last night was an extremely sad night for some HRC supporters, not necessarily because they are ceding defeat (although some are) not because BO supporters were calling for party unity as a signal this contest is over (many here were extremely classy, some were certainly not - especially in the media) and not because last night's primary results were a surprise.
no - many were sad because last night was a confirmation that for all HRC's mistakes and missteps, there's no question that sexism has played a part in her ailing campaign. with her having to endure scrutiny and criticism that no other candidate in this election or history ever has had to put up with. whether we like it or not, the media does play a large part of the campaign narrative and it has not been kind to either candidate - but the coverage of HRC has been brutal at best, misogynistic at worst.
the media coverage of the clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office. on the one hand, they have to appear tough, nothing at all like a sniveling female, and when they do talk tough, they are called "shrill."
as barbara pendleton told the peoria chapter of the national organization for women on march 8, the deeply rooted sexism in the us as seen in the campaign coverage of sen. hillary rodham clinton "hurts us all,"
gender bias: discussion of how clinton looks, laughs, wears, talks, behaves, "even how she claps." "a man demonstrates roughness and strength. a woman who behaves similarly is called icy and rigid. "his behavior shows compassion and warmth, her behavior shows emotions and weakness. he knows how to work the system, she is manipulative" and "calculating."discussion of ambition, motivation and drive: "frequently sen. clinton has been charged with being willing to do or say anything to win. when she campaigns hard she is often described as strategizing, calculating or fake. but when men campaign hard it is refusing to cede an inch."
discounting of qualifications and accomplishments: "since her first run for the senate she has been presumed to be where she is today because of her husband. they discredited her achievements and implied that she never could have made it on her own. there were no such implications that george w. bush got a leg up because he was the son of a president and a member of a powerful, rich family."
attacks on supporters: "there is the claim that women who voted for her are somehow irrational, and voting only on the basis of gender. they implied they were stupid or shallow."
for those that doubt me, here is a sampling of some of the `hits:'
i just want to be happy. why can't you just love me?
i hate her. i hate her. all that she stands for
you know how when your dog dies, your wife wants to get a puppy right away?
what has been so troubling is that many democrats actually are denying that this is taking place. BO may well be the nominee, but please, ask yourself what progressive would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party or political foe?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 95 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
