocrisy, given the communist connections of hillary and their pardoning of weathermen, among other terrorists.

    but the racism and xenephobia coming directly form the clinton campaign is shocking, like subtly insinuating obama is a muslim on 60minutes. you just don’t see the equivalent coming from the obama campaign (like say an insinuation that she’s a lesbian.)

    but the irony is that after surviving the madrassa, secret Muslim, somalia, wright, and ayers “scandals” obama is now vetted, arguably even more so than hillary.

  23. Gayle
    Gayle April 21, 2008 at 9:22 pm |

    Holy shit! It’s for real!

    I thought it was a spoof created by one of the blogger boyz.

  24. Ico
    Ico April 21, 2008 at 9:48 pm |

    I sent them a snarky email telling them their cover decided my vote for me — I’ll be voting for Hillary.

    I’ve been disgusted with the racism from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but at least people call her out on it. I wish the same attention would be paid to the sexism and misogyny that has appeared in this primary. It’s not acceptable. It’s not okay to paint her as a harpy, a nutcracker, too cold, too menopausal, showing too much cleavage, cackling, being shrill, and on and on. There are many valid reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton; but no amount of dislike is a valid excuse for the kind of sexism that is tied up in the hatred of her.

    Really disgusting.

  25. Ico
    Ico April 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm |

    Oh, but just to clarify: the cover didn’t *actually* sway me to Hillary. ;) I decided on her way back in the summer, back when I investigated the voting records/political positions of all the major candidates. The primary season actually swayed me more towards Obama (due to my disgust at the Clinton campaign tactics. Frankly I don’t care for either of them. I’ve come to thoroughly dislike both after this primary, though of course I will fully support them against McCain), but I will probably either stay home or stick with my original choice.

  26. wall-flower
    wall-flower April 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm |

    For those seeking a bigger image, Liz already posted it, but I’ll repost in case you missed it: http://anythings.org/2008/04/21/no-absolutely-not/

  27. Nathan
    Nathan April 21, 2008 at 10:01 pm |

    Thanks for the link to the larger image, Liz.

    It looks to me like they photoshopped her eyes to make her look crazy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a photo of her where her eyes were that shade.

    Now I support Obama, and I do think Clinton is hurting the Democrats’ chances against McCain, but this cover is ridiculous. “The Voices in Her Head” … “I’m getting Verklempt?” What the hell? Clinton has been an extremely competent and calculating politician through her term in the senate and this entire nomination process. I can’t even imagine what this is based on — aside from that she’s a woman, of course.

  28. norbizness
    norbizness April 21, 2008 at 10:08 pm |

    Jill@2: The fact that they’re considered moderate-to-left leaning just shows how degraded our spectrum has become since Reagan. To the extent that there still is a horse race, I hate having lazy assholes get free shots on a strong, credible Democratic candidate (if Obama had not won Iowa, she’d have been the nominee by now, and jerkoffs like Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews, etc. would have already started slobbering over McCain 24/7). I am a nearly invisible Obama supporter (I’d love it if he could win Texas in November, but come on now), and cringe every time some relic from the 90s or smarmy dickweed from the 00s tries to pass off being a jerk with substantive policy criticism.

    That being said, I think that McCain/Rove could take some of her campaign commercials verbatim and run them against him in the general election. It’s not tearing the country apart, but it’s not necessarily helpful, unless you have some sort of plausible scenario where she’s the nominee and not starting the general election season in a sea of red ink.

  29. kate
    kate April 21, 2008 at 10:16 pm |

    The misogyny directed at HC has disgusted me from the very beginning of this race and like the writers linked, the same coming from friends and companions is equally if not even more shocking. I’ve heard men tell me they want to hit her, they hate her voice, they hate hate hate. Why? Crise, even Nixon never received such vitriol after Watergate.

    In fact, I really don’t recall any public character receiving so much hatred without even having committed any grave insult to the American public. She has not been caught embezzling funds, she wasn’t caught cheating in her marriage, she didn’t beat her children or murder them. So what on earth is the origin of all the hate?

    I’ve never been able to put my finger on it, but then I’ve never been able to figure out also why women keep being compliant with a social system that is made to keep them defeated and used. I could hope that HC’s struggles would awaken a new feminist resurgence, like the second writer is hoping for, but I don’t agree. I think that’s wishful thinking.

    I truly think it will be a while before we see another woman step up to face the chronic abuse and degradation that comes with running for President or VP. Hell, most women won’t even dare to walk outside their house without the requisite costume of compliance. If we can’t get beyond that yet, then where the hell have we gone anyway all this time?

  30. Silver Owl
    Silver Owl April 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm |

    That is typical TNR shit. I’m not getting the surprise or the shock.

  31. p_lukasiak
    p_lukasiak April 21, 2008 at 11:02 pm |

    I’m not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, its the exact same thing that TNR would do to a male that they didn’t like.

    On the other hand, there is the question of whether an ostensibly “progressive” magazine like TNR would do this to a male Democrat , and their willingness to take this kind of approach with Clinton springs from the “normalization” of Hillary-hatred which has its foundation in misogyny and sexism.

  32. p_lukasiak
    p_lukasiak April 21, 2008 at 11:11 pm |

    truly think it will be a while before we see another woman step up to face the chronic abuse and degradation that comes with running for President or VP.

    oh, come on. I’m sure that we can find an attractive woman with a reed thin resume who transcends gender and attracts the male vote by telling men that their resentment of women because of Affirmative Action is just as understandable and justifiable as women’s anger/frustration with a 5000 year old patriarchal culture whose imperatives and stereotypes affect their lives daily.

    She’d be the media darling, even if she ran against an African American male with a rock solid resume filled with relevant experience and accomplishments for the Presidency, and who has a track record of changing people’s perceptions of him in election contexts.

  33. aw fisticuffer
    aw fisticuffer April 21, 2008 at 11:47 pm |

    Sweet Jesus on a vegan ham sandwich! Scary vagina woman with tatas really just has a bad case of lady troubles (you know only women get voices in their head). Speaking of all in your head, would someone please tell me that they weren’t trying to invoke the whole Hitleresesque stance there? Please? Because compared with the jesusification of Obama, I’m wondering.

  34. Redstar
    Redstar April 22, 2008 at 12:14 am |

    this is just shameless.

  35. misskate7511
    misskate7511 April 22, 2008 at 12:20 am |

    oh jesus fecking christ… goddamnit…

    okay, i’ll own it: yes, i read TNR. And I generally like the writing, though the vitriol against Clinton bothers me. I skip those pieces of writing because, while I do not agree, I can see how some people might think that it might help our (the Dems) chances in November to have our candidate chosen already. Instead of battling it out about which candidate is best, we could be rallying around one candidate, working to sway those “If A is the candidate instead of B, I’m voting for McCain” people back into the fold, amongst other things.

    HOWEVER, I still feel that the race is too close to call, and that it is unreasonable to demand that one candidate bow out at this point. And yes, I’m a Clinton supporter, btw.

    But, anywho… Goddamnit, I like TNR, but I don’t know if I can renew my subscription now. Why, why did the anti-Clinton people there win out and get this cover? It’s not like TNR is unilaterally pro-Obama.

    DAMNIT. ::returns to fretting in the backround::

  36. misskate7511
    misskate7511 April 22, 2008 at 12:22 am |

    Oh, and please forgive me for writing as though we’re all Dems here.

    If I’ve offended anyone by doing so, I’m sorry.

  37. Sadly, No! » Wafflegate!
    Sadly, No! » Wafflegate! April 22, 2008 at 12:50 am |

    [...] On another note, and in all seriousness, this is horrendous. [...]

  38. Andrew A. Gill
    Andrew A. Gill April 22, 2008 at 1:10 am |

    Is it sexist?

    It’s unflattering, that’s for sure.

    And there’s a lot of sexism in the race.

    But I’m not sure if this is sexist, but then again, I tend to be woefully uninformed about stereotypes.

    Meh, I’ll just assume you’re right.

  39. jlo
    jlo April 22, 2008 at 1:18 am |

    I agree that this cover is in poor taste and does nothing to advance the discussion of meaningful issues in this political season – in other words, just another day at the office for so-called “moderate” mainstream media.

    Nevertheless, I don’t get why this is an example of misogyny. Didn’t the Rovians make this same attack against McCain in 2000 – i.e., that he was batshit crazy – and I don’t remember anyone screaming sexism. There was some screaming – that such an attack was in bad taste and completely ridiculous – and I don’t think this deserves any more (or less) opprobrium.

  40. jlo
    jlo April 22, 2008 at 1:34 am |

    Oh, and misskate7511, the nomination race is not “too close to call” and therefore it is not “unreasonable to ask one of the candidates to bow out.”

    The fact is, and this another one of this pin-it-on-the-twisted-values-of-the-corporate-media-type-things, but Clinton has almost no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The numbers I’ve read have ranged from 5-10%. That does not, in anybody’s dictionary, qualify as too close to call.

    Nevertheless, it is in the media’s best interest to continue beating the drum that this is a dead heat so we all hang on their reports with pathetic anxiousness when the reality is Obama is going to win this nomination – nuff said. It’s over.

    What Clinton’s doing now is just quixotic and I wish more people would just admit it and move on.

  41. Maybe I just don't get it...
    Maybe I just don't get it... April 22, 2008 at 1:54 am |

    I get how being visually compared to Hitler is harsh, but what about this mag cover is sexist or misogynistic?

  42. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 1:59 am |

    Not for the first time, I wonder exactly how people want Clinton to be treated. This is an unflattering photo, yes, and it wasn’t classy of TNR to use it. Offensive? On what planet, exactly? Sexism is using an unflattering photo of a female candidate? Because there’s not a single thing about the copy that refers even obliquely to her gender.

    As Rebecca Traister told us the other day, it’s also apparently sexist if men are angry at Clinton, or criticize her for anything other than..well, I’m not even sure what’s fair game anymore. As someone who supported her until fairly recently and would still vote for in a general (albeit grudgingly), I think it’s ridiculous. This is one hundred percent tame, something that’s been done in politics for ages. The “funny” implication that she’s crazy didn’t strike me as sexist when it was done to Howard Dean four years ago (with much of the same imagery, in fact).

    People are really going to have to come to terms with the fact that women will not be excused from the most onerous parts of the political process as more become candidates for national office. If Clinton does something desperate, she’s going to invite mockery. If she does something despicable, she’s going to make people angry at her. Is there an acceptably non-sexist way to express either? Because it seems to me that everything directed toward her is being shut down.

    I’ve also considered myself a feminist for most of my life. The Clinton campaign is making me wonder what that actually means, because everything is now being parsed for gender in ways that trouble me. Being an equal participant in society sometimes means shrugging your shoulders at stupid crap instead of seeing it as an affront to your identity.

  43. mextremist
    mextremist April 22, 2008 at 2:11 am |

    Well, I hate prefacing myself like this, ‘coz it is always much more complicated than the labels, but as an Obama supporter and a Latino male, I am deeply offended by the cover, and by the obvious sexism Hillary has been subjected to by the media.

    It has been bad. Somehow they ended up convincing smart, somewhat politicized people like some of my close friends and family to absolutely hate her. Irrationally. When pressed, they can’t come up with anything specific, or would show some really nasty interiorized gender hatred. Repeated propaganda and attacks from “reputable” sources mainstreams noxious memes that have no bearing on reality.

    If she wins by bareknuckle, hardscrabble politics she deserves to fight McCain: If she looses the election she will be one of the most tragic figures of recent history, Win or loose, she is an amazing woman.

  44. Bitchez is Cra-zee | Blog of the Moderate Left

    [...] top over a formidable opponent. This isn’t “psychodrama.” It’s a campaign. Jill says that “progressives should be better than this,” and she’s right. But [...]

  45. dadanarchist
    dadanarchist April 22, 2008 at 2:24 am |

    This is, indeed, grotesque, like much of the shit thrown at Senator Clinton throughout this campaign (mostly by the media), but why the faith in the New Republic? It has been pathetic and reactionary for years now, and can you name me one significant male writer for the New Republic, on staff? It is the definition of ‘sausage party.’

    None of this will, however, convince me to vote for her, however.

  46. dadanarchist
    dadanarchist April 22, 2008 at 2:25 am |

    Haha, that should read ‘female’ writer for the New Republic.

  47. Ken
    Ken April 22, 2008 at 2:27 am |

    HOWEVER, I still feel that the race is too close to call

    It doesn’t really matter what you “feel,” the math says the race is over and Obama will be the nominee. There’s no way in hell the supers will overturn the will of the voters. If they were to do that, the party would be finished (not that it isn’t on life-support anyway).

  48. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 2:31 am |

    Okay, Mike, I’ll bite. You think there’s nothing problematic about choosing to portray a woman with her mouth wide open, a manic expression on her face, and the phrase “The voices in her head”? That doesn’t “obliquely” evoke any stereotypes you’ve ever heard of? I won’t play the “if Obama was portrayed like x” game, but I think you could imagine some good ones.

    “This is … something that’s been done in politics for ages.”

    How funny! So is fucking sexism!

  49. Donald from Hawaii
    Donald from Hawaii April 22, 2008 at 4:00 am |

    kate: “So what on earth is the origin of all the hate? I’ve never been able to put my finger on it …”

    One word: Fear.

    Far too many men cringe at the prospect of strong women in authority, and will simply not talk about it, preferring instead lash out at the most visible aspects of that irrational feeling. Having been raised by a single mother who was widowed by the Vietnam War while I was a toddler, I was through with that nonsense by age 6.

  50. El Cid
    El Cid April 22, 2008 at 5:22 am |

    I don’t see why the situation can’t involve both aspects.

    Yes, a bunch of Hillary Clinton coverage, at times a majority, is led by outrageously sexist crap.

    AND she is engaging on types of campaigning which is severely damaging to the party.

    A mirror situation existed with Bill Clinton in his tenure in office. No, the hysterical right wing nonsense was unjustified and led to the impeachment of a President without any serious cause. But yes, passing major legislation based on a Republican Congressional & Senate majority against a majority of Democrats helped oust the Democrats from control of Congress for 12 years — 12 YEARS.

  51. El Cid
    El Cid April 22, 2008 at 5:27 am |

    An example: NAFTA was passed by taking a Republican-generated “trade” (economic market fundamentalist) initiative and pushing it through Congress with a majority of Republican votes and a minority of Democrats against the majority of Democrats.j

    This was the essence of “triangulation”. It wasn’t about finding a “middle” or compromise, it was specifically about pushing through policies which liberals opposed.

    One can both be the target of legitimate and illegitimate criticism, and the existence of one isn’t tied to the other.

  52. Natalia
    Natalia April 22, 2008 at 5:35 am |

    Did you guys catch Ali Eteraz’s piece on Hillary-haters in Philadelphia? He was in the car with someone, and the guy driving just said, “I don’t trust a woman to be president.” WTF?!

    I’m not a big Hillary fan either, but when I read stuff like this, I want to gnash my teeth into oblivion.

    Read the whole thing here:

    http://www.jewcy.com/post/among_hillary_haters_philadelphia

  53. atheist
    atheist April 22, 2008 at 6:12 am |

    Holy Shit. “The Voices in Her Head”? What the FUCK?

    The misogyny directed at HC has disgusted me from the very beginning of this race and like the writers linked, the same coming from friends and companions is equally if not even more shocking. I’ve heard men tell me they want to hit her, they hate her voice, they hate hate hate. Why?

    All the hatred directed at her has weirded me out too. And I’m an Obama supporter. I like Obama, but really I just want the Neocons and their agenda as disempowered as possible. I’d vote for Clinton over McCain any day. Hell, I’d vote for a small, Democratic, fluffy dog if that dog could win over McCain.

    Actually, the sheer childishness and nastiness of the bullshit aimed at her has, on more than one occasion, made me defend her just because I can’t stand to see people get that fucking stupid.

    -A co-worker sent me a video that showed that if Clinton was elected president, it would be exactly like a kick in the nuts.
    -Even some people in my local Chicago peace group, who admittedly are big Obama supporters, were going on about how Clinton is “fake” and “dishonest”. Guess what folks, all politicians are fake and dishonest! That’s why they make the big bucks!

    Not for the first time, I wonder exactly how people want Clinton to be treated.

    How about, she should be treated with a modicum of respect by people who are supposedly in the same party, and of the same political point-of-view as her? If Liberals are reaming liberals, especially for complete bullshit, then something is wrong with this picture.

  54. Cara
    Cara April 22, 2008 at 7:36 am |

    Mike B.
    There is normal rough treatment. and there is sexist crap.
    Seriously. Can you not tell the difference?
    The “crazy” thing is done to men too, yes – IF THEY DO SOMETHING CRAZY.
    Like over here in the UK – Tony Bliar *said himself* he heard “the voice of god” *shudders*.
    *Typo, but appropriate, I feel*.
    Here, I can’t see what Clinton is supposed to have done, since the article is about her staff.

    If the media were just giving Hillary the same treatment they would a guy…fine…I don’t want anyone to treat female politicians like china dolls either – but they are not doing that.

    There is soooo much sexist crap out there. I wouldn’t know where to start, but, er, periodically? Hmmm.

  55. slippytoad
    slippytoad April 22, 2008 at 7:38 am |

    Might want to read all the quotes on that cover:

    I BOWL WITH JESUS

    And I said to Sinbad, “Leave me, save yourself!”

    Caucuses are elitist!

    How do you say “Judas” in Spanish?

    Wait . . . I’m getting verklempt!

    You’ll take away this nomination from my cold, dead hands!

    If you exclude states that start with a vowel, Americans abroad, and former members of the Confederacy, and then multiply my results by pi . . .

    Though not all are authentic quotes, these are the frequently stated sentiments of the Clinton campaign. Some of them uttered by Bill.

    In that context, the picture (which is a perfectly legitimate example of caricature and, sorry, public figures are so subject to caricature) isn’t so out of bounds.

  56. norbizness
    norbizness April 22, 2008 at 8:23 am |

    Natalia: Hey, they booed Mike Schmidt AND Santa Claus in Philly, and cheered Michael Irvin’s career-ending injury. I wish I was making any of those things up.

  57. taodon
    taodon April 22, 2008 at 8:47 am |

    So, someone not associated with the Obama campaign releases something like this, everyone’s anti-Obama – but when people who ARE associated with the Clinton campaign say racist crap – it’s just individuals speaking inappropriately… and where, exactly, is the double standard coming from again?

  58. lawnguylander
    lawnguylander April 22, 2008 at 9:07 am |

    Astraea says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm – Edit

    It’s especially lovely when you compare it to this cover with Obama.

    Astrea, do you really think that cover is something Obama supporters like me are happy to see? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you but the Obama as messiah thing is the kind of bullshit people like Charles Krauthammer and Clinton supporters are pushing as a means of denigrating his supporters as clueless hero worshipers.

  59. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 9:24 am |

    I realize that the image is not unambiguously favorable, but considering the fact that the articles in the issue are largely favorable of Obama and critical of Clinton (a general trend of the magazine), I don’t think they’re using it with the intent of criticizing his image.

    Frankly, I find it creepy.

    But still, playing on Obama’s image is much different than a sexist charicature of Hillary as the Hysterical Woman.

  60. cleek
    cleek April 22, 2008 at 9:25 am |

    what MikeB said.

    i’m trying, but i don’t see any sexism in the cover. yeah, they used a goofy and awkward picture of her, but it’s a massive leap to say that’s “sexist”.

    and the cover story is about the turmoil inside the campaign staff – i read it quickly, but didn’t see any obvious sexism there either.

  61. Let’s all put the middle finger down for a moment at PunkAssBlog.com

    [...] supporters and Obama supporters will reach a fever pitch. Jill’s highlighted some of the latest lameness, and we can expect some ugly winners and sore losers by tonight. Obnoxious glee and bitter [...]

  62. Davis
    Davis April 22, 2008 at 9:50 am |

    Don’t forget, Clinton-hater Marty Peretz is still the editor-in-chief.

  63. Abe Seeman
    Abe Seeman April 22, 2008 at 10:06 am |

    TNR has been conservative for years, ever since Andrew Sullivan ran the publication. To call them progressive is an insult to all progressives and liberals. They have joined the mainsteam media in their sexist hatred for Hillary Clinton. In spite of his outspending Hillary 2 or 3 to 1, and the hugely biased pro-Obama media coverage, Hillary will once again prevail in a key swing state when she wins today in Pennsylvania. If you count registered Democratic voters in the primaries, Hillary is in the popular vote lead. Obama is the one who’s benefited from Republican voters who want to run against the waker candidate.

  64. annalouise
    annalouise April 22, 2008 at 10:17 am |

    Look, I loathe Hilary Clinton as much as the next reasonable human being. I’m as sickened by the possibility of another DLC puppet in the White House as the next, well, person who saw what “welfare reform” did to her community and finds the DLC’s strategy of canoodling with big business and hoping they can win the south with a healthy dose of race baiting disgusting.
    But hey, look how I just wrote a whole paragraph that didn’t imply that Hilary Clinton was funny-looking, or made a point of noting that she sometimes doesn’t look good in pictures (as if that matters in a political candidate) or make reference to that vagina she has and how it gets in the way of proper political leadership. If I can do it, so can the New Republic, which, as far as my limited reading of the magazine indicates, has nothing to criticize Hilary Clinton on because they advance the same watered-down pro-capitalist policies that she does.

  65. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 10:31 am |

    Sorry, but if you think this is somehow gender related, you’ll have to explain Richard Nixon to me, since a similarly unflattering photo of HIM has been used for literally decades now, most notably by Esquire Magazine for its “Dubious Achievements” awards.

    Instead of a blanket declaration that all jibes and criticisms of Senator Clinton are “misogynist,” might her supporters be better served to examine what it is, apart from gender that gets folks worked up? While there has been some misogynistic stuff done (largely by the Right-Wing Hillary Hating Industry), it does not follow that each instance of displeasure with her by members of her own party is predicated upon some level of disliking/distrusting her on account of her gender. One may, for instance, be dismayed by her corporate associations. One may be non-plussed by the fact that she doesn’t favor universal single-payer healthcare. One may be disgusted by disingenuous remarks about “putting mountains back together again” after they’ve been destroyed by Mountain Top Removal. One may even find her Bosnia and Northern Ireland remarks disingenuous, without resort to her gender. All this is because it is loathsome from either male or female political animal. One may even consider the use of Osama bin Laden in a political ad to be the last straw, as I do. It was loathsome from the Repiglickins and it’s loathsome from Hillary Clinton, perhaps moreso for presumptively knowing better. Do I feel that way because she’s female? No. I feel that way because “waving the bloody shirt” is disgusting no matter WHO does it. It just happens that Hillary did. And shame on her for it.

    One doesn’t dislike a buzzard because it is female. One loathes buzzardly behavior in either male OR female of the species.

    For me, who lost his candidates to MSM disdain early in the process (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, in that order of preference) I have tried to view this one-on-one ginned-up horse race with a bit of detachment, atempting to determine which of these two corporatized candidates made the gorge rise in my throat the least. At this point, I have to say that that person is Obama: not because he’s a guy, but because he’s proven less revolting on the campaign trail. That’s not to say he’s not engaged in some revolting (to me) conduct. He’s just engaged in less of it by my reckoning

    For our nation, the problem is McCain. I only wish Hillary and Obama BOTH recognized that fact as well as many of us do out here in flyover country.

  66. American Street » Blog Archive » The true measure of racism

    [...] also a fate we should grant to woman haters in equal [...]

  67. Hawise
    Hawise April 22, 2008 at 10:38 am |

    MikeB and cleek- just consider this- when they picture McCain in much the same pose are they simply saying he is a madman or are they comparing him to a hysterical woman? The hard fact is that most images of a ‘mad man’ are pictures of wrestlers posing or he-men in the bush facing off against bears and alligators. That picture is of ‘the hysterical woman’ who ‘needs to calm down’ before she hurts herself and it is even if the person pictured is male. It is sexist in any context.

  68. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 11:03 am |

    It was indeed the Nixon picture I was thinking of, though I remember there being plenty of comparable stuff with Dean. On the GOP side, I remember few pictures of Cheney other than the one in which he looks like he’s about to eat a baby.

    If this picture has anything whatsoever to do with Hillary’s sex, it’s insofar as the fact that she’s a woman is inextricably tied up in her identity (as the first woman to come close to the presidency), and there’s consequently a raw nerve that gets hit every time she’s made the subject of ridicule. But guess what? You don’t get to be in politics, and particularly don’t get to run a bumbling political campaign, without being the object of ridicule. It may be sophomoric and dumb, but that’s American politics for you.

    There’s certainly sexism how Clinton’s been treated. But this cover is not a fresh example of it–at best it’s an echo.

  69. jawbone
    jawbone April 22, 2008 at 11:12 am |

    This cover is in the fine tradition of the RNC/ReThug presidential campaigns/MCM (mainstream corporate media) treatment of leading Democratic presidential candidates (and primary candidates) for the past few election cycles.

    Think of all the articles, the MoDo and Frank Rich digs about Al Gore being somehow mentally “off.” not comfortable in his own skin, unable to discern reality (when the MCM lost track of reality with coverage of Love Story, Love Canal, the Internet, etc.), unable to choose his own clothing style and needing Naomi Wolf to tell him how to be an Alpha Male (of course, Al Gore had worn cowboy boots and brown tones, as well as casual clothing in casual settings, for years). Al Gore was a serial exaggerator! Al Gore was a liar! Al Gore was “losing it!” And that continued even after the MCM achieved getting Wonder Boy Bush into the presidency.

    Think of the Howard Dean Scream coverage.

    Think of the treatment of John Edwards.

    As for John Kerry, I can’t recall whether they labeled him with some variant of mental illness, but they sure called him a liar, flip-flopper, and emasculated him.

    So, now Hillary, on top of being a bitch, is a crazy bitch. And, yes, they are using all the usual putdowns of women to increase the impact of this attack. But it is part of what is done to leading Dems.

    By the way, with MoDo’s use of the word “bitch” in one of her columns (through retelling a Penn “joke”), has the NYTimes ever labeled a sitting US senator with such a word? And while finding the male equivalent is almost impossible, I don’t believe such words have been used about male senators or presidential candidates.

    (Or did MoDo call Kerry or Edwards “pussy-whipped”? I don’t recall such–just implied. MoDo has labeled Obama with emascualing/feminizing terms and descriptions–Obambi, Hollywood starlet.)

    IF the MCM chooses to back McSame, watch out Obama–you won’t recognize yourself.

  70. Andrew A. Gill
    Andrew A. Gill April 22, 2008 at 11:18 am |

    Maybe I just don’t get it… says:
    April 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 am – Edit

    I get how being visually compared to Hitler is harsh, but what about this mag cover is sexist or misogynistic?

    Looking at the headlines, I’m forced to admit that it is at least somewhat sexist.

    Psychodrama?
    Verklempt?

    Sexist. More offensive than sexist, but sexist nonetheless.

    And I hope Hills crashes and burns.

  71. Ico
    Ico April 22, 2008 at 11:27 am |

    The fact that some people can’t see how this cover is sexist boggles my mind, but I guess maybe it’s because you’ve never, say, walked into a doctor’s office and had the doctor dismiss your symptoms as merely the result of overactive feminine emotions. The “hysterical woman” stereotype follows us around. Women are less credible because of it. Women are less reliable in crises. Women scream and panic and imagine all kinds of stuff because our emotions get the better of us. Then someone needs to slap us and tell us to calm down. I mean, that’s really how people think sometimes. You don’t SEE that all around you? Maybe you have to feel your own credibility in question before it counts.

    If the cover featured Barack Obama loafing around on a porch and had some headline about how he was lazy and wouldn’t get any work done (connected to missed votes or something), you know what? That would be racist. Because it would invoke stereotypes of Blacks as lazy. Invoking a common cultural stereotype that degrades race/gender/whatever is not cool.

    Now this cover is putting Hillary Clinton in the hysterical female stereotype. Hell yeah it’s sexist.

  72. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 11:29 am |

    Don’t you ladies just *love* it when boyz stroll in to tell women what’s sexist. because they’re the REAL authorities, not some silly bunch of girlz who actually live it day-in, day-out.

    Nah, there’s no sexism there. None at all.

  73. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 11:29 am |

    Psychodrama?
    Verklempt?

    Both of those are pushing it. I think it requires a leap of logic to say “psychodrama” is a specifically female thing. “Verklempt,” if it’s a reference to her choking up, might cross a line–but there are far better things to get angry about.

    In any case, people were spitting mad before they could even read these words. The image triggered this response on its own, and I think that’s absurd–male politicians have had it no better.

  74. jawbone
    jawbone April 22, 2008 at 11:29 am |

    Just listeneing to John Dean discussing his new book about the diary writings of Barry Goldwater: Goldwater noted that the press was unrelentingly negative about Poppy Bush during the ’92 presidential campaign, then turned on a dime to be unrelentingly negative about Bill Clinton, beginning a few days after inauguration. (Dean says that Goldwater was discussing with him why the Republican Party had been taken over by the religious right, and they began to work on this book. Then, Goldwater became ill, so it was postponed until be was better, which did not happen. Goldwater told Dean he felt Conservatism had lost its conscience, which was the basis for the book’s title.)

    Which reminded me that one of the reasons Bill Clinton was able to get into the presidency is bcz the MCM did not unrelentingly attack him during the campaign. Jeff Gerth tried to begin something on Whitewater, which was later picked up again and given more space and credence after the election. Maybe the Gennifer Flowers thing even helped–it was far more difficult to paint Bill Clinton as effeminate after the press had bought into his being a womanzer….

    Point being: The MCM has decided it has the right to choose our presidents, and the nominees. I don’t know how much the Corporate part plays in the decision making. Bob Somerby at Daily Howler thinks that Jack Welch deliberately chose the Boys Club reporters at NBC and MSNBC to make an impact politically which would work to GE’s benefit. Do we know? Difficult, but we can look at the actions and outcomes.

    The MCM chooses whatever attacks and putdowns will work to get their chosen candidate in front. The question is whether they want more of Bush governance via McSame, or, as they did in ’92, do they feel some kind of change is necessary to keep the gears of commerce oiled (and with that I guess I feel the Corportate component has a huge impact on how the MCMers behave and who they support).

  75. jawbone
    jawbone April 22, 2008 at 11:30 am |

    Sexist cover:

    Just read the title.

  76. Make Them Accountable / Media
    Make Them Accountable / Media April 22, 2008 at 11:33 am |

    [...] I guess they couldn’t get the audio of a scream. Feministe [...]

  77. Ico
    Ico April 22, 2008 at 11:35 am |

    Oh, it’s just that we’re all too overly emotional and overreactive — dare I say, *hysterical* — to be able to judge what is sexist stereotyping and what isn’t.

  78. Sniper
    Sniper April 22, 2008 at 11:35 am |

    Nah, there’s no sexism there. None at all.

    I guess all the women who see this cover as obviously misogynist are… crazy!

  79. coldH2Owi
    coldH2Owi April 22, 2008 at 11:42 am |

    I believe the $109,000,000 the Clinton’s have made in the Bu$hCo years will help her to heal from all the terrible hatred. I know it would help me.

  80. Kathleen
    Kathleen April 22, 2008 at 11:49 am |

    Right on Betty B. Like a lot of people in this thread, I am a conflicted Obama-over-Clinton supporter but the more crap I see dumped on HRClinton the more conflicted I get. It just starts to feel like if she loses the nomination it will be validating the absolute tidal wave of OMG she’s a girl EWWWWWWW! (or, in its worst form: hey it’s a woman let’s kill her) that has come up in the campaign.

    As a result, I’m happy to vote for Clinton or Obama in the general election but I’m less, and less, and less inclined to participate in the primary (still upcoming in my state) either way.

  81. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 11:56 am |

    Sorry, I don’t see it as sexist. Not flattering, but not sexist either. She’s making a goofy face. It’s not even like they found a picture that presents female anatomy in an unflattering light. Hillary’s male opponents are equally at risk of making a goofy face.

    Unflattering pictures of politicians have been used for decades to make light of them – why should Hillary be exempt?

    How many times have unflattering photos of Republicans appeared on Feministe? How many sites made light of Bush’s resemblance to a chimp?

    Sheesh. Get a grip people.

  82. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm |

    Sorry, Betty. I’m not “telling” you anything. I am, however, participating in this discussion, seeing as how the post didn’t have a gender lock on it and it was externally linked from makethemaccountable.com, where there was no warning that this thread was subject to membership in a particular gender.

    If I have made a mistake and, by virtue of my reproductive plumbing shouldn’t have commented, I sincerely apologize.

    My point was to suggest (and provide concrete examples), that it is, in fact, possible to not support Senator Clinton without being engaged in misogyny.

    My comments were probably ill-suited to this discussion, however, not because of gender, but because of the overall rancor that the most die-hard of these two candidates’ supporters bring to any attempt at discussing their relative merits and flaws. That rancor seems to predominantly involve invocations of race-baiting on the one side and misogyny on the other.

    For the record: the PROBLEM is McCain.

  83. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm |

    Hawise wrote: “MikeB and cleek- just consider this- when they picture McCain in much the same pose are they simply saying he is a madman or are they comparing him to a hysterical woman? The hard fact is that most images of a ‘mad man’ are pictures of wrestlers posing or he-men in the bush facing off against bears and alligators. ”

    Uh, yeah, right. You’re pulling that right out of your ass. Generally ‘madman’ references are accompanied by pictures of *guys in straightjackets*. I’ve never seen someone depicted as crazy by comparison to a wrestler, let alone a he-man in the bush facing off against anything.

    Andrew wrote: “Verklempt?

    Sexist. More offensive than sexist, but sexist nonetheless.”

    You might have a point if she hadn’t had a tendency to become verklempt under media attention, and mostly in a self-pitying context, as opposed to tearing up in sympathy for someone else.

    If they were saying she’s weepy without any evidence of that fact, based purely on her sex, you’d have a point. But she *did* become verklempt. Multiple times.

    Also, verklempt is arguably a ‘funny word’ in pop culture, ever since Mike Myers’ coffee talk sketch, so a natural thing to include on a cover trying to be funny.

  84. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm |

    If I have made a mistake and, by virtue of my reproductive plumbing shouldn’t have commented, I sincerely apologize.

    The only thing I love more than being told what is and isn’t sexist by some rando dude on the interwebs, is being told that I’m a misandrist because I don’t want to hear some privileged dude’s oblivious opinion on sexism.

    My point was to suggest (and provide concrete examples), that it is, in fact, possible to not support Senator Clinton without being engaged in misogyny.

    :lol: Well, thank goodness you were kind enough to explain this to us. I mean, they were all talking about the topic when they SHOULD have been talking about your strawman. There those chicks go again, thinking they know what they’re talking about.

  85. Kathleen
    Kathleen April 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm |

    I’m not a Feministe regular, but as far as I know, feminists of all genders are welcome here. People who trot out tired-ass arguments about what the “real” problem is (not sexism! never sexism!) and who make faux apologies curdled by chagrin at being schooled by feminists are — again, as far as I know — tolerated with super-human patience.

  86. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm |

    Is sexism a huge problem in this country? Absolutely. Is racism a huge problem in this country? Absolutely. Is poverty a huge problem? Absolutely. Is healthcare a huge problem? Again, absolutely. So are, in no particular order: outsourcing, Pentagon spending, our crumbling infrastructure, political corruption, dummied up elections, the federal deficit and campaign finance, to name but a few.

    Here’s a hint: they all get worse with President McCain.

    Tell me what a strawman McCain is when you’re calling him President next January because the rancorous supporters of each of these two candidates couoldn’t see past their own biases.

    It won’t be on my account. I’m focused on relentlessly pointing out what a disaster the McCainChurian McCaindidate is.

    P.S. What’s a “rando?” I don’t even like Sylvester Stallone, or Randi Rhodes, for that matter. Your insults need to be de minimis cogent in order to be taken as such.

  87. Hillary’s Voice » From today’s postings 4/22/08

    [...] I guess they couldn’t get the audio of a scream. Feministe [...]

  88. Tapetum
    Tapetum April 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm |

    Bob K. – did you somehow miss the many people in this thread saying: “I’m an Obama supporter/I don’t care for Clinton, but my God is this sexist!”

    It’s not sexist to prefer Obama to Clinton. This cover, however, is seriously in your face sexist.

  89. cleek
    cleek April 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm |

    MikeB and cleek- just consider this- when they picture McCain in much the same pose are they simply saying he is a madman or are they comparing him to a hysterical woman?

    got an example of this? there’s little point in discussing the intentions behind a hypothetical cover when we can’t even agree on the intentions behind the real-life instance of TNR’s picture of HRC.

    but, assume a picture of McCain in the same pose – i’d never assume they were trying to portray him as a “hysterical woman” (your words). would you?

    so why assume that’s what they’re doing here?

    The hard fact is that most images of a ‘mad man’ are pictures of wrestlers posing or he-men in the bush facing off against bears and alligators.

    if that’s a “hard” fact, do you have any data to back it up ?

    That picture is of ‘the hysterical woman’ who ‘needs to calm down’ before she hurts herself and it is even if the person pictured is male. It is sexist in any context.

    who are you quoting ? i don’t see the words you’ve quoted anywhere: not in the article, not on the cover.

    and nobody said anything about her “hurting herself”.

  90. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm |

    This is getting stupid. I’m a gay man who went to a historically all-female college. I was raised in a family dominated by women. Almost everyone I’ve directly reported to in my career has been a woman. Half of my friends are women. I’ve been dying to see a woman on a Democratic ticket for my whole adult life. I thought it would be Hillary for a long time, and I was happy about that.

    So when I suggest that people might be allowing their preconceived notions to color their reaction to a particular incident, I find it a little irritating to be treated as a Neanderthal. No one has explained to my satisfaction why it’s sexist to treat an unsuccessful presidential candidate this year in exactly the same way that one was treated four years ago. Apparently I’m just supposed to know.

    I truly hope Obama follows up on his attempts to open a conversation about race by opening up one about gender. Negative observations about Clinton are so frequently shut down as “sexist” (reasonably so sometimes, but not here) that I actually find myself being driven away from feminism–if there’s to be any progress, there has to be a two-way conversation with some attempt at empathy made on both sides. Because I can’t be the only guy this is scaring off.

  91. roses
    roses April 22, 2008 at 12:58 pm |

    that it is, in fact, possible to not support Senator Clinton without being engaged in misogyny.

    This is exactly the problem. You come on here, and tell us in a lecturing tone, something we already fucking know. Jill, who made the post, has stated that she is not a Clinton supporter but rather an Obama supporter. Several other people in the thread who condemned this photo have stated that they do not support Clinton. It’s not that every criticism of Clinton is misogyny, it’s that this particular image is. Your problem wasn’t commenting as a man. Your problem was commenting without pausing to reflect on your male privilege, and the fact that maybe you don’t see this as sexist because you haven’t faced a lifetime of having your words and feelings dismissed because you’re just a crazy hysterical woman. And then failing to listen to any of the commenters who tried to explain that to you.

  92. donna darko
    donna darko April 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm |

    I would love to see progressive allies who are not white women (i.e., African-American leftie men) take a stand against this sort of crapola

    if Obama made a statement condemning this sort of crap, I’d probably change from “eh, he’s ok” support of him to enthusiastic support.

    A few Clinton supporting Latino males have spoken out.

    Sexism is part of his campaign. For example, there’s a pushback in Philadelphia from young, single men. Yesterday on MyDD:

    It’s nearly all happened in the southeast Philadelphia region. They are white and black men, predominantly 18-34, but also 35 to 45. Liberal, they are not church goers. However, they are not college graduates either. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were mostly single too. Now, this group is what comprises the movement away from Clinton and toward Obama in the poll to poll shift of a 54-40 lead by Clinton to a 50-44 lead. I suspect this group is also not usually a participant in the primary system

  93. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm |

    No one has explained to my satisfaction why it’s sexist to treat an unsuccessful presidential candidate this year in exactly the same way that one was treated four years ago. Apparently I’m just supposed to know.

    because what’s really important, Mr. “T-Can’t-be racist-I-have-Black-Friends!!”, is that YOU’RE satisfied. Because this is all about YOU. Not the women who live it day-in, day-out. YOU.

  94. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm |

    roses wrote:”Your problem was commenting without pausing to reflect on your male privilege, and the fact that maybe you don’t see this as sexist because you haven’t faced a lifetime of having your words and feelings dismissed because you’re just a crazy hysterical woman. ”

    I don’t see it as sexist because I’ve seen plenty of male candidates get this kind of treatment. Especially Democrats: Dukakis in the tank, Kerry in the bunny suit, Dean’s trumped-up scream. If Kucinich ever gets mentioned in the media at all it’s usually something mocking him.

    If a female candidate comes along and gets the same treatment, and in a way that refers only to things she has said or done, then why should I think it is sexist?

  95. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    (reasonably so sometimes, but not here)

    Because Mike B. is the Ultimate Authority on Sexism. let’s all bow! :lol:

    that I actually find myself being driven away from feminism–if there’s to be any progress, there has to be a two-way conversation with some attempt at empathy made on both sides. Because I can’t be the only guy this is scaring off.

    Mike, it would be great if you were actually interested in progress, a two-way conversation and empathy. It’s obvious, however, that what you want is to be catered to, accomodated and obeyed. You’re not listening to what the women, you’re talking down to women. That’s not being an ally, if being an ally is actually what you’re after.

    Here’s the thing: You don’t get to decide what is sexist. You don’t get to shut down conversations about sexism because your privilege blinds you. Would you accept a pack of straight women telling you about homophobia and then implying that you’re unreasonable for not accepting their opinions?

    You might want to examine why taking womens’ word for it troubles you so much.

    And, spare us your threats of abandonment if we don’t accomodate you. That’s the language of misogynists.

    You can’t be anti-feminist and progressive. that’s an oxymoron.

  96. lowellfield
    lowellfield April 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm |

    No mocking women, is the rule?

  97. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm |

    “Because this is all about YOU. Not the women who live it day-in, day-out. YOU.”

    Looks to me like you think it’s all about *you*. How about answering the question? Why is it suddenly sexism when Clinton gets the same treatment men have received for decades?

  98. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 1:21 pm |

    “You can’t be anti-feminist and progressive. that’s an oxymoron.”

    Can you be progressive and call bullshit when well-meaning feminists overreach? I say yes!

  99. lowellfield
    lowellfield April 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm |

    To elaborate a bit: I don’t disagree that a lot of sexist stuff has been said/written about Hillary, but I’m not sure what is so sexist about a photo that makes her look like a crazed lunatic. I’m partial to the photos of angry McCain.

    Is it the voices inside her head that’s the sexist trope? I just don’t see anything here that’s comparable to Matthews’s “A lot of people find her grating” comments or Tucker’s leg-crossing or whatever. I think I know sexist stuff when I see it but this TNR cover is a challenge. And I haate TNR.

  100. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm |

    because what’s really important, Mr. “T-Can’t-be racist-I-have-Black-Friends!!”, is that YOU’RE satisfied. Because this is all about YOU. Not the women who live it day-in, day-out. YOU.

    YES. Get off your friggin’ high horse for a minute. I AM AS IMPORTANT AS YOU. My perspective, in which the sexist content of this cover is negligible verging on nonexistent, is as valid as yours.

    I am trying to see where you’re coming from. I concede “verklempt,” at least. But what I keep coming up against is that it’s NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT’S BEEN DONE TO MEN. If the argument is that women in politics have to be treated more gingerly lest we stumble onto areas that are unacceptable, well, then, we have to unpack that a bit. I would find it troubling, to say the least, to have different sets of standards–not least that it’s clearly debatable what those standards are. And if it’s debatable, we’ve got to debate it and not just assume that all right-minded people will agree. Good lord, you’d lump me in with the Iron My Shirt brigade.

    It’s up to you whether to actually engage with men who disagree with you instead of getting pissed off at us, blindly calling us sexists, and leaving us with no reason to support you.

  101. donna darko
    donna darko April 22, 2008 at 1:29 pm |

    You can’t be anti-feminist and progressive. that’s an oxymoron.

    And you can’t be a progressive if you’re not anti-racist. We had that conversation in 2006. We have these same conversations over and over. You can lead a horse to water…

  102. roses
    roses April 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm |

    No Mike, your perspective is not as valid when it comes to spotting sexism, because you are blinded by your male privilege to a certain extent. I would also consider my perspective less valuable than yours when spotting homophobia because I have straight privilege. And if you pointed out homophobia in something and I didn’t really see it, isntead of arguing, I would try to understand.

    leaving us with no reason to support you.

    No reason to support feminism? How about desiring equal rights for women? How does some feminists being rude or dismissive to you leave you with no reason to support feminism?

  103. Storm at Sea
    Storm at Sea April 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm |

    I am trying to see where you’re coming from. I concede “verklempt,” at least. But what I keep coming up against is that it’s NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT’S BEEN DONE TO MEN.

    The difference lies in the larger context that the image refers to, as previous commenters have said. There is a stereotype of women as being hysterical/crazy/emotional that is often used to discredit their intelligence/authority/ability to lead simply because they are female. The image taps into that stereotype and suggests to the viewer that Clinton is not fit for the Presidency because she is female, not because of any characteristics to do with her as a person. That’s the difference.

  104. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm |

    roses wrote: “No reason to support feminism? ”

    Oh, so you are the very living embodiment of feminism, and to question your arguments is to question feminism itself?

    Is it seriously your position that individual feminists are incapable of talking out their asses once in a while?

  105. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm |

    Storm at Sea wrote: ” The image taps into that stereotype and suggests to the viewer that Clinton is not fit for the Presidency because she is female, not because of any characteristics to do with her as a person. That’s the difference.”

    No. The picture is accompanied by a bunch of nonsense that has come from Clinton. That removes it from being about her gender, and makes it about her specifically.

  106. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm |

    “YES. Get off your friggin’ high horse for a minute. I AM AS IMPORTANT AS YOU. My perspective, in which the sexist content of this cover is negligible verging on nonexistent, is as valid as yours.”

    No, sweets, it isn’t. It’s only your privilege that lets you think that. If I were a straight woman with an opinion that conveniently erased homophobia because, golly, it just doesn’t appear to be there to me, is that as valid an opinion as someone who lives as the target of homophobia day-in, day-out?

    C’mon. This ain’t rocket science.

    “But what I keep coming up against is that it’s NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT’S BEEN DONE TO MEN.”

    And what did those who disagree with you say?

    “If the argument is that women in politics have to be treated more gingerly”

    Nope. Just not attacked with bigotry. As no one else should be either.

    ” Good lord, you’d lump me in with the Iron My Shirt brigade.”

    Not at all. They’re overt sexists. You, otoh, don’t even notice your own sexist attitudes, etc.

    And, there’s a difference between being a sexist (like the Iron My Shirt stunters) and holding sexist opinions. The former is a conscious choice. The latter is the result of being brought up in a sexist culture. Shit, even I hold sexist attitudes. But I’m also actively trying to peal bigotry off me, instead of denying it and getting mad when people don’t obey me.

    ” It’s up to you whether to actually engage with men who disagree with you instead of getting pissed off at us, blindly calling us sexists, and leaving us with no reason to support you”

    :lol: Sweets, I’m not pissed off at you. I was poking fun at your privilege and cluelessness, yes, but that’s not the same thing. I’m attempting to get you to stop trying to be RIGHT! and listen. But you’d rather threatened abandonment if we don’t accommodate you.

    Once again, that’s not being an ally. If you can’t accept that I’m not going to kowtow to you, or apologize for imaginary offenses, or acquiesce to your opinion, then you are not an ally. And you leave me no reason to care if you support feminism or not.

  107. lowellfield
    lowellfield April 22, 2008 at 1:42 pm |

    Why are my comments still awaiting moderation?

  108. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm |

    And you can’t be a progressive if you’re not anti-racist.

    100% yes. If you’re a bigot of any stripe, you’re not a progressive. It boggles my mind that this is any sort of confusing to progressives.

  109. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm |

    No Mike, your perspective is not as valid when it comes to spotting sexism, because you are blinded by your male privilege to a certain extent.

    All prejudice is a two-way relationship. You can’t see what I see as a man, either, and that’s totally germane to the situation.

    What we need to get into is the nature of why we see different things. Is there just something wrong with men? (Well, yes, there is–I date them too–but that’s beside the point.) We’re not the enemy (not all of us, at least), and if many of us don’t see what you see, then we need to discuss what’s going on and find the real bone of contention. I’m not content just to take anyone’s word for it that I should be offended by something. What happens later when I’m the naive offender? And how can I profess outrage at TNR over something that I know full well that I’d never have noticed?

    How does some feminists being rude or dismissive to you leave you with no reason to support feminism?

    Point taken; I was being irrational in the heat of the moment.

    That said–if you’re depending on people to be rational, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise. Being angry at what you perceive as prejudice against you is understandable, but expressing that anger by sneering at people who might be brought around to your side is a poor tactic, and it’s going to result in some loss of support.

  110. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm |

    Storm at Sea – well said. I’ve had to explain why the word “cracker”, while a racial slur, isn’t anywhere near the level of hatred and offensiveness as others – the “N” word, etc. This feels like much the same convo.

    The cliff notes version:

    There is a long history of women being called or considered crazy for any number of completely non-“crazy” things – like health issues, or speaking up for themselves. The “crazy bitch” meme is specifically designed to silence women, to mock women, to cast them as incapable of being authoritative. Simply because they’re women.

    There is no such corresponding history of such being done to men, because they’re men.

    Ergo, the same cannot be done to men.

  111. John
    John April 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm |

    “The fact that some people can’t see how this cover is sexist boggles my mind, but I guess maybe it’s because you’ve never, say, walked into a doctor’s office and had the doctor dismiss your symptoms as merely the result of overactive feminine emotions. ….”

    Sigh. I think the cover is offensive and insulting, but I do not see the sexism. I am reading these comments trying to understand, and all I’m finding is that I don’t get it because I’m a man.

    OK, I am a man, so maybe it’s harder for me to get, but I honestly want to understand, and I have trouble believing that it’s so complicated that it can’t be expressed in English.

    I’ve been watching some of the obviously sexist crap that’s been thrown Clinton’s way and been really appalled by it. I have no agenda of just not wanting to see it. I just don’t, and I wish someone would humor me and actually spell it out.

  112. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm |

    “your male privilege.” Goodness me, but we’re off to the races now, aren’t we?

    [snarky response about my "privileged" existence edited out]

    Please stop the insanity.

    Are you suggesting that ALL males enjoy more “privilege” than ALL females? It certainly seems that way. Are you truly suggesting that a lower class male who works two minimum wage jobs has it easier than, say, a multi-millionaire female senator from New York?

    When I look at the candidates (all three of them), I don’t see a woman, a black man and a white man. I see three multi-millionaires who have about as much in common with the struggles my wife, my children, grandchildren and I face as a Sherman Tank does with a draft ox. Hint to the easily offended: My wife and I are the draft oxen.

    Where, then, is the distinction? It lies for me in politics, and not gender, and one presumes the former based upon the latter at one’s own peril.

    Might I not do better, on the one hand, to try to understand why some folks see sexism in a photo that owes as much to photos of Richard Nixon? I do believe so.

    Conversely, might the people who see sexism behind the treatment of Senator Clinton do well to understand that this may be as much a function of the Anti-Clinton Machine (since 1991 . . . and still growing!) as it is of gender?

    I’m actually trying to comprehend the argument being presented here. So far, as regards the magazine cover in question, I don’t agree with the analysis and, perhaps to my discredit fail to see it. Maybe that’s because I remember the slurring of Dukakis with Willie Horton, the libels against Al Gore (anybody remember Love Story?), the swift-boating of John Kerry and the haircut foo-fraw against John Edwards. This latest is part of a media-driven set piece of demeaning politicians not for their gender, but for their political affiliations.

    As Senator Clinton’s husband said the other day “Politics is a contact sport. If you can’t take it, don’t put on the uniform.” Having seen that quote, the question for me is whether that statement has uniform applicability.

  113. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm |

    then we need to discuss what’s going on and find the real bone of contention.

    Agreed. But, you don’t foster conversation and cooperation by telling women, who live this day-in, day-out, that they’re wrong, crazy, unreasonable or man-haters because they see something you don’t. ASK. Don’t tell.

    Being angry at what you perceive as prejudice against you is understandable, but expressing that anger by sneering at people who might be brought around to your side is a poor tactic, and it’s going to result in some loss of support

    Alright, enough with the angry feminist meme, please. If you cannot LISTEN to those with the authority on the subject, then you are not an ally. And therefore it would be pointless for us to care whether you support us or not.

  114. donna darko
    donna darko April 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm |

    100% yes. If you’re a bigot of any stripe, you’re not a progressive. It boggles my mind that this is any sort of confusing to progressives.

    You can lead white male progressives to water…

  115. roses
    roses April 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm |

    Mike, you don’t have to be offended by the picture. But you have no right to tell us we shouldn’t be offended either. That’s what I think people are objecting to (at least what I’m objecting to).

    What we need to get into is the nature of why we see different things. Is there just something wrong with men?

    It’s not that men see different things. It’s that oppressed groups are more likely to spot oppression, whereas privilege groups are less likely to notice it because they have no reason to.

    That said–if you’re depending on people to be rational, you might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

    Works both ways, babe. You’re allowed to get angry when we call you sexist, but we’re not allowed to get angry when a couple men come on this site and condescendingly tell us we’re imagining sexism? Keep in mind that you are hardly the first person to do that. We deal with it every damn day. Yeah, it gets frustrating and angering after a while.

    if many of us don’t see what you see, then we need to discuss what’s going on and find the real bone of contention.

    Discuss, sure. But if you wanted a discussion, why didn’t you come on here and ask: “Could you explain exactly why you find this sexist?” Instead of: “On what planet is this sexist?” See as one comes across as wanting to understand and the other comes across as dismissing our views?

  116. roses
    roses April 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm |

    Somehow, I got the order of my paragraphs mixed up. But I guess it works the way it is.

  117. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm |

    Kinda wondered when we’d start getting pasted for being “white” as well as “male” on what at first blush appeared to be at least a race (if not gender) neutral comments thread. And you’re making your race determinations how?

    “Liberal Circular Firing Squad . . . FIRE!”

  118. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl April 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm |

    Though not all are authentic quotes, these are the frequently stated sentiments of the Clinton campaign. Some of them uttered by Bill.

    In that context, the picture (which is a perfectly legitimate example of caricature and, sorry, public figures are so subject to caricature) isn’t so out of bounds.

    Surely you were using irony here, Slippytoad. Surely.

    Here’s a clue by four: if Bill said them they are Bill’s quotes. I don’t see Bill on the cover – do you?

  119. roses
    roses April 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm |

    Damnit! I hate it when I waste my time engaging with someone and they turn out to be a troll (referring to Bob here, not Mike).

  120. lowellfield
    lowellfield April 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm |

    You can lead white male progressives to water…

    … but you can’t make them us like Donna Darko.

  121. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm |

    I’m a man, and I’ve made a judgment about whether the cover is sexist (it is); I think that Mike B has the right to make his own judgment about that, too. As it happens, the judgment he’s made is hilariously, obviously wrong, but that’s his right. I didn’t say he had the right to make his own judgment and have it be convincing.

    Mike (and others) seem to be using the following formula: 1) Running for public office means you get exposed to ridicule, which is fair game. 2) Therefore, getting ridiculed for being an hysterical woman doesn’t count as sexism.

    This magazine cover is not just “an unflattering picture.” The Dean Scream, or whatever Nixon picture you’re talking about, is unflattering to those men as individuals, because it doesn’t play on stereotypes. It’s not possible to prominently display that picture of Clinton without tapping into sexist rhetoric that applies to all women; that’s sexism. If you think that’s unfair, then I guess you agree with Geraldine Ferraro that Obama has an advantage from being black. Myself, I think that’s odious and absurd, but hey.

    By the way, Mike, as far as judging based on “preconceived notions” … well, who are you voting for, Mr. Unbiased?

    Also by the way, Mike: you went to Sarah Lawrence? Me too!

  122. Chaz
    Chaz April 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm |

    Another potentially engaging conversation about sexism, etc. hijacked by political nonsense and people talking around one another. What I do find interesting is the way in which this debate is framed from the two sides. Rabid obama supporters can only see the Hillary camp’s faults and vice versa.

    I’m actually disheartened as a young progressive how divisive this season has been. The metanarrative is one of the extreme. Let’s get real, both candidates are smart and viable. Neither are perfect, and both are better on the issues we progressives care about than the Rep. Why does the conversation have to devolve? And before you answer remember that these discussions are two way streets and it takes two to get into a mud fight.

    On a more on topic note: Who is really surprised by the TNR? Come on they couldn’t find their own offense if they were the one being ridiculed in their pages.

  123. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl April 22, 2008 at 2:17 pm |

    What we need to get into is the nature of why we see different things. Is there just something wrong with men? (Well, yes, there is–I date them too–but that’s beside the point.) We’re not the enemy (not all of us, at least), and if many of us don’t see what you see, then we need to discuss what’s going on and find the real bone of contention.

    You are the enemy. Don’t kid yourself that you’re not. Look at what you’re doing in this thread. Instead of feminists talking about the treatment that Hillary Clinton receives, much of which is sexist, we’re now defending the validity of feminism! That, my friend, is not what an ally does. That, rather, is what an insecure male does when confronted with the limitations of his own comfort zones. You aren’t helping, no matter how much you concern troll. In fact, you’ve effectively stopped the open feminist analysis of Clinton’s treatment because you “don’t get it” and are uncomfortable with believing us.

    You’re basically saying we are: overreacting, telling lies, hurting our chances (for what? being seen as human?), not really getting to the root of the issue (snort!), etc.

    Of course, you want us to get at the one true root, but it’s very strange that we have to shut up in order to do so.

    No thanks.

  124. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 2:22 pm |

    And you’re making your race determinations how?

    Do you always completely evade all the statements made to you in favor of beating yet another strawman? Are your logical fallacies supposed to hide the fact that you’ve no rebuttal?

  125. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 2:27 pm |

    Ah, how nice to see the sweeping generalizations come out, roses! I’m a troll? Best check again.

    That was donna darko who used the “white male progressive,” race/gender slur, not me.

    I lambaste the Repiglickins every night for three hours at a time and urge progressive values for our country.

    Chaz, as someone who doesn’t hold the highest opinions of either of the millionaires running for our party’s nomination, I understand your frustration. It would be nice to actually get to vote “for” a candidate instead of “against” one in a general election. Unfortunately, the media and the rancorous true believers from both sides make that likelihood one that approaches zero.

    Ultimately, however, we;re going to have a choice between Hillary or Obama and McCain. That choice, at least for me, is easy.

    What’s also easy is noting that it’s statistically likely that most people commenting on this post have already cast their primary ballot. One can’t help wondering, then, why they’re still upping the emotional ante for one or the other.

  126. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm |

    Agreed. But, you don’t foster conversation and cooperation by telling women, who live this day-in, day-out, that they’re wrong, crazy, unreasonable or man-haters because they see something you don’t. ASK. Don’t tell.

    Fair enough.

    How does this image differ from the famous “Nixon laughing” photo, or the “scream” coverage of Dean in ’04? Is there something substantively different about it that escapes me, or is the context of Hillary being female sufficient to elevate it to a new level of offensiveness?

    If the latter, isn’t it more offensive, not less, to claim that there are things that can be said about men that cannot be said about women? Doesn’t that imply that there are things women can’t take? I vividly remember being a freshman at Vassar and having many of my female friends refuse to identify as feminists because they felt that to do so would essentially be giving themselves a handicap; they were determined to succeed for themselves. (I didn’t agree, but the point stuck.)

    Alright, enough with the angry feminist meme, please. If you cannot LISTEN to those with the authority on the subject, then you are not an ally. And therefore it would be pointless for us to care whether you support us or not.

    You didn’t show much inclination to listen to men, either. And when I say that I don’t consider that cover to be sexist, perhaps that should be a cue to set down the tar and feathers, because perhaps there was no such intent behind it.

    We all have our own prejudices, and while they don’t have to be excused, they do have to be understood. I’m never going to really see the subtleties of sexism, others aren’t going to truly understand homophobia, etc. But we have to start from a more constructive place than the primary category of this post, “Assholes.” See, that’s where I started from. I don’t care for being called an asshole, despite arguably being one, and that’s not exactly the best way to foster a dialogue.

  127. mermaidshoes
    mermaidshoes April 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm |

    Negative observations about Clinton are so frequently shut down as “sexist” (reasonably so sometimes, but not here) that I actually find myself being driven away from feminism–if there’s to be any progress, there has to be a two-way conversation with some attempt at empathy made on both sides. Because I can’t be the only guy this is scaring off.

    i think negative observations about hillary are usually shut down as sexist because they are often framed in sexist language and assumptions. the disturbing thing about this is how ingrained such language and assumptions are, to the point where people are unable to identify them as sexist.

    say what you will about the TNR cover, but i can’t imagine any magazine running a cover of any male politicians with the headline “the voices in his head.” it just wouldn’t happen. why? because women are the hysterical gender. bill clinton has said probably at least as many nutty things as hil in this campaign (in fact, nothing coming out of hillary’s mouth is really her); where are the images mocking him?

    i also have a problem with the TNR cover because, as others have noted, the article has very little to do with hillary herself. it’s about her campaign advisors, and never even mentions hillary’s own role in selecting or managing them (implying, perhaps, that a woman couldn’t possibly be expected to exercise that kind of control… but maybe i’m reading too much sexism into this). it’s certainly weak and disingenuous on TNR’s part to pair this article and cover without acknowledging that they are putting words into hillary’s mouth.

  128. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm |

    Betty, donna darko assumed race-based facts. Did you not see her comment “you can lead white male progressives to water” remark?

    You might want to learn the definition of “strawman.”

  129. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 2:39 pm |

    …is the context of Hillary being female sufficient to elevate it to a new level of offensiveness?

    Well, yes, because women are subject to discrimination and stereotypes that men simply aren’t. Is this a new concept for you? By the way, why aren’t white people allowed to say n***** again?

    If the latter, isn’t it more offensive, not less, to claim that there are things that can be said about men that cannot be said about women? Doesn’t that imply that there are things women can’t take?

    You seem to be advocating a particular kind of equality, where everyone is free to be insulted however their attacker wants. I don’t think that that’s the equality we should start with; in fact, we have it already, and it’s not doing us much good. Right now, the Chris Matthews and the New Republics of the world get to have it both ways: they can criticize Clinton in ways that pigeonhole her into existing stereotypes, and when people complain they can respond that they’re not treating her differently than anyone else. It’s just not possible to criticize Dean or Nixon or Bush in a way that slanders all men; that’s the fault of our patriarchal system, not Clinton supporters or Feministe readers.

  130. RKMK
    RKMK April 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm |

    Y’know, I’m reminded of a time, waaaaaaaaaaay back in the 90s, when I was watching Dead Man on Campus with my boyfriend and his friend, when Mark Paul Gosselaar’s character mentioned he was the heir to a “urinal cake manufacturing company” or whatever, and I was all, “What the hell is a urinal cake?” and my boyfriend and his friend looked at me like I had grown a second head, and they were all, “What do you mean, what’s a urinal cake?” And then a split second later, they realized that I, as a 17-year-old girl, had not been privy to men’s public washrooms, and had not once in my life been in a position to ever encounter such an item. They kindly explained what it was, and my little girly mind, was able to mix their input with the context of “men’s washroom” and “urinals”, and a new understanding was made.

    To this day, I have not been in a men’s washroom. However, as I have been informed by men, many men, that these so-called ‘urinal cakes’ do actually exist, and while I have not experienced seeing these items for myself, these men have no reason to imagine their existence, so I continue to trust their testimony that these things do exist, and that there are companies who make and distribute them.

    This is not a particularly difficult, or ego-destroying process. At least, it doesn’t have to be. You just have to be willing to admit a) that you don’t know everything, and likely never will, and b) due to how the world is set up, certain people will know and understand certain things better than you will, and if you shut up, maybe – just maybe! – you’ll lessen the amount of stuff you don’t know.

  131. cleek
    cleek April 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm |

    It’s just not possible to criticize Dean or Nixon or Bush in a way that slanders all men

    the hell it isn’t.

  132. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm |

    By the way, why aren’t white people allowed to say n***** again?

    So a woman being depicted as “unstable” is the equivalent of the N-word? Color me skeptical.

    You seem to be advocating a particular kind of equality, where everyone is free to be insulted however their attacker wants.

    Those rules have long been in effect for men in politics. I don’t particularly like them, but it seems to me to be awfully convenient for them to be withdrawn completely and solely for the benefit of one candidate. And, to my mind, frightening–if I can’t even predict the associations which are going to trigger charges of sexism, what can be said about a female candidate?

  133. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm |

    I feel the need to quote from A Time To Kill, which I think is a great statement of what privilege is:

    “You’re my secret weapon, because
    you’re one of the bad guys.

    You don’t mean to be, but you are.

    It’s how you’s raised.

    “Nigger, Negro, black…

    …African-American.”

    No matter how you see me…

    …you see me as different.

    You see me like that jury sees me.

    You are them.”

    But we have to start from a more constructive place than the primary category of this post, “Assholes.” See, that’s where I started from. I don’t care for being called an asshole, despite arguably being one, and that’s not exactly the best way to foster a dialogue.

    If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. I mean, come on. Is that what offends you? Calling the creators of a sexist image “assholes” because somehow it’s all about you?

    Doesn’t that imply that there are things women can’t take?
    I am so tired of this argument. It’s not original. In a society that largely sees women through the lens of sexism, there are things which are sexist when aimed at women that don’t have the same context when aimed at men. And can’t take it? Stop condescending to women who have to take it (sexism) every damn day.

  134. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 3:03 pm |

    Mike B., take a week out of commenting to read two things: “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Women and Madness by Phyllis Chesler (it’s even updated now). Then maybe you’ll be somewhat qualified to discuss the damage that the hysterical women stereotype does.

  135. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm |

    I vividly remember being a freshman at Vassar and having many of my female friends refuse to identify as feminists because they felt that to do so would essentially be giving themselves a handicap; they were determined to succeed for themselves.

    I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

    there something substantively different about it that escapes me, or is the context of Hillary being female sufficient to elevate it to a new level of offensiveness?

    See: Storm at Sea says: April 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm and Betty Boondoggle says: April 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    If the latter, isn’t it more offensive, not less, to claim that there are things that can be said about men that cannot be said about women? Doesn’t that imply that there are things women can’t take?

    Who said they can be said about men? Wasn’t I very clear in saying that no one should be attacked with bigotry?

    It’s not about what women actually can’t take, it’s about what sexists think women are like. Geez.

    You didn’t show much inclination to listen to men, either.

    On matters regarding sexism, I’m not. You don’t know what you’re talking about. In the same vein, I’m not a gay male, so I don’t assume you are inclined to listen to me wax clueless about homophobia directed as men either.

    And when I say that I don’t consider that cover to be sexist, perhaps that should be a cue to set down the tar and feathers, because perhaps there was no such intent behind it.

    I have already politely requested that you stop using the sexist angry feminist meme. Please refrain from relying on sexist stereotypes, please.

    Now, to answer your statement. It’s not my job to teach you. I’m not your mommy. I don’t care if you get it or you don’t – men are not my focus. If you want to get it, if you’re interested you ask – YOU DON’T INSULT, DISMISS and EVADE and then claim it’s my fault for not teaching you. When you start off on the wrong foot, you can’t honestly blame those who react to it with wrongdoing. That’s dishonest.

    I don’t care for being called an asshole, despite arguably being one, and that’s not exactly the best way to foster a dialogue.

    neither is ignoring, dismissing and insulting and then complaining that women don’t teach you why you’re wrong.

    you’re speaking from a place of obviously unexamined privilege and this is causing you to stick your foot further down your gob. I’d think carefully about my word choice, if I were you. That’s not a threat or other such silliness. When you’re the privileged one, a lot of what you say comes off as condesceding, or, like in Bob’s case, trolling. It would behoove someone actually interested in being ally to tread carefully.

    ___

    Betty, donna darko assumed race-based facts. Did you not see her comment “you can lead white male progressives to water” remark?

    Do you really think that was about you and only? Arrogant, much?

    You might want to learn the definition of “strawman.”

    How adorable. The man with only logical fallacies uses another one in yet another effort to evade the topic.

  136. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm |

    And, to my mind, frightening–if I can’t even predict the associations which are going to trigger charges of sexism, what can be said about a female candidate?

    And this is exactly why I suggested treading carefully. This comment comes off as saying ‘If I can’t say misogynstic things, I can’t talk to bitchez!” WHich is, I hope, not what you’re intending.

  137. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 3:16 pm |

    Once again, a wholesale case of folks (myself included) being unable to see the forest for the trees.

    Let’s ask one of the pregnant Iraqi women who was blown to bits during shock and awe how she feels about the TNR cover. Let’s even ask one of the men how he feels. Woops! Can’t do it. They, like about a million others, are DEAD; dead at the hands of a plethora of elected officials who voted to give GWB the power to go all caveman all over the women, children and men of Iraq.

    Can you imagine asking an Iraqi woman in a burkha about the implied sexism of this magazine cover?

    Do you think a woman (or even a man) who’s in the process of losing her or his home cares a fig about a magazine cover?

    Perhaps we could ask the woman who’s just got home from taking her husband to chemo, or vice-versa.

    Best of all, we could ask the victim, herself.

    Any of those answers would most likely shed more light on the topic than anything said here today.

    Tempest, meet Teapot.

  138. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 3:21 pm |

    That would be Bob’s THIRD strawman and evasion. And oh what a pile of strawfeminists it is.

    Clearly, to the Bob troll, if we talk about sexism against American women we totally must not care about Iraqis.

    And we’re TOTALLY overreacting because there’s SO MUCH BIGGER things to worry about.

    In short, Bob just told American women to sit at the back of the bus.

    You’re a uselss troll bob. Shove off.

  139. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 3:21 pm |

    oooo, the “THIS isn’t as important as THAT, how dare you talk about THIS” argument. I’ve never heard that one before! What a revelation….

    /snark

  140. AnnPW
    AnnPW April 22, 2008 at 3:26 pm |

    One of my neighbors made this catch, also. Despicable, disgusting, juvenile bullshit.

  141. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 3:28 pm |

    No, Betty, I didn’t think it was about me only. I thought it was a broad, sweeping, bigoted generalization, which is actually much worse.

    You see, in the midst of all your pontificating about YOUR issues, you have, in dismissing other opinions out of hand and making assumptions of sexism, betrayed yourself as every bit the bigot you complain about.

    You prove my points across the board: intent on plucking the mote from everyone else’s eyes, you miss the giant beam in your own. You cariacature your own cause.

  142. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 3:31 pm |

    AnnPW, that p/o/s attempt at humor goes waaaay back to the first Clinton Administration. It’s the same kind of filth the Right Wing Clinton Hate Machine has been hustling for sixteen years.

    That’s why I asked whether the magazine cover in question has more to do with anti-Clintonism than it does with sexism.

  143. Cath
    Cath April 22, 2008 at 3:34 pm |

    Betty, I’m a big fan in general, but today you are positively on fire.

    Dudes: Whenever women are talking about their experiences and observations vis a vis sexism? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN. You might actually learn something. Which is what you all say you want to do (no matter how much your posts give the lie to that).

  144. Bob Kincaid
    Bob Kincaid April 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm |

    Betty, just for the sake of clarity, what is it you seem to think I’m evading? The magazine cover? My first post stated my position quite clearly.

    I’m having a problem understanding the crux of your displeasure.

  145. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 3:37 pm |

    “: “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman”

    A hundred+ year old short story. How terribly relevant for our times. It (and the whole hysteria thing) loomed a whole lot larger in society then, when there weren’t a lot of women active *in* society, and people weren’t familiar with concepts such as “Carly Fiorina”, “Baroness Thatcher”, or “Condi Rice”, or “Angela Merkel”.

    Then again, horsedrawn carriages, antimacassars, and spats were also more prevalent in society back then. What these Victorian and Edwardian artifacts have to do with the Clinton campaign, I have no idea. I’m sure someone will inform me that The Yellow Wallpaper is an accurate depiction of the lives of all these brilliant and talented women I’m surrounded with here at Harvard Medical School.

  146. Cath
    Cath April 22, 2008 at 3:48 pm |

    Yes, clearly Jon wants to learn.

  147. Mike B.
    Mike B. April 22, 2008 at 3:48 pm |

    OK, I don’t particularly like being a Neanderthal, but after these last few I’ve had enough. You tell me to ask, I ask, and you retort “I’m not your mommy.” I point out that this thread started with TNR being called “assholes,” and you take umbrage at being accused of being angry. You’ve additionally admitted that you don’t care what men have to say, after responding to me repeatedly at some length, and dumped a few other personal insults on at random. Without apparent irony, you’ve done all this over the depiction of a woman as irrational.

    Cheap shots aside, I’ve been trying to make the point that it’s important to empathize. On both sides. I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman and experience sexism. And you don’t know what it’s like to be a man and sometimes be blind to it. You’ve got as much to learn as I do.

  148. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm |

    Sure, let’s just toss out all historical context. It’s so irrelevant! The history of accusing smart, powerful women of mental illness clearly has no bearing on how calling a smart, powerful woman insane now is sexist.

  149. Netter
    Netter April 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm |

    Jon, the whole point is that there’s a long-lived stereotype about women not being mentally stable enough to handle the rigours of public life, like being outside their own homes, not necessarily being in politics. Can you and Mike please overlook your privilege of always being thought of as sane because you don’t have ovaries and listen to those of us who are confronted with this stereotype.

  150. donna darko
    donna darko April 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm |

    Kinda wondered when we’d start getting pasted for being “white” as well as “male” on what at first blush appeared to be at least a race (if not gender) neutral comments thread. And you’re making your race determinations how?

    There have been hundreds of conversations white feminists/POC/white male progressives have had in the blogosphere about the latter being sexist or racist.

  151. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm |

    “This is not a particularly difficult, or ego-destroying process. At least, it doesn’t have to be. You just have to be willing to admit a) that you don’t know everything, and likely never will, and b) due to how the world is set up, certain people will know and understand certain things better than you will, and if you shut up, maybe – just maybe! – you’ll lessen the amount of stuff you don’t know.”

    This is different.

    This is women looking at a urinal cake and saying “This cake is an offense unto my womanhood” and men looking at the same damn thing and saying “It’s just a urinal cake just like all the other urinal cakes that there have been over the decades”. And the women saying “No, dammit, don’t you question us. We know from our life experience that that cake is a sexist insult. Cake==kitchen==baking==mothers and your peeing on it == peeing on mothers == peeing on women!” And the guys say “No, really, it’s just a utilitarian block of scented wax to make the urinal smell better. Just like all the others ever made. Sexism simply doesn’t enter into it.”

  152. donna darko
    donna darko April 22, 2008 at 4:04 pm |

    And they never learn.

    You can lead them to water…

  153. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm |

    So a woman being depicted as “unstable” is the equivalent of the N-word? Color me skeptical.

    You missed my point. I’m saying that sometimes there is an offensiveness double-standard and it’s a good thing. A member of a minority group can use a word that, coming from a white person, would be an unacceptable slur. And a picture of a woman can fit into stereotypes that do not apply to a comparable picture of a man. I’m not saying they’re equivalent levels of offensive (though I find that picture pretty appalling); I’m saying that the double standard exists for a reason: women, minorities, and other disenfranchised groups are put into these stereotypes every day in every field of endeavor. “It’s business as usual” is not a satisfactory response.

    Those rules have long been in effect for men in politics.

    Right. And we have long been able to distinguish between attacks that are offensive and those that aren’t. Would you argue that the Willie Horton ads weren’t racist, just because “hey, that’s politics”? Isn’t it appropriate that we would be more aware of such attacks when they’re directed at two historic candidacies?

  154. Sniper
    Sniper April 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm |

    Let’s ask one of the pregnant Iraqi women who was blown to bits during shock and awe how she feels about the TNR cover. Let’s even ask one of the men how he feels.

    Nice going! I have two, maybe three bingo squares.

  155. Sniper
    Sniper April 22, 2008 at 4:20 pm |

    I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman and experience sexism. And you don’t know what it’s like to be a man and sometimes be blind to it. You’ve got as much to learn as I do.

    What? Seriously, what?

    Oh, just like People of Color don’t understand what it is to be blind to racism, so they should really work on that.

    Or gay and lesbian people don’t know what it’s like to just not notice homophobia. They should really work on that, too.

  156. Storm at Sea
    Storm at Sea April 22, 2008 at 4:22 pm |

    Mike B., I want to (again) reiterate what others have said; it’s not that women “can’t handle” being criticized and should be treated with kid gloves. It’s that the magazine cover is picking and choosing from a whole array of images and words it could have used to portray a Presidential candidate at a difficult moment in her campaign, and coming up with words like “psychodrama” and drawing on a history of women as hysterical (yes, going back to the Victorians does matter) to suggest that she’s no different from the stereotype. There is a pre-existing box or label that Clinton’s being put into via that image, and that’s where the problem lies. It’s not a question of the big meanies needing to lay off the poor, delicate female; it’s a question of being inappropriate and relying on negative stereotypes that are gender-specific and therefore describe Clinton first and foremost as a member of a social group and not as a person in her own right.

    RKMK, I hear you. I had a similar moment listening to “Get In Line” by BNL; the lyric “everybody get in line/everybody turn and cough” meant absolutely nothing to me until my husband explained it was part of the standard male physical exam. Who knew?

    BTW, Chaz, this rabid Obama supporter is not exactly focusing on the Clinton camp’s faults here. Just sayin’.

  157. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm |

    “You tell me to ask, I ask, and you retort “I’m not your mommy.”

    *sighs* Gawd, that is so fucking dishonest.

    Let’s review the comment that prompted me to say that, shall we?

    And when I say that I don’t consider that cover to be sexist, perhaps that should be a cue to set down the tar and feathers, because perhaps there was no such intent behind it.

    Basically, you blamed your cluelessness on me. You said that I should, I dunno, have magically mind-reading powers so I would be able to discern, from virtually nothing, that your intent wasn’t to be a sexist jackass. And so I should be so “angry” (tar and feathers) and help you.

    Give me a goddamn break.

    The problem is it’s not my job to rush to the saving of every clueless dude who derails feminist conversations to make it all about himself. It’s not my job to save you from YOUR fucking bigotry. If you want to learn, you should ask. And you should listen. That still doesn’t mean we owe you anything. It’s ON YOU to do the work. And to tell me I should preemptively save you is fucking ridiculous.

    Paying attention helps a lot if you actually want to learn. Which, I’m starting to suspect, you don’t.

    I point out that this thread started with TNR being called “assholes,” and you take umbrage at being accused of being angry.”

    They were called assholes, not by me, BTW, because they are assholes. I haven’t reacted angrily AT ALL and yet you couldn’t respond to me without accusing me as such. Not even kind of the same sitch. It’s a tired stereotype. let it die, already.

    ” You’ve additionally admitted that you don’t care what men have to say, after responding to me repeatedly at some length, and dumped a few other personal insults on at random.”

    I didn’t insult you at all, and I said I don’t care what men have to say about SEXISM. Good gawd, you desperate for some offence, aren’t you.

    However, as for the totally laughable accusation that I don’t know what it feels like to be the privileged one not realizing when I’m not getting it – PUL-EZE. I’ve had plenty of light bulb moments. I have already admitted to having bigoted attitudes and to being on my journey of working them out. You, on the other hand, want so badly to take offense to everything you’re missing out. That’s very sad.

  158. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm |

    “Jon, the whole point is that there’s a long-lived stereotype about women not being mentally stable enough to handle the rigours of public life, like being outside their own homes, not necessarily being in politics. Can you and Mike please overlook your privilege of always being thought of as sane because you don’t have ovaries and listen to those of us who are confronted with this stereotype.”

    I’m sorry, I just don’t think this stereotype has that much weight anymore. I think these days it would hinge more on class than on gender. If a person is wearing sweats and a NASCAR t-shirt, and is yelling at a waiter, you’re probably going to think that person’s a bit off. If the person is dressed like an executive, you’re probably going to think the *waiter* screwed up.

    Are you sure you’re not inadvertently preserving this stereotype by imputing it to be behind the Clinton cover, and not just plain Clinton-specific antagonism?

    Even long-lasting stereotypes eventually go away. If Teddy Kennedy were on a cover in the same way, one could point to anti-Irish prejudice, or anti-Catholic prejudice, but chances are even if it referred to him drinking, the cover wouldn’t be an anti-Irish “Irish people are lushes” thing.

  159. John
    John April 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm |

    Okay, so if you think a candidate is hysterical and unstable, what’s the appropriate way to express that, given the historical context, if that candidate is female?

    (I don’t think that’s true of Clinton, not at all, but apparently someone at TNR does, thus the stupid cover.)

  160. Jon H
    Jon H April 22, 2008 at 4:42 pm |

    I will admit that I’m primed to dismiss ‘sexism’ claims about Clinton because of the nonsense about “Obama said ‘periodically’! Sexist!”.

    Also, because I don’t like her.

  161. Storm at Sea
    Storm at Sea April 22, 2008 at 4:47 pm |

    I’m sorry, I just don’t think this stereotype has that much weight anymore. I think these days it would hinge more on class than on gender.

    Maybe it just takes a different form these days…ever heard “it must be that time of the month” or “she must be on the rag” when a woman expresses anger? I’m thinking that it still carries plenty of weight.

    Okay, so if you think a candidate is hysterical and unstable, what’s the appropriate way to express that, given the historical context, if that candidate is female?

    I would ask you what leads you to think they are “hysterical” or “unstable” in the first place. What actions have they carried out, what words have they used, what policies have they advocated, that would lead you to that particular word choice? Would you describe a man who advocated those same policies or said those same words differently?

  162. Sundown
    Sundown April 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm |

    Okay, so if you think a candidate is hysterical and unstable, what’s the appropriate way to express that, given the historical context, if that candidate is female?

    I am unsure about an appropriate way to depict unstable.

    The whole term “hysterical”, though, perhaps should just be retired, mainly because the use of the word is so loaded and because it has a rather ugly history. Of course, so many people who use the word in this manner are actually unaware.

  163. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers April 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm |

    Okay, my first take on this, as a woman: Sexist! Goddamn but that’s a totally sexist cariacture!

    Second take: But is this different from “Dean’s crazy! Because he yells at pep rallies!” in any substantial way?

    Third take: Dean was portrayed as crazy/angry (a la Howard Beale), and Gore was portrayed as a serial liar, but neither were portrayed as if they were hallucinating, with wild eyes, while standing in a Hitler pose. And while Clinton and her campaign have, in fact, said a number of contradictory things, and sometimes give the impression of a campaign meltdown, Clinton herself has *always* come across as controlled and professional. So yes, this is different than previous attacks made on Democrats.

    Men have been accused of “waffling” or lying, and men have been accused of being unreasonably enraged and crazed with it. I don’t know of any men who have been accused of listening to “voices inside their head.” This seems to paint Hillary as a liar without even giving her the agency and intelligence to be a deliberate liar; she’s not saying these wild and crazy things because she thinks that doing so will get her ahead in the polls, she’s saying them because she’s CRAZY! It’s not quite like Dean, who the press understood to be speaking consistently even though they mocked his message; they’re saying she’s a liar *and* crazy and lying *because* she’s crazy. It’s kicking it up a notch.

    Then when you add that the New Republic is *supposedly* supporting the Democrats, so this is not pure MSM anti-Democrat sentiment but is specific to Hillary… yeah, it’s playing to a stereotype of the hysterical woman. So yes, it’s sexist.

    Guys, I do get your point. It’s not so far removed from what was done to Dean or Gore or Kerry. It’s easy to look at it and say “Well, that sucks, but it’s not really sexist; think of the Dean Scream!” But it really is taking it further than what was done to Dean, with *less* justification if such a thing is possible, from an outlet that *should* be friendly to Democrats. It’s not that Hillary is being mocked that makes this sexist, it’s the *level* of it, the intensity of it, coupled with the minor amount of the provocation causing it.

    And I too am an Obama supporter, who sadly had to give up my support of Clinton because of her Iraq vote, her support for the bankruptcy bill, and her continuing support of imperial presidency ideas. I did not vote for Clinton and I do not support her, but this kind of thing kicks me in the crotch.

  164. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm |

    I will admit that I’m primed to dismiss ’sexism’ claims about Clinton because of the nonsense about “Obama said ‘periodically’! Sexist!”.

    You know what’s funny, is I’ve had more than one interaction with people who tell me–in the same conversation–that the “periodically” flap was “nonsense,” but that, when Clinton said “Of course not, absolutely not, there is no basis for that, as far as I know” about Obama being a Muslim, she was obviously trying to say that he might be a Muslim.

    Personally, as a guy who likes both candidates, I thought that both of them were basically innocent but could have chosen their words better. I just think that everyone’s extremely astute in seeing bias on the part of the other supporters.

  165. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 5:27 pm |

    Despite possible problems in Clinton’s campaign, given the fact that she has always appeared to be professional, passionate and often in good spirits, as Alara pointed out. There’s no reasonable evidence to suggest that Clinton is “hysterical” or “unhinged.” The entire meme is sexist.

    There’s no nice way to express bigotry.

    Dismissing the views of women who are feminists – many of whom have dedicated much of their time and energy to fighting sexism, many of whom have made it a profession or have made it the subject of very in depth, rigorous study – just because you, men, don’t see it is insulting and condescending.

    And anyone who thinks the criticism of that statement from Obama was just about the word “periodically” doesn’t have a very good grasp of the actual feminist analysis.

  166. tomemos
    tomemos April 22, 2008 at 5:39 pm |

    “And anyone who thinks the criticism of that statement from Obama was just about the word “periodically” doesn’t have a very good grasp of the actual feminist analysis.”

    Very true, of course. The comment was condescending even without that magic word.

  167. S. D.
    S. D. April 22, 2008 at 6:57 pm |

    As far as I can tell — I see from the comments that I’m not the only person who doesn’t immediately think “sexism” when I see this cover — it goes like this. It’s not “sexist” to accuse an individual (Clinton) of having a particular property (psychotic malfunction) — but that’s because sexism is a property of a pattern of behavior, not a one-off action.

    At the risk of belaboring the point. You can’t say “racism” just because a black man’s pulled over on the highway simpliciter. You say racism when it happens as part of a larger pattern. More often than not, the larger pattern is so obvious — especially to the group in question — that it’s barely mentioned. If you’re not part of the group in question, the pattern is not as real to you.

    To push the analogy: commenters here who are saying “it happened to Dean, too, this can’t be sexism” are a bit like a white person telling a black person “hey, I get pulled over too!”

    The point here is that the general characterization of Clinton has been through reductive, even 19th century, stereotypes of how women behave in male roles. “Hysterical” is the entirely appropriate term given its etymology. Those patterns of accusations, made against women like Clinton since time out of mind, are what constitutes sexism.

    The TNR cover is shocking because it is part of this larger pattern, and indeed, is practically a reductio of the pattern. All that’s missing on that cover is “her womb is moving.”

  168. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 7:10 pm |

    S.D., very good points!

  169. S. D.
    S. D. April 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm |

    Hey, thanks Astraea.

    I’ve been shocked by how Clinton is treated (even though I’m an Obama supporter and dislike many of the things Clinton does — too “imperial politics of fear” for me.) I can’t compare them in the society at large — the effects of sexism and racism are very different — but on the television it’s true that racism is taboo and sexism is not. The things you can say about Senator Clinton on camera stun me. Color me a little surprised?

    I sympathize with Mike B. above a little because it is true that these patterns aren’t “real” to us. We just don’t experience them, we hear about them. It’s the difference between going to a concert and reading the review — we just don’t get the qualia, as they say, the essential first person experience of sexism or racism. So we just can’t have that “visceral” response to a cover like the TNR’s. We kind of have to think it through. I mean, don’t feel sorry for us, “thinking it through” is a.k.a. “exercising our moral faculty”, but there you go.

  170. Temple Stark
    Temple Stark April 22, 2008 at 9:03 pm |

    This is, indeed, grotesque, like much of the shit thrown at Senator Clinton throughout this campaign (mostly by the media)

    I’m tired of parenthetical statements like this, as if a huge number of blogs aren’t deeply complicate and haven’t proved themselves equally bad when it comes to weak, and horrible punditry, complete with stereotypical framing.

  171. John
    John April 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm |

    Re: hysteria – yes, the word has an ugly sexist origin. However, if almost everyone using it is unaware of this, does its use perpetuate sexism and can it be called inherently sexist? That’s not a rhetorical question; I’m not sure of the answer. I think there is a point when these terms lose their baggage because the vast majority of people using them simply are unaware of it, but of course it’s debatable whether that has happened for any particular term.

    The Hillary caricatures have been around since her husband was elected president, and if you pay too much attention to them, seeing her (on tv, in person) is a bit shocking: hey, she’s not this terrifying person! Yes, I think there’s a big element of sexism in the entire concept.

    But I do think that there’s a difference between the really overt sexist crap (the nutcracker dolls, for example) and the not specifically sexist criticisms that are perhaps part of a narrative with sexist origins. Not that either is fine, of course.

    The big lesson to me from this campaign season is just how much sexism is still tolerated; while there are certainly all kinds of coded racial messages about Obama out there, it’s much more nuanced. That’s really depressing. But, being at heart a pragmatist, I think there’s a lot of value in pointing out the overt stuff (which I think a lot of people, when they stop and think about it, can recognize as insulting and inappropriate). The more embedded stuff – it’s unfair, but I think that keeps going right past people, even when it’s pointed out.

    Unfair, of course. But what I really would like to see come out of the ugliness of this campaign is that, when the next woman runs for president (or anything else), there’s a whole lot less of this crap.

    I really have been surprised by the extent of it, though.

  172. MikeEss
    MikeEss April 22, 2008 at 9:37 pm |

    “Re: hysteria – yes, the word has an ugly sexist origin. However, if almost everyone using it is unaware of this, does its use perpetuate sexism and can it be called inherently sexist?”

    If women are more likely to be described as hysterical/crazy/looney/off-the-rails/unglued than men – and they are, at least in American society – then that’s evidence of the sexist nature of the word, but more importantly the meme/stereotype/judgment that lies behind its use.

    It’s as simple as that…

  173. Astraea
    Astraea April 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm |

    John, you don’t get to decide what’s important to discuss and what’s not. If you aren’t a woman you don’t know what it’s like to be hit with this stuff, from the big stuff to the little stuff, every day.

    Paying attention to important stuff IS important precisely because it’s not obvious. But it still does damage, it still perpetuates sexism.

  174. Chaz
    Chaz April 22, 2008 at 11:16 pm |

    Storm,

    I wasn’t calling anyone here rabid and I was trying to point out that both sides have “rabid” members.

    Guys,

    I’m sorry but you need to listen more to what these ladies are saying and less to your overdeveloped sense of “the city on a hill” and everything is fair play an not offensive or wrong as long as I ignore the history which has shaped our perception.

    No one wants to be told that the bias they are seeing is in their head, and insomuch as we are discussing a woman (from what I’ve read, shout out for the Yellow Wallpaper which is completely relevant to this conversation) dismissing calls of sexism just draws on the idea of powerless hysterics. It is like saying that someone’s id of sexism can’t be right because they are mentally incapable of seeing reality. Purposeful of not this is what you’re doing be hostilely questioning other’s identification of sexism.

  175. Kayla
    Kayla April 22, 2008 at 11:22 pm |

    I’m reading this and looking at the picture and my big reaction is: So what?
    Don’t get me wrong, it’s clearly sexism. But this has been going on since 2006 towards Hillary Clinton. Or are we all not supposed to notice the echo chamber the left became? Are we not supposed to notice that left websites and magazines who agree on nothing else got on board Hillary bashing?
    My questions would be why anyone offended by the cover of Hillary wouldn’t take this moment to ask themselves how much the non-stop Hillary bashing by The Nation, The Progressive, Democracy Now, etc. created impressions.
    While you’re at it, ask yourself why Melissa Harris Lacewell was brought on by Amy Goodman as a ‘professor’ who just happened to catch a speech by Obama while she was in New Hampshire? In fact, the strongest two feminists online, Ava and C.I., have charted exactly how Amy Goodman has repeatedly stacked the deck against Hillary including bringing on an “objective journalist” to discuss Nevada one who had already written “Hillary’s hearing voices”? Or how about Amy’s roundtables featuring “objective” guests who are saddened to reveal that they don’t care for this or that policy of Hillary’s and, in fact, Frances Fox Piven perfect example, long before they show up on the show, they’ve publicly endorsed Barack Obama. When we’re ready to talk about that, when we’re ready to talk about the two years of attacks on Hillary and how our ‘friends’ have hurt us, then maybe we can stop sexism. In the meantime, we could all boycott the likes of Amy Goodman who think Hustler is the perfect place for a woman to publish.

  176. Voices Inside Her Head, Echoes of Things We Should Dread « Blogs 4 Brownback

    [...] the irrelevant feminazis over at feministe get their pantsuits in a bunch over the hilarious TNR cover while ignoring that the cover story was [...]

  177. donna darko
    donna darko April 23, 2008 at 5:17 am |

    The big lesson to me from this campaign season is just how much sexism is still tolerated

    It’s bc sexism affects women. Funny. Sexism is acceptable because of sexism.

    it’s clearly sexism. But this has been going on since 2006 towards Hillary Clinton. Or are we all not supposed to notice the echo chamber the left became?

    What was shocking to everyone was watching progressive men act like Freepers. Obama gave them licence because if they weren’t racist/supported Obama, they could go all out on misogyny. What a mess.

  178. Southern Beale
    Southern Beale April 23, 2008 at 7:09 am |

    This is SOP for TNR, which these days stands for The New Republicans.

  179. John
    John April 23, 2008 at 7:28 am |

    Astraea – I’m not suggesting that I’m the arbiter of what is discussed and what is not, my apologies if it sounded like I was on my high horse about it.

    I’m looking at this from an utterly pragmatic POV – when so many people don’t seem to be noticing the sexism in the campaign (& believe me, it’s flying right by lots of people), what can you point out that makes them stop and say, “hey, that is pretty horrible.” That’s all.

    No, I am not a woman. So I don’t have the first-hand experience of being on the receiving end of this. I am someone who’s been appalled to see a good candidate getting a lot of stupid crap thrown at her, and that does affect me – I want to see capable women getting elected to office – and I do have an interest in how that can be changed.

    Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that the previous comment was coming from a narrow viewpoint of thinking about how one can have an impact on well-meaning people who aren’t noticing this stuff; obviously, everything is open to discussion, from specifics to context, and I don’t want to suggest otherwise.

    Thanks.

  180. Astraea
    Astraea April 23, 2008 at 8:44 am |

    The problem is that EVERY time a feminist points out sexism, and especially against Clinton, there are lots of people who just don’t see it. There isn’t a time when everyone comes to consensus and says, oh, yeah, THAT is sexist. Unfortunately much of the left is complicit in the sexism, and blinded by their privilege, their own sexism, or their disapproval of her politics. Melissa at Shakesville has been pointing out a lot of it. She’s up to #76, just since last fall, and she hasn’t even caught every instance.

    I think all we can do is just keep pointing out this stuff. And keep in mind that not every discussion of sexism with feminists needs to be about convincing a wider audience. It’s not preaching to the choir, it’s educating the choir.

  181. Bob L
    Bob L April 23, 2008 at 9:36 am |

    The misogyny directed at HC has disgusted me from the very beginning of this race and like the writers linked, the same coming from friends and companions is equally if not even more shocking. I’ve heard men tell me they want to hit her, they hate her voice, they hate hate hate. Why?

    I was fascinated by this myself; I have the same urge, even though I would vote for her if she was the nominee. Just emotionally I find her repulsive even though intellectually I find her positions (mostly) acceptable. After thinking about it long and hard I came to the conclusion she is going around acting like a man looking for a fight. I guess that’s her idea how a tough alpha male behaves.

  182. Astraea
    Astraea April 23, 2008 at 10:49 am |

    Bob L, nice sexism there, assuming she’s trying to act like a man, the suggestion that women who are assertive are just trying to be men, and characterizing an assertive woman as “looking for a fight.”

    I think you need to do some more thinking.

  183. RKMK
    RKMK April 23, 2008 at 11:10 am |

    Just emotionally I find her repulsive even though intellectually I find her positions (mostly) acceptable.

    … Bob, I think you’ve got a bit more soul searching to do there. Dig a little deeper.

  184. Sundown
    Sundown April 23, 2008 at 11:57 am |

    Kayla,

    Amy Goodman’s sexist now? I must have missed something, because your explanation doesn’t wash. So she favors Obama. So what?

    With the comment about hustler, was that a joke or does she seriously have an involvement in that?

    Also, who are Ava and C.I.?

  185. No Blood for Hubris
    No Blood for Hubris April 24, 2008 at 12:10 pm |

    Sexism is invisible because it pervades our culture.

    It is just how things are and how things have always been. Pointing out that our media is filled with sexist sniggering fratboys creates a kneejerk response: f*ck you you humorless f*cking bitches.

    Which is why the Randi Rhodes thing was not ok. Is not ok.

    Anyone notice that Imus called Obama a “pussy” in the last week? How much traction did that story get? If not, why not? Cui bono?

  186. Jacques
    Jacques April 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm |

    Great, just what we needed (those of us who don’t live in the US and therefore are not FSCKING INSANE), a girl versus boy fight to decide who is going to run against the Repug candidate. Get your shit together people, you’re all on the same side.

  187. Betty Boondoggle
    Betty Boondoggle April 24, 2008 at 4:51 pm |

    Get your shit together people, you’re all on the same side.

    Someone should probably remind the candidates of that, huh.

  188. donna darko
    donna darko April 24, 2008 at 5:02 pm |

    Sexism is coming from men. It’s not women’s fault. They should tell each other to stop.

  189. The Citizen » Blog Archive » Heil to the chief: Hitlery KKKlinton …

    [...] eministe aujourd’hui – eller måske rettere, TNRs seneste nummer: [...]

  190. Glass City Jungle | The men say it’s not misogynistic…us women better listen…

    [...] they don’t believe Jill or I guess Kathy or Jessica or Jeff Amanda or Taylor or a different Jill are correct in this being over the top and [...]

  191. ozma10
    ozma10 April 26, 2008 at 2:58 pm |

    Reading these responses makes me wonder why so many people don’t get the sexism here. So, let’s transpose it to racism. Suppose Obama is campaigning for the farm vote and they put a picture of him enjoying a huge slice of watermelon on the cover of some magazine. would that be racism??? Or just politics????

  192. jb
    jb May 13, 2008 at 6:01 pm |

    can you tell me how it is possible for you to call yourself a feminist and yet not support Hillary’s run for president? I don’t get that… As a gay man, I would vote hands down for a gay running for office if the person he was running against was 99% same on issues… (even if I preferred the other candidates personality and background)

    why have so many young females failed to rally behind her, do they not see the historical importance of this chance to breakthrough that final glass ceiling?

    I think a lot of you women, by not supporting her (and being neutral is not supporting), missed the boat big time on this one!

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.