Melissa McEwan has a very thoughtful post up over at Shakesville. So thoughtful that I’m going to steal the whole thing.
I’m not sad because Obama’s the nominee.
I’m sad because there are women at this blog, in my personal life, across this nation, and—if my inbox is any indication—across the globe, women of all races and sexualities and socio-economic classes, many of whom weren’t even Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom voted for Obama in the primary, who have watched with horror the seething hatred directed at Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.
(I’m not talking about legitimate criticisms of her campaign, which I have made myself. I’m not saying any criticism of Clinton is de facto sexist; it isn’t. I’m talking specifically and only about misogynist attacks, which are always unjustified and smear not just the woman at whom they are directed, but all women.)
And these women have witnessed this despicable but spectacular marriage of aggressive misogyny and their long-presumed allies’ casual indifference to it, and wondered what fucking planet they were on that dehumanizing eliminationist rhetoric, to which lefty bloggers used to object once upon a time, was now considered a legitimate campaign strategy, as long as it was aimed at a candidate those lefty bloggers didn’t like.
And these women felt, quite rightly, like feminist principles were being thrown to the wolves in a fit of political expedience.
And these women felt personally abandoned. By people they had considered allies.
And while they struggled to understand just what was happening, while they were losing their way along well-traveled paths that no longer felt familiar or welcoming, they were admonished like children to stop taking things personally. They were sneered at for playing identity politics. They were demeaned as ridiculous, overwrought, hysterics. They were called bitches and cunts. They were bullied off blogs they’d called home for years.
(But don’t take that personally.)
And now, at long last, even now, when Clinton cannot win, she is being pushed out, carelessly, rudely, with little regard for the implicit message in hustling a historic candidate off the stage and demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory. Right to the end, there is a lack of respect that hurts to watch.
And I’m sad because I know there are women who are hurting. Not because their candidate lost. Clinton may not have even been their candidate. They’re hurting because misogyny hurts all women, and because they have fewer allies than they once thought.
And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don’t have a “despite it all.” They don’t have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.
They just have the pain.
And I’m sad because I see so little evidence of people who are willing to understand that.
I don’t agree with everything Melissa says here. Or at least I would add a few points that she doesn’t include in her post. I think, for instance, that it matters a great deal that the Obama campaign was not nearly so sexist as the Clinton campaign was racist. I also think there are good reasons to be very angry with Senator Clinton herself. And, finally, I think that inasmuch as Clinton is being urged to quit, it is because many people, myself included, believe that she may be harming the presumptive Democratic nominee with her ongoing suggestions that Obama’s apparent victory is illegitimate.
Still, McEwan’s overwhelming point, specifically as it relates to the tolerance of sexism and outright misogyny by Democrats and erstwhile allies of feminism, is right on. Even if the Obama campaign didn’t trade in sexist assumptions, it benefited from them. And I, for one, wish that I had spent more time during the primary season talking about this issue.
218 comments
June 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Martin Wisse
The overwhelming majority of the sexism aimed at Clinton came not from the Obama campaign, or from “lefty bloggers”, but from the usual suspects: Republican talking heads, the anti-Clinton media, the wingnuts in general.
What did for Clinton in the end was that the only thing she had going for herself was that idea of history, of being the first female candidate who could become president, and little else. Take away this achievement and what you have is a candidate who was everything the Democratic base didn’t want anymore: implicated in the rightwing swing of the party in the nineties, heavily bought into the idea of electionability and triangulation, a defensive candidate, again, while everybody else wants somebody to go on the offense, another Kerry.
Obama on the other hand, if you take away his historic significance, did still offer change and a willingness to go on the offensive, a willingness to go beyond the received wisdom of Washington and defend supposedly “impopular” or “unrealistic” policies.
June 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm
urbino
Maybe I just don’t hang out at the right blogs, but, honestly?, I didn’t see the rampant sexism I hear so many Clinton supporters complain about. There was Chris Matthews and his merry band of imbeciles, and of course Fox News and rightwing radio, but that clearly isn’t who McEwan, for example, is talking about.
What lefty blogs are we talking about, here? Can we name names?
June 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm
ari
I have no idea about “the overwhelming majority,” Martin, as I don’t have any data on the subject. But there was plenty of sexism and misogyny on the left-leaning blogs, not to mention MSNBC. If you looked at the comments sections at Yglesias, Klein, or TPM café — just to name a few for Urbino’s benefit — you would have found some horribly offensive things being said. And then there’s Andrew Sullivan, who has been on a months-long pseudo-psychological jag, in which he’s been utterly brutal about Clinton, while only occasionally mentioning policy. Sullivan’s no progressive, of course, but he has been a major Obama supporter. And I, for one, have written next to nothing about his disgusting tirades. I think that was my mistake.
June 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm
eric
I am just confused by everything here.
(1) Sullivan is not a liberal.
(2) The commenters on a given site are not pundits. They may not even be liberals. There is considerable evidence that many are not mentally stable. And what they most definitely are not is on the payroll of the Obama campaign.
(3) Saying, as you do ari, that “the Obama campaign was not nearly so sexist as the Clinton campaign was racist” doesn’t begin to cover it.
(4) It strikes me as infelicitous that McEwan should here belittle the fact of a black person becoming the nominee with “ZOMG.”
June 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm
urbino
the comments sections at Yglesias, Klein, or TPM café
Ah. That’s why I missed it. Aside from here, I almost never read comments sections, specifically for the reasons mentioned by the e-dog in his 2nd point.
June 4, 2008 at 1:37 pm
eric
Another thing I find confusing is your spelling of McEwan.
June 4, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ben Alpers
Obama on the other hand, if you take away his historic significance, did still offer change and a willingness to go on the offensive, a willingness to go beyond the received wisdom of Washington and defend supposedly “impopular” or “unrealistic” policies.
Although I’m certainly happier with Obama as the nominee than Clinton, I actually disagree with this.
On the issues, both Obama and Clinton were offering the same, old, tired centrist “New Democrat” positions that Bill Clinton pioneered in the 1990s. Both offered historic significance, of course. And Obama also offered a fresh face and powerful charisma that Clinton lacked.
Perhaps most importantly, Obama opposed the war on Iraq from the start, a difference that is particularly significant when comparing two candidates who are otherwise nearly identical on the issues.*
All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that I understand the frustration of Clinton supporters (some of whom, it should be said, overestimate their own candidate’s progressiveness) about the perception that Obama, more than Clinton, represents progressive, new ideas. He really doesn’t.**
___________
*Yes there’s healthcare mandates (about which Clinton was correct), but both the Obama and Clinton plans would leave tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured, so Clinton’s advantage here is pretty insignificant, in my book.
** Latest example: Obama’s pandering to AIPAC.
June 4, 2008 at 1:39 pm
eric
Also, seriously, Ari, this
is “very thoughtful”?
June 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm
ari
I am just confused by everything here.
So, let me clarify:
Sullivan is not a liberal.
I said that. But nobody in the progressive blogosphere has written the easy-as-pie takedown of Sullivan’s rants. Why not?
The commenters on a given site are not pundits. They may not even be liberals. There is considerable evidence that many are not mentally stable. And what they most definitely are not is on the payroll of the Obama campaign.
This is true. But when people make overtly racist comments here, we respond. As for whether the commenters in quester are part of the Obama campaign, one assumes not. Still, Melissa’s point is that progressives, and those who ostensibly support a feminist program, have not been as outraged by the misogyny and sexism that has been on display on many blogs and in the msm.
Saying, as you do ari, that “the Obama campaign was not nearly so sexist as the Clinton campaign was racist” doesn’t begin to cover it.
No, Eric, that’s true. But my posts on the issue might. In short, I’ve documented much of the racism and have stood by and tolerated the sexism. Why? Perhaps because it helped my candidate of choice. Perhaps because I was and am very angry with Senator Clinton and thus willing to see her attacked. Perhaps because I’m more sexist than I like to admit to myself. Very likely a combination of all of the above and more.
It strikes me as infelicitous that McEwan should here belittle the fact of a black person becoming the nominee with “ZOMG.”
She’s genuinely happy about that. The ZOMG is totally sincere, in other words. At least I’m pretty sure about that. And she writes like that all the time; it’s her thing.
June 4, 2008 at 1:42 pm
ari
Honestly, Eric, I really believe that she’s thrilled that a person of color is the Democratic nominee. And I’ll change the spelling. I’m never as careful about such things as I should be. And this time I was running out to lunch. Plus, I’m sexist.
June 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Ben Alpers
And what Eric said at 1:31 pm
There’s been a lot of heh-indeedy-ing of this post by McEwan and it just doesn’t seem that insightful to me. Much more interesting thoughts on these issues have appeared in recent weeks over on bitchphd, imo.
June 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Vance Maverick
McCune, right?
June 4, 2008 at 1:48 pm
ari
There’s been a lot of heh-indeedy-ing of this post by McEwan and it just doesn’t seem that insightful to me.
I agree, Ben, that there has been a bunch of interesting stuff at B’s place. But I think Melissa’s post is an excellent reflection of the sadness and frustration that many feminists, particularly those who support Clinton, feel right now. Also, I haven’t seen anyone “indeedy-ing” the post. But I’ve been away for a few days and not paying attention to blogs.
June 4, 2008 at 1:50 pm
urbino
And then there’s Andrew Sullivan, who has been on a months-long pseudo-psychological jag, in which he’s been utterly brutal about Clinton
Definitely true. But are his tirades specifically sexist? They strike me as more generalized Acute Clinton Anxiety, a la the 1990s GOP. That is, he’s as rabid and brutal about Bill as he is about Hillary, when allowances are made for the fact that she’s the higher profile one now. He’s called both of them sociopaths, just in the last week.
June 4, 2008 at 1:52 pm
urbino
And I’ll change the spelling.
Well, having misled me, fix mine, too, please.
June 4, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Hemlock
For Obama’s centrism, did you get that from Wolffe’s (Newsweek’s) comments/stats? I’m not sure how to interpret Wolffe’s evidence. Obama’s stances on teachers’ pay and the automobile industry, for example, do not necessarily denote centrism. I’d like to see an argument outside of Newsweek.
June 4, 2008 at 1:54 pm
ari
But are his tirades specifically sexist?
Yes, they are. That they’re also marked by Clinton Derangement Syndrome doesn’t detract from the misogyny therein. And again, I think Melissa’s point, in part, was that very few people on the left have called Sullivan out for his boorish behavior. His rants have been allowed to stand, in other words, largely unrebutted.
June 4, 2008 at 1:55 pm
eyeingtenure
I, and the bulk of my generation, don’t care about this race thing or this gender thing nearly as much as all you dinosaurs. Personally, we’d prefer it if y’all could stop talking about it. Please?
June 4, 2008 at 1:58 pm
ari
Sorry, eyeingtenure, the walnut-sized brains sloshing around in our huge crania don’t allow us to adapt to your newfangled ways.
June 4, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Ben Alpers
FWIW, I certainly think that it’s important to recognize the sadness and frustration of Clinton supporters, of whom there are tens of millions.
The Clinton campaign itself has engaged in so much bad-faith argumentation about the popular vote that it’s easy to forget that, though she lost the popular vote, it was very, very close.
Although I’m not by any means an enthusiastic Obama supporter, it’s very useful for me, too, to be reminded of this sadness and frustration. I’ll own up to truly detesting both Bill and Hillary Clinton for years. The only really positive thing I can say about the Clinton presidency is that it was a good deal less destructive than what followed it. At any rate, the tenor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign only intensified my negative feelings about her candidacy.
Nevertheless, it’s entirely understandable that a lot of hope was invested in the first female candidate to seriously compete for a major party’s presidential nomination. And it’s worthwhile being reminded of that.
Here’s hoping that the next female to seek the Democratic nomination is someone I could actually feel good about supporting (though I don’t image that a Barbara Lee for President campaign will emerge any time in the near future).
June 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm
AWC
I’m a weird person in that I don’t think either side was especially vicious by any historical standard. It was a well fought battle. While I wanted Hillary to concede, I actually don’t fault her for fighting to the last. And I think Obama was quite gentle, given that he didn’t bring up Hugh Rodham or anything.
So, I assume Melissa is talking about blog comment threads. I’ll admit there was some ugliness there, especially since March.
Finally, let me do something hideous and defend the awful Sullivan. Yes, Sullivan is deranged. Yes, his hatred of Hillary is tinged with profound misogyny. But, it was Bill Clinton who caved on gays in the military. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act while he was fooling around with an intern. So, the Clintons earned Sullivan’s malice in ways that straight guys like us often ignore.
Ugh, I need a shower.
June 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm
urbino
the walnut-sized brains
Mmmmmm, walnuts.
June 4, 2008 at 2:05 pm
ari
How old is Nancy Pelosi? 68, it seems, which makes it very unlikely that she’ll run. That said, the best I can say of Hillary Clinton is that her campaign has made it much more likely that a woman will be president sooner rather than later. And if the media would do its job, her loss also should make it much less likely that Democrats will vote yes on wars of choice in the future. Does she deserve credit for that?
June 4, 2008 at 2:06 pm
eric
blog comment threads. I’ll admit there was some ugliness there
Hi, AWC, can I introduce you to teh Internets?
June 4, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Cala
Still, Melissa’s point is that progressives, and those who ostensibly support a feminist program, have not been as outraged by the misogyny and sexism that has been on display on many blogs and in the msm.
There’s a sense in which misogyny is more publicly acceptable than racism, and I think that’s why quite a lot of it wasn’t called out.
But there was also a lot of tea leaves eagerly strained for sexism: the ‘kitchen sink’ thing, the ‘periodically’ thing, the ‘you referred to her as Hillary’ thing, and I think it became very easy to assume lazilly that all accusations of sexism held as little water as those did. And Clinton wasn’t some upstart; she was the frontrunner and presumptive nominee until her campaign ran out of gas after Super Tuesday.
And since Clinton’s been a public figure for so long, a lot of the sexist stuff that people believe about her is stuff they’ve been believing for fifteen years. That’s a lot harder to root out, because the overt stuff is all Republican talking points, mostly rejected.
So I think it became easy not to chase down every last bit of sexism: she was winning, she had the NYT endorsement, after NH none of the sexism stuff really seemed to stick. After all, when she was criticized for ‘showing emotion’, she won the next primary, right? So I think people figured a lot of it wasn’t a big deal, and some of the charges of sexism were just ridiculous.
And then things got ugly. The caucuses didn’t count. Wisconsin doesn’t count because it wears a piece of Michigan like a hat. &c. The only real Americans kept increasingly getting older and more Rust Belt with every passing contest. McCain became a better leader. And then it just got weird. And I think people, being people, were pissed off about some of the racism that they didn’t care about the sexism.
Especially since the character of the discussions tended to treat racism and sexism as some bizarro-world zero-sum game. Or like buying racism offsets: it was okay to remind everyone that only WV white folks were real Americans because Obama said sweetie to a reporter. One cubic centime of racism cures ten gloomy sexist sentiments. Or something.
I really hate games of misery poker, because I’m not sure of the rules. But I think that’s more or less what happened.
(And while we’re at it, potato-potahto: I don’t see many of the Clinton supporters all that worked up about the racist smears on Obama. So now we’re down to the uninteresting thesis that people tended to focus more on slurs that hurt their preferred candidate.)
June 4, 2008 at 2:08 pm
ari
Policy criticisms of the Clintons, especially but not limited to their betrayal of the LGBT community, are totally fair. And, while we’re on the subject of fair or unfair critiques, Senator Clinton’s campaign has made me reevaluate President Clinton’s tenure in the White House (like the student who asks me for a grade change and ends up with a lower grade). But the way in which Sullivan has attacked has been totally disgusting. And it has contributed mightily, I think, to dragging down the discourse elsewhere in the blogosphere.
June 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm
eric
when people make overtly racist comments here, we respond
Because (a) we have, like, seven commenters and (b) we are allegedly a high-minded academic blog and (c) we are crazy obsessive-compulsives.
nobody in the progressive blogosphere has written the easy-as-pie takedown of Sullivan’s rants. Why not?
Stipulating it’s true that nobody has, maybe because “the guy who used casually to peddle racism is now casually peddling sexism” doesn’t seem too newsworthy.
June 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Cala
Or that Sullivan is technically in the other camp, and this is still the primaries.
June 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm
urbino
Stipulating it’s true that nobody has, maybe because “the guy who used casually to peddle racism is now casually peddling sexism” doesn’t seem too newsworthy.
Perhaps, but to Ari’s point, liberal blogs called Sullivan on his racism.
June 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm
ari
Cala! Okay, here goes:
1) Misogyny should be no more acceptable than racism. I know that you’re not saying otherwise. But the tacit acceptance of misogyny among progressive supporters of Obama has, in some instances, been troubling.
2) Like I said above, there were many charges of sexism that struck me, too, as silly. But there was also a lot of vile misogyny. Which didn’t get remarked upon as often or as fiercely by progressives as it should have.
3) I’m not sure how it matters that the sexism directed at Clinton was longstanding.
4) Reiterating, I think you’re right: people were angry and so allowed themselves to overlook sexism directed as the person with whom they were angry. And, just to be clear, I think people were right to be angry. But I also think that Melissa’s right in that overlooking misogyny, for whatever reason, is a bad idea: even if we’re only talking about the political implications of that choice. Women are a pretty important part of the Democratic Party, after all.
5) It’s not a zero-sum game. You’re absolutely right about that. And I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise.
6) Yes, I believe that the Clinton’s race-baiting, and their partisans tolerance of same, was horrible. But I’ve said that many times here. I haven’t, by contrast, remarked very often about sexism and misogyny.
June 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Ben Alpers
I certainly think that Sullivan should be called out on his sexism, but it never ceases to puzzle me why anyone on the “left” takes him remotely seriously. You’d think that, even without the sexism, the Bell Curve nonsense and the preemptive Dolchstoß-ing of coastal liberal enclaves after 9/11 would be enough to earn him permanent contempt.
June 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
ari
Eric, the sexism and misogyny wasn’t a one-time thing in the comments sections of those sites. And the bloggers didn’t say much, if anything, about the problem. Should they have? I don’t know. Seriously, I really don’t know. But I do know that Melissa’s point, that their silence made her and other feminists feel crappy, makes good sense to me. Imagine, if you will, that MANY commenters were CONSISTENTLY trading in anti-Semitism, and not just the usual hating on Lieberman or raising real questions about the impact of the Israel lobby on American foreign policy: I think you, half a Jew that you are, would be pretty shaken up if progressive bloggers were allowing that stuff to stand.
June 4, 2008 at 2:25 pm
ari
Both of the examples that you cite, Ben, caused me to abandon Sullvan’s site. Then I went back because I’m whirly-eyed about Obama. But his misogyny eventually drove me away.
June 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Cala
Okay. Here goes back.
1) Like what?
2) Like what?
I’m serious about both of these. What was said about Clinton that wasn’t criticized, that should have been?
3) It doesn’t excuse anything in terms of the morality of sexism, but it does to the extent that it’s easier to see why people missed some of it. Clinton’s been being called a bitch, a ballbuster, etc., since I was in eighth grade. Thinking of her as tough, cold, and calculating, to the extent that it is sexist, is something that’s been in the background for a very long time. Fish have no word for water, in other words. It doesn’t excuse it, but it does explain it. Clinton we thought we knew; Obama everything was fresh and up for more scrutiny.
4) Eh. I think it matters more what we do now, going forward.
5) No, you didn’t. But the debate’s generally been structured that way.
6) Again, this is back to 1 and 2. What do you think you should have remarked on? Because with the Obama stuff, you had specific incidents: various NYT op-eds, the Wright controversy, various smear campaigns. I don’t remember if you talked about Matthews, but I know his comments weren’t just ignored. So, what? You think you should have been answering Drum’s commenters?
June 4, 2008 at 2:39 pm
eric
Also, “admist”?
June 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm
urbino
It’s a new asthma medication. Ask your doctor if it’s right for you.
June 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm
eric
Side effects may include arrhythmia, heart murmur, erectile dysfunction, and a propensity to demand renunciation and rejection of Andrew Sullivan. Again. No, again.
June 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hemlock
I’ve been attempting to forget the past and embracing the future. Smear campaigns? Wait until after Denver…and then you’ll see some REAL dirt.
June 4, 2008 at 3:03 pm
ari
Cala:
1) Again, in the comment threads of most major pro-Obama blogs. And the crap that Sullivan was spewing, which crap, as someone noted above, gets rebutted when it’s about racism.
2) See above.
3) I think you’re right here. But I’m not seeking explanations or excuses, thanks. I was just stealing what seemed to me a thoughtful and heartfelt comment from another blogger, a comment that raises some issues that worry me.
4) Yes, this is true. But where we go from here if often informed by how we understand the past. Says the historian.
5) True.
6) I think that more commentary on the amount and virulence of the sexism during the primary would have been a good thing for many reasons, not least politically. But also, in this case, because I think that Melissa’s post points to a way in which the lack of response to misogyny from the progressive blogosphere has made many feminists, particularly those who can’t take as much solace in their favored candidate’s victory, feel betrayed. And, as I’ve noted above, while I don’t have a catalog of their grievances, nor have I considered the merits of each charge of sexism/misogyny, I’ve seen and heard some stuff that has made me wince.
Finally, I don’t know where “admist” is coming from. I assume it’s another of my spelling errors. If it matters, I’ll fix it.
June 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm
eric
I don’t know where “admist” is coming from
It’s in the post title and the URL, old bean.
June 4, 2008 at 3:12 pm
eric
I have read the concluding paragraphs several times and I still don’t understand why “these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate.” To these women, the first-ever major-party African American nominee isn’t a wonder?
June 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
urbino
Side effects may include…
You may experience a sense of impending doom. This is because you are about to die. (h/t Steve Martin)
as someone noted above
Me me me me me! But fine, just elide me, misurbinist.
June 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Cala
I did like Melissa’s post, and I thought it was thoughtful, even though I don’t think sexism cost HRC the election. Still, it’s hard to say. There’s been some pretty awful stuff, but I know a lot of the major blogs don’t police their comment sections all that well. (MY’s is one of the worst on all fronts, sexism or otherwise.)
Sexism’s gone the other way in the campaign, too. Steinem’s article on we bad young feminists, for one, certainly plenty of being thought too young, female, stupid, whirly-eyed kool-aid drinking to have an opinion going around. It couldn’t be that I just voted, you know. That got very old quite a while ago.
June 4, 2008 at 3:21 pm
ari
Her point may be that their ostensible allies have betrayed them in service of political expedience. Which, I imagine, would undercut their sense of wonder at Obama’s nomination. But honestly, I’m not going to defend that formulation, as it seems to confuse her earlier effort to clarify that many of the people she’s talking about, are not, in fact, Clinton supporters.
June 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
eric
Steinem’s article on we bad young feminists
This is another thing. In Clinton’s career, she’s failed on the major domestic policy issue of our time (healthcare reform) and the major foreign policy issue of our time (Iraq and preemptive war, war on terror more generally).
It’s just about possible that someone could look at that record and say, perhaps I’d rather the other candidate—even though I am a feminist and would in principle like to see a woman president.
June 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Cala
Or just not wanting to fight the same battles of the nineties all over again. Which, plus Iraq, motivated a lot of my vote. My biggest hope for Obama isn’t that he’ll redeem the human race into post-racial glory with unicorns, but that maybe we won’t be talking the same red-states-religious, blue-states-latte language for another ten years.
June 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm
urbino
I’m still troubled by Eric’s point, upthread, about blog commenters. It really doesn’t strike me as at all fair to attribute misogyny in comments to actual Obama supporters.
I’ve always pretty much assumed that the great majority of people stirring dissension among lefty blog readers were non-lefties, intentionally stirring dissension. With “Operation Chaos” and whatnot, it’s clear conservatives are engaging in that kind of thing. They could hardly do better than show up at lefty blogs as Obama supporters and make sexist remarks, or as Clinton supporters and make racist remarks.
I mean, I don’t doubt that there really are people (men) supporting Obama because they just don’t want a female president, just as there really are people supporting Clinton because they just don’t want a black president.
Nonetheless, I think one has to take about 85% of both kinds of crap that one reads in comments sections, and throw it out the window. Otherwise, you’re just giving in to what those comments were designed to provoke in the first place.
When I’ve complained about racism being used against Obama, it hasn’t been racism from supposed Clinton supporters in comments sections. It’s been straight from the candidate herself, or her campaign.
I’m not aware of anything even remotely analogous coming from Obama or his campaign.
June 4, 2008 at 3:37 pm
eric
Yeah, but I mean, seriously: the Steinem argument could be used to explain why you’d rather Elizabeth Dole than Barack Obama. And I don’t think she wants it to work that way.
June 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm
ari
Okay, just to be clear: my point in putting up Melissa’s post was not to suggest that Clinton didn’t deserve to lose. Nor, I should add, that women who voted for Obama aren’t feminists. I just thought and think (because none of you morons has convinced me otherwise) that some feminists have a right to feel aggrieved by the misogyny on display during the primary and even more upset that their allies often didn’t take such issues seriously. That is all.
June 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm
ari
And if you’d like me to post a laundry list of reasons why Clinton was a lousy candidate and Obama a good one, I’ll be happy to do it.
June 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm
ari
Because you people have beaten me down.
June 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm
ari
And made me cry.
June 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm
ari
A little.
June 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
AWC
Don’t get me wrong. I will never forgive Sullivan’s “coastal enclaves” comment. Never. I just feel that some people have reasons to dislike the Clintons.
Steinem’s article was so awful, it actually shifted my vote to Obama. Really, I was a Clinton supporter before that.
June 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
eric
feminists have a right to feel aggrieved by the misogyny on display during the primary
Yes.
even more upset that their allies often didn’t take such issues seriously
This is where the rubber hits the road: what is it that we have to take seriously? If Obama or any of his surrogates had been misogynist, I would take it seriously. I don’t take it seriously when some troll in the comments section of a blog whose comments section is full of trolls says something misogynist.
June 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Cala
ari, I don’t think we’re disagreeing with you on most of it.
June 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
ari
I was a Clinton supporter before that.
God, I knew I hated you.
This is where the rubber hits the road
Yes, it is. And that’s why it would have been a good idea for more pro-Obama bloggers to aggressively and consistently disavow the misogyny from their commenters and some pundits.
ari, I don’t think we’re disagreeing with you on most of it.
Talk to Eric. He’s being very unkind. I’ll be weeping over here in the corner until he admits that he’s been wrong all along and apologizes for hating women.
June 4, 2008 at 3:52 pm
eric
I’m just flummoxed afresh by Steinem’s
No, indeedy.
June 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm
eric
made me cry
I’ll be weeping
You’re baiting me, aren’t you?
June 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Cala
Don’t do it eric! Say no to misogynist comments, like telling ari he needs to put ribbons in his hair if he’s going to weep!
June 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm
eric
That is exactly the kind of sexist comment that I would reject and denounce, if anyone were to make it.
June 4, 2008 at 4:05 pm
AWC
O.k., now I get it. You hate Hillary. But you don’t want people to think you’re one of those sexists who hates Hillary for the wrong reasons. Thus, the post.
I live in upstate New York State, where Hillary’s been a godsend. And my wife is a big supporter, which carried lots of weight with me.
In the end, I picked Obama not because he’s pure, but because I believe he can build a larger majority in the House. The Steinem op-ed merely added a bit of gusto to my flip.
June 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm
urbino
I picked Obama not because he’s pure
Is that some kind of racial innuendo?
June 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm
urbino
And, Eric, stop being unkind to your brother and get over on your own side of the car.
June 4, 2008 at 4:09 pm
eric
He started it!
June 4, 2008 at 4:09 pm
urbino
And don’t tattle.
June 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm
AWC
Huh? Explain.
June 4, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Cala
So help me, I will turn this blog around!
June 4, 2008 at 4:22 pm
ari
We need a moral compass, Cala, the sort of guidance that only a woman can provide. If you see what I mean.
June 4, 2008 at 4:29 pm
urbino
Huh? Explain.
Me? Joke. It was brutally meta.
June 4, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Vance Maverick
It’s a fickle compass that turns you around.
June 4, 2008 at 4:31 pm
eric
It’s a fickle compass
Sexist.
June 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm
rja
Oy. It might be time to spend some time with the puppies
June 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Recently washed dog holds strong opinions. « The Edge of the American West
[…] June 4, 2008 in meta, our thing by eric Look! A puppy! […]
June 4, 2008 at 4:46 pm
AWC
Joke?
STUPID MACHINE! BE LESS FUNNY!!!
June 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Adam
There are plenty of places I’ve been where people did actively try to shut down misogyny directed at Clinton. I guess I don’t spend enough time wandering far and wide the blogosphere, but for instance, on TPM and on Obama’s campaign blog (both places filled with Obama supporters), misogynist commentators were called out on it. Usually it was something along the lines of, “I don’t like Clinton either, but can you tone it down a little?”
It is also certainly true that while the Clinton campaign actively trafficked racist comments, innuendo and specious arguments, the Obama campaign did not. When Obama made a comment which could be construed as sexist, he didn’t hesitate to fix it. What some people forget is that when he called that reporter “sweetie”, the same day he personally called her up and apologized. A real apology.
Finally, some of the venom directed at Clinton has turned my stomach, especially the venom couched in sexist terms. But it’s hard to get really up in arms when she was personally belittling a very good candidate. And the fact remains that it wasn’t the sexism that destroyed her campaign: it was herself – her willingness to frequently embrace the low road and to lie with such audacity.
Ok… I think I’m done now. Hopefully, I can retire my soapbox of moral indignation for a while.
June 4, 2008 at 5:22 pm
urbino
We’re all good Democrats after all, see?
June 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm
urbino
Let’s all smoke a joint, set a coupla murderers free, capitulate to a foreign dictator, and raise them taxes.
June 4, 2008 at 5:31 pm
SEK
Wow, I disappear for a week and this place becomes Unfogged. 75 comments!?! Congratulations, you two. That said, I’ve been so annoyed with McEwan for so many months now, I can’t invest in a word she says. It’s not the Hillary thing, either — it’s the juvenile absolutism of posts like this.
June 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Colin
Discussion would be easier if we had specific examples (why are there no links in the original post?) Who are the “allies” being called out here?
And, sorry, but this part: “pushed out, carelessly, rudely, … demanding her graciousness in defeat, despite offering her no graciousness in victory” is nuts. Go back and look at the speeches last night and compare his references to her with her references to him. Pushed out? Aside from George McG some weeks back, party elders have avoided calling for her withdrawal while there were still primaries to run in, and she has had ample time to make her case to superdelegates. Pushed out? He finally won a clear majority of delegates.
The misogyny the HRC campaign attracted is a serious problem. But it’s possible to discuss it cogently and forcefully *without* even a trace of self-trivializing bathos e.g.
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/05/peggy-orensteins-very-thoughtful-short.html
June 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm
ac
You know who I like? The Spanish defense minister who is currently on maternity leave. Can we make her VP? I realize the whole being Spanish thing is a tiny wee obstacle. But she’s way cool.
June 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Cala
Wow, ac. Thanks for that link. So cool.
June 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm
ari
If you want links, Colin, you can go to McEwan’s site, where she has, over the course of several months, put up more than 100 posts documenting misogyny directed at Clinton. Some of the examples are not clear cut, in my view. Others are. See for yourself.
June 4, 2008 at 6:35 pm
ac
Anytime, Cala. Viva España.
June 4, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Colin
If you mean this, Ari, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-103.html
it seems, on sampling about 1/5 of it, to be mainly media. I don’t think anyone here disputes that. What I’m asking about is the abandoned-by-allies part, which seems to be what really drives the posting. I saw one criticism of Josh Marshall for using the verb “geld.”
June 4, 2008 at 6:48 pm
ari
SEK, if you happen to see this, send me an e-mail. Even if you don’t see this, please e-mail me, ‘kay?
June 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Galvinji
like telling ari he needs to put ribbons in his hair if he’s going to weep!
Baldist.
(like the student who asks me for a grade change and ends up with a lower grade)
I’m glad to know I wasn’t the only one who did/does this.
June 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Colin
We’re talking about this,
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-103.html
right Ari? It seems to be mainly media. Nobody here disputes the existence of media misogyny, grotesque and subtle. What drives the writing you posted, however, is a highly-charged complaint about betrayal by “allies.” It would be useful to have a clearer idea of what McEwan is referring to.
June 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm
eric
Thanks for that link. So cool.
Indeed.
June 4, 2008 at 7:20 pm
eric
75 comments!?! Congratulations, you two.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count when half of them are me mocking Ari.
June 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm
matt w
The great thing is that, in the picture, the Spanish defense minister looks like a pregnant woman who is about to kick ass.
There may be some context that makes the post SEK linked mean something different, but I don’t see anything wrong with “If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.”
June 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm
blueollie
It seems to me that many feminists get angry when one rejects their frames.
They seem to argue thusly: “such and such has traditionally happened to women. So saying X, Y, and Z which reminds us of that behavior in some way is therefore declared to be sexist”.
June 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm
eric
I don’t see anything wrong with “If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.”
It’s fine as a manifesto, but as a description of the actual state of politics for the last hundred or so years, it’s not accurate. It also depends on ill-defined terms. Eleanor Roosevelt opposed the Equal Rights Amendment for some decades. During that time, was she not a progressive or a feminist?
Or does the statement mean, it is no longer possible to consider yourself progressive if you are not a feminist? This seems to me intuitively right, but I’m not sure why off the top of my head—when did it change, and why?
Also, if someone favors state-funded healthcare and daycare and equal pay for women but doesn’t consider herself a feminist, is that person a progressive?
June 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Colin
sorry for the double thing; looked like my first vanished.
Like Matt W I have no problem with advocacy of feminism (though I wish I knew what “progressive meant,” since it seems most often invoked to exclude). What I worry about is its trivialization.
June 4, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Colin
blueollie at this point I switch sides in the argument — you need to provide examples yourself if you are going to make that kind of sweeping claim, and cogent feminist critique is about a hell of a lot more than “reminds of.”
June 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm
ari
Wait, Colin, you’ll note that’s number 103 in a series. But if you follow the link in your comment, Melissa includes links to the previous 102 at the bottom of her post. Not all are about media. Some are about allies. And, again, her problem, it seems to me, is that the progressive blogosphere didn’t take the sexism directed at Clinton as seriously as it did the racism directed at Obama. Do you or anyone else think this is wrong?
June 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm
bitchphd
Ari’s right.
I’d say more but I have to pack and shower and catch a midnight plane.
June 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm
ari
See, you sexist pigs? Ari’s right! That’s what I’ve been saying for hours.
June 4, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Colin
I saw that Ari, and I sampled about 20 of her list.
I don’t know what “progressive blogosphere” means. That’s what I keep asking about. If the question is can we find bloggers who might be called “progressive” who did not take misogyny directed at HRC seriously, I am sure the answer is yes. The problem is the way this thing and other things get rolled up into a ball, into some kind of unitary actor.
June 4, 2008 at 8:19 pm
ari
Well, I suggested several times upthread that the comment sections at Yglesias, Klein, and TPM café often have devolved, while I was visiting, into hateful sexist rants. Sometimes other commenters have asked people to cool it. Mostly, they haven’t. Regardless, several people here have pointed out that bloggers shouldn’t be held responsible for their commenters. Especially, Urbino warned, because those commenters might not even support Obama. And I think that’s absolutely right. On the other hand, I can see how virtual spaces that are filled with such hateful invective and are unregulated wouldn’t seem welcoming to feminists. I’m not a fan of analogies in situations like this, particularly analogies that flirt with Godwin, but my point upthread about anti-Semitism stands.
June 4, 2008 at 8:20 pm
eric
Ari’s right.
Well, I’m persuaded.
June 4, 2008 at 8:22 pm
ari
I knew you would be. That’s the power of B.
June 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm
urbino
The power of B is a curious thing.
Make-a one man weep, make another man sing.
Change a hawk to a little white chickadee.
More than a feeling, thats the power of B.
June 4, 2008 at 9:01 pm
David
I find these accusations to be frustratingly vague. There has clearly been sexism evident in this campaign, which was inevitable, because generally attacks on a candidate’s gender identity are frequently thrown around during political campaigns, and has been the case since the dawn of time. After all, men, including Obama, get attacked for not being masculine enough. Carville said that if Hillary gave Obama one of her balls, they’d both have two. That’s a sexist, gender-based argument. People said Obama was too effete, too dainty, too, well, feminine.
I don’t want to defend Andrew Sullivan, but I would dispute the idea that his blog regularly traffics in misogyny. What he has said, repeatedly, tirelessly, over and over, is that the Clintons are both narcissistic sociopaths, that they traffic in the coarsest kind of identity politics, that they will betray their allies and supporters at a moment’s notice in order to gain power. That they are, in short, political monsters who will never go away. He’s said this a thousand times. Is it unhinged? Sure. It’s certainly over-the-top. But that’s not an attack on women. That’s not misogynistic. That’s the Clinton Derangement Syndrome others spoke of. I mean, Sullivan is definitely out to lunch on a billion things, and has written a billion stupid things in his career, but I wouldn’t characterize him as a misogynist. One of his biggest political heroes, after all, is Margaret Thatcher, so it is pretty clear he does not have a hard time respecting women with political power. If someone’s going to convince me otherwise, they really need to provide some specific examples. When clear misogyny surfaced during this campaign, as with the C.U.N.T. ugliness, he denounced it on his blog. The most misogynist thing I can think of, right now, is that he called her “Nixon in a pantsuit.” Maybe I’m missing something else?
This sexism/racism stuff is really complicated. We can righteously denounce the kind of insults that were thrown around during this campaign, but they aren’t going to leave our politics anytime soon, so long as gender and race forms a core part of social identity, and so long as politicians seek to appeal to constituents based on these social categories.
June 4, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Martin Wisse
But nobody in the progressive blogosphere has written the easy-as-pie takedown of Sullivan’s rants. Why not?
Because only noobs still think it’s news that Sullivan is a bigoted, sexist asshole? Nobody was fooled by his conversion a few years back and we still remember what he called the Democrats and anti-war protesters in 2002.
June 4, 2008 at 11:57 pm
ari
So Martin, wait, let me see if I’m following you. And please, because I’m such a noob, bear with me while I take this slowly. Progressives only write scathing rebuttals to posts put up by other progressives? Oh, so that’s how sites like SadlyNo! make a go of it. And by that impeccable logic, Martin, Jonah Goldberg must be a progressive! Congratulations, you’ve ripped the scales from my eyes and introduced me to the rough-and-tumble world of the internets.
Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Yes, everyone who pays attention knows that Sullivan isn’t progressive. But that wasn’t my point. My point was and is that Sullivan wrote some horrible things about Clinton, things that had he written them about Obama would have elicited screams of protest from throughout the progressive blogosphere, and yet I can’t think of a single case in which the bloggers I read replied directly and forcefully to his crap.
Having said all of that, I should note one more thing: I’m not angry at Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or any of the other bloggers I admire. And I’m certainly not accusing them of sexism. I’m saying that people like Melissa McEwan are justified in feeling like their ostensible allies haven’t had their back during the primaries.
June 5, 2008 at 12:03 am
ari
David, the accusations aren’t the slightest bit vague. Follow the link supplied by Colin and then look through the 100+ posts that Melissa has put up about the issue. You may, as I do, think that some of the instances of sexism that Melissa cites are questionable. But many others aren’t in my view. See for yourself.
As to whether sexism was inevitable in the campaign, again, I have no idea. As to whether progressive Obama supporters should have more consistently called out the purveyors of sexism, I suppose that depends on what one’s goals and priorities are.
June 5, 2008 at 12:10 am
andrew
ac’s link is great, but the reporting could use a little less gender essentialism. Also.
June 5, 2008 at 12:14 am
bitchphd
A more nuanced response (slightly, as it’s midnight and I’m in LAX, which is not conducive to Deep Thought):
(3) Saying, as you do ari, that “the Obama campaign was not nearly so sexist as the Clinton campaign was racist” doesn’t begin to cover it.
(4) It strikes me as infelicitous that McEwan should here belittle the fact of a black person becoming the nominee with “ZOMG.”
Re (3), the Obama people basically ran a clean campaign. Yes, I think there were a few unfortunate moments, but by and large they seemed more about general generic sexism showing up, as it does, rather than a deliberate effort in the way that Clinton’s race-baiting was. That said: I think the issue, for Clinton supporters, isn’t that. I think it’s that there was as *ton* of sexist crap thrown at Clinton, as there has been for the last 16 years, and it’s understood by her supporters as a big reason why she, the obvious front-runner a year ago, didn’t get the nomination. I’m inclined to think that that’s true. Whether or not the Obama campaign fostered or encouraged this stuff (they didn’t), I do think they benefitted from it. Through no fault of their own, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. (And yes, Clinton’s personality and campaigning style does present its own problems, some of which tie very “nicely” into sexist nonsense.)
Re. (4), I think that comment wasn’t meant to belittle Obama atall. I think it was meant more as a, what, bit of snark at the idea that (e.g.) the NYT headline, “First Black to Head Major Party Ticket” (or whatever it was) is *the* main issue in his campaign. Which it isn’t. It’s historic and important, definitely, but it’s a little problematic for a lot of reasons to focus on him as the Black Candidate rather than the Democratic candidate, and I think that’s where Melissa was going with that. Though it doesn’t really read well in context, given that her point is hinging on the importance to (some) (white) (but not exclusively white) women of the First Woman.
Anyhoo. I haven’t read the whole thread, but that’s my 2 cents.
Those two things
June 5, 2008 at 12:36 am
joel hanes
IMHO, the most accurate and evenhanded discussion the Clinton v Obama stage of the Dem primary I’ve seen is this comment by Mark Anderson over at Digby’s Hullaballoo.
June 5, 2008 at 12:51 am
Martin Wisse
So Martin, wait, let me see if I’m following you. And please, because I’m such a noob, bear with me while I take this slowly. Progressives only write scathing rebuttals to posts put up by other progressives? Oh, so that’s how sites like SadlyNo! make a go of it.
No, sites like Sadly, No! make a go of it by relentlessly mocking wingers.
That aside, mentioning Sullivan in this context just doesn’t make any sense. Why should leftist blogs feel themselves called upon to condemn Sullivan when he’s just another wingnut? Back in 2002/03, when he was still being paraded as “even the liberal Andrew Sullivan” some bloggers where taken in by his act and felt a need to respond to him, but now, In 2008? There are bigger fish to fry.
June 5, 2008 at 3:40 am
ac
the reporting could use a little less gender essentialism
I think the essentialism is partly coming from the Spanish feminists they’re interviewing, and I’m not sure it is essentialism. Are you thinking of the “feminine, more humanist” vision of the army”? That is in fact part of Zapatero’s point of putting her in that position—not putting a woman with military experience or one who positions herself as a hawk in charge of the army. There’s a difference between discussing traditionally masculine or feminine values and thinking in essentialist terms, i.e., thinking that women currently need to do x or men need to do y. To some degree Zapatero sees himself and his whole government as embodying “feminine” values, in contrast to the Spanish tradition of macho militarism. Which is a different thing.
June 5, 2008 at 4:14 am
Ben Alpers
To some degree Zapatero sees himself and his whole government as embodying “feminine” values, in contrast to the Spanish tradition of macho militarism. Which is a different thing.
And even after Clinton’s near victory, completely impossible to imagine in the U.S. today. Think of how often Clinton was framed (positively as well as negatively) in stereotypically masculine terms (e.g. “a fighter” or James Carville’s recent testicle-related boasting about her).
It would be interesting to see if an American presidential candidate (female or male…though the latter seems even more unlikely in the US) could succeed while trying to embrace “femininity” as Zapatero apparently did. The dynamic of the Clinton campaign suggests that it might have helped. Clinton seems to have benefited from the famous tearing-up episode in NH, which was among other things one of the few moments that humanized her during this campaign (apparently Mark Penn convinced the campaign that trying to humanize her was either unnecessary or would actual harm the campaign). And her 2002 Iraq vote–which under one reading was a more-or-less cynical attempt to bolster her defense credentials in a stereotypically masculine way–may ultimately have been the single most important factor in her defeat.
June 5, 2008 at 6:14 am
Deborah
As a (just barely) younger feminist I was not offended by any of the official language used against Hillary. Sure blog commenters were misogynist and crude, but I don’t expect otherwise.
As a feminist I am offended by Hillary’s using her husband’s accomplishments on her own resume. I am offended by the expectation that we have to treat her more gently because she’s a woman. I am offended by her continually using her gender as a reason to stay in the race. “… who lift their little girls on their shoulders and whisper in their ears, ‘see, you can be anything you want.’ ” from Ap 23 speech.
I think there’s a real generational thing going on here with feminists. Feminists who are older than 50ish were active in the social revolutions of the 60’s when male progressives did not treat women equally but subjected them to the same rigid roles as the overall culture. They lived through this, which makes them much more sensitive.
Oh and I thought the “make me a sandwich!” and “iron my shirts!” remarks were so ridiculous that they were funny.
June 5, 2008 at 6:18 am
The Commander Guy
Ari
I read this post yesterday and my head started to hurt so I hurriedly clicked on some other link to relieve my befuddlement.
By sexism do you mean Hillary playing up her testicular fortitude? Or Mary Matlin’s Husband (I think her spouse is named Carville) suggesting that if Hillary loaned Obama a gonad, they’d each have a pair?
Or do you mean Hillary getting sympathy when she Cried b4 the NH primary. If a dood cried on Camera, he’d get barbecued in the media. She won an unexpected victory.
Absent examples of the rampant misogyny that she faced, I just don’t get it.
Sometimes david beats goliath. That’s happened here.
Hillary got beat and she can blame the person that looks back at her in the mirror.
June 5, 2008 at 6:26 am
The Commander Guy
I got Deborah’s back here. Good points.
When someone provides example of the rampant misogyny, I’ll consider the issue with an open mind.
June 5, 2008 at 7:07 am
Cala
Well, not to pick on Deborah, but saying ‘Hillary Cried…’ is one of them. Anyone watch the tape? We’re not talking tears. We’re talking maybe her voice cracking, about the level of Bill’s ‘I feel your pain’ stuff.
And she was barbecued in the media, as you’ll recall; the reaction of older women voters to that moment and to the sexism surrounding it was credited (rightly or wrongly) to her win in New Hampshire. Such that even common-sensical Democrats are now saying ‘she Cried a dood couldn’t cry.’
—
I have to agree with ac that I’m not sure it’s essentialism as much as it is delighting in the symbolism pregnant with… well, pregnancy. It’s really delicious.
June 5, 2008 at 7:17 am
ollie
I think that I am getting it.
I have to admit that I was a bit mystified at the claims of sexism. Sure, I know about the nutcrackers and the hateful stuff that is posted on some websites, but I expect some blatant stuff from the right wing.
Yes, I remember the “how do we beat the bitch” comment from a McCain supporter, and that McCain didn’t express disapproval. This was widely denounced at the Daily Kos.
But still, what about our side?
Then I thought about McEwan’s argument about men sometimes unintentionally using sexist frames. At first I dismissed her argument with an eye roll. But then I thought further to something that happened to me.
Some time ago, I posted a blog article about some of HRC’s actions. At the end of the Texas debate, she told BHO how honored she was to be on the stage with him and showed warmth.
Next, she goes and does the “mocking of Obama and his supporters” thing at an Ohio rally and then she did the “shame on you” speech.
I wrote an article called “HRC’s calculated mood swings”.
My sister went ballistic when she read that, and even my wife winced at the title.
I was mystified, so I asked them what was wrong.
They told me that it appeared if I was making the old “this woman is an uncontrollable PMS case” argument, which wasn’t my intention!
After all, I had used the word “calculated” which implies control.
Therefore, I changed my title to remove “mood swing” and replaced it by “Political Vaudeville” which better made my point.
So, if nothing else, paying attention to frames can prevent misunderstanding.
June 5, 2008 at 8:38 am
David
The idea that sexism cost Clinton the nomination seems wrong to me. Let’s remember: a majority of Democratic primary voters are women. Hillary Clinton had strong support among the biggest demographic, the biggest voting bloc. And as the campaign continued, one sensed that Clinton was winning votes precisely because she was starting to be seen as a victim, precisely because of her own gender identity, and the way she manipulated that (as all politicians must manipulate their identities in order to gain votes) to her own advantage.
June 5, 2008 at 8:51 am
Vance Maverick
Sullivan’s not a “winger”, he’s an opportunist, who writes smoothly and understands how to play the game of the political press. I don’t think he has lasting commitments himself, with the possible exception (as someone mentioned above) of gay rights. I understand (and share) the temptation to ignore him, but he and his like are worth opposing.
June 5, 2008 at 8:51 am
The Commander Guy
I thought Hillary’s show of emotion in NH humanized her and made her, you know, more likeable.
She did win the primary BTW. The opposite would not be particularly likely if her main rival had done something similar.
June 5, 2008 at 9:12 am
SAM-I-am
Thank you, Ollie, for clarifying misogynistic frames v. misogynistic intent.
The point of the discussion of misogyny is not to suggest that sexism cost Clinton the nomination.
The point is that the pervasiveness of misogynistic frames in the media, combined with the outright misogynistic comments from specific individuals both in the media and a large proportion of blog commenters (and I only read lefty blogs), is incredibly depressing and disappointing to women who hoped we had made more progress as a society in viewing women as fully equal as humans.
June 5, 2008 at 9:19 am
SAM-I-am
And didn’t the Daily Show run a montage of presidential candidates (many who won) crying — not just voice cracking — on camera? It can help or hurt both men and women.
But anyone who thought less of her because of her misting over in NH was a serious partisan with distorted perceptions. That’s why women were angry about the media treatment. It was humanizing and showed the depth of her passion for her work, and yet she demonstrated incredible control over those emotions.
G-damn it, I thought we had gotten past the “she cried and people felt sorry for her” meme.
June 5, 2008 at 10:19 am
Sexisim and the Democratic Primary « blueollie
[…] idea for this post started with my reading this Edge of the American West blog post: Melissa McEwan has a very thoughtful post up over at Shakesville. So thoughtful that I’m going […]
June 5, 2008 at 10:50 am
eric
Sexisim
See what you started, Ari?
June 5, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Ben Alpers
Admit it, ari, all this sex talk is just the latest lefty blog trick to increase traffic!
June 5, 2008 at 12:44 pm
ari
Commander Guy, I don’t know how many times I have to say in the comments that all people need to do is go to Shakesville, Melissa’s site, to view more than 100 posts documenting misogyny directed at Senator Clinton.
David and others, I don’t think that Senator Clinton lost because of sexism so much as Senator Obama won because he ran a great campaign, actually by far te best campaign I’ve ever seen: from his charisma and public speeches, to his GOTV and voter registration operations, to his quick responses to crises, and on and on. As to Senator Clinton’s self-inflicted wounds, I think that her war vote hurt her badly, as I noted upthread. And it didn’t help her that Mark Penn seemingly didn’t understand even the most basic rules of the race. Finally, I think that demographics were critical, ranging from a new generation of voters that had no interest in the Vietnam generation’s priorities, to the impact of race and gender on voting patterns.
I think I’m forgetting something. Oh, the issue of Sullivan. People are making too much of my having said that, which is my fault. I don’t know precisely what Melissa meant in her post. I should have noted that in my original post. All I know are the places that I’ve seen rampant sexism — Sullivan, MSNBC and other msm outlets, and in the comment threads of many sites. That’s why I mentioned those places. Okay?
June 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Vance Maverick
It’s not linked from the front page — here’s the most recent installment I can find.
June 5, 2008 at 6:38 pm
David
Regarding Hillary’s “cry,” I also thought it humanized her. She was at her best during this campaign when she showed some emotion. Too often I look at her and see someone who just sounds and looks like they are regurgitating a series of talking points. All politicians do that, of course, but Hillary isn’t very good at doing it artfully.
And I think part of the reaction against her crying (only part) was that people didn’t believe her. Some people thought it was manufactured in order to get people to feel sorry for her. I don’t agree with that point of view, but that’s a bit different than making fun of a woman for crying. That said, I agree that many did make fun of her for crying, and that was misogynistic. Christ, this campaign has gone on so long I forgot about that episode. It feels like it happened six years ago now.
Also, last comment on Sullivan: I was thinking about this more today, and I do think that he holds female candidates to a higher standard, probably because of his love for Thatcher. He wants every female politician to be like Thatcher. If they portray a different kind of femininity, he seems to think it has no place in politics and is worthy of contempt. That was his reaction to the Clinton crying thing. He wrote something about how “Can you imagine Thatcher doing something like that?” as if Margaret Thatcher is the only prototype for female politicians. That’s holding Hillary to an absurd and unfair standard because she is a woman, and so I would agree that is misogynist.
This has been a good conversation.
June 5, 2008 at 6:40 pm
ari
And you’re a good egg, David, for staying involved as we hash this stuff out.
June 5, 2008 at 7:24 pm
urbino
egg
Sexist.
June 5, 2008 at 7:57 pm
ari
Fine. Zygote.
June 5, 2008 at 7:58 pm
ari
Or is it gamete?
June 5, 2008 at 8:03 pm
urbino
Gamete will do nicely.
June 5, 2008 at 8:12 pm
ari
Done; gamete it is.
June 5, 2008 at 8:16 pm
urbino
It’s really too bad David has only half a genome.
June 5, 2008 at 8:26 pm
ari
And yet, he’s doing quite well. We never thought he’d amount to much, genetically speaking. But we’re so pleased.
June 5, 2008 at 8:32 pm
urbino
You and his mother must be very proud.
June 5, 2008 at 8:39 pm
ari
You and I will push this thread past 200 comments if it’s the last thing we do.
June 5, 2008 at 8:46 pm
urbino
I
June 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
urbino
had
June 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
urbino
to
June 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
urbino
look
June 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
urbino
at the count.
June 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
urbino
Yikes. We have work to do.
June 5, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Galvinji
Only 55 to go.
June 5, 2008 at 9:55 pm
ari
You’re doing your part, Galvinji.
June 5, 2008 at 9:59 pm
SEK
Amateurs.
June 5, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Ben Alpers
You want numbers? Just start a very serious discussion, befitting an academic blog, on movies you happen not to like.
June 5, 2008 at 10:25 pm
ari
That’s an awful lot of bold text.
June 5, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Galvinji
You’re doing your part, Galvinji.
I try, particularly in the absence of anything substantive to say.
June 5, 2008 at 10:42 pm
ari
in the absence of anything substantive to say
So, with the personnel change, you think we need a new name for the blog? You may be right.
June 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm
andrew
The liminal space between the west and the rest.
June 5, 2008 at 10:49 pm
eric
We don’t need a new name, we just need to remind people of the multiple interpretations this name makes possible.
June 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm
andrew
It depends on what the meaning of “the” is.
June 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm
eric
Also, every time I read the title of this post, I think, “and it has never been made in such detail or with such care.”
June 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm
ari
Also, every time I read the title of this post, I think, “and it has never been made in such detail or with such care.”
Mission Accomplished! (Now where’s my flight suit.)
June 5, 2008 at 10:57 pm
andrew
He laments amidst the campaign’s close
And still insists he’s not morose.
June 5, 2008 at 10:59 pm
ari
Like rhyming couplets, flight suit jokes will never get old.
June 6, 2008 at 5:20 pm
urbino
This Michelle Goldberg piece strikes me as well said. (h/t MY)
June 6, 2008 at 5:31 pm
ari
It’s about time you got back to work on this thread. Slacker.
June 6, 2008 at 5:35 pm
urbino
Sorry. There’s only so much I can say to you on any given topic.
June 6, 2008 at 6:13 pm
eric
You don’t have to stay on-topic, you know.
June 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm
urbino
Relativist.
June 6, 2008 at 10:51 pm
ari
Have I mentioned how right I was in this post? Because I was. Right, that is.
June 6, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Vance Maverick
About suffering they were never wrong,
The Old Masters….
June 6, 2008 at 11:13 pm
urbino
She’s adorable, with her little girl voice and her pudgy cheeks and… wait.
June 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm
ari
More evidence for my thesis. Thanks again,
misogynistsboys.June 6, 2008 at 11:37 pm
urbino
Evidence? Have you learned nothing from the brash yoot you’ve brought on board?
June 7, 2008 at 5:11 am
ac
I don’t see anything wrong with “If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.”
It’s fine as a manifesto, but as a description of the actual state of politics for the last hundred or so years, it’s not accurate.
I was interested in this tangent of the discussion. I’d say that the spread of psychological explanations of behavior in the past hundred years was a major strain of progressive thought, and those explanations are bound up with more enlightened ideas about gender and sexuality and family life, if not a straightforward political feminism. Middle-class private “enlightenment” of this kind led to, for instance, the near-disappearance of the formerly widespread practice of corporal punishment for children, and hastened the decline of all forms of domestic violence. So that’s a development that has obvious connections to the feminist movement.
Obviously too, changes in private life have larger political consequences, especially if you accept that the authoritarian state has its origins in the authoritarian family, a la Alice Miller.
June 7, 2008 at 6:30 am
matt w
Since we’re taking this to 200, I can say whatever I want, right? OK, on the subject of misogynistic reaction to women displaying emotion, anyone else remember Pat Schroeder?
June 7, 2008 at 6:43 am
eric
Because I was. Right, that is.
You cannot be serious. Nobody—nobody—is disputing that Chris Matthews, Christopher Hitchens, and large swathes if not the entirety of the Fox on-air staff have said horrible, sexist things. Nobody is arguing that sexism is not extant or horrible.
What I have argued is that this post, which you copied wholesale from another blog, is full of lots of other contentions, which are not thoughtful, at all.
And there, sir, is where you are wrong.
June 7, 2008 at 6:46 am
eric
I’d say that the spread of psychological explanations of behavior in the past hundred years was a major strain of progressive thought
Absolutely, and I wouldn’t try to say otherwise. I would say, however, that that’s not the entirety of progressive thought.
changes in private life have larger political consequences, especially if you accept that the authoritarian state has its origins in the authoritarian family
Yes, I agree.
June 7, 2008 at 9:03 pm
ari
What I have argued is that this post, which you copied wholesale from another blog, is full of lots of other contentions, which are not thoughtful, at all.
This probably is better left alone at this point, but I’d really appreciate it if you’d re-read what I wrote at the end of Melissa’s post. I noted, quite clearly, that there are problems with what she said. I spelled out some of those problem, which, coincidentally, were some of the very same problems that you later noted with her post.
But for some reason — because I quoted the whole thing? — you’ve suggested throughout this thread that I love everything about her post. That’s just wrong. So, let me say one more time, the basic argument that she’s making is correct: many pro-Obama progressives sold out feminist issues during the primary season. That, in turn, made many feminists feel like they had been betrayed by their allies. That’s what I said above, that’s what I’m saying now. If you think that’s wrong, fine. But your contention that I’ve endorsed Melissa’s post in its entirety isn’t right.
June 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
andrew
25 comments to go.
June 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
andrew
(Just doing my part to take this to
June 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
andrew
200.)
June 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Vance Maverick
Way back in January or so, my wife asked our daughter, then still 3, which of the two principal Democratic candidates she favored. Looking at pictures of them, she unequivocally picked Hillary. A few days later, I spent the day out with Rosa. At the playground, I chatted with another dad, who asked me the usual questions (for San Francisco, anyway), about how our search for a school was going. Later, Rosa asked me what it was that I had been talking about with Obama.
June 7, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Vance Maverick
No special point to that here, I suppose, other than to pad out the comment count, and emphasize the truism about what HRC’s candidacy has meant for women.
June 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm
urbino
That’s what I said above, that’s what I’m saying now. If you think that’s wrong, fine. But your contention that I’ve endorsed Melissa’s post in its entirety isn’t right.
My tummy hurts when mommy and daddy fight.
June 7, 2008 at 10:00 pm
ari
Don’t worry, Urbino, we still love each other. People fight. It’s an important form of expression, as long as both parties aren’t cruel. [Insert joke about makeup sex here.]
June 7, 2008 at 10:03 pm
urbino
Okay. Historians are so complex.
June 11, 2008 at 8:15 am
learnlotsbetty
(Must take lesson on keeping up with blogs and comments.)
Recently, Shakesville switched comment systems, and the old comments were lost. I don’t know how to work the intertubes, but I’m sure that the old comments on that thread are around. I mention this because the comments on the “If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive” post were both copious and incredibly interesting–and that post was a direct response to what Kate Harding describes here:
Apparently, however, this (that Shakesville is a feminist blog) is news to some people. Not the trolls and MRAs–they come here because they do know it’s a feminist blog. No, it’s news to both new and long-time readers who are just so tired of hearing “misogyny this, misogyny that”; the ones who think a certain amount of feminism is all well and good and necessary, but expecting them to read post after post about it is really just asking too much; the ones who want to talk about the first viable female presidential candidate in, you know, ever, but leave aside her gender to focus on the “real issues”; the ones who just get exhausted trying to see the subtle sexism that feminists keep telling them is there; the ones who think believing that women should be allowed to have careers and control their own bodies ‘n’ stuff means they’ve earned their Feminist Card and can therefore say any damn fool thing they want without being called sexist; the ones who can’t stand all this bickering and really wish we’d all CALM DOWN and get back to the IMPORTANT things… Those people don’t seem to get that this is and always has been a feminist blog.
Shakesvillians talked a great deal about what it means to be a feminist; why some women with similar basic intents and hopes choose or choose not to label themselves as feminists, including responses from women of color who have been excluded from the mainstream movement and so reject the label, older women who have been disillusioned by their experiences and reject the label, women who think the patriarchy is strengthened by the fight against it and reject the label, and more; about divergent yet valid and important feminist groups and belief systems; and about how self-identifying as a feminist was neither necessary nor sufficient to be a feminist.
The point of that post is that, today, people who claim the label “progressive” yet ignore or bemoan feminist issues and concerns are propagating an old system where members of that system are valued or dismissed based on stereotype and bias, while talking out the other side of their mouths about equality and justice. It’s hypocritical.
Ari, thanks. As a woman who is sad because of what happened to that woman and by extension many women, even though I supported Obama, I deeply appreciate your acknowledgment.
June 11, 2008 at 8:28 am
ari
Oh, learnlotsbetty, you just want this thread to hit 200. Stop pretending otherwise.
June 11, 2008 at 8:32 am
learnlotsbetty
I have to admit that I considered breaking my comment up in two parts.
June 11, 2008 at 8:32 am
ari
And you didn’t? What’s wrong with you? Selfish.
June 11, 2008 at 8:34 am
learnlotsbetty
I am such a jerkface.
June 11, 2008 at 8:39 am
learnlotsbetty
Really, though, I started reading this blog because I liked the academic nature and agreed with the politics; I keep reading because it’s not a misogynist place and occasionally is overtly feminist. For a bunch of straight white guys, you do a good job of acknowledging your privilege, which is important for me to engage with a community. A working-class bi white chick who’s always had a decent job, I’m still working on that one myself, and think we all should. So I admire you for what you did here, in public.
June 11, 2008 at 8:44 am
ari
See, that’s two comments: you’re growing. As to the substance of what you say, I honestly was just taken with the central argument of Melissa’s post and then began to reflect on my own lack of engagement with the problem she outlined. But really, none of that is nearly so important as making sure that this thread hits 200.
June 11, 2008 at 8:46 am
eric
I, too, even though I am a privileged jerkface who hates this post, would like to see the thread go to 200.
June 11, 2008 at 8:56 am
eric
But I’m not going to take it there by myself.
June 11, 2008 at 8:57 am
learnlotsbetty
Oh, Eric, it’s not that bad!
June 11, 2008 at 8:59 am
learnlotsbetty
We’ll all work together, despite our differences, toward our common goal of realizing this post’s full potential without holding it back because it’s different than the dominant group.
June 11, 2008 at 9:00 am
eric
I just wish Ari had said what he had to say himself, because I have a feeling I would have found it less objectionable, then. As I’ve said a billion times in this and other fora, I totally agree with the main substance of the point—lots of sexism expressed against Clinton, not from campaign, but Obama supporters should have said more against it.
There’s a lot in the quoted post that isn’t to that point, and which I do object to, or at least find mighty puzzling.
June 11, 2008 at 9:02 am
ari
learnlotsbetty cracks me up. Comment more, betty, comment more. Or is it learnlots? I don’t want to assume.
June 11, 2008 at 9:02 am
Vance Maverick
What’s magical about 200?
June 11, 2008 at 9:02 am
Vance Maverick
Also, Eric is….tenacious.
June 11, 2008 at 9:03 am
eric
Stubborn is the word you want.
June 11, 2008 at 9:06 am
Fontana Labs
Could your comments have numbers? That would make life better.
June 11, 2008 at 9:07 am
eric
I’ll link my favorite ode to stubbornness, which should get us almost there:
June 11, 2008 at 9:08 am
eric
Hah.
June 11, 2008 at 9:09 am
Fontana Labs
Mwahaha.
June 11, 2008 at 9:10 am
eric
Labs, until and unless we get our act together and establish a proper independent WordPress operation we can’t do much in terms of customization. But you can do this if you’re a total nerd.
June 11, 2008 at 9:12 am
ben wolfson
Of course eric’s comments can’t have numbers; he’s a historian. I suppose they could have dates, but that’s not really the same.
My comments can have numbers, though; here are some: 8; 100; 304.
June 11, 2008 at 9:15 am
eric
It’s almost as if the phrase “total nerd” conjured ben.
June 11, 2008 at 9:16 am
Fontana Labs
Yeah, that was eerie.
June 11, 2008 at 9:25 am
ben wolfson
I was just following you around the internet, Labs, to proffer my genitals.
June 11, 2008 at 9:29 am
ari
You’ve got extras?
June 11, 2008 at 9:31 am
Vance Maverick
Unfogged is great, but I hope EotAW doesn’t just become a suburb of it — either in numbering the comments, or in locker-room chitchat. If we need to snap towels, we know where to go.
June 11, 2008 at 9:34 am
Fontana Labs
I totally agree with Vance. (References to) Ben’s genitals are like kudzu, though, so be warned.
June 11, 2008 at 9:34 am
eric
You all hear that? Maverick won’t tolerate this kind of behavior, and if you persist he’ll send you to the last roundup.
June 11, 2008 at 9:41 am
ari
Don’t worry, Vance. From the very beginning, there have been occasional threads here that have devolved into towel-snapping ( in Yiddish, no less), that have, in other words, plumbed the depths that only Unfogged typically dares plumb. Then we return to our senses.
June 11, 2008 at 9:43 am
Vance Maverick
On this thread of all threads! /grundy
June 11, 2008 at 12:20 pm
learnlotsbetty
Oh, Ari, you just want this thread to hit 300. Stop pretending otherwise.
June 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm
learnlotsbetty
I’m very surprised that no one actually noted that 200 is behind us now. So: woohoo!
Oh, and betty is fine. You guys crack me up!
June 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm
urbino
Unfogged is great, but I hope EotAW doesn’t just become a suburb of it — either in numbering the comments, or in locker-room chitchat.
Why do you hate America, Vance?
June 11, 2008 at 3:22 pm
217
I’m a comment, not a number!
June 11, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The Modesto Kid
Um… hate to break it to you, 217…