Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture


Originally posted by Adam T:
I still think it's important though to draw a distinction between highlighting idiotic comments and using that as an exuse to bash all legitimate criticism.[/b]

yeah you would think wouldn't you......


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I was just doing some research for work about the sexism Clinton's been facing and thought it would be interesting to have a thread devoted to simply recording articles about and incidents of sexism during Clinton's campaign.

[b]This thread is not about who you support in the primaries.[/b] In fact, I support Obama, and I know lots of other babblers too. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is also not about whether it's harder to be a black man or a white woman.

[b] This thread is simply about recording and discussing the sexism Clinton's been facing during her campaign. [/b]

martin dufresne

Adam T, since you posted your "yawn" comment immediately after my reference to the differential treatment of Obama and Clinton in U.S. [url=http://www.cagle.com/2008/]political cartoons[/url], I am really surprised that the gist of your "argument" seems to be denial of any real influence from sexist representations and commentaries.
If political cartoons - that daily provide USians with they yuks about whom not to take seriously - don't have influence in your book, I wonder what does -- and find you a little disingenuous.

Adam T

My 'yawn' comment was solely in reference to Hillary Clinton supporters who try to argue that every critisicm of her is sexist. It was not to deny that there is real sexism against her.

However, on the broader point, I just disagree that sexism, or racism for that matter, seems to be having much of an influence on the Democratic primary. I would think that is something to be celebrated actually.

When it gets to the general, it may be more of a factor.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

How can it not be a factor?

Adam T

Because maybe the vast majority of Americans don't care if a candidate is a woman, a minority, a white male or even a green martian.

According to the polls the only group that still faces significant discrimination is athiests.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

If gender or race wasn't a factor, we wouldn't be looking at the first woman and the first person of colour.



Originally posted by Adam T:
[b]My 'yawn' comment was solely in reference to Hillary Clinton supporters who try to argue that every critisicm of her is sexist. =[/b]

I've seen very few criticisms of her that didn't use some sexist rhetoric or ideology.

I agree that, in theory, she could certainly be fairly criticized on the merits of her arguments just like any other candidate. In practice, is that occurring? No, not even close. Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview. This is unsurprising, given the extent to which fundamentally sexist worldviews permeate North American society.

Vansterdam Kid

On selfishness, I would dispute that calling her selfish is automatically sexist.

One of the reasons that the 'netroots', and liberal-left, of the Democratic Party is pro-Obama and anti-Clinton is due to his "50 state strategy." One of the reasons they don't like Clinton has to due with her "[url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/113237/023/979/456665]"insult 40 state strategy."[/url]

So, when it comes to the American left anyways, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/helping-to-elect-other-de_b...'s 'selfishness'[/url] is seen as something that has been apparent in Bill Clinton's political history and is likely to be apparent in Hillary Clinton's political modus oporandi too. After all when you vote Clinton you [url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-..."buy one, get one free."[/url] Hillary Clinton may get [i]votes[/i] from the blue collar, [url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-..."low information" voters[/url], but unlike Obama she gets the vast majority of her money from large donations. Essentially her campaign is about her, whereas Obama's campaign is about himself but he also tries to make it about the people supporting him too (by, amongst other things, saying things like "Yes [i]we[/i] can")...to make it more like a movement and thus less "selfish."


I was going to post this in the Ferraro thread but figured it would be thread drift there.

[Actually, never mind. It would be thread drift here too, since this thread was specifically NOT supposed to be about comparing racism to sexism. The comparison wasn't my main point, but I'm sure it will be the point that will get picked up on.]

[ 14 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


I'm trying to find an article that I stumbled upon a couple of weeks ago, where they were talking about the polarization among female voters in the US.

It was interesting because the article featured quotes from female Obama supporters who were handing out literature near polling stations, and they described female Clinton supporters as "angry" because the women wouldn't stop and talk to them or take their literature.

I wish I could find it because the description of "angry women" who support Hillary Clinton was interesting. Basically, the tone of the article was that these poor, defenceless little women who support Obama were being treated so rudely by all those nasty, ballbusting, bitchy Clinton supporters who refused to take their Obama literature on voting day.

Even women who support Clinton are bitches!

[ 14 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Vansterdam Kid

I've read the opposite. It seems like the general criticism of female Clinton supporters toward female Obama supporters is that they're somehow "selling out", inspite of the fact that maybe they don't support Clinton on a variety of [i]issues.[/i] Without going off on a tangent, they're being accused of being "Uncle Tom's" in the same way that black Clinton supporters are accused of the same stuff. At least that's the impression I've gotten, reading articles like [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-obst/women-of-my-generation-ha_b_914... one[/url] and [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-kaiser-greenland/modern-feminism_b_9... one.[/url]




I agree that, in theory, she could certainly be fairly criticized on the merits of her arguments just like any other candidate. In practice, is that occurring? No, not even close. Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview.

In practice you say, no criticisms of Clinton that have any merit that does not "spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview."

Well I invite you to use me as a demonstrtation, as a laboratory. I've got lots of posts criticising Clinton for you to choose from.

So show us how I, for example, while seeming to say something of merit am actually expressing a fundamentally sexist world view.

[And not simply, "here's an example". For educational purposes some kind of where and how is required.]

ETA: We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism.

...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing.

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

martin dufresne

Michelle, that article you are looking for about polarization is a NYT column by Maureen Dowd entitled "Duel of historical guilts", dated March 5 and posted on Babble [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=003689&p....

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

martin dufresne


Draco: Even when there is some argument of merit, the criticisms I have seen almost invariable spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview.
KenS: In practice you say, no criticisms of Clinton that have any merit that does not "spring from a fundamentally sexist worldview."

KenS, you should have stuck with your "big deal" summation, a few lines below, because it says a lot more about your position than this pathetic new straw man.
What I hear Draco saying is that even arguments of merit against Clinton get lost in criticisms that overtake it, and that appeal, instead, to the fundamentally sexist worldview that facilitates bashing a woman [i]as woman[/i].
I have noticed the same. There is sometimes a kernel of possible value in an argument, but it is most often merely used to reactivate a host of stereotypes and attacks steeped in misogyny and, in some cases, overt antifeminism. These overtake what could have been a valid assessment and the criticisms turn into one more rant against Clinton.
But, as you say, "big deal," right?

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


"Big deal" to what?

You are utterly incomprehensible.

Mind you, I hesitate to encourage you to sort out what you are saying. Because it looks like where you are going would almost certainly entail another total distortion of what I said... which I can't address without derialing the thread.

Here by the way is the "big deal" comment which you referred to but didn't quote:


: We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism.

...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing.

I would think you understand the meaning and just decided to [try] to make your own use of my using the words "big deal" irregardless of what I actually said.

But just in case you didn't get it, I'm saying that we should not throw away the message because a couple of the messengers are so extreme as to in practice portray all criticism of Clinton as sexist.


Thanks, Martin, that WAS the one! I skipped past it a couple of times in google searches, not sure why.

Anyhow, yeah. Obama supporters keep saying that it's not their fault that the press is being so sexist, and that the difference between Clinton and Obama is that the Clinton camp is being racist, but the Obama camp isn't being sexist at all. Well, of course the Obama camp doesn't have to be sexist - the media is doing all their work for them.

Also, Obama's clearly smarter than Clinton (which is another reason why he should get the nomination, I guess - he's way better at smearing while looking perfectly innocent). Clinton's high-profile people get in trouble for racist smears. Obama's camp leaves the sexist smears to the people in his campaign who are lower-level so that he can't be accused of smearing. (Not that sexist smears get any media attention anyhow, other than being printed straight without any acknowledgement of sexism.)

So, in the article that Martin posted, the sexist smear has been done by a no-name district captain, who complains about what a bunch of bitches those nasty feminist Clinton supporters are - but then after her sexist smear, she magnanimously says that after Obama wins the campaign, she'll do her best to help woo them back:


Julie Acevedo, a precinct captain for Obama in Austin, noticed that things were getting uglier on Friday, during the early voting, when she “saw some very angry women just stomping by us to go vote for Hillary. They cut us off when we tried to talk about Barack.

“I’m 46,” Ms. Acevedo, a fund-raiser for state politicians, said Tuesday night. “Maybe I missed it by a few years, but I don’t know why these women are so fueled by such hostility and think other women are misogynists if they don’t vote for Hillary. It’s insulting and disturbing.”

She said that if Obama definitively outpaces Hillary, she will work to “heal the wounds” and woo back women who are now angry at him.

Goddamn feminist bitches, hey? Always so angry and nasty - must be because they're old hags, unlike the young Acevedo who, luckily, missed the feminist bitch thing "by a few years". All those nasty old crones supporting Hillary. Surely you don't want to be one of THEM! Better vote for Obama. He's the choice of nice, younger women who haven't given up all their charm to becoming bitter old bags.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]



Originally posted by KenS:
[b]ETA: We could also skip the thread drift and agree that is inevitable some people would make ridiculous equivalencies that in some fundamental way most criticism of Clinton in practice is a manifestation of sexism.

...AND, to not get lost in said thread drift, big deal if some people do that predictable thing.[/b]

Or YOU could skip the thread drift entirely by just staying the hell out of this thread, instead of constantly CLAIMING that you want to avoid thread drift.

It's really annoying - you just post your point of view, then declare that it's going to cause thread drift if anyone argues the point with you.

YOU are the one causing thread drift. YOU are the one who is off topic. Please stay out of this thread from now on since you just can't seem to help yourself from posting self-admitted "thread drift" posts and from starting pissing matches in this thread. We get it. You really can't stand Martin. You've made your point.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.thestar.com/living/article/409960]Hillary's real crime is not knowing her place[/url]
by Antonia Zerbisias

remind remind's picture

Excellent article by Antonia!


The thing about misogyny is, it's so ingrained and we women are so mentally colonized that we often don't recognize it even when it is aimed straight at us.

martin dufresne

Sexism On Parade
Guest post by Grey, May 11, 2008

It was just a matter of time. First came the nutcracker; then they called her "sister Frigidaire," crazy, grossly ruthless and a shrill, petulant, whiny spoiled brat.

Hillary Clinton is such a girl that her voice makes "a politically progressive man" fight the urge "to punch her in the face."

It's the cackle, you know? Bob Ellis compiled a list of what he doesn't like about her:


Her towering frigidity, blazing hubris, bellowing mendacity (...)

[Go to [url=http://taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27653]webpage[/url] for lots of links within the story.]


[url=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080520/usa/us_vote_clinton_women]Clinton decries sexism in the White House race [/url]


Hillary Clinton called sexist attacks on her campaign "deeply offensive" Tuesday, as female supporters sprang to her defense, saying she speaks for all women and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.


In what appear to be the waning days of her historic White House bid, the former first lady spoke out for the first time about what her supporters have long condemned, including derisive T-shirts, novelty items and commentary focusing on her gender.

"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said told The Washington Post in an interview, in which she pinned blame primarily on tolerant attitudes in the media.

"I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press," Clinton said of the contest that will crown either a black or a female presidential nominee for the first time in history.

Clinton said she did not believe the campaign had been tainted by racism, adding that racism is apparently less tolerated in US society than sexism.

"There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said.

"It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

Female supporters of Hillary Clinton have sprung to her defense, insisting she should stay in the Democratic primary race to the end, June 3.

wage zombie


Hillary Clinton called sexist attacks on her campaign "deeply offensive" Tuesday, as female supporters sprang to her defense, saying she speaks for all women and should stay in the Democratic race to the bitter end.

I can see that Clinton has had to deal with sexist attacks for many years now. And these attacks should of course be confronted whenever they occur.

But it's these kinds of statements from her supporters that i don't understand.

How can they say that:

1. Clinton speaks for all women

2. Clinton should stay in the race even though she has no chance of winning, and that she should take things to "the bitter end"

Dana Larsen


When was the last time an opinion piece or cartoon commented on a male candidate's figure?

Male candidates get comments on their weight and appearance all of the time. For instance, Al Gore's weight was a frequent topic of jokes and comments from talk show hosts and other media.

Some examples:


"Remember Al Gore? Since the election the guy has put on 40 pounds. It's gotten so bad that every time he turns around, his ass erases the blackboard. ... He got on the scales today and demanded a recount." --David Letterman

"Al Gore has put on 40 pounds since losing the election and experts contribute this to depression. That's right. In a related story, Michael Dukakis now weighs 12,000 pounds." --Conan O'Brien

"He's so fat, Clinton is thinking of hitting on him." --from David Letterman's "Top Ten Responses To The Question, 'How Fat Is Al Gore?'"

"It's kind of ironic. He always wanted to distance himself from Bill Clinton. Now that he's out of politics and overweight, he is Bill Clinton." --Jay Leno

If these same comments above had been made about a female candidate, would they be sexist?


She expressed justifiable concern that "focusing on the clothing choices of serious female political players risks rendering them less than serious," something these reporters and editors know all too well.

Male candidates also face endless discussion over their clothes...

Here's some examples:


Stitch in time produces new classic
Chicago Sun Times
May 6, 2001
by Lisa Lenoir

President George W. Bush steps into the spotlight looking like a man fresh off the pages of GQ magazine. His black cashmere overcoat delicately drapes his shoulders, the blue stripe tie radiates against his white shirt and the suit perfectly fits his fit form. What a contrast after seeing Bush's hokey business and Western attire on the campaign trail. The 10-gallon hats and cowboy boots caused many fashion watchers to shake in their boots. But Bush's past style lapses are forgivable because, since his inauguration he's been wearing some of the best tailored garments -- Oxxford suits.


[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051216/ELXN_fashio... Watch: Harper most stylish of the bland[/url]
Updated Mon. Dec. 19 2005 8:50 PM ET

Canadian Press

TORONTO -- While the electorate is still deciding on the country's new leader, Stephen Harper is being seen by some fashion analysts as the most stylish of a bland bunch.

Despite a "noisy tie," Harper's pocket puff allowed him to emerge as the most fashion forward of all the "white guys in dark suits" in last week's English-language debate, said Sally Ritchie, a clothes-savvy television producer at TVOntario who's been watching what the leaders are wearing.

"Overall, Harper was the snazziest dressed," she said. "Yes, he was the clear winner -- the least bland of the bland."

Fashion designer Paul Hardy agreed that Harper was the most stylish.

"The pocket puff totally won my vote. He had the perfect shade of blue shirt," said Hardy from his studio in Calgary. "Frankly, I just thought (his outfit) was so modern. I was very surprised because I wouldn't expect him to be on the pulse."


[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060331.wcancunharpe..., what the heck are you wearing?[/url]
March 31, 2006 at 8:56 AM EDT

Stephen darling, can we talk?

What I and everybody else back in Canada really need know right now is what the heck are you wearing?

Don't give me that "who me?" look. It might work on Laureen, but it won't work on a style columnist. I know you got into Cancun late Wednesday night. I know you haven't had time to shop since Afghanistan.You're Prime Minister now -- it's time to dress that way.

I don't mean to be cranky, but you're testing my sartorial patience. First there was the hair issue (ongoing), then the series of mock turtlenecks that made you look like an assistant golf pro at Club Link, then the Lone Ranger getup at the Stampede, and now this! Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse, you show up for an official visit wearing a fishing vest and clashing bottoms.

[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: Dana Larsen ]


No sexism here folks. Move on. The men have spoken. It simply exists only in our minds and besides, if there is sexism, men suffer from it too.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Hillary gave a moving tribute to Ted Kennedy in her Kentucky victory speech tonight.

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]No sexism here folks. Move on. The men have spoken. It simply exists only in our minds and besides, if there is sexism, men suffer from it too.[/b]

[b]One[/b] man spoke.

[b]This[/b] man thinks that the sexism endured by female politicians is appalling.


I'm with Scott. I considered arguing in favour of Clinton based on the attacks she is receiving, but her politics are just a bit too bad for that.

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Excellent article by Antonia!



She's too hot, too cold, too hard, too soft, too weak, too strong, too feminine, too masculine ...

I recall criticisms of P.M. Kim Campbell ran along similar lines.

I have to admit I have not been investing a lot of time watching US politics, I switch the channel when the primary highlights come up on CBC. Politics usually brings out the worst in pundits.

It was not until I read some Marilyn vos Savant
(1996 - The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning…and Hard Facts about Its Absence in Our Lives) that I realised how sexist society is toward women, in politics, in academics, and in public life.

Marilyn herself (apparently having the highest IQ in the world : Guinness book of world records) had her gender attacked and maligned ('female logic') and not her solutions, proofs and procedures.
Marilyn's plumbing is wrong, therefore her solutions and analysis are as well.


Yes, Hillary has been a victim of sexism, and America is so deeply sexist that even people who consider themselves progressives or even feminists will reach for the bitch card. Much of this is due to America's education system. we don't learn logic and rhetoric in high school, so we can't define much less form a reasoned argument. When someone angers us we resort to name calling the more hurtful the better. In America we express feelings better than thoughts.

There are however real reasons to distrust Senator Clinton and to oppose her, most importantly her stand on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There has been quite a bit of handwringing about misogony in the media, and very little about the betrayel felt by progressives who opposed the war. This is far and away the largest hurdle for Clinton,but the media doesn't really want to talk to Peace and justice advocates, so it's much more convenient to pretend that this is an election about demography and identity.

martin dufresne

Talking about logic...


Yes, Hillary has been a victim of sexism (...)
There are however real reasons to distrust Senator Clinton(...)

Isn't this a classic [i]non sequitur[/i]?

martin dufresne


jrootham: I considered arguing in favour of Clinton based on the attacks she is receiving, but her politics are just a bit too bad for that.

More flawed logic. No one is asking anyone to root for Clinton just because she is being maligned based on sexist stereotypes. You could settle for standing up to the sexist treatment her candidacy is getting, as would presumably, any woman's.

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


Exactly. You don't have to support Clinton's politics to stand up to the sexism. No one is asking people to react to the sexism by voting for her.

martin dufresne

Dana Larsen wrote:


...Male candidates also face endless discussion over their clothes...

Endless...? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] Not by a long shot! And I can't help noticing that two out of the three quotes you offer are congratulatory...


Male candidates only have negative discussion about their clothes if it's a really bad choice in general (see Stephen Harper and the cowboy gear) or it's an abrupt change (the Preston Manning makeover). Otherwise, if it's even slightly formal and made in the same decade they get a pass.

For sure, there's a lot more ways to go wrong with women's fashion, but even with that it really gets far too much scrutiny.

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

I was involved directly in politics and campaigning at one time way back when. Sexism does happen and it's annoying as f**k. I have first hand experience. Excuse the language, but it is real sore spot. I still have a media article which talked about my hair. I can tell you that being on the receiving end of this type of crap is very disconcerting and DOES have an affect on thinking. It actually is a distraction and when one is supposed to be focused on the issues and the actual people there's this niggling thing in the background that one has to contend with and try to push out of the way. 'Is my hair okay today? Choice of clothes etc etc. Of course image is important but I personally feel that because of this there is an extra amount of pressure that males don't have to contend with as much.
Honestly though the media is one thing but dealing with some of the other males involved was way worse. I didn't have any problem whatsoever with the other women, especially those in opposing parties. Any discussions were about the actual issues and I never had to deal with comments about my looks, 'Oh a good looking women like you, etc etc.' Yes I suppose one could come back and say well thats just complimenting but there is a difference between just complimenting and having such 'compliments' contextulizing what your actually saying and the actual discussion. Not sure I explained that right, it's a nuanced thing and hard to put into words.
The worst though came from a conservative senator, who in discussion about Kyoto and the Cons supposed 'plan', constantly referred to me in a condescending manner as young lady. "Now see here young lady, you are blah blah this, Now see here young lady...blah blah that" Everything was in context with me being 'female' and in this case also young, which is another issue.
Oh and just to note, I did not let him get away with it and refused to be demeaned that way. I calmly pushed my points and yes I *ahem* did throw in a calm but pointed, "Now see here old man..." Considering that some of the people listening broke out laughing at this I think I made the point which was basically, 'screw off and cut that crap, you sexist pig' without having to say the actual words.

Bleh though and grrr...


Apparently calling Hillary a "white bitch' is quite appropriate. Coming direct to you from that bastion of Liberal thinking - CNN.

[url=http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part... - Click Me...[/url]

Pogo Pogo's picture


Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]"Now see here old man..." [/b]

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

wage zombie

[url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200805210009]More sexist crap[/url] from Rush Limbaugh:


LIMBAUGH: You know, the feminazis forgot one thing. Well, one of the objectives of the feminazis over the last 20, 25 years has been to dominate the public education system so as to remove the competitive nature of boys. You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan.

They forgot affirmative action for black guys. And because of that, every bit of their plan has gone up in smoke now, because they -- if -- they had to come out in favor of affirmative action for black guys, and that's -- see, this is one of the things that really irritates the women. And there are women all over this country fit to be tied -- trust me on this. And it's -- one of the things is affirmative action is exactly -- it's, you know, liberals eventually are going to be devoured by their own policies. And it has happened here. Because Barack Obama is an affirmative action candidate. There's no question, the way he is being treated by the drive-bys and so forth and so on. The way he's been puffed up here with the magical, messiah-type message with no criticism allowed.

So, it's just -- they just forgot that one thing: affirmative action for black guys. And if they had remembered to oppose that, then they wouldn't face the situation they face today.


for Martin,

You truncated my statements to create the non sequiter. My sentence about distrusting Senator Clinton was the topic sentence of my second paragraph. My point is not that the sexist attacks are appropriate, or that they should be ignored. My point is that sexism has not been ignored, there is an on going discussion of nutcrackers and shirt irons. Meanwhile the media ignores progressives who do not want another ride with the Clintons. This group has been largely marginalised and ignored, described as either cult members, or the activist fringe. many of Clinton's supporters would like to believe that resistance to her is solely based on sexism, and as long as legitimate critcism of her is embargoed that would seem to be true.


Agreed. Martin, how about if you want to attribute motives to people - especially in this forum - you quote what they actually wrote instead of cutting and pasting different sentences from different paragraphs together out of context.



MR. RUSSERT: Maureen Dowd, "misogynist," "gender bias," it seems as though the Clintons are being--trying very hard to lay that out as a premise for Hillary Clinton's difficulties in this primary contest.

MS. DOWD: I think it's poppycock, really. I mean, Hillary Clinton has allowed women to visualize a woman as president for the first time, in the way Colin Powell allowed people to visualize an African-American. And she dominated the debates, she, she proved that a woman can have as much tenacity and gall as any man on earth. We, we can visualize her facing down Ahmadinejad. But the thing is, Hillary hurts feminism when she uses it as opportunism. And she has a history of covering up her own mistakes behind sexism. She did it with health care right after health care didn't pass. She didn't admit that she was abrasive or mismanaged it or blew off good advice or was too secretive. She said that she was a Rorschach test for gender and that many men thought of a female boss they didn't like when they looked at her. And now she's doing the same thing, and it's very--you know, in a way it's the moral equivalent of Sharptonism. It's this victimhood and angry and turning women against men and saying that the men are trying to take it away from us, in the same way she's turning Florida and Michigan and riling up and comparing them to suffragettes and slaves. And it's very damaging to feminism.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24815500/page/3/]meet the press transcript from today[/url]

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24816493#24816493]webcast of same[/url]

martin dufresne

[url=http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-cha... In Charge, Women Who Charge[/url]
Judith Warner, The New York Times, June 5, 2008

Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of "Sex and the City," the movie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that Hillary Clintons candidacy imploded?

Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I'm not so sure.

And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deserved to lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about the outcome of her candidacy - mistakes were made, and she faced a formidable opponent in Barack Obama - but rather about the climate in which her campaign was conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and "Sex" is now flourishing. (...)

martin dufresne

In reponse to Blairza and Michelle, I beg to disagree. Nowhere did I attribute motivations to him. Indeed, the only speculation of this kind is Blairza's own (entirely speculative and rather inflammatory) statement that "many of Clinton's supporters would like to believe that resistance to her is solely based on sexism".
As for my pointing out a non sequitur, I still see one in acknowledging the sexism against Clinton (in a thread on that subject) but immediately seguing to a critique of her. It seemed so blatant that I didn't feel I needed to quote more than the opening words of each paragraph before voicing my remark (in the interrogative).

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

remind remind's picture

This fact of how women in public offices are framed and discussed, really is an issue. Jon Stewart did a segment in the Daily Show last week about the rampent sexism of the MSM in respect to Hillary Clinton.

One of the excerpts he showed was the MSM feeling free to discuss her clevage. Have we ever seen the MSM discussing how a man, in politics, package is hanging, or protuding in his pants?

martin dufresne

Shshshsh... If they did, it would probably be admiringly! "Check out the cojones on our Commander-In-Chief!"
BTW, I recall that when Eldridge "You're either part of the problem or of the solution" [url=http://law.jrank.org/pages/5284/Cleaver-Leroy-Eldridge.html]Cleaver[/url] returned from exile, he got some MSM coverage by introducing a line of pants he had designed with a codpiece "intended to display the male sexual organ".



Have we ever seen the MSM discussing how a man, in politics, package is hanging, or protuding in his pants?

if you mean on fox or cnn not so much, but a lot of comments, usually derisive, were made about the codpiece effect of Bush's flightsuit on "Mission Accomplished" day. Although, of course that was on Randi Rhodes/ Stephanie Miller/ Olbermann, etc.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U&feature=related]you tube sexism sells but we're not buying it.[/url]

Marc Rudov's the biggest pig in here. The ignorance is mindblowing. He speaks about PMS being a problem with Hillary as president, which, of course, instantly demonstrates his total ignorance of human biology as it pertains to 60 year old women. But, then again, Hitler loving/ holocaust denying Pat Buchanan still gets to be allowed on 'respectable' news networks so I guess the bar is pretty low.

Interesting note about Rudov. His wiki bio mentions how he writes for "Mens News", which rung a bell for me. Its a GOP/ Karl Rove front site, famous as the former home of .... Jeff Gannon!! You may remeber Jeff: he was the fake reporter, planted by Rove in the press room, that was always called on at difficult White House press briefings when the questions were getting too tough. Jeff was soon revealed to have a second life as a gay prostitute and gay armyporn star.

I dont know why this connection would pop up in my mind after watching the appallingly misogynist Mr. Rudov speak. I mention it only in passing.

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]

martin dufresne

Forwarded with B.L. Wagner's permission:


Hillary Hate-On

U.S. media’s treatment of Clinton shows the political gender gap is going strong
Think it’s any different in Canada? Nuh-uh!
by Bernadette Wagner

In January, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews succinctly dismissed Hillary Clinton’s talent, skill, political acumen and U.S. Senate experience as factors for her frontrunner status in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination race.

Matthews said, “The reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”

It’s typical, really, of how women are treated by the media and others when they enter political life. In the United States, the Women’s Media Center (WMC) joined together with prominent U.S. feminists and feminist organizations to extract an apology from Matthews.

Then, on May 23, the WMC released a video of news clips called “Sexism Sells — But We’re Not Buying It”, featuring five minutes of sexist commentary by various male and female newscasters and commentators in the U.S. The clip is viewable online at [url=http://womensmediacentre.com]http://womensmediacentre.com[/url] and it provides examples of how commenting on a woman’s appearance — her dress, her cosmetics, her cleavage — is apparently newsworthy, somehow related to her ability to perform as a politician.

If Hillary Clinton has conceded to Barack Obama by the time you read this — and there’s a possibility she will have if it didn’t go well for her in South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday, June 3 — you have to wonder just how much a factor systemic sexism was in her defeat.

Think it’s any different in Canada? Nuh-uh! Just ask Sheila Copps, Belinda Stronach, Amber Jones or Deb Higgins.

When Sheila Copps was a member of the federal Liberal Party’s “Rat Pack” in the House of Commons, she was particularly good at getting under the skin of the Conservative members of Mulroney’s government. At one point, John Crosbie, a cabinet minister, told her to “quieten down, baby.” Admittedly, that was 20-some years ago, but still, that attitude reigns supreme.

During the 2006 election campaign Belinda Stronach, a Liberal MP who entered the political sphere when she ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, commented in a CTV web story that, “Sometimes it can be a little bit frustrating when you’re trying to get a message out and people are focusing on your personal life or the shoes you’re wearing.” Certainly, the media made much of her personal relationships with Peter McKay and Tie Domi (neither of which compromised national security, as far as I know). Even as recently as last fall a CTV story reported on Stronachs split with Domi and included a description of her attire at a charity gala.

Amber Jones is the new leader of the Green Party in Saskatchewan. She is also a new mother. After she breastfed her child and passed the baby to her partner (likely for a diaper change), the child was returned to her arms. She was attacked by the producer of a radio show for not only breastfeeding her baby but also exploiting the youngster as a “political prop” because this was a media event.

Apparently in Saskatchewan, demonstrating the reality of your life as a breastfeeding mother involved in politics is a no-no.

And let’s not forget Saskatchewan Party MLA Mike Chisholm’s insult of NDP MLA Deb Higgins. Higgins, lauded by many as a hard-working and intelligent woman and as a former Minister of Labour, rankled Chisholm’s feathers with her questions and comments during the discussions of Bills 5 and 6. He responded by calling her a “dumb bitch”.

Coming on the heels of Premier Wall's apology to the people of Saskatchewan for his role in the sexist, racist and homophobic 1991 videotape found by the NDP and released to the public, the premier had no choice but to “accept” Chisholm’s resignation as Legislative Secretary. Nice start but he should have tossed Chisholm from caucus.

Equal Vote Canada is an organization working to promote women’s involvement in politics. Their website cites several international sources which add credence to their demand for more women to be involved in political decision-making.

Like the UNICEF report which says that legislatures with a higher participation of women produce better policies to fight child poverty.

And the World Bank report that says legislatures with higher involvement of women are “more productive.” That report concludes “women are effective in promoting honest government and national parliaments with the largest numbers of women have the lowest levels of corruption.”

Equal Voice says Canada is falling behind on women’s representation in government. Where once we placed much higher, now we are 48th in the
world. The number of women elected to our federal Parliament has hovered around 20 per cent for more than a decade now.

Is it any wonder?

Why would a woman want to run for election if she has to fund her campaign from wages that are 30 per cent less than her male counterpart’s? When she must endure harassment from within the party and the members opposite, as well as from the media if she’s elected?

It’s an uphill battle all the way, especially to the post of the most powerful person in the world.

Just ask Hillary Clinton.

[email protected]

[ 08 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

[url=http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/10/video_ctv_traister/index.... video commentary[/url] (requires you to view an ad)

I like the point that discussing the sexism that Clinton faced (which is incontravertable) is not the same as "blaming sexism for her loss" (a point which is arguable).


I half caught something on CNN this weekend. This little girl, about 10 years old, was on TV with a male senator who had supported her in some charitable activity she had put a lot of effort into. The little girl and the senator were smiling and laughing together and at the end of the interview the reporter asked her "gee, when you grow up, would you like to be a senator too?" and with eyes that were half twinkle and half steel she said "no... President."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Via [url=http://shamelessmag.com/]Shameless[/url]:

[url=http://current.com/items/89019993_target_women_suffrage?xid=55]“You know what makes me angry? Watching you talk about how angry I am.”[/url]

ETA: Ack! babble can't handle the embed. Prolly for the best, since this thread's closure is imminent.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


Topic locked