Marie Cocco does her take on the "Hillary, martyr to misogyny" theme, too predictably to bother excerpting. Much more worthwhile is RichM's response in comments, which nails the real problem with Hillary and the real problem with these kinds of criticisms (and echoes what I wrote a few days ago, but says it better):
This article is shallow & trivial, taking aim at a much-too-easy target. Sure, it’s bad to hurl sex-based hate at Hillary. But that’s because there are so many more insightful & accurate ways to despise this loathesome creature. Her gender has nothing to do with it. It’s her Bush-like sense of entitlement, her sociopathic narcissism, her utter lack of principles, & her grasping ruthlessness — all characteristics she shares with her sleazebag husband.
That's dead on. I'll believe that the bulk of Hillary criticisms are motivated mainly by misogyny the day that someone of the temperament and caliber of Michelle Bachelet gets similar treatment in a similar context here (a test we're not likely to see in our lifetimes, of course, but I can dream).
Also in comments, Cocco defender Eric J-D asks this question:
What’s the male equivalent of being a “bitch”…?
Asks it rhetorically, that is, since the purpose is to make us gape in wonderment as the realization slowly dawns that women are particularly beset with pejorative monikers, the like of which would never be applied to a man. The problem, though, is that that's a complete crock. The word you're looking for would be "asshole", Eric—a term that's an exact gender-specific analogue to "bitch", and for which all the criteria except one are essentially identical (granted that it would be less jarring to hear the former applied to a woman than to hear the latter applied to a man, but 19 out of 20 experts consider it a usage error). And of the two terms, there's no doubt which one has the less pleasant referent.
Eric might also want to take a look at the plethora of male-exclusive alternatives on the "asshole" synonym page, like bastard, cocksucker, dickhead, motherfucker, prick, and SOB. And various and sundry combinations and derivations not mentioned therein—but you get the idea. When it comes time for dullards to chastise someone, they've got plenty of gender-specific options, no matter whether or not the target has a Y chromosome.
ALSO: People concerned about the effect of all this harsh invective on the delicate constitution of HRC might want to read this.
The Distant Ocean 
LikeLike
“What people have noticed is that for some reason only Clinton gets attacked in those terms. ”
Bill Clinton was attacked in those terms all the time. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The very post where those particular terms were used went on to say that Hillary shared those traits with her husband.
McCain isn’t attacked in those terms because the media loves him. For decades now they’ve loved Republicans more than Democrats and I don’t have to be an enthusiastic Democrat to agree with Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler about this. Obama isn’t attacked that way because he’s the frontrunner and the almost certain nominee and doesn’t come across as quite as grasping and power-hungry as the Clintons (both of them), though I agree that he probably is–he just puts on a better front. The characteristic form of attack on Obama is that he’s a wimp. Clinton is considered a “fighter” by her supporters, and as ruthless by those opposed to her. Within the limits of mainstream politics, Clinton committed the almost unforgiveable sin of comparing her own “commander in chief” potential with McCain’s, while implying that Obama lacked this qualifying characteristic. It shows a fair amount of ruthlessness for a Democrat to say that about her Democratic rival.
I hate this concern about who is tough enough to be “commander in chief” crap anyway, but it’s an example of Clinton not playing by the rules and characterically, when she violates them it’s to show how much of a militarist she is.
There is sexism in much of the attacks on Hillary, but there’s also this tendency for people to see sexism or irrational hatred when Hillary is bashed for perfectly good nonsexist reasons. I saw this recently at a mainstream blog–someone went through a long list of good leftist reasons for despising Hillary, none of them sexist, and after all that, the Hillary supporter just said “Wow. You really hate her.” His reasons didn’t matter.
LikeLike
Of course she also shares those qualities shares with Obama and McCain.
I’d agree that they share some of those qualities to varying extents, but not all of them and not equally. For example, the “Bush-like sense of entitlement” is all hers—I don’t get that from either Obama or McCain. And she may not be the only ruthless one, but like her husband she takes it far beyond the norm.
Most politicians are scumbags, but their scumbaggery takes different forms and dimensions, and Hillary’s is off the chart (much like George Bush’s). I’d say that’s what’s driving much of the animosity toward her, especially as the refusal of reality to conform to her ambition has led her to drop the mask.
LikeLike
I yield to no one in my criticism of Ms. Clinton, but it’s flat-out bullshit to say that “asshole” is the equivalent of “bitch.” Hate to break it to you, but both genders have assholes, and both genders can be assholes. “Bitch” on the other hand refers to specifically to a female dog in its literal definition, or to an uppity woman or an effeminate male in its metaphorical sense.
As for those male-specific insults–“motherfucker,” “prick,” etc.–they’re in no way equivalent to “bitch,” which has a long and ugly history of being used against any woman who’s not a doormat. Including Michelle Bachelet, incidentally.
You’re giving Hillary-bashers far, far too much credit when you assume that they’re speaking out of principled disdain for scumbaggery. The level and viciousness of the attacks on her are in an entirely separate league from the attacks on similar or worse male politicians.
LikeLike
The level and viciousness of the attacks on her are in an entirely separate league from the attacks on similar or worse male politicians.
Totally disagreed; just look at what gets hurled at George Bush (someone I’d consider similar to or only slightly worse than Hillary). Next to that, what I’ve seen directed at Hillary scarcely registers.
My point is that Hillary’s candidacy is practically useless as a barometer of the level of sexism or misogyny in this country, because she’s such an execrable person to begin with. Imagine we lived in a world where Bush was one of the first ever male candidates for the presidency. Would he still be considered a gigantic asshole? Absolutely. But would that indicate a latent cultural misandry? No—just good judgment. And the same goes for Hillary.
Beyond that, though, if there’s been a huge outpouring of sexist attacks against Hillary I’ve managed to miss it, and whenever I see it cataloged it usually involves overgeneralized cherry-picking (like Cocco quoting Penn Jillette telling a lame joke, ferchrissake). I’m not for a moment defending nimrods who attack Hillary solely on the basis of her sex (and who would, as you imply, also attack someone like Bachelet in similar terms), but setting those outliers aside, I agree with Donald’s assessment that there’s a tendency for people to see sexism or irrational hatred when Hillary is criticized for perfectly good nonsexist reasons.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Reader: It sounds like we’ve had some radically different experiences of Hillary critiques, because the mainstream media world you describe is completely foreign to me. You make it sound like she’s constantly being characterized as a ruthless, calculating, heartless, scolding bitch, but I’ve seen little to none of that. The mainstream critiques I’ve seen mainly focus on horse-race politics and the potential harm she’s doing to the Democratic Party. And I don’t recall any shots at her character (it’s Obama who’s gotten the bulk of that, especially thanks to the Jeremiah Wright foofaraw—and Hillary was right there heading the charge). In fact it’s only been since she’s refused to accept reality that I’ve seen the knives come out at all—when she was the frontrunner, they were giving her a free ride.
As for Obama-love, you may not have read my other postings about him, but at times I have to stop myself from letting this become the bash-Obama blog. And you won’t find too many Obama fans reading here either. But despite my opinion of the actual amount of “change” or “hope” he represents, I do see major differences between him and Hillary (and also between McCain and Hillary, though it’s closer there and McCain is veering more towards his dark side lately). Your assessment clearly differs, which is probably one reason why you find the harsher criticisms of her exceptionable and I don’t.
LikeLike
The attacks on her from the right have been notably sexist. There are even “C.U.N.T.” t-shirts.
LikeLike
Totally disagreed; just look at what gets hurled at George Bush (someone I’d consider similar to or only slightly worse than Hillary).
This is simply false. I’ve never seen anyone creating the equivalent of a “Hillary nutcracker” for G.W. Bush (because there is no equivalent), or telling him to iron anyone’s shirts, or repeatedly making comments about his sexual activity or lack thereof. As for “cherry-picking”: if there are enough cherries to be picked (and believe me, there are, just scroll down to see the list of links). And Penn Jillette is a popular guy who gets a lot of laughs, especially with that line. He was quoted approvingly in a column by Maureen Dowd, who as an NY Times columnist is about as mainstream as you can get, and who repeatedly gender-trashes HRC herself.
Perhaps you’re only speaking of those who bash Hillary from the left. In my experience, they’re only slightly better than those who bash her from the right. The best comparison of HRC isn’t to Bush, but to her husband Bill and other centrist hawkish Democrats. The level and the nature of the hate she gets is totally different from what Bill gets. I have never seen anyone suggest that Bill Clinton should be raped. I’ve heard plenty of male leftists say that of Hillary.
LikeLike
Aargh–what I meant to say was, if there are enough cherries to be picked and if you can’t point to similar criticisms hurled at other candidates for similar flaws, then you have to admit there’s a problem. Honestly, there’s no need to go fishing for examples of sexism in Hillary’s coverage. I certainly didn’t. I think it’s pretty blatant.
Also, John, I suspect you’re confusing harsh criticism with gender-based criticism, and you’re assuming critics of the sexism in the campaign interpret all harsh criticism as gender-based. Now, it’s quite true that GWB gets a lot of harsh invective hurled his way. But it lacks the sexual edge that so many people give their criticisms of Hillary, and that’s what we shrill feminazis are complaining about. 😉
To sum up: “Hillary is a warmongering authoritarian” is not sexist, “Hillary is a shrill frigid bitch” is. And, really, whining about how Hillary is such a bitch (an insult frequently applied to any woman who pisses people off in even minor ways) takes attention away from the fact that she is indeed a warmongering authoritarian corporatist etc. of epic proportions.
LikeLike
Serafina: I’d appreciate it if you could avoid the absolute contradictions, calling “flat-out bullshit”, etc. It just polarizes the discussion.
To respond to just one of the things I’m wrong about, namely what gets thrown at George Bush, have you really never seen things like this or this or this or this or this or this or this or this? I’ve seen Photoshopped pictures in store windows of George Bush getting sodomized (in various orifices) by Dick Cheney. This man is one of the most reviled human beings on the face of the planet, and I’m hard-pressed to think of something I haven’t seen tossed his way, sexual or otherwise, over and over and over and over again. (99.8% of it fully justified, I should add.) So if you really do believe that it’s “simply false” that what gets hurled at him isn’t on a par with (or worse than) what’s been thrown at Hillary, we’re in the realm of irreconcilable differences.
(Here’s an Obama bonus, if anyone’s interested.)
“bitch” (an insult frequently applied to any woman who pisses people off in even minor ways)
Yep, just like “asshole” is frequently applied to any man who pisses people off in even minor ways. I’d agree that “bitch” is different in that it’s also used by sexists to attack women verbally, but in their descriptive (as opposed to purely epithetic) senses, the words are (as I said) gender-specific equivalents. And Hillary Clinton really is a major X, just as George Bush is a titanic X, where X o^ {asshole, bitch} (o^ being my newly-invented “gender-appropriate selection” operator).
Look, my point is not to say that every person who says anything negative about Hillary Clinton, no matter how vile, is informed by some deeply-considered critique. There are plenty of yutzes in the world, and they’re spewing their usual trash at her. What I’m saying is that Hillary Clinton is an extremely poor test case for sexism or misogyny, because she genuinely is an awful person in countless ways. And as for the rampant sexism in the mainstream media (emphasis on “mainstream”), I’m just not seeing it anywhere near as much as you or A. Reader seem to. That’s not because I’m a typical clueless male for whom sexism is invisible because I’m not the one in the crosshairs; I look for it, and just don’t see it. And part of that is a difference in judgment, since many of the examples that are called out don’t strike me as particularly sexist—e.g. “shrill”, especially in reference to Hillary (who truly is shrill), or the focus on her crying jag (idiotic, yes…sexist, no), which would have been far, far harsher if it had been a man crying.
So yes, I agree there’s some anti-Hillary sexism out there (especially on the fringes), but I think it’s being blown out of proportion, that a lot of valid criticism is being lumped in with it, and that this entire issue is being consciously (and shrewdly) played up and exploited by Hillary’s campaign.
StO: Absolutely true, but when it comes to ignorant hatred those people are equal-opportunity.
LikeLike
I think Hillary makes a splendid test case precisely because she’s such a god-awful person. American politics is filled to the brim with such people, including Bill Clinton and countless hawkish Democrats.
I have seen plenty of the things that you linked to, but look, those are blogs and websites and YouTube videos. They’re not mainstream. You don’t get people on CNN or Fox or NBC calling Bush a dog that needs to be put down or fantasizing about him getting run over by a truck or comparing him to a psycho ex-boyfriend. Such descriptions of Hillary reinforce, as the linked article notes, a long cultural history of demonizing women. I really don’t see how you can look at stuff like “shrill” as a matter of “judgment,” i.e. subjective. Men rarely get described as “shrill.” It’s a classic sexist put-down, that’s always what it’s been used as. When you say things like “Hillary truly is shrill,” I have to wonder what exactly makes you think she’s any shriller than any woman on the street. Her voice is actually lower in pitch than most women’s. So what exactly would a woman have to do to not be shrill? As for her “crying jag,” your describing it as such just proves my point: there was no crying jag. She choked up, that’s all. Men get a bit teary on the campaign trail all the time. Bill Clinton certainly did, and George Bush does, and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney all have.
I’ve never seen an example of valid Hillary-criticism being lumped in with sexism, come to think of it. Even if we assume the stuff you’re defending is non-sexist, “shrill” isn’t a valid criticism. It’s a triviality. What valid criticism do you think gets lumped in with sexism?
I also disagree with this: in their descriptive (as opposed to purely epithetic) senses, the words are (as I said) gender-specific equivalents.
I think asshole has a very different connotation from bitch and is also not gender-specific. If you call a woman a bitch, it generally connotes inappropriate aggression or loudness or bossiness; if you call a man a bitch, it generally connotes weak, whiny effeminacy. If you call anyone an “asshole,” I think it usually just refers to bad behavior in general, without specific gendered connotations.
LikeLike
I should also say that the “Fuck George Bush in the ass” thing you linked to was the first time I’ve ever seen anyone suggest that Bush should be raped. I’ve seen a HELL of a lot of Bush-hatred, but most of it does not center around sexualized violence in my experience.
LikeLike
Men rarely get described as “shrill.”
Because men’s voices are much less likely to be shrill than women’s. By the same token you’re much less likely to hear a woman’s voice described as flat, dull, droning, monotone, etc.
You seem to think it’s silly even to suggest that HRC’s voice is shrill, which surprises me—but beauty is in the ear of the behearer. For me (and many others, clearly), her voice has a harsh edge that makes it painful to listen to. Some examples of prominent women in politics who aren’t shrill: Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright, Cynthia McKinney…in fact I’m hard-pressed to come up with another one who is.
As for her “crying jag,” your describing it as such just proves my point:
No, because I’d have used the exact same (flippant, offhand) phrase if she’d been a man. As for whether or not it’s accurate: I tried to ignore that particular media circus and so I don’t know if a tear actually crested over her lower lid.
there was no crying jag. She choked up, that’s all. Men get a bit teary on the campaign trail all the time.
Context is tremendously important here: I’ve never heard of a male politician choking up, getting teary, or jaggedly crying when being asked about the pressures of the campaign. If a man were to exhibit the exact same reaction in the exact same context, he’d be savaged in the media and his campaign would be over. If anything, the fact that Hillary’s campaign not only continued but got a boost from this shows that the double standard in this case favors women, not men.
Like I said, differences in judgment. And it’s pretty clear by now that we’re not a few (or 10, or 100) comments away from reconciling those differences…so I’ll bow out now. Thanks for the exchange, though—engaging as always.
LikeLike
Fair enough, but one last point, because I think it’s important:
Because men’s voices are much less likely to be shrill than women’s. By the same token you’re much less likely to hear a woman’s voice described as flat, dull, droning, monotone, etc.
I frequently hear Clinton and Pelosi both described as all of those things. But the point is that “shrill” isn’t just a neutral descriptor of a tone of voice. It’s got baggage that the rest of those words don’t have, which is why women get called shrill even if they’re not talking. I’ve seen written essays by women described as “shrill,” for instance. “Shrill” therefore has power that “monotone” doesn’t have–“monotone” isn’t used to shut men up, whereas the threat of being labeled “shrill” (or “strident” or similar terms) is used (often effectively) to silence women. Being “shrill” means you’re a certain kind of person, not just that your voice is in a certain tonal range. It’s a buzzword, somewhat comparable to calling black women “loud” or calling Latinos “hot-blooded.”
This kind of baggage is why people are bothered with the general criticism of Clinton. You can quibble about whether a particular person means his or her particular insult with sexist intent, but the ultimate point is that, whatever your intent, many insults reinforce and play off of a cultural history of misogyny. Which, again, is why I think people should stick to criticizing her about stuff that matters.
LikeLike
Serafina:
…I think asshole has a very different connotation from bitch and is also not gender-specific. If you call a woman a bitch, it generally connotes inappropriate aggression or loudness or bossiness; if you call a man a bitch, it generally connotes weak, whiny effeminacy. If you call anyone an “asshole,” I think it usually just refers to bad behavior in general, without specific gendered connotations…
Seconded. 8)
LikeLike