The conservative spokeswoman said yes: Clinton's use of the word was a betrayal of her "radical feminist" position. (Radical feminist?) The other spokeswoman said that it was just a contemporary idiom, like, "you go, girl!" and was not offensive. No one pointed out the obvious--all the issues around gender parity in American English.
The usual expression is, "If you want X, I'm your guy!" How does a woman say this? "I'm your woman" won't work; "woman" is just standard English, while "guy" is slang. The true counterpart to "guy" is "gal" (as in the musical) but "gal" now sounds Western, rural, and archaic.
To say "I'm your girl" is not the same as calling an adult female a "girl." That usage, in turn, sprang from a sense that "woman" was a uncomplimentary word. Better to use either "lady" or "girl."
While boys have always loved to be called "men" when they were still boys ("Son, you're a man now"), pre-feminist women wanted to remain "girls" as long as possible. Girl suggested youth and sexual attractiveness. The feminist movement called attention to this double standard.
"Lady" was originally a class term, like "gentleman," or in the UK, "lord." (Think of Lady Diana, from the aristocratic Spencer family.) But in the 20th century US, almost every female became a lady ("Sit down, young lady!") and the class dimension disappeared.
Since class and race are linked, and even confused, in this country, there was also a racial dimension. During the Civil Rights movement, my Hoosier father was reproved by a white Southerner for referring to a black woman as a "lady." The exchange went like this:
"Where's your car?" "Over there, where that lady is crossing the street." "That's no lady," the Southerner said contemptuously, "that's a woman."
So what about "radical feminism"? To my mind (& I've studied feminist theory), a radical feminist would be a lesbian separatist; clearly, HC is not in that camp. And sadly, Chris Matthews didn't ask his guest what she meant by radical feminism.
I suspect that right-wingers have adopted a new linguistic tactic--attaching scary adjectives to already loaded political terms.
Bill O'Reilly blusters about "the far left," and then alludes to Ben & Jerry. Has Bill forgotten about socialism, communism, and anarchism? These are the far, or radical, left, because they oppose capitalism. Ben & Jerry, it should go without saying, do not. They are capitalists.
And Senator Clinton is no radical. She's a centrist whose visage, as John Edwards pointed out, recently appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine--and not as a wanted poster or with crosshairs over it.
Those European countries that have proportional representation have a longer and more visible political spectrum than we do. There you can see a host of people to the left of Senator Clinton: Liberal Democrats, Socialists, Communists, and Greens. (The anarchists, of course, reject electoral politics altogether.)
There are two kinds of disabling political ignorance: a shallow knowledge of history and provincialism.
In the United States we have both in spades. That's why Republicans don't want to spend money on public education. They don't want Americans to know about--to take a Chicago example--the Haymarket anarchists who worked for an eight-hour day, were accused of throwing a bomb at police, and were executed after an unfair trial. Nor do they want us to know about alternative social and economic arrangements in Sweden, the Netherlands, or even the UK.
But if we watch old movies, those from the 1930s and 40s, we might at least acquire an understanding of American slang, like when and when not to use the word "girl."
Carol V. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley and teaches at the University of Pittsburgh. She also writes for History News Network (hnn.us) and CommonDreams.org.
The second "I'm your girl" left Hill's lips, I could hear how the Pubs are going to use it against her. If nothing else they're going to say 'you want a girl to do a MAN's job." The commercial is probably made and ready to roll at a moment's notice.
by
Sandy Sand (175 articles, 0 quicklinks, 223 diaries, 1505 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 6:40:11 PM
Matthews has never been subtle about his distaste for the Clintons. I'm convinced that the only reason he brought the topic up for debate was to allow the conservative commenter (the former chair of the Virginia Republican Party) to associate Hillary Clinton with the phrase "radical feminist." She used the phrase 4 times, and also alluded to Hillary's "radical liberal base." I'm convinced that Matthews, borrowing a page from FoxNews' playbook, wanted to plant a seed in the minds of the the sheep-like folks who let talking heads do their thinking for them.
As usual, the host of this misnomered program let the accusation go without pressing his "guest" to explain what, exactly, Mrs. Clinton has done to align herself with radical feminists. Clinton is a feminist in the sense that she believes in a woman's right to choose, and believes women should have the same opportunities as men. She believes that women should have the freedom to make choices and to choose the path that seems right for them. If that is "radical", every woman I know would be branded as such.
I've not yet decided which candidate will get my vote in November '08 but, I am already fed up with the way the media chooses to treat the two history-making candidates in the race. Discussions about Hillary's cleavage, hairdos and wardrobe, and debates about whether or not Obama is "black enough", serve no purpose other than to point out the obvious: Clinton is a woman and Obama is black. As ridiculous as those discussions have been, the fact that Clinton is being criticized for calling herself "girl" is beyond the pale.
by
Lauria Hale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 1:59:31 AM
Thank you for the comment. Senator Clinton has a voting record and a record on every progressive stance since she was in college. She is a fine person in every since of the word. So far I am voting for Edwards, but it is not locked down with key thrown away. I am very comfortable with Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich and even a couple more.
I do not mind criticism of Clinton, Edwards or Obama, but I want the criticisms to be of substance and not character assinations. The far right promotes family and say they hate divorce, but when Senator Clinton stuck by her marriage in the Monica matter, they attack her as being a Lesbian or staying with him just to further her political carrer. They never give her the doubt that she might love the man, believes it is until "death do us part," or the damage a divorce could cause her daughter; no, it is always something sinister and evil.
Thank your for you comment if you happen to come back to this article.
OBHG,
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 9:07:23 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
