Hillary Bashing: It’s About Male Supremacy, Stupid

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I am appalled by the relentless attacks on Hillary Clinton from right and left and in-between—from males but also from females who seem as eager as the macho guys to land knock out punches. The former first lady is not a saint but neither are her male competitors in the race for the presidency. Yet, none of the former and present male Democratic and Republican contenders have been the targets of constant stereotypical swipes and attempts in character assassination as the former first lady has endured day-in and day-out. The line-up of attack dogs seems determined to prevent what wacko Ann Coulter called on NBC’s TODAY SHOW the other day a “girl president” in the White House. For the good old boys and their female collaborators the current presidential campaign is not in the first place about the economy or Iraq or immigration: It’s about the preservation of male supremacy, stupid! These insecure guys cannot stomach the idea of a woman in the White House. I simply do not believe them when they claim that they can support a female presidential candidate—but not this woman.

Mentioning “Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s ‘thick ankles.’ Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, ‘Citizens United Not Timid’ (check the capital letters), Comedy Central’s ‘Southpark’ featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina, and many other examples, Robin Morgan, co-founder of The Women’s Media Center, wrote recently,

“This is not ‘Clinton hating,’ not ‘Hillary hating.’ This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison.  Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?”

Well, there is no outrage. Instead, the dominance of anti-Clinton gender bias in the constant attacks on Hillary Clinton--her character, looks, marriage, daughter, campaign tactics, policy agenda, and so on, have worked in favor of Senator Obama whose campaign appearances look more and more like those of a rock star.
As Paul Krugman writes today,

“What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent…

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.”

Krugman is right on this. Ted Kennedy is wrong. 

Comments

[Kyle]

Joe Lieberman isn't polarizing. I may not agree with his politics but he way more appealing that Hillary. Zell Miller isn't polarizing either. Let's face it, Hillary has 51% of America stating they will never vote for her. Thats polarizing. I could easily see myself voting for a Democrat (and have in local races) but I certainly could never vote for Hillary. And I'm not alone, there are many conservative republicans like myself who are in the same boat.

And let's not get to thinking that the media drives everyones political views, it certain does not mine. My political views are shaped by my core beliefs and values, not by which way the wind is blowing on any given day, as Hillary's are.

[Linda Morris]

What politician isn't polarizing? You either like them or you don't. This is a line that everyone has picked up from the media. Perhaps I am dull. Explain this polarizing tag that has been given to Hillary.

[Kyle]

I for one do not want to see Hillary in the white house, and it's not because she is a woman. I have no problem with the idea of a woman candidate, I think Condi Rice would do a good job. There are a good deal of republicans who do not want to see Hillary elected and are doing the best they can to get their message out there. Does that mean they are sexist? Or that they are biased against women? Of course not! The notion that any male who is against Hillary is sexist is nothing but feminist crap. Come on! If you want to elect a woman you're going to have to stop with this crap. 'you're not being fair! You just dont like me because Im a woman!' Is this the best you've got?

Politics is a rough game, always has been and always will be. The media's main goal seems to be to tear down every candidate after building them up. This goes for men and women alike! If women want to show the world that they can play ball too (which I know they can) then stop with the bitching about female stereotypes and put a woman on the ticket whose not as polarizing as Hillary!

And don't give me this crap that women are still not treated equally. I work in an office with 13 upper management positions within my building. Do you know how many of those positions are filled by a man? ZERO!

[fish]

I agree. Hillary receives constant bashing from all sides several times a day. The males are partying but the females are joining in. I have tuned out both radio and TV news & talk shows due to the rampant negative press that is being spewed from mouths of total idiots who need to tell the public how to think. I am sick and tired of this sad society who reinforces this kind of behavior. Go back and watch your "cage fighting." I'm sure it's more up to your potential. Sorry folks. I don't need negative idiots to change my mind about who I will vote for. I'm married to a Republican and I know where you’re coming from. Don't dare belittle or patronize me about my vote. It's my right to choose my candidate and it's underhanded for you to try and coerce a large part of the population to vote against my candidate based on trash talk. Please God, let intelligence reign during this election! Bring on the “feminist anger for political gain!” I am woman and hear me roar! My vote will be counted. Don't try to belittle or patronize me. I've dug my trench and my vote will go to Hillary. Not because she's a woman but because she has the guts to put up with all your crap.

[Linda G. Morris]

The male dominated media is taking much joy in bashing Hillary Clinton. It is clear that she is their political football. Senator Obama was plucked from obscurity not because of his qualifications for the position, but because he can be associated with so many demographics. He's black. He's white. He's African. He has an Indonesian half-sister so he can relate to being Asian. He was raised in Hawaii. His people are from Kansas. He has a muslim sounding name so he can innoculate us from harm there. In other words, he can be sold as every man.
However, when he wraps himself in the mantle of Dr. King as though he is the manifestation of "the Dream," I say not so. White America and Black America will not be reconciled until someone with slave ancestry can be elected to the highest office in the land. Having been raised in Hawaii be a White mother and grandparents, outside of the context of the black struggle, Barack Obama is at his core a White male.

[Brigitte]

Dar:
I agree with you on this: Nobody should vote for a candidate because of his/her gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other marker. My point here is that the media in general and in reporting on campaigns especially display gender bias in particular. I am well aware that other biases are very common as well--including racial ones.
I,too, disagree with Senator Clinton on some of her positions--but in comparison to all candidates she has by far the best agenda and the superior knowledge.

[Dar]

Yes, it's true that women in politics and in life generally, face discrimination, stereotyping, unfair judgments, etc. I've worked with many women candidates and I can definitely testify that the range of acceptable appearance, deportment and behavior is much narrower for women candidates than for their male opponents. So, yes, a female candidate is subject to the misogynist nonsense you name. That being said - it still doesn't mean that women should automatically support ANY woman candidate just because they experience unequal treatment. Isn't being judged on our own merits - not based on negative or POSITIVE stereotypes what we have been fighting for for 30 years? Here are my issues with Clinton and why my heart sank when she announced her candidacy: 1. the DLC and the Republican-lite side of the party she represents 2) her vote on the war in Iraq which I view as nothing more than one of political expediency and positioning. What do either of those things have to do with Hillary Clinton being a woman? Saying that anyone who doesn't support Clinton supports discrimination against women is like saying anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq supports the terrorists.

[josephine]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cySK6q2P_Nw
I balled like a little girl after watching this--guess the MSM can try to ruin my career as a female doctor. I can only respectfully share with all that read this from a woman's perspective as to how I view this nomination. It reminds me of when I was new to the community I had moved to and went to a medical seminar and afterwards I was introduced to the main speaker, it was a male MD. I said hello, smiled and then said I was Dr.____. His reaction was not the same. He literally turned his back on me and walked away. I guess he assumed I was one of the nurses at the seminar. This was in the year 2003. I do not know if y'all are familiar with the Bejing conference that Senator Clinton went to and said, "Women's rights are human rights". She has been on the forefront for equality for many years and, in part, is why Obama is where he is at the age he is from a historical viewpoint. I personally think he is a poser. As far as if she were a conservative that her chances would be better I happen to disagree because she would still be a woman. The race issue: Think about that for a moment and reflect back to prior to SC. Obama's campaign speech writer interwove all sorts of MLK, speech inflections, race baiting, etc. (not to mention the MSM) to incite the emotionalism into the black population. The Clinton's are not racists and it saddens me that his campaign and Obama did nothing to stop that perception. I still believe Senator Clinton will win and my last thought is: Congratulations Madame President...

[WomanIam]

This article is a fallacy of relevency, an argument from pity. The issue is about integrity and Clinton has none. Obama is more believable because he does not have a history of avoiding responsibility and playing dirty like the Clintons. These attacks on her integrity have substance and those that support her bring up fallacious distractions of pity.

[andy]

I dislike the clintons because I don't find them to be trustworthy, and I don't like their drama-filled leadership style. I think they will do or say anything to get elected, including stirring up feminist anger for political gain.

[Brigitte]

thirdparty:
First, thank you for your thoughtful comments. And, yes, it may well be that an ideologically more conservative woman would have a better chance to win the highest office in the land. As you write, Thatcher is a good example as is the first female German chancellor Merkel.
This recognition, too, point to persistent gender biases in the society at large and in the media as well.
I, for one, would never vote solely along gender or race or religious or ethnic lines. It is just troubling that women are mostly on the receiving end of these biases--especially when they run for an executive office. That was actually also true for Elizabeth Dole during her short run for the Republican nomination.

[thirdparty]

I agree that Hillary has had to overcome stereotypes in this campaign, but let's not forget the stereotypes facing Obama. Remember that madrassa smear? Not to mention the anti-Muslim bigotry that was projected on him. These biases will have larger affects in the general election.

Brigitte, I'm curious if you agree with me on this: because of stereotypes against women, it may likely take a conservative woman - a Thatcheresque Republican - to break the ultimate glass ceiling and win the presidency. I think how close Sen. Clinton has come is somewhat a testimony to that - the Clinton brand is Democratic centrism - but it may require even more conservatism and hawkishness. I don't mean for that to come off in the wrong way; it's just a thought.

[Brigitte]

Christine: One doesn't even have to be a feminist to recognize the gender stereotypes prevalent in the media all the time.But given a viable, female candidate for the presidency, the perennial gender bias against women in all walks of life is more pronounced than in "normal" times and reflected in the mass media.
I am not sure that Senator Clinton and her supporters can overcome this. When the chips are done, the guys close ranks--regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, etc.

[Christine Conrad]

Brigitte Nacos, so excited to find your blog. It's so urgent now to pull together a powerful group who will work until Nov to attack on the male supremacy issue -- directed to the offending males first, and then God help us, the women who don't "get it."
This is a defining a moment as the fight for suffrage.
I am willing to put aside what I'm doing for this cause.
You can contact me at [email protected] and look me up through Google.

Christine Conrad