Who’s even running again? (But it’s clear who’s behind the podium…)
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled May 18, 2024The Biggest Crisis A #PoliCartoon by me and Becky Hawkins.
- Untitled May 17, 2024#PoliCartoon: Fat Patients, Fat Patience #FatAcceptance
- Untitled May 17, 2024Thinking of that time that Degas painted the actress Ellen Andree sitting and looking pensive in a cafe, and Monet saw Degas' painting and decided to find the same actress and get her to pose in the same cafe so he could do his own version.
- Untitled May 17, 2024Copyright claims often go too far, crushing free speech and not allowing for the way artists are influenced by, repurpose, and even coincidentally echo, other art. Not this time, though! Jeff Dieschburg is a straight-up tracer who adds NOTHING original when he paints his copies of photos. [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 17, 2024#PoliCartoon: Defending Free Speech
- Untitled May 16, 2024The Existence of Trains Debate #PoliCartoon #Climate #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming
- Untitled May 18, 2024
Mandolin,
This seems to be a followup to your earlier post. So a question: How, exactly, can people make criticisms of Hillary’s “use” of Bill without crossing your line of sexism? Surely it can’t be out of bounds, as Bill is an insanely well known, very popular, and extremely powerful ally on Hillary’s team. If she uses him less (her call) then she’ll get fewer attacks based on his appearances. If she relies on him more, the reverse is true.
Now, i have no debate that the press is trying to suppress her candidacy in MANY other, sexist, ways (see, e.g., that cartoon posted the other day, the name issue, the various references, etc.) But the question of ‘who is calling the shots’ is a valid one in ANY election (see, e.g., bush/cheney). And thus, issues of who’s behind the podium are not necessarily sexist. Aren’t they?
I mean, you can blog anything you want, of course. but there seems to be wide agreement in your last thread that your assumption of sexism in Obama’s remark wasn’t accurate, at least in the eyes of the various people (of both sexes) who responded. I sense you feel strongly about this, but is there any chance you could respond to some of the points that people, including me, raised there?
“How, exactly, can people make criticisms of Hillary’s “use” of Bill without crossing your line of sexism? ”
Directly? How about “I don’t like the way in which Bill Clinton interacts with Hilary Clinton’s campaign. He seems to sort of act like her id, able to say things that she can’t publicly say without coming across as mean.”
See how that’s different from “Hilary is really a shill for Bill?”
“But the question of ‘who is calling the shots’ is a valid one in ANY election (see, e.g., bush/cheney). And thus, issues of who’s behind the podium are not necessarily sexist. Aren’t they?”
Lots of things aren’t necessarily sexist in any context, and are sexist when they’re part of a systemic, historically consistent kind of oppression — such as the suggestion that women cannot hold authority in their own persons.
Also, you can assume I agree with ADS and Eliza (although I wouldn’t call Obama a hypocrite, or at least no more so than anyone else in the field of viable candidates).
Mandolin, if I understand you right, you’re saying “Hillary is just a front for Bill” is improper to say, and “Bush is a front for Cheney” is legitimate. Or have I misunderstood?
Regardless of what’s legitimate or acceptable… saying Bush is a front for Cheney certainly isn’t sexist or playing into the idea that husbands call the shots, wives follow their leads. It’s more along the lines of implying that our president is a hapless idiot who can’t think for himself, so the Grand Vizier must be pulling the strings. That idea, in and of itself, is not sexist or offensive like summoning up sexist husband-wife archetypes is.
Thanks, Holly.
OT: Read the book by Joanna Russ, shown in the picture belonging to the post.
I don’t think anyone said that Hill was as shill for Bill, but more the other way around. He can do the really dirty work while she gets plausible deniability and only focuses on the “issues”. Now excuse me while I go make $1 to your $.76
Does no one honestly see the sexism in the assumption that Hillary is a shill for Bill (Bill’s really the one that’s running, but since he legally can’t do it, Hillary’s just standing behind the podium in his place) because Bill is speaking out and “defending” her? Notice that in Obama’s statement the assumption is not that Bill is Hillary’s lackey — doing her evil bidding so she can look good — but that Hillary is Bill’s lackey, that he’s the “real” one running.
Well, that’s substantive. And not snarky at all.
Not sure I follow you. Does this mean that if people think that Bill is playing Dick Cheney to Hillary’s George Bush, they can’t criticize it purely because it plays into a stereotype?
imho, Obama’s remark could be taken many different ways – the sexist idea that Hillary is just a puppet for Bill is one of them, but also the fact is that he’s having to take a lot of flak from Bill. If Bill Clinton is becoming his primary adversary, it’s fair to say what he said without being sexist.
I’d wait to see if more such comments pour out of his mouth before trying to suggest a pattern of behaviour – but that’s partly because I detest the “GOTCHA” nature of sound-bite politics.
That would be totally legitimate if anyone had suggested a pattern of behavior (from Obama), rather than criticizing a single sexist comment.
[Edited to add: I do think there’s a pattern of behavior from culture and society, yes. Is that what you meant? Sorry. I don’t think Obama is particularly more sexist than others, no.]
I agree that it seems sexist, but I think its really the equality of the Hill/Bill partnership that unleashes misogyny. When Bill was running, he also got the criticism that Hillary was “really” wearing the pants/running the show from back stage. Both criticisms strike me as a sexist discomfort with their partnership.
For comparison, I imagine Bob and Elizabeth Dole are also a good team with equal political skills, but they present a different image from the one that Bill and Hillary present.
“Not sure I follow you. Does this mean that if people think that Bill is playing Dick Cheney to Hillary’s George Bush, they can’t criticize it purely because it plays into a stereotype?”
Do you think you can sustain a persuasive argument that Hilary is a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations? If you can — and if the basis of your argument is more than “she’s a girl, which means she’s automatically a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations” — then probably you’ve come up with something that can be acknowledged as non-caveman-level discourse.
However, I think such an argument would be impossible to sustain. Hilary — despite the fact that I disagree with her on a number of issues — is clearly intelligent and capable. I could say the same thing about any number of Republicans and Democrats, from McCain to Obama.
Unfortunately, the meme “she’s a girl, so she must be a weakling mentally and out of her depth politically” is subliminally, culturally pervasive, which means that people can call on it without having to sustain a more legitimate argument. That’s what allows people to suggest that Hilary is a shill for Bill — which Obama is not the first to do, but plays into here — and have that allegation stick. Thus, the sexism.
I know this was posted as a specific reference, but this particular poster really got to me as a writer, and a reader of women’s writing. I think I have to print it out and have it in my office. Thanks.
Regarding the actual issue– I think there are situations where I would consider the remark completely legit– I think it’s fine to acknowledge and examine the fact that the candidate’s husband was a popular president. Or that the candidate’s daddy was a popular president. These things can’t be off limits.
I think the comment was over the line because I really don’t think HRC is, or appears to be, a mouthpiece for her husband. She’s acted on her own agency as a senator, and I think she’s doing so during the campaign. Plus, she was a politically active first lady– anyone remember the jokes that HILLARY was the one running the country when BILL was president? I remember comments way back in 2004 that if she ran, she could be a 4-term president.
So, bottom line, I think it’s silly to pretend that her family connections have nothing to do with her political career–like it would be silly to pretend that about George W. and Jeb. But I also think that this comment was entrenched in a sexist tradition, and that there’s not enough justification to call it a legit complaint. Barack Obama should know better (although I’m still voting for him).
Edited to add: I don’t think Obama was deliberately being sexist. I think he has latent sexist tendencies, just as we’re all a little everything-ist, and it slipped out here. Not cool, but also not too surprising, or too big a deal as long as it’s not part of a pattern, as someone said above.
Kira, I’m glad the image resonates with you — it’s actually the cover of a book called How to Suppress Women’s Writing by feminist Joanna Russ. As someone else above did, I recommend it.
Thanks, Mandolin, I’ll look for it.
Do you think you can sustain a persuasive argument that Hilary is a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations?
I don’t. But someone else might. And if they think so and make the argument, that doesn’t automatically make it sexist just because Hillary is a female. The fact that you may think it is ridiculous and not rationally sustainable is fine for you, but I think that the argument that President Bush is a mental weakling and is out of his depth in political situations and needs VP Cheney’s support is ridiculous and is not rationally sustainable. If people can make that argument, then people should be able to make the same argument about the Clintons without it being automatically sexist.
Ron F., you may have a point, but in that case the question is really “does Obama think that she’s a mental weakling and out of her depth in political situations?”
I doubt that that’s the case, which means he can’t make statements that suggest it without sounding sexist.
Anything I’d offer on Obama’s motivations would be sheer speculation. But Bill doesn’t have to be playing that kind of role for Sen. Obama’s comment to not be sexist. Once again I point out that involving President Clinton in the campaign creates a unique situation. Bill has a much higher profile than the usual political spouse both on and off the campaign trail. When Bill campaigns for Hillary he gets a lot more attention and speaks with much greater authority on governance and political issues than other spouses would. Sen. Obama’s position is a lot closer to campaigning against two people running for President than it would be if his main opponent was, say, John Edwards with his wife on the campaign trail.
If Obama was running against Nancy Pelosi and her husband (I actually don’t know if she’s married, but just for the sake of argument) and Obama made that comment, the point would be much worthier of this analysis. But this case is unique and on that basis I don’t think the comment was sexist.