  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Chauvinists Fly Under the RadarPosted on Jan 10, 2008By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—The national media have reveled in self-congratulation over Barack Obama’s historic ascent to become the first African-American to have the nomination of a major party within his grasp. Racism, we have been told, is now a supposed irrelevancy in American politics, a vestige of those past battles that Obama pledges earnestly not to fight. So as soon as Hillary Clinton defied the polls and won an upset victory in New Hampshire Tuesday night, the pundit chorus immediately cried ... what? Racism! The pre-election polls were wrong, many declared, because white voters must have lied to pollsters about supporting Obama and then went into the booth to vote for a white candidate. Yet there is scant evidence of this: When pre-election polls were averaged, Obama was predicted to get 38 percent of the New Hampshire vote; he got 37, a statistically insignificant difference. Obama beat Clinton soundly among white men. Clinton beat Obama among white women and—significantly—among nonwhite women, whose vote she carried by 12 points. We have tried mightily as a country to banish race as the -ism none dare to publicly speak. But the national media during this campaign have ignored, if not heartily encouraged, an ugly -ism no one is squeamish about. To recount the sexist double (and triple and quadruple) standards and misogynist insults to which Clinton has been subjected would take double (or triple or quadruple) the usual column space. Consider this an abbreviated account: Television commentator Chris Matthews suggested last month that prominent male politicians who endorsed Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” His MSNBC colleague Tucker Carlson declared that there’s something about Clinton that “feels castrating, overbearing and scary.” Why, Carlson said, “when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” Think, for a moment, of what might happen if a well-known media personality were to say of Obama: “Every time he comes on television, I involuntarily reach for my white hood.” Would even Don Imus survive? A wholesale rewrite by both the media and Clinton’s opponents transformed her tenure as first lady into a useless credential, and made winning two Senate terms in New York—a state not known for softball politics—the moral equivalent of achieving nothing on her own. Yet back when she actually was first lady, the media depicted Clinton as the most powerful presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt. Clinton’s groundbreaking foreign travels, her discussions with foreign leaders, her rebuke to Chinese dictators, and her failed attempt at overhauling the health insurance system were chronicled as evidence of her unprecedented reach. The right wing spewed vitriol; the left took approving notice. Yet once she ran for president, Clinton was portrayed as an observer to her husband’s administration—why, The New York Times pointed out, she hadn’t even attended National Security Council meetings. Can you imagine the ruckus if she had? Such a revelation would likely have caused a bigger stir than did the videotape of an impeccable woman attending a November campaign event for John McCain leaning forward determinedly to ask, “How do we beat the b----?” An excellent question, McCain replied. The exchange never drew the abundance of national analysis given to Hillary’s cleavage, her alleged “cackle” or those wrinkles that were so pronounced in a photograph that zoomed around the Internet. Twenty-four years have passed since Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, the first—and only—woman to have a spot on a major party’s ticket. Ferraro was subjected to George H.W. Bush’s post-debate taunt that he’d kicked a “little ass,” while first lady Barbara Bush assessed Ferraro as someone who “rhymes with rich.” A supposedly enlightened generation later, Clinton has had it far worse. The senator’s emotional moment in a diner, when her voice caught as she answered a sympathetic question, was immediately dissected as a possible Clintonian calculation. No doubt New Hampshire women thought differently, and brought their—how to say it?—difference of opinion into the voting booth. Obama’s candidacy may yet deliver us to the promised land of post-racial politics. Right now the idea is either irrational exuberance or a fascinating theory, still to be tested. Neither racism nor sexism has disappeared from American life, and we’d best admit it. But standards of public discourse should not differ depending on the candidate. If you—or the media—wouldn’t hurl racist insults at Obama, it’s time to call out those who have made Clinton’s candidacy a celebration of their own sexism. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: How Hillary Got Her Women Back Next item: Stay Classy, Mike Huckabee Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By John Borowski, January 15 at 1:19 pm # SHOCKED!Years ago when a woman called me a chauvinist I was so shocked that I ran to the dictionary to find out what she called me.
By John Borowski, January 15 at 6:44 am # PRESDENT HILLARY CLINTONWhen Hillary Clinton becomes president she will be judged by the American people by how well she kicks the asses of the Republicans (Aka Conservatives right-wingers) while at the same time make them believe she is kissing it.
By cyrena, January 13 at 1:44 pm # Re: I like your style Cyrena.Thanks reason. I suspect you’ve ‘read me correctly’, which allows you to interpret the rest just as well. Meantime, I responded to another comment that you made over on the thread that has decided that “Oh well, maybe Iran didn’t do it after all’. (my paraphrase of the latest piece explaining the hype of the alleged ‘provocation’ of the Iranian speed boats. It doesn’t answer your question - directly - about the definition of ‘winning’ the Iraq war(or any other agressive actions in the ME) but you’ll be able to make the connections easily enough. In short, it just continues to make clear what the ‘war’ is for, and about. Once we know that, (and it’s been clear to me since before it began) the definition of ‘winning’ becomes obvious. In that case, ‘winning’ means being there for as long as there is oil to be stolen for the BIG Oil Industry. Now Hillary say’s it’s to ‘protect American interests’. But in reality, that’s not the case, at least not if we’re talking about average Americans like us posting on this site, or pretty much the other 300 million of us. Because, at the end of the day, the price at the pump is still what it is, and we either pay it to the oil companies, or we don’t. So, that’s what ‘winning’ is. It’s getting every drop of the oil from under the sands of Iraq, (at least for starters) and our troops (not to mention the millions of Iraqis) will continue to die in the process, unless someone can control the gangsters, and agree to start PAYING for the OIL, instead of stealing it. Now THAT would make far more sense in my opinion, but of course I’m not running anything. Still, imagine..for those of us who still buy gas at the pumps, (now up to $4+ a gallon in my area, which is why I’ve long ago switched to alternative transportation) it would actually be so much cheaper, if we were willing to BUY the stuff from the Iraqis, and they could use the money, to put their country back together. (or at least try). But, I don’t see that happening, as long as the thugs are still in control.
By Conservative Yankee, January 13 at 4:26 pm # You may have much knowledge in many areasBUT, it is obvious you know nothing about the petro/chem business. “Big oil” buys, just like you, and those who sell (usually local governments) are pricing their product in eollars, but using a “euro count” which means since Bushie let the dollar lose 1/2 its value since he took office, the cost for raw product (to “big oil” is twice what it was then, IN REAL DOLLARS It might interest you to know that ExxonMobil (and I only assume other companies) make a profit of 7.5 cents on that $4 a gallon gas you have out there… It’s a volume business, and one of the few bringing the profits home to the USA. Don’t worry, I know this is a waste of time… People love to find a “villian” and burn it at the stake… But unfortunately (no matter if you drive or not) the villian is that face WE all see in the mirror!
By Conservative Yankee, January 12 at 9:06 am # Absolutely... The readers and writersAbsolutely… The readers and writers of and to the NYT are obviously superior to the rest of us (who get news off the internet and from other sources) that what they say matters… Another precentage which figures here is this: Only 10% of US citizens read a “non-local” paper. This means outside the City of New York, 10% of people subscribe to the NYT OR some other non-local paper. Hill-the-business-shill better not count on this minuscule number of folks to win an election for her....
By Conservative Yankee, January 12 at 5:35 am # "We also see a lot“We also see a lot of stereotyping--the angry jabs and temper tantrums by males are OK (boys will be boys), but the first time a woman who has just come through a lot of stress and finally is in a supportive environment tears up, she’s swift-boated as a phoney.” Obviously you are not old enough to remember the campaign against Ed Muskie Right there in New Hampshire in front of the Union Leader building… and as to “..swift-boated as a phoney(sic)” is it still “swift boating” if she is in fact a Phony? I have examples if you are interested.
By Claire W, January 12 at 2:39 am # Race and misogyny in the primariesI think Clinton has more experience, learns from mistakes--including some made by Bill Clinton on policy issues that turned out to be bogus. She doesn’t cling to a position once the evidence is in that it just wasn’t the best approach or choice. And she’s proven she can weather some of the worst emotional storms. We also see a lot of stereotyping--the angry jabs and temper tantrums by males are OK (boys will be boys), but the first time a woman who has just come through a lot of stress and finally is in a supportive environment tears up, she’s swift-boated as a phoney. I think both candidates are fighting uphill battles, but I don’t think race is why Obama lost. Many religions sideline women in some respects, so Clinton has misogyny working against her. And youth and beauty are important for women in U.S. culture, so her age also works against her.
By Terry Washington, January 12 at 2:36 am # Mirror mirror on the wall, who's had it worst of all???IF we have to debate who has suffered more-white women or blacks of either sex- then black MEN would win hands down.
By JNagarya, January 11 at 4:05 pm # Sexism regardless source is sexism --All feminists abhore the juvenile expressions of sexism against Hillary. But only some feminsits—Marie—also deplaore the intellectually dishonest expressions of sexism from the other direction: women. We do know, don’t we, Marie, that all violence on the planet is committed by men—so say the female chauvinist pigs. And that only (white) women are “oppressed” (let’s not notice that black males are more oppressed than white women)—even though during wartime the target of the draft is exclusively men. But, what the hell: if a woman hasn’t experienced someone else’s oppression, then that oppression doesn’t exist. So the draft, being involuntarily slected to be cannon fodder in order to protect women and children, as is the traditio, cannot possibly be oppression, because it isn’t happening to women. Remember, Marie, Abu Ghraib? None of us had the least difficulty or hesitation nailing the responsibility to the male Granier. But Lyndie English . . . it had to be someone’s fault other than her’s, because we know women are simply incapable of handling responsibility, especially as the consequence for their own actions. “Be the change you would see in the world.”—Gandhi. Opposed to sexism, and want to see it eliminated, Marie? Then begin with your own: take on the female chauvanist pigs _ALSO_. |
Huckabee’s Major Misfire
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article