This is kind of a sexism watch post and kind of not1, because the sexism in this post comes straight from one of Hillary Clinton's top backers:
"The Republicans will eat him alive" is what the Clinton campaign is telling the superdelegates. Hillary is the tougher of the two, the candidate you want on your side in a knife fight, a gender reversal that prompts [James] Carville to indulge in some ribald humor: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."Ha! You see, what Carville's saying is that Barack Obama only has one testicle, and Hillary Clinton has three. And since we all know that the number of testes is directly tied to leadership ability (Abe Lincoln had 451 of 'em), that's really important.
What? You say that one's gonads aren't particularly relevant to leadership ability, and what's more, Carville's statement manages to insult women by suggesting that leadership springs directly from the testes? You say it also continues a line of attack from the Clinton campaign that Obama is less than a complete man, thus also attacking any man who doesn't act overly macho as an incomplete man? You say that this statement is sexist from start to finish, an attack that does far more damage to Carville and the Clinton campaign than it could ever do to Obama?
You say that?
You're right. The Clinton campaign has started quietly using sexism itself, most of it the sort that attacks Obama for being insufficiently manly. From "pansy" to "testicular fortitude"2 to this little outburst, Clinton surrogates have been trying to paint Clinton as a tough, manly man, and Obama as, for lack of a better word, a sissy. This is a line of attack that demeans Obama, demeans Clinton, demeans women, demeans men, demeans anyone who believes that toughness and sensitivity need not be tied directly to gender. I expect more from the Clinton campaign; given the amount of misogyny that Clinton has faced, I'd like to think her campaign would be free of it. But evidently it's easier to paint Hillary as a man than to argue that women can be tough too; it's easier to paint Obama as less than a man than to argue that women can be tougher than men. And it's a shame, because clearly, there are some women tougher than some men. Hillary Clinton may be tougher than Barack Obama. But it isn't because she's a guy, and it isn't because he's a girl.
---
1I had originally put this into the "sexism watch" series, but on further reflection and after reading comments, I don't think it really fits there. It's sort of another animal entirely.
2As Melissa pointed out before, Clinton herself objected to this statement when it was made, and I'm sure she wasn't a big fan of Carville's bon mot. These things are swirling out of her campaign, but they're frankly as demeaning to her as to anyone.
Sexism and the Clinton Campaign
This is kind of a sexism watch post and kind of not1, because the sexism in this post comes straight from one of Hillary Clinton's top backers:
What? You say that one's gonads aren't particularly relevant to leadership ability, and what's more, Carville's statement manages to insult women by suggesting that leadership springs directly from the testes? You say it also continues a line of attack from the Clinton campaign that Obama is less than a complete man, thus also attacking any man who doesn't act overly macho as an incomplete man? You say that this statement is sexist from start to finish, an attack that does far more damage to Carville and the Clinton campaign than it could ever do to Obama?
You say that?
You're right. The Clinton campaign has started quietly using sexism itself, most of it the sort that attacks Obama for being insufficiently manly. From "pansy" to "testicular fortitude"2 to this little outburst, Clinton surrogates have been trying to paint Clinton as a tough, manly man, and Obama as, for lack of a better word, a sissy. This is a line of attack that demeans Obama, demeans Clinton, demeans women, demeans men, demeans anyone who believes that toughness and sensitivity need not be tied directly to gender. I expect more from the Clinton campaign; given the amount of misogyny that Clinton has faced, I'd like to think her campaign would be free of it. But evidently it's easier to paint Hillary as a man than to argue that women can be tough too; it's easier to paint Obama as less than a man than to argue that women can be tougher than men. And it's a shame, because clearly, there are some women tougher than some men. Hillary Clinton may be tougher than Barack Obama. But it isn't because she's a guy, and it isn't because he's a girl.
---
1I had originally put this into the "sexism watch" series, but on further reflection and after reading comments, I don't think it really fits there. It's sort of another animal entirely.
2As Melissa pointed out before, Clinton herself objected to this statement when it was made, and I'm sure she wasn't a big fan of Carville's bon mot. These things are swirling out of her campaign, but they're frankly as demeaning to her as to anyone.
blog comments powered by Disqus
"The Republicans will eat him alive" is what the Clinton campaign is telling the superdelegates. Hillary is the tougher of the two, the candidate you want on your side in a knife fight, a gender reversal that prompts [James] Carville to indulge in some ribald humor: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."Ha! You see, what Carville's saying is that Barack Obama only has one testicle, and Hillary Clinton has three. And since we all know that the number of testes is directly tied to leadership ability (Abe Lincoln had 451 of 'em), that's really important.
What? You say that one's gonads aren't particularly relevant to leadership ability, and what's more, Carville's statement manages to insult women by suggesting that leadership springs directly from the testes? You say it also continues a line of attack from the Clinton campaign that Obama is less than a complete man, thus also attacking any man who doesn't act overly macho as an incomplete man? You say that this statement is sexist from start to finish, an attack that does far more damage to Carville and the Clinton campaign than it could ever do to Obama?
You say that?
You're right. The Clinton campaign has started quietly using sexism itself, most of it the sort that attacks Obama for being insufficiently manly. From "pansy" to "testicular fortitude"2 to this little outburst, Clinton surrogates have been trying to paint Clinton as a tough, manly man, and Obama as, for lack of a better word, a sissy. This is a line of attack that demeans Obama, demeans Clinton, demeans women, demeans men, demeans anyone who believes that toughness and sensitivity need not be tied directly to gender. I expect more from the Clinton campaign; given the amount of misogyny that Clinton has faced, I'd like to think her campaign would be free of it. But evidently it's easier to paint Hillary as a man than to argue that women can be tough too; it's easier to paint Obama as less than a man than to argue that women can be tougher than men. And it's a shame, because clearly, there are some women tougher than some men. Hillary Clinton may be tougher than Barack Obama. But it isn't because she's a guy, and it isn't because he's a girl.
---
1I had originally put this into the "sexism watch" series, but on further reflection and after reading comments, I don't think it really fits there. It's sort of another animal entirely.
2As Melissa pointed out before, Clinton herself objected to this statement when it was made, and I'm sure she wasn't a big fan of Carville's bon mot. These things are swirling out of her campaign, but they're frankly as demeaning to her as to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
