Update: Look for the ‘sexism’ video at the end of this post that essentially strengthens my argument about the media treatment meted out to a woman, who was/is as capable as any other candidate, running for a very high office in America, the world’s oldest democracy and whose founding fathers, as we learn from history, were the children of The Enlightenment!
———————————
With the Democratic primary race practically over now and knowing, as we all do, who the nominee is going to be, I just couldn’t resist writing a post on this one, having avoided writing anything about politics all this while.
Well, it was quite appalling to see/hear all these months that when it came to Hillary the discussions/commentaries in the so-called “mainstream” media were similar to ones that are generally heard in men’s locker rooms, while Obama has been treated almost like a God-like figure. And while Hillary’s “racist” remarks were dissected/analyzed with great relish, no one, it seemed to me, paid any particular attention to the disgusting misogynist remarks directed at her throughout the primary campaign season, with the result that the Democratic party has managed, or so it seems, to lose its grip over white women voters now. I have a feeling that this is going to cost the Democrats another general election. (Of course, I could be wrong; I am not a political “pundit”, after all!)
So much has my mother been miffed/angry at the blatant sexist remarks openly made in the media against Hillary that she has vowed now to vote for McCain this Fall. To her, the contest has “demonstrated” yet again that women still haven’t been able to break the glass ceiling in this male-dominated world. Is anyone listening to women voters like her?
A video sample:
In mathematical parlance, this is the only instance in which Left = Right, if you know what I mean.
Todd and Vishal's blog 
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm
John Armstrong
Sure I listen, and I shake my head in disbelief. Does your mother seriously think that a Republican campaign or a McCain government will be less abusive to women’s rights? The only reason McCain hasn’t come off as sexist is that he wasn’t running against a woman. He just hasn’t had the opportunity.
So yes, vote for McCain and invite less reproductive choice. Vote for McCain and get more FDA advisories saying that all women of childbearing age are either pregnant or not-yet-pregnant (because, you know, they’re just baby factories after all). Vote for McCain and win four more years of slaughter because to sit down and talk things out shows weakness.
There may well be good reasons to prefer McCain to Obama, but feminism is not one of them.
June 3, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Vishal Lama
My mother is working class, religious and quite conservative by modern standards. So it may be difficult for me to convince her that her beliefs aren’t progressive enough for a world that talks about change but really doesn’t know what that is! But my earlier point was with regard to something else. It’s about how the Chris
DoddsMatthews and the Keith Olbermanns have been so biased (and sexist) in their reporting that bothers women voters like my mother AND grandmother. It’s just that ladies like they are not articulate enough to express their opinions on blogs or elsewhere. And given that the two Democratic presidential candidates have identical views on almost everything, one only wonders why there should have been be so much Hillary bashing going on in the media while her political rival was so much “shielded” from all kinds of “attacks”, if I may use that expression.In short, her anger is real and Obama must say something more substantive to women like her rather than talk about “change” that she does not comprehend. But then of course it is easy to label her as uneducated and ill-informed.
June 3, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Todd Trimble
Also, I hope that voters who are thinking along the same lines as your mother can be persuaded that it’s almost entirely the media to blame for the blatant sexism, not Obama himself (and so he should not be punished).
It’s not just Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Fox News, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and all the other usual suspects either. You can blame Robin Givhan (Washington Post) for generating much of the brouhaha over “Clinton’s cleavage” almost a year ago, as well as Jodi Kantor, Maureen Dowd, and Bill Kristol (New York Times) over “Clinton’s tears”, and even supposedly “progressive” Randi Rhodes (Air America), who declared Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “fucking whores”. Numerous other incidents could be cited.
June 3, 2008 at 3:34 pm
John Armstrong
On the other hand, some of these stories I don’t find sexist. They may have been badly handled by particular reporters or commentators, but some of them raise actual questions.
The “Clinton’s tears” fiasco, for one. Asking whether it means women in general are unfit for certain command decisions is clearly sexist. However, it’s a valid question whether it means that this woman is fit. I’d also question her fitness if she’d thrown a tantrum, throwing things and swearing a blue streak (a more “masculine” overreaction). If someone is emotionally overreactive in any direction, stereotypical or not, it gives me pause. It’s sexist to generalize the question, but not to just ask it about this one, particular person.
June 3, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Vishal Lama
Todd,
That’s exactly what I am talking about! And, of course, Obama is not responsible for the sexism in the “media” but he is certainly a beneficiary, if you will, just as Hillary is not a racist though some of her white supporters are. And she does benefit from them, no doubt. At least the media can pretend to look unbiased! What’s wrong with that?! To take an example, I had some respect for this guy, Bill Maher – he invited Chomsky on his show once, which was impressive! – until I was shocked to hear him comment on Hillary’s cu*t on national TV! (The video is on YouTube!) It wasn’t even funny! And the whole political game and the media are now looking now like the exclusive men’s clubs, and this is causing significant resentment among a lot of women, who constitute 51% of the Democratic Party voters, as we all know. And the language that Christ Matthews – sorry I meant him and not Chris Dodds, earlier – has used time and again for Hillary (and Chealsea, once) is disgusting. I mean, journalists from third-world countries with poorer womens rights record, do better than that. (No offense to third-world countries! )
June 3, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Vishal Lama
If someone is emotionally overreactive in any direction, stereotypical or not, it gives me pause. It’s sexist to generalize the question, but not to just ask it about this one, particular person.
Agreed but you will agree she wasn’t being overreactive at all! Before the Iowa and the New Hampshire primaries, Hillary wasn’t expressing her emotion enough; she wasn’t “connecting” with the people enough, so said the media. After she teared up a bit, she was perceived as being weak! Just because men don’t tear up in public doesn’t mean that they really don’t do so in private sometimes. Sure, my mom tears up sometimes, but she is also emotionally the strongest person I have known in my life. Heck, some scientists have now proposed that crying reduces stress by eliminating stress-related hormones. I would rather have a stress-free president than a stressful one! Anyway, I think that “teary” incident was/is totally a non-issue.
June 3, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Todd Trimble
Sometimes men do tear up in public (e.g., George W. Bush), but the media reaction is generally much more forgiving. (I’m speaking of US politicians and US media here; I’m not sure about other countries.)
But in my opinion, the Clinton incident was amplified way out of proportion to its significance (far more than Cheney swearing a blue streak at members of the Senate, for instance, which I consider far worse behavior), and much of the consequent editorializing genuinely sexist (which is absent in the Cheney case).
Disclaimer: I’m not a Clinton supporter, but I do find she has been treated very shabbily in the media. It’s disgraceful.
June 4, 2008 at 5:35 am
Anonymous
“angry at the blatant sexist remarks openly made in the media against Hillary”
so, don’t vote Obama? You conclude and cite the media as the source, not the other candidate. You’re voting based in spite, and this is how GWB got into office ( the “don’t vote Kerry because clinton was awful” was heard around every corner).
June 4, 2008 at 6:15 am
Vishal Lama
Anonymous,
You may have noticed that there is a fair amount of ‘game theory’ going on in this whole election/campaigning process.
Since you didn’t contradict my claim regarding the blatant sexism in the media, I will assume you more or less agree with my claim about media sexism. And since we have seen how much of battering any woman can receive at the hands of the media, we can safely conclude that any other woman running a similar presidential campaign in the future will too receive the same biased treatment, as a result of which she will suffer a similar fate as Hillary’s. (And, let’s not argue about how much negativity Hillary attracts; anyone who can garner 18 million votes in the Democratic primary against insurmountable odds can certainly win a general election!)
Continuing my argument, it wouldn’t be wrong to assume that the status quo vis-a-vis any other woman running a presidential campaign will not change any time soon in the future, i.e. she is bound to lose if she is not Hillary, a rather strong claim I admit but a very plausible one. By the way, one should admire the mental toughness she’s demonstrated all these past months. In other words, it may take a very long time (say, 50 years) in the American political sphere before a woman may eventually get a presidential ticket from her party. Well, women can’t wait that long. There is no time for that!
Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Hillary and her supporters to leverage the enormous number of votes she has already received to compel Obama to offer the VP ticket to her. There is nothing wrong about an Obama-Clinton ticket, though many will disagree.
In politics, a marriage of convenience should not be frowned upon.Such a ticket also solves the ‘party unity’ problem for the short term, and I am sure relations between the two candidates will improve a lot in the long run as well. (She’s not evil, after all!) Of course, such an offer by Obama will also help him immensely. He will get tghe votes from his supporters whom he promised change since he will still be number one, and Hillary’s supporters will rally around him since Hillary will at least be number two.And then in eights years’ time, Hillary will be ready to become the president. A rather optimistic picture I have painted, but I will stick to it for now. So, you see this whole game is about leveraging. I think/hope Hillary understands that; she’s very smart after all. And in the end, I will get to see both my mom and my grandmom very happy. They won’t then lose faith in the American democracy!
June 4, 2008 at 6:47 am
Vishal Lama
Actually, on further rumination, I think there are other equally (perhaps, better) ways Hillary can leverage her votes/popularity. She can, for instance, make Obama commit to implementing her plan/policy of Universal Health Care! Her detractors may call it socialized medicine; I say shame on them for thinking that it is okay to let people die if they don’t have health insurance.
June 4, 2008 at 7:47 am
John Armstrong
Just a tip, Vishal: you might not want to use the term “marriage of convenience” when discussing a Clinton.
That said, I think it would have worked out better all around if there had been a negotiated Clinton/Obama ticket (instead of Obama/Clinton) back in February. It would have had the added bonus of giving Obama (hopefully) eight years to develop the “experience” people were claiming he lacked, and positioned him well to take the presidency in 2016. But that ship has sailed, and other expediencies must take center stage.
June 4, 2008 at 7:49 am
John Armstrong
Oh, and Clinton won’t be in any position to take the presidency in 2016. By that point she’ll be 69, which is comparable to Senator McCain’s age — one of his weak points — now.
June 4, 2008 at 8:00 am
Vishal Lama
Dr Armstrong: Thanks for that tip! I do need to be more careful about what I write!
And, I agree she might be considered quite old by 2016. But I also think McCain is doing just fine right now notwithstanding his old age. Speaking of McCain, it seems there is a real possibility that he might pick Bobby Jindal as his VP candidate. Such a ticket might energize the conservative base in the Republican camp once again!
June 4, 2008 at 3:06 pm
John Armstrong
Hm.. I suppose that came off more formal than I meant. Add a “;)” after the “just a tip” line. Snark doesn’t translate well to text.
June 10, 2008 at 8:27 am
Joe
I don’t think the sexist dialogue reflected negatively upon the Democratic Party. I believe many women who will switch to McCain do so because they were right-centrist anyway and were voting for Clinton based on gender.
Clinton’s political views were hardly a factor in these voters’ choice. If they were, those Clinton supporters would back the Obama campaign, as his politics are far more closely aligned with Clinton’s than with Clinton’s to McCain’s.
And as a previous commenter pointed out, any of Clinton’s supporters who were so due primarily to her gender would be wise not to vote for an increasingly-establishment Republican.
June 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Anonymous
“one should admire the mental toughness she’s demonstrated all these past months”
I thought she acted delusional, self-absorbed, and selfish. She had no chance, and continued to press on, and she tried to change the rules of the parties earlier decision by adding MA and FL delegates.
June 12, 2008 at 3:45 pm
John Armstrong
While I steal some bandwidth (cable internet is still out…) I wanted to point something out. This post is part of the group claiming that the country is evidently more sexist than racist. On the other hand, I’ve seen a counterswell claiming that without Clinton the Democrats are lost in November, since the country is actually more racist than sexist. Seriously, I give up. We’re all bastards.
June 12, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Vishal Lama
On the other hand, I’ve seen a counterswell claiming that without Clinton the Democrats are lost in November, since the country is actually more racist than sexist.
That could well be true, and if Obama doesn’t get elected because of racism then it would be an extremely sad and unfortunate thing for America. However, it is very hard to shrug off the “inexperience” label considering the fact that Obama had served just two years in the Senate before he ran his campaign. Even he himself admitted (back in 2005, I think) that it would not be “wise” on his part to get into the 2008 presidential fray! In fact, one could say that he ran his campaign this time around to “test waters”, so to speak, in order that he may prepare himself well for the 2012 or the 2016 presidential campaign.
With Hillary now gone, obviously we can’t afford to have another president waging a long war in the MiddleEast. But Obama still has a lot of convincing to do. He cannot parrot the change mantra every time and to everyone. I, at least, have always remained very skeptical of people who say they will change this or they will change that!