OpEdNews » Hillary and Gender, One More Time

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Democratic; Media; Spin; Women
Add to My Group

November 8, 2007 at 16:17:15

Hillary and Gender, One More Time

by Amy Fried Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Perhaps it was inevitable that the issue of gender bias would arise early on in a historic presidential campaign, in which a woman is not only running, but a frontrunner (at least so far.) The last Democratic debate was perhaps the first one where the challengers started to take the gloves off (though, in my reading, they were extremely careful, and relatively mild and nonpersonal in their criticisms.) Clinton herself coyly hinted at the gender issue, when she spoke at Wellesley, referring to the "all boys' club" of presidential politics. This, as Ellen Goodman points out, led to a media feeding frenzy, after which Clinton stepped back, saying she was challenged because she was the frontrunner.

Goodman (with reference to linguist Deborah Tannen) makes a valid point in her piece: that women are caught in a double-bind. Act the way women are expected to act, and they're too soft to lead. Act differently, and they're not good women. And Goodman adds a third bind: complain about gender bias, and they're whiners.

Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC as well as on her radio show, made a similar point: that the very fact of the numbers makes any presidential debate this time around, "gendered."

I'm a huge fan of both Maddow and Goodman. And I think, in the abstract, their points are valid. But I also believe that it takes more than numbers to create a "gendered" interaction. Compare this last Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton's debate with Rick Lazio, in the 2000 Senatorial race.

Lazio's strategy was blatantly (and stupidly) gendered, in a variety of ways. He seemed to try to physically intimidate her, crossing the stage to try to force her to sign a pledge; He, unbelievably, tried to blame her for her own husband's deceit about his infidelity; and he generally treated her as an extension of her husband. Here’s part of Lazio’s debate performance:

“RUSSERT:

And your response, Mr. Lazio. Would you also address your fund-raising letter of July of 2000 where you said the first lady embarrassed our country.

LAZIO:

I stand by that fund-raising letter. I stand by that statement. And I think that, frankly, what's so troubling here with respect to what my opponent just said, is somehow that it only matters what you say when you get caught. And character and trust is about well more than that. And blaming others every time you have responsibility? Unfortunately that's become a pattern, I think, for my opponent. And it's something that I reject and I believe that New Yorkers reject. We can do well better.”

So, bizarrely, Lazio seemed to be suggesting that Hillary was secretly scheming with her husband, to keep his infidelity to her, a secret from the American people. Right. No wonder he lost.

Lazio also accused Hillary of being "Clintonesque," completing his conflation of her record with her husband's. He topped it off, by saying she was an “attractive woman,“ when asked to say something nice about her. All these things rubbed many - particularly women - the wrong way, and were clearly gendered.

No such thing occurred in the recent democratic debate. References to the Clinton presidency were guided by Hillary's claims of the relevancy of her experience as First Lady. There was no attempt to intimidate by invading her personal space or making demands. They didn't talk about her appearance, or dress or even her manner or laugh - comments that are often used to trivialize women in positions of power. The media might, as Maddow pointed out on Dan Abrams' show, be focusing on such things. But at least as far as the primary goes, I don’t think Hillary Clinton will be able to spin the debates as having any of the same dynamics found in the Lazio debate. In that way, at least among Democrats, I agree with Ellen Goodman that we have come a long way.

http://neoconmind.blogspot.com

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

5 comments

A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Mark SashineA writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Oh, girl ( or boy, whatever)

They do not go after her this time because this time they want her to become a candidate. Both camps. Hillary Clinton is maybe the only 100% losing Dem. candidate for the Y2008. She GUARANTEES the GOP Presidency and that's her job. That is why the crucial and bity campaigns are not run, that is why no one mentiones the bizarre behavior of Hillary in the Y1999 and Y2000 when she first endorsed the Kosovo war and then practically undermined Gore. That is why no one even considers tackling her real character which is opportunism down to the core. They want her here. It is her time to play the role.

I would advise all the gender- oriented folks to sit on their tuheses for a while ( no offense). There is no gender in politics, except maybe sleeping with young interns. Politics is cold as a cucumber. All those gender speculations are USED obviously to distract us from the real forces that are money, power, crime, interest and greed.

by Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 242 diaries, 3434 comments) on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 8:27:22 AM

The author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.
Amy FriedThe author received her Ph.D. in the field of Organizational Behavior, which she now applies to her political writing. She's been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on the neoconservative mind, women's issues, media, veganism and the Religious Right.

Remember "Tootsie" & "Black Like Me"

I agree with your points about money & power. But gender is part of that. A white man once pretended to be black, to understand that experience, and wrote about it in "Black Like Me." Short of what was depicted in the movie "Tootsie," I'd suggest you'd ask the women in your life what it's like to apply for a job, or to ask for a raise, or to be the only woman in a job category, or to (gasp!) work while pregnant. Or ask them about looking for a job, after raising a family from home - and ask yourself why that isn't considered to be job-related experience the way military service is. Ask them what happens when they walk into a car dealership alone.

If gender isn't an issue, why is a female presidential candidate so rare? How many female CEO's are there?

I'm a baby-boomer. I once took a human relations course in which the class was asked to choose between a hypothetical man & a hypothetical woman to give a raise to. The majority of the class, including the professor, sided w/the man, since he had a family to raise, and against the woman, since she was engaged to someone w/a good job.

A few years ago, I had dinner in a country club. During the dinner, our host "bragged" that the club wouldn't have allowed me entry as a woman alone.

It's hard to see the issues of a discriminated-against group from the outside.

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 103 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 205 comments) on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 9:19:46 AM

I most likely sounded condescending

for which I apologize. I would maybe state that Hillary was a bad example. The issue of the women equality is an economic and/or religious I would say because, surely lutheran religion, predominant here, in the US is very heavy on economic fortification of men. It kinda makes sense ( please, do not immediately dismiss it) because the true independence of a man comes with how he looks like in the society while for a woman it comes from what she pursues herself. I am not insisting on those perceptions. though. I was not born here, the society I lived before adopted total formal equality of women which had many good things, like a month paid vacation before birth and half-year paid vacation after but in all along it resulted in total disenfranchisement of men- they had nothing to do. As a result they degraded, got bored and also lost the incentive to care. I am a man, I know:)

Returning to Hillary I would say that there are a plenty of great women which I am sure could be praised much more often. Martha Corey from 1692 who said that there was no witches, Harriett Tubman, Ethel Lilian Voynich, Harper Lee, Joan D' Arc for goodness sake, Mother Maria, Maria Kallas, Maya Plisetskaya, - all those women were not the CEOs, they were dedicated to their cause. Is power a goal for women? I would argue that only equality is a goal but that equality does not mean that women should praise someone female who successfully adopted the worst possible tools of the mangame. Be aware , please, that women are the same as men as humans and the human problems will not go away if a woman is at the helm. Those are wrong hopes.

I would assume, Amy that you surely know all those things I lament above. Tell you what, if instead of Hillary we had someone like Donna Brazil, for instance ( and they would treat here with the same respect) I would be the first to celebrate.

Thanks

by Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 242 diaries, 3434 comments) on Friday, November 9, 2007 at 12:26:53 PM

Not really

Nah, I didn't think you were condescending, just wanted you to think about some things.

I am no fan of Hillary. I sincerely hope she is not the nominee, for lots of reasons. I don't like her positions, & I don't believe she's electable - unlike her husband, she doesn't know how to connect.

If we're picking female candidates, I think my favorite would be Barbara Boxer. During the whole 2000 selection fiasco, I kept asking, "Where was Donna Brazille?" She seemed to play a passive role during those crucial days, so I wouldn't pick her.

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 103 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 205 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 11:51:03 AM