Criticism = Sexism?

I've been extremely tough on Hillary Clinton this election cycle, correctly so I think, since she's put herself up for the most powerful elective office in the land. I believe that my criticisms have been fairly focused on my assessment of her as a complete package: her positions, her record, her character, her judgement, her actions. (Though I welcome readers to point out any criticisms that seem unfair.)

Anyway, a good friend sent me this essay earlier and I thought it worth posting and commenting on. The author makes some decent points about the sexism and outright misogyny that still exists and which has been rearing its ugly head during this presidential campaign. Give it a read, then come back.

Some snippets from the essay:

But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

…

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

These are disgusting incidents to be sure. Sickening. It's the kind of reprehensible, misogynistic crap that rabid redneck conservatives spouted in the 1990s. It was part of the reason I was such a staunch defender of the Clintons back then. Every moment they were in power was a rebuke to that kind of troglodytic idiocy. 

***********

That said, I don't think that it's inherently misogynist or sexist to be critical of Sen. Clinton's issues, stances, record, character, judgement, and behavior. Frankly, I believe that to assess her any differently than a male candidate would be a sort of sexism in itself. And that's where I have my disagreements with the author. In my view she begins to conflate legitimate criticisms with the poison listed above. One example:

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

Now, this is just nonsense. It makes the suggestion that Bill is just out there on his own making silly comments and doing stupid things. Anyone who's watched the Clintons closely must know that they incredibly smart and calculating (in the positive and negative sense of the word) people. It just beggars belief to suggest that using Bill as was done between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries was not a decision that she had no part in. She is responsible for how her campaign is run. She is responsible for what her husband—a former president, a man with a large amount of prestige—does on her behalf during her campaign for president. 

It's also undercutting the other arguments of the essay. Hillary is extremely well-qualified...but hey, not responsible for what Bill says and does on the campaign trail. That's wanting it both ways and just plain irritating. 

Another excerpt: 

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

This is exactly what many women I know don't like about her. Most women I've talked to are post second-wave feminists and know that they don't need to become a man to inhabit their power.

And another:

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

I don't know what she's talking about saying goodbye to American ignorance of history. Clearly she's been smoking something funny. We're as amnesiac as a summer day is long. . :-) 

Seriously, though, here's another example of the author undercutting her own argument. She lists the many women who've come to power through familial connections as a defense of Hillary's doing so, which is a pretty lame defense, but okay...

But in the very same paragraph she lists two who didn't. Like their politics or not, Thatcher and Meir did gain power on their own without using their husbands or fathers. Hillary's welcome to use Bill as a stepping stone as far as I'm concerned, but her supporters ought not cry foul when others point out that that isn't the most empowering message to send to younger generations of women and girls. Nor should they cry foul when those of us who aren't enamored of dynastic politics point out the dangers of nepotism. (See the Bush family—Prescott, George H.W, George W.—what fresh hell is next?)

The author then goes on to making a strong issues-based case for electing Hillary. I disagree with her on many of the points, but the case is good and worthy. Then she ends the essay thus:

As for the “woman thing”? Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

Identity trumps all in the end. Ugh.