Excellent cartoon. Not being a Clinton supporter myself, I obviously don't think all expressions of opposition to her presidential aspirations are driven by sexist. It is, however, extremely telling about the sort of society in which we live that hostility to her presidential aspirations so often finds expression through these sexist scripts.
« Other People Write Books, Too | Main | Clinton Wins WV »
The Hillary Metaphors
13 May 2008 07:27 pm
Comments (47)
Is any gender-based characterization of Hillary necessarily sexist?
I've seen the "psycho ex-girlfriend" analogy. It was introduced by that famed misogynist Wil Wheaton. Perhaps I'm tone deaf, but I don't see why it's necessarily sexist.
It's not that far over-the-top. I've seen most of those metaphors actually used, though not all by professional media and political types.
I think I get what you're saying about not believing that all expressions of opposition to HRC are driven by sexism (despite your typo). One could criticize her support for the Iraq war, or whatever, without trotting out the "she's too ambitious" line. But . . . why does that get said all the time in reference to HRC but not to other ambitious politicians? (And are there any unambitious politicians out there?)
And yes, Jake, you are tone deaf. When was the last time a male candidate was compared to a wife-beater or a psychotic-stalker ex-boyfriend in a public forum? Women who seek power are . . . crazy, emasculating, etc., etc. But men? They're expected to be powerful. And so the Republicans and the MSM constantly try to emasculate male Democrats. That's our incredibly immature society for you.
I saw the one with footage from "downfall" where the subtitles were changed to being Hillary in the bunker and I thought it was funny as hell.
It didn't go over great with a bunch of people but it's only funny because Hillary Clinton is obviously not Hitler.
I saw the one with footage from "downfall" where the subtitles were changed to being Hillary in the bunker and I thought it was funny as hell.
I thought it was funny as hell, too, but I would have felt it were much less funny if the movie clips had been from Fatal Attraction. Comparing her to the quintessential example of a person isolated in the bunker with her last remaining supporters screaming, "We should have set Howard Dean up in a hooker sting like they did with Spitzer!" is funny, especially since it is so over-the-top and something that would fit with a male politician, too. Comparing her to any number of sexist stereotypes, however, is just feeding a evil beast.
Opposition to Hillary may take the form of sexism but, racism is what takes form in opposition to Obama.
I think some of it is driven by the need to lash out and hurt the supporter and by way of that the candidate.
In the heat of passion the emotional need to express anger and the need to hurt the opposition.
I highly doubt those who oppose Hillary would say much in regard to gender if it was dispassionate and the same in regard to racism with Obama.
I'd reserve my metaphors for female supporters of Obama. If, I as a male, will go out of my way to support a female candidate and then a huge chunk of women will vote outside their demographic/ best interests...I then tend to think that women ARE irrational as the stereotype goes. If women don't care then why should I? People are going to remember this election for a long time to come and will be even more difficult for a woman the next time around.
I thought it was a lot less funny then the one with Hitler as a Cowboys fan.
Best HRC metaphor yet:
"the Al Sharpton of white people"
Says nothing at all about Hillary or Sharpton, really, but says all you need to know about the fellow who spouted it.
Huh? What's remarkable about this campaign isn't how she has been damaged by sexism--if anything, in a dem primary, it is benificial to her odds of getting the nomination (ie crying for votes in nh, et al.)--but how much of a free pass she has been given because her last name is Clinton and because the media will do anything for ratings.
It's also notible that the person with at best the fourth most experience was somehow gifted the label as "most experienced"--indeed, it's not even clear that she has as much relevant experience as Obama. A plausible, even strong, case can be made, but there was never even an argument. Her lies about her policy experience were unquestioned for months, as was almost all of the bullshit she has peddled, such as the fact that her deep desire to respect the votes of Floridians was only expressed after she had no further need to pander to the voters of Iowa and NH.
If you want to understand sexism in our society, looking at the media coverage of Hillary's campaign is a really poor place to start. If you want to understand the problems of the media, it's a pretty ideal place to start. But let's be honest: while Hillary has suffered from some unfair coverage, that's been dwarfed by how much she has benefited form all sorts of media biases.
It's interesting to note that whenever Matt says something particularly silly in an effort to secure his feminist bona fides (suggesting Democrats hand the election to McCain by putting Janet Napolitano on the Obama ticket, for instance) he'll frequently lapses into 1980s Deconstruction/Theory speak.
Young Matt: "It is, however, extremely telling about the sort of society in which we live that hostility to her presidential aspirations so often finds expression through these sexist scripts."
Got to love the use of "scripts" there!
The boogeyman "hostility" (when some young, privileged, white feminists can't site actual abuse or discrimination, oh, they've been known to trivialize the H-word) is almost as good and, yes, "extremely telling" too.
The language of Princess Ivy Leauge Feminism (which gave us Naomi Wolfe, Susan Faludi and other figures of delight), no doubt, lives on with the twentysomething women Matt knows and thus with the lad himself.
Sadly, neither the rhetoric nor the assumptions behind it has done anything for women or progressives in three decades. Though, yeah, it has made Gender Studies and many graduate English departments an utter joke. (It's little wonder that someone as well educated and intelligent as Matt eschews genuine literature for comic books. This after all is the milieu he came out of.)
Granted these lapses from English can be amusing to catch ("Oh, look, everyone -- Matt's playing for the Feministe crowd! Sarah must've thrown him a little love last night!"), but they're still pathetic. Not as pathetic as, say, wild Petey screaming about trust-fund scumbags while lying about health-care or the jerkoff Trevor ranting about his Jew du jour, but, frankly, we expect a lot more from Matt.
A lot more.
It'd be nice to have to wait for the "comments" before the silliness starts.
I'd reserve my metaphors for female supporters of Obama. If, I as a male, will go out of my way to support a female candidate and then a huge chunk of women will vote outside their demographic/ best interests...I then tend to think that women ARE irrational as the stereotype goes.
Maybe those women (like my wife and many of my friends, for starters) feel their best interests include a president who didn't vote for the war in Iraq, who doesn't triangulate and capitulate to Republicans, who isn't part of the DLC, who doesn't ignore all but a handful of swing states, and who doesn't run on racist dogwhistles and pandering gas-tax ploys when her campaign is sinking. In other words, maybe they think their best interests lie in electing a Democrat, not another one of the Republican-lite candidates who performed so well in 2002 and 2004. Sounds pretty rational to me.
Also, I love the false a fortiori argument that if a guy can vote for Clinton, women are somehow obligated to. By that logic, since I'm white and I support Obama, Charlie Rangel is "irrational," right?
I'm with Jake. Mary, when Hillary Clinton decided to turn her campaign into a series of lies (about MI and FL, about sniper fire) and racial innuendo, she separated herself out from all the other losers this year, Republican and Democrat, and invited the comparisons to psychotic characters from fiction that wouldn't let go. Yes, it was natural to pick women characters, but not exclusive--hence the Hitler Downfall parody. Slate's early "Election" parody was hilarious--not sexist. The movie itself was not sexist, and the comparison did not make it sexist.
No, none of the male losers this year were likened to wacky psychos--because to a person they didn't behave as terribly as Hillary has. Not Huckster, not Romney, not Dodd and not Edwards.
The idea that noting Hillary's gracelessness is somehow making a general commentary about women or powerful women is just silly.
I'm not denying, by the way, that some people who criticize Hillary are sexist, just as some oppose Obama merely for his race. And just as McCain is mocked mercilessly and regularly for being old. But the overall portrait of Clinton as a psycho loser is not sexist--it's just descriptive.
Also:
People are going to remember this election for a long time to come and will be even more difficult for a woman the next time around.
I would like to think people will remember this election for a long time and make it even more difficult for Hillary Clinton, in the unfortunate event that she should decide to try for a next time around.
But Clinton makes a piss-poor representative for all womankind, especially after the abysmal campaign she's run. I would hope people will look at this election and think that another female candidate, without Clinton's baggage, without her terrible decisions, without her odious circle of advisors and strategists, could easily win the Democratic nomination and the White House.
Also also, to my fellow Obama supporter above: I'm a literature professor and I don't see any deconstructionist "theory speak" in Matt's original post ("scripts" is pretty thin gruel), just a slightly risible desire to appear earnest and concerned and conciliatory without first providing any solid examples of the problem he decries. Then again, I read those mind-rotting, development-stunting comic books too, so my opinion is suspect.
We can't even have 1 post without some glaring spelling or grammar error? "Driven by sexist?"
Just to be clear: is the nonsense that Ann Coulter spews indicative of the broader political views of the American public? Sure, to some extent. But the number of people who don't buy her books is much larger than the number that do. Mostly, when she says things like Bill Clinton's notorious womanizing is dispositive evidence of his homosexuality--because he is so obviously overcompensating--it's more reflective of the perverse incentives of how to get a regular gig as a pundit on cable news.
Perhaps this nullifies my feminist bonifieds, but when I see her give a speech about how all Barack Obama can do is give speeches, and distorts his record in a blatantly dishonest fashion (in a way that doesn't appear to solve anything), before going on about how great she was when she stood up for woman's rights as human rights in a wonderful *speech* she gave in China in 94...all I can think of is "man, what a bitch."
Since I mostly think of her husband as a race baiting asshole, I guess that makes me a little sexist...but sometimes stereotypes are true: some blacks are lazy, some Irish are useless drunks, some Italians are mobbed up, and some women are narcissitic bitches. To be fair, she is also a race baiting asshole, and Bill is also a narcisstic bitch but sometimes the english language makes it hard to be both perfectly gender neutral and accurate in describing the vile among us.
Matt, I know you have to be "counterintuitive" to keep your "reasonable" cred, but try harder next time.
Also also also: Susan Faludi is an astute writer who's just as attuned to the problems facing men in modern America as she is to the politics of the anti-feminist backlash (see Stiffed). Nothing "Princess" about her.
I'm also pretty sure she knows how to spell "Ivy League," but shit, I haven't forgotten whose blog I'm commenting on.
Need I point out that, by a large margin, the dangerous psycho exes are predominantly *male*?
Marc -- Susan Faludi was just sucking me off and, yes, she is a princess.
a pro-Obama anti-persecution-fantasies feminist -- Jesus Christ, feminists can get pissed off at anything, even support for feminists.
It's one thing to compare her to Tracy Flick, which could work with any overly annoying straight-laced politician like her (which could apply also to Mitt Romney). However, going for a real ball-buster like Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction is sexist if done in earnest (but this is a parody of sexism, after all).
"I would like to think people will remember this election for a long time and make it even more difficult for Hillary Clinton, in the unfortunate event that she should decide to try for a next time around.
But Clinton makes a piss-poor representative for all womankind, especially after the abysmal campaign she's run. I would hope people will look at this election and think that another female candidate, without Clinton's baggage, without her terrible decisions, without her odious circle of advisors and strategists, could easily win the Democratic nomination and the White House."
Good point. The generation gap played a decent role in why Clinton failed to win this thing: she failed to pull in young women to a greater extent. In general, people under 40, especially educated people under 40, just really don't see her as a feminist or a self-made woman, but as a Clinton. We don't have to become Argentina where the only way a woman can ever come to power is through marriage (despite the fact fascist generals there got their asses handed to them by Thatcher). In addition, if Obama picks Sebelius, wins and wins again in 2012, the nomination is probably Sebelius's if she wants it. In fact, the next female candidate will probably score some points by making sure not to fall into the race-baiting or the MI/FL-style bullshit that Clinton followed.
Christ Almighty!
MY, I read your blog every day. I respect your opinion greatly.
But as a reformed editorial cartoonist and as a holder of advanced degrees in pictorial representation, I must protest. That is most definitely NOT an "excellent cartoon."
A thousand words atop a picture is NOT worth a thousand words!!
PLEAAASE, Matt, do not perpetuate the notion that such crummy ideological/political "web-comix" are worth looking at! Even the dog-crap "commentary" that gets past MSM editors and is actually printed by machines on real dead trees is almost always PURE-ASS-DRECK.
Years ago, it was deeply sad for me, as a nineteen-year-old aspiring cartoonist, to give up hope that the medium held any potential. I did so as a result of direct counsel from the Masters of the genre: Oliphant, KAL, Bok, and others.
I'm much older now, and have found other means of expression, and I beg of you, Dr. Frankenglesias: Do not revive the corpse!!!
Umm... Thanks.
Marc -- Susan Faludi was just sucking me off and, yes, she is a princess
You can put a princess hat on her and call her Susan, but she's still your sister, Harper.
I really don't understand how the comparisons to a hostage taker or to Hitler are sexist.
" In addition, if Obama picks Sebelius, wins and wins again in 2012, the nomination is probably Sebelius's if she wants it"
Sebelius turns 60 this week, so she would be 68 in 2016 after two Obama terms, so this is probably not a great idea if McCain is too old at 72. If the populace is less accepting of aging in women than in men (see: Hollywood) then the maximum age for a viable female candidate would be lower than that for a man.
Someone in her mid-50s would be better, IF the goal is to have a female VP well-placed to succeed Obama. The age Thatcher was when she became Prime Minister.
Apart from that specific consideration, which could rationally be ignored, Sebelius would be a fine VP.
Wow, with one single post, Matt has managed to bring out the hostility towards web comics, feminism, AND academia. A hat trick!
It's amazing to me how many people here think the media has exhibited no sexism towards Clinton. I'm not supporting her, and I didn't vote for her, but the sexism is obvious. There are too many examples to list, and that's not even counting Chris Matthews. As Mary points out, many of them take the form of her being portrayed as power hungry or domineering, when the same qualities in a male politician are called 'ambition', if they're commented on at all. But my favorite is the way so many commentators, when attacking her, call her 'shrill'. I've never been quite able to figure out what that means. So far as I can tell, this means that: a) she sometimes raises her voice during speeches, and b) that voice is a woman's voice (heaven forfend!)
Perhaps we should remind of all the male politicians who have been ridiculed here. Mary, for example Ross Perot was mocked for his ears and for being a nutcase. Gerald Ford was endlessly mocked for a stumble. Jimmy Carter got to hear a lot of nasty stuff. Spitting Image (A British show, but nevertheless) made a skit about Ronald Reagan, calling it "The President's Brain Is Missing".
How would you feel, Mary, if a female President got ridiculed with "The President's Brain Is Missing"? And then there was all the mockery of the "Dean Scream", as if Dean had lost it.
Lackluster, there's a difference between thinking the media has exhibited no sexism toward Clinton and simply not agreeing that every criticism that someone somewhere views as sexism actually is sexist. Any candidate, male or female, who was in Clinton's current hopeless position and continuing to campaign would be ridiculed as crazy (and for any candidate other than the "inevitable" Clinton, the ridicule would have started a lot earlier).
Of course the media have sometimes been sexist, and that's a problem. Other times they have been unfair to her in some way that's not sexist. Still other times they have given her an unfair advantage over Obama. The pendulum has swung back and forth over the course of the nomination contest.
"Mary, for example Ross Perot was mocked for his ears and for being a nutcase. Gerald Ford was endlessly mocked for a stumble. Jimmy Carter got to hear a lot of nasty stuff. Spitting Image (A British show, but nevertheless) made a skit about Ronald Reagan, calling it "The President's Brain Is Missing"."
When has having large ears ever held a man back like how being female has ever held a woman back? The majority of the criticism of Clinton in the media hasn't been sexist, but this is an apples and oranges comparison.
agree and surprised that i agree, but there it is. sometimes it takes a cartoon.
this might be the start of a "B..but racism" meme
When was the last time a male candidate was compared to a wife-beater or a psychotic-stalker ex-boyfriend in a public forum? Women who seek power are . . . crazy, emasculating, etc., etc. But men? They're expected to be powerful.
Yeah. And have you ever noticed that a man who has many sex partners is considered a stud but a sexually active woman is called a slut??
OK, I won't call Clinton a bitch.
She's an asshole.
Happy now?
Do you guys think you have to give up your Obama card if you admit there's been sexism in the campaign or something? It's really not that fucking hard. See, Matt did it! I can do it too, watch:
Hillary's run a bad campaign, but some of the crap that's been thrown at her is clearly sexist, vile, and stupid. I think one of the (many) reasons Obama has triumphed is he's done a much better job of deflecting the race-based crap that's been thrown at him, while she's mostly let the gender-based crap define her.
Look, I still have my Obama card! ::waves it::
he's done a much better job of deflecting the race-based crap that's been thrown at him, while she's mostly let the gender-based crap define her.
Has she? I'd say she's mostly let the Clinton-based crap define her.
I agree that Obama's done a better job of deflecting attacks; whenever Clinton gets tagged with a bad meme (willing to say anything to get elected) she tends to reinforce it (gas tax pandering, sniper fire in Bosnia). But that's not gender-based. It's earned.
That isn't to say that there hasn't been sexism in the campaign coverage (or the blog comments!), but Hillary Clinton's faults are entirely her own.
When has having large ears ever held a man back like how being female has ever held a woman back? The majority of the criticism of Clinton in the media hasn't been sexist, but this is an apples and oranges comparison.
I thought the point was that Clinton had been treated especially harshly as a candidate. I don't think so. There is a glass-ceiling, yes, but that is mostly by being ignored or not taken seriously. That's a completely different kind of treatment.
Besides, there is a class ceiling for men too. Catholic men, Jewish men, black men, non-Christian men in general, gay men... It's only a subgroup of men who have been President.
And I think for her story about Tuzla, Clinton was outright kindly treated. She repeatedly told a story, with a lot of dramatic detail, which was complete made-up, in order to look good. It wasn't to cover up anything; it wasn't merely stretching the truth - it was real fabrication.
I'm not aware of any male candidate, ever, getting away with (repeatedly) faking a story with such detail.
Hillary's run a bad campaign, but some of the crap that's been thrown at her is clearly sexist, vile, and stupid. I think one of the (many) reasons Obama has triumphed is he's done a much better job of deflecting the race-based crap that's been thrown at him, while she's mostly let the gender-based crap define her.
With a disclaimer, now that I think about it, of not having watched American TV, I don't know what vile, sexist crap you are talking about. Could you cite?
Obviously a little over the top but it does reflect some of the thinking in certain quarters.
It's not that far over-the-top. I've seen most of those metaphors actually used, though not all by professional media and political types.
According to August (author of the cartoon), every one of those metaphors, including the Hitler one, has been used by critics of Clinton. He doesn't cite his sources as he sometimes does for comics, but still.
Bengt, here's a Media Matters piece on Chris Matthews. Yes, he's only one anchor, but he has a prominent spot on MSNBC and has spouted off some pretty amazing stuff.
That isn't to say that there hasn't been sexism in the campaign coverage (or the blog comments!), but Hillary Clinton's faults are entirely her own.
Well, yes. And I think the way the campaign's handled sexism is symptomatic of larger flaws (remember the 'all these men beating up on me' crack at the debates?). It just drives me crazy when people insist the sexism didn't exist.
Okay, Persia, thanks.
Gender helped her campaign, just as race did in a way for Obama, as suggested by Ferraro. Clinton ran a nasty, negative campaign. She was dishonest, lied and appealed to lowest, meanist sides in people. She was willing to wreck the Democrats' chances for her own benefit. With Clinton and her supporters being that negative, of course she's going to get negative vibes thrown back at her. As Obama said, the Republicans taught her well in the 1990s.
As Barabara Ehrenreich wrote, "But by running a racially-tinged campaign, lying about her foreign policy experience, and repeatedly seeming to favor McCain over her Democratic opponent, Clinton didn’t just break through the “glass floor,” she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm’s reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama’s face."
Aslo, I don't think the hostility is against webcomics in general. It's a hostility to the earnest liberal web comics with a "message" that is communicated by just writing lots of text on top a a drawing.
Back in the early 00s, takebackthemedia.com had videos that were of the same format: their idea of "video" was to combine pictures (sometimes moving, sometimes not) with lots of scrolling text.
It was introduced by that famed misogynist Wil Wheaton. Perhaps I'm tone deaf, but I don't see why it's necessarily sexist.
By your logic, Jake, Matthew drew this cartoon. Wheaton linked to that metaphor. Didn't create it.
Perhaps you should larn more about how teh Intart00bs werk. And consider deeply what else in your brane is based on misenfurmashen.
Thanks god Matthew isn't sexist.
He only hates folks born without a trust fund, be they men or women.
Petey: I don't have a trust fund, and I really can't stand you. Does that count?
Vile sexist morons.
She has a strong sense of entitlement (from her own comments dating back to last fall), and she does not seem to care much about the damage that she could do to the party (based on recent tactics, including embrace of GOP talking points), and she is oblivious as to how her behavior is perceived or her likelihood for success.
I think the mindset is in many ways formally equivalent to that of a jilted ex- girl-friend OR boy-friend. I don't think the metaphor is sexist because both sexes can behave that way.
God I hate my fellow democrats...
it's the circular firing squad all over again.
Obama people: I hate Hillary! Whaaaaaa!
Hillary people: We haven't gotten fair treatment! Whaaaaa!
Me: Groan...
Comments closed May 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wow!!! Obviously a little over the top but it does reflect some of the thinking in certain quarters. The reverse is also true, i.e., those people who blame the dislike for Hillery on rabid anti-feminism. Personally, Mrs Clinton is not my first choice for several reason, one of which is NOT because she is a woman.
Posted by Sootytern | May 13, 2008 7:39 PM