Hillary and the “woman president” thing
Here’s an article by Peter Beinart in the Atlantic which is exactly the sort of thing I expected more of from liberals and the left this election cycle. It explains anti-Hillary sentiment as being motivated by the fact that she’s a woman. It’s almost exactly parallel to those articles before and during Obama’s presidency that framed objections to him as racism.
Both arguments are similar in that they dismiss the incredibly glaring flaws of each candidate (or in Obama’s case, president)—flaws that have nothing to do with race or gender—as being of no relevance in explaining what really causes all the vociferous criticism to be directed at them.
Beinart’s article captures the flavor of this sort of thing quite well:
Standard commentary about Clinton’s candidacy””which focuses on her email server, the Benghazi attack, her oratorical deficiencies, her struggles with “authenticity”””doesn’t explain the intensity of this opposition. But the academic literature about how men respond to women who assume traditionally male roles does. And it is highly disturbing.
Over the past few years, political scientists have suggested that, counterintuitively, Barack Obama’s election may have led to greater acceptance by whites of racist rhetoric. Something similar is now happening with gender. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is sparking the kind of sexist backlash that decades of research would predict. If she becomes president, that backlash could convulse American politics for years to come.
It’s no mystery what the point of this all is: to discredit the relevant arguments against Hillary (and against Obama before her) and label their opponents as sexist (Hillary’s) or racist (Obama’s). The approach is simplicity itself, really.
Does it work? I don’t know. My guess is that it’s mostly preaching to the choir.
I’ve actually been struck by how little real concern there seems to be these days about having a female president per se. That doesn’t mean that Hillary isn’t pilloried in ways that target her as a female (her sexuality, her looks, her voice, to name a few). But to me that seems to be the result of the Hillary-disapproval, not the cause of it, because there are a wealth of substantive issues and there’s plenty of history in her life that would be more than sufficient to explain about 99% of the hatred expressed towards her.
[NOTE: There’s also an interesting and somewhat parallel argument that sometimes goes on with Trump supporters making accusations towards Trump detractors. No, it’s not an allegation that they hate men in general (although I’ve read that too), but that they hate Trump in particular because he’s a macho alpha male and they are alpha-male-haters (I took up the Trump-as-alpha-male question some time ago, here).
One more thing—of course misogynists do exist who don’t want a woman president, just as there are racists who didn’t want a black president. But that hardly represents the bulk of people who have objected to and criticized either Hillary or Obama.]
The Left simply cannot argue on basis of logic. It’s primarily emotion. They’ve proven this time and time again.
They’ve undermined nearly every institution in this country. Academia? Methodically dismantled by the Left. Journalism/Media? Fundamentally changed from what it was a few short decades ago. Even the head of my church—-the Pope. A socialist. He’s embraced the dogma of the Left. Pathetic. I’ve arrived at a level of pessimism for this country that is reinforced on a daily basis.
Women in America have been afforded more opportunities than any country in the world. FACT.
Still, the Left whines endlessly. Claiming that women are oppressed—just as the Left claims of blacks in this country. More young women graduate from college than young men.
I have daughters, no sons. I’ve personally seen the prejudice leveled against boys by teachers all throughout the education of my girls. My girls have been provided endless opportunities. In school. In the workforce. In all of life.
The Left has taken over the Jackass Party and with full throated chatter, showered “victim status” upon women, blacks, minorities, illegal aliens. All in effort to galvanize these groups as voting blocs to rely on in elections. How convenient. Women who see through this and push back against this claptrap are admirable. Immensely. Same for blacks. And all minorities. We need more of them.
One wonders if those such as Beirnart have enough intellectual honesty to recognize what they are doing. One also wonders if it matters.
He has picked a very poor pony to carry him and his premise. How does a person separate disdain for Hillary’s obvious faults from basic prejudice against women?
RE: “It’s no mystery what the point of this all is: to discredit the relevant arguments against Hillary (and against Obama before her) and label their opponents as sexist (Hillary’s) or racist (Obama’s). The approach is simplicity itself, really. Does it work?”
In my view: YES.
You simply cannot defend Sec. Hillary Clinton’s history of corruption and incompetence. There is no positive message that Hillary supporters can give for her candidacy except that she’s a woman.
The initial message to promote herself was, “Ready for Hillary”. Of course that’s a reference to her being a woman. Now her campaign slogan is, “Stonger together”. It’s a message of inclusiveness, but the underlying message is to unite the disadvantaged, and to Regressives, women are an oppressed group.
It’s working. As I said more than three years ago: she will be the next president. Period. It’s not Trump’s fault, although he’s making it very easy. She would have beaten anyone the GOP put against her.
If we aren’t racist and sexist, they have no strong arguments left. Therefore, we must be racist and sexist.
It’s rather like the ridiculous criminal defenses we read about from time to time. Look, your lawyer has to say something. If you had a good defense, they’d use that instead. You don’t have a good defense, so they try twinkies or whatever. With a straight face, because that’s their job.
It’s funny. There have been so many female leaders around the world — going back from Merkel past Benazir Bhutto to Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir, and so many female politicians, from Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer and Geraldine Ferraro on the national ticket with Walter Mondale, that it’s hard for me to understand where those who want to emphasize Hillary as the possible “first” are really coming from, unless indeed they’re just throwing pasta at the wall, the wall here being unthinking young females of the Lena Dunham and Jezebel readership variety — and sadly, this is probably the tactic in use.
I’m not the correct demographic to have a positive response to this message, but this message is not aimed at me. Voter turnout! Voter turnout! Young voters! Let’s get them energized!
Well, we’ll see. It’s hard for me to see Clinton as especially feminine. I don’t remember there being the least scintilla of surprise, twenty years ago, that Bill might seek to receive a blowjob elsewhere. Inferences about Hillary’s lesbian involvement with Huma Abedin also have tended somewhat to stick, however dreary any such speculation may well be.
I cannot say to them, “Good luck.”
Yeah cause having a penis is bad and a pudenda has all the magic… beyond that there is nothing to say, cause all that is, iswhat they falsely accused males for doing that they are doing with purpose (and malic of forethought).
they care not a whit about morals or anything else, as they are quite sociopathic, what they care is that YOU care and are dumb enough to think that stuff is important when its not, its just emotional reflex…
[like the couple who were naked and surviving who let their emotional response to snakes and avoiding them, let themselves starve… ie. if emotions are instinct and the best in society do best by self control and assesment, its a throwback regressive thing to think your emotions are leading right. and they sure have women as a group believing all manner of things that if they used their thinking parts instead of their emotional parts, they would say thats inane… but thats how they make women special, convert their over emotive view into a superior view, then use the emotional game to lead them around like ferdinand the bull with a ring in the nose!!!!!!! EASY PEASY… heck, if this was not true the PUA universe would not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
RIP Schlafly was a constitutional lawyer, conservative activist, author, speaker, columnist and founder of the Eagle Forum.
go NORKS… cause if you cant beat em, then join em
The country is becoming feminized.
“I am Woman. Hear me roar.”
It is painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and ears.
Artful, “they care not a whit about morals”. +100!
That’s exactly the problem and the way I see this election too. Normally it’s not an issue but with HRC it is. Her election means the end of a government of laws and the full institutionalization of a government of men. She and Bill may be too big to jail but once in office all their minions and favored friends will be too, the ultimate corruption of the US government.
“My guess is that it’s mostly preaching to the choir.”
That’s exactly what it is for – preaching to the choir. Gotta get them to sing a little louder.
Such arguments are not going to sway voters who are undecided – And, I don’t think they did with Obama either. Undecided voters aren’t going to turn on by being called names.
But, by making claims that votes are NEEDED to counter the bigots might help with voter turn out – folks who otherwise might stay home and if they do vote would only vote Democrat only.
The only allowed reasons are “racism” and “sexism”. The Dems forget that Opposing Clarence Thomas for SC Justice is RAAAAAACSM and Sarah Palin is SEXISM/MISOGYNY. Because allowed answers.
I read the original article. You’ve got to do that every once in a while to keep yourself honest. But I’m telling you, if you can keep yourself honest without reading articles in The Atlantic, so much the better. Pure gibberish. Everything I’ve ever read and experienced tells me that there’s been increasing political polarization. This article finds polarization with regard to Clinton, and assumes sexism.
Conservatives worshipped at the feet of Maggie Thatcher
I said that, mainly, people will vote for Hillary because they want to “make history” with electing the first female president in the US. Policies? What? What are those? (Then you can say the same thing for Trump with his ‘policies’.)
@AVI: Thatcher was somewhat brilliant. Clinton is Clinton aka not Bill nor brilliant.
All three Clintons are criminals. Why don’t people get that?
Speaking of women in politics…I saw Nancy Pelosi insisting that it was inappropriate to bring up Hillary’s emails and that we should all move on to “more important” issues.
Her statement shocked me. When should we not discuss a situation where the facts on record make a prima facie case that a candidate for President of the United States has committed a felony (obstruction of justice – destroying evidence that is under subpeona)? Why is it ever inappropriate (perhaps at her wedding?) for the media to ask her about such a charge? Certainly not at a job interview for Commander in Chief…but then, that’s just me.
Add in the additional facts on record that the head of the FBI in a Justice Department in an Administration run by the same party as the candidate has failed to investigate the charge and you have a clear case of either full-on media engagement or malfeasance of the media and the FBI as well.
I know, it’s Nancy and Hillary and that makes me a sexist pig for even bringing this up, but jeez.
I just hope that the misogynists who won’t vote for her because she’s a woman will cancel out those who will vote for her only because she’s a woman.
“…doesn’t explain the intensity of this opposition.”
Please, Mr. Beinart…can you explain to the rest of us what the *proper* intensity to presidential corruption is?
Would shooting Hillary be too much? Yes?
Is burning her in effigy too little?
I just can’t decide how to be outraged without your expert guidance.
Schmuck.
P.S. I’ve only seen about two other people try to make this argument online and they were both shot down immediately.
I don’t think this is an actual thing going on, because it’s too obviously bullshit.
Yes, it’s obvious what the point of this all is, whereas “how little real concern there seems to be these days about having a female president per se bears much more scrutiny.
For many years I was uncomfortable with the idea of a female President but unable to articulate why. That led to pondering the issue, I finally realized that the issue for me had to do with my perception that most women are not tough minded enough for the job. A President has to be able to balance empathy with pragmatism. As commander in chief, they have to be able to rightly judge when circumstance requires that they send men and women into harms way, even knowing that sometimes, it will amount to a death sentence for those Americans.
I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton is tough minded enough for the job. I do doubt her ideology, sincerity and honesty.
On the other hand, with the right amount of ‘seasoning’, I still believe that despite her flaws, overall Sarah Palin would have made a fine President.
Notherbob2 @ 4:07:
I read that Nancy Pelosi item as her not wanting the Republicans to use the emails hacked FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. I don’t think she was talking about Hillary’s emails. Although I have to admit it’s hard to distinguish between stupid email users any longer.
kevino,
IMO, had Rubio avoided the gang of eight fiasco, he might very well have been the GOP nominee and, a Rubio free of the “illegal immigration” issue, IMO would have easily beaten Hillary.
miklos000rosza,
There is a qualifier in political evaluations of a Presidential candidate; are they “Presidential Timber”? Some politicians stand far above others. If elected Hillary will be the First WOMAN American President. Since despite declines, America is still the world’s sole superpower, that position, (the most powerful person in the world) indicates whether women have completely broken through the ‘glass barrier’ in power.
Cornhead,
Many do. I’ve been holding off on Chelsea but it’s not looking good for her either, at best a case of willful blindness.
Completely off-topic, but I noticed early on that we have here a fan of the Spellbound Concerto or other works by the same composer.
Pennario and the Hollywood Bowl Symphony play it on UToob. Among others.
My personal favorite in the genre is the Warsaw Concerto, but Spellbound is certainly listenable and enjoyable. 🙂
One not-so-minor reason for wanting a Cruz-Fiorina ticket was the possibility of demanding why the gems were so awful to a Hispanic and a strong, competent woman.
for “gems” read “gems” I MEAN DEMOCRATS. Damn autofill/correct
I hate the autofill/correct! Anyone know how to turn the damn thing off on an android tablet?
Duh! I just googled it, it’s easy to do.
Sex is not relevant in this context. Class diversitists are projecting their bigotry.
FWIW my daughter, recent graduate of an elite U, tells me none of her contemporaries ‘likes’ Lliary. And I’ve heard the same from another friend, whose daughter just graduated with a SJW type master’s from Columbia. I think the reality of Bill has finally caught up with the Clintons. Karma works.
Clinton is an acolyte of the Pro-Choice Church that claims majority female membership and is directly responsible for the loss of more human lives in war and peacetime than any other left-wing regime or minority sociopath organization over the same period. However, many people are overt or closeted twilighters, so that traditional credential may actually boost her political ambitions. Liberal people, by their nature, are progressively tolerant of selective religion/morality, legal responsibility, selective exclusion, devaluation of capital and labor, progressive wars, etc. Unfortunately, I imagine that there are more “good Americans” in our ostensible good times than there were in other societies in the worst of times.
That said, it is bigoted (e.g. “=”) and chauvinistic (e.g. feminism) to construct a diversity class (i.e. denigration of individual dignity) that encompasses individuals, even with majority participation, when membership is not a matter of principle or uniform.
@ Molly: “SJW type master’s from Columbia.”
Social work? It’s practically the only SJW-esque besides public policy I know of at Columbia, unless there’s some Gender Studies terminal program.
I’m always interested in the way bull is delivered by the ostensibly smart people. Beinart, in his first paragraph, tells us it is “academic literature” that backs his thesis. I love the choice of “literature” as a guarantor of fact. But he just couldn’t let the opportunity to flash a learned use of “literature,” applied to nonfiction, pass without using it. And let’s not talk about the political tendentiousness of what passes for “social science” research coming out of the academy.
In the following paragraph he says that decades of research “would predict” the sexist backlash against Hillary. And I ask, “Did it predict or didn’t it? It’s like the Beinarts of the world have an editor in their brains that wants to point out that when they talk, they are manufacturing bs.
And this guy is considered an intellectual.
Assistant Village Idiot Says:
September 9th, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Conservatives worshipped at the feet of Maggie Thatcher
* * *
The Prime Minister made it to the top on her own credentials, and had a list of substantive achievements longer than Hillary’s list of lawyers.
As for those worried about tough-minded women: QED.
And I know lots of Moms that are way tougher than the Dads when the kids are out of control.
My other Most Favorite Blogger also had a good post up on Beinert and (bonus!) one about complaining feminists.
https://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/09/playing-sexism-card.html
What is it about Hillary that turns people off? Could it be her dishonesty and her willingness to compromise state secrets–and then to lie about it repeatedly? Could it be the fact that her candidacy is based on an empty resume–a bunch of sinecure jobs and no accomplishments?
Speaking of big lies, why is this monumentally unqualified candidate is being touted as the most qualified candidate in history? If you do not believe that Hillary is qualified you are a bigot.
But, it might be that if she had not been named Clinton, no one would ever have considered her for the presidency? If she had not been female, no one would have considered her a viable candidate for much of anything.
And besides, Hillary Clinton is not only an incompetent fraud, but she clearly does not like people. Most politicians, beginning with her husband and with W, like people. Everyone who has ever listened to Hillary knows that she does not. She cackles like a witch and sounds like a shrill harpy.
In any event Beinart does not think that there is any good reason why people don’t like Hillary. Like a eunuch at the court of the Mother Goddess he is off on his own private guilt trip and wants to share it with the rest of us. He sees the hand of sexism at work, just as he sees racism in all criticism of Obama:
Same playbook for Democrat-front Left vs Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right.
I think most people not of leftist persuasion, deep down, feel that a white man with Obama’s resume would not have been a serious candidate. America took a chance in an effort to end racism and bigotry. It failed.
Hillary is a well known, long visible politician whose only executive branch activity, the 1994 health plan, resulted in a GOP Congress, the first in 40 years.
The Dems are in full panic mode now. I just hope Trump’s security is tight.
@ AesopFan:
What is it about Hillary that turns people off?
Slight modification (and I think more interesting): Why do DEMOCRATS not like Hillary? What is it about her that makes her different from other Democrat politicians who were lying grifters (and there have been a lot of them)?
I was tempted at first to say that an element of classism was involved; a resentment of the white trash Arkansas taint. But the same wasn’t applied to Bill, and he’s way more Arkansas than Hillary.
So I guess it comes down solely to personality. She is personally unlikable. I guess for Democrats, if you are personally likable, there’s almost no sin they can’t forgive. If they don’t like you, there’s a limit to how much they’ll lie for you or even “The Cause.”
My yard stick for measuring anyone, women, men, blacks, Asians, Latinos, or ?; has always been competency. What women have I seen that would have made good presidential candidates based on competency? Jean Kirkpatrick springs immediately to mind. Carly Fiorina and possibly Condi Rice might rise to that level. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir are good examples as well. Few men or women really have the competency to be C-in-C. To perform the job well requires so very much.
Wanting to be President and actually having the competence are two different things. Hillary imbibed the kool aid of leftist/Alinsky theory in college. As she has trod that path of “Power to the people,” she has become more and more like a humorless commissar. Her ambition has known no bounds and her experience has taught her that a friendly MSM coupled with the short attention span of most people allows her to weather one scandal and failure after another without paying any price. I can think of no solid achievement in her career larger than her ability to fool a lot of people over a long period of time.
Her tenure at State was spent traveling hither and yon while dodging many of the responsibilities which were delegated to subordinates. The Obama policy of making friends with our enemies and ignoring our allies was carried out with out much pushback.
Her book, “Hard Choices,” about her tenure at State, was a reflection of her hard-bitten, humorless personality. As one reviewer put it: “The book is purely devoid of emotion; the closest it got to heartfelt genuine feeling was in discussing Richard Holbrooke’s death, but even that felt guarded. It is full of cliches, fact-of-matter statements, and few insights into decision-making, at least very, very few that sound genuine at all.” Her tenure at State was a box she was checking off as a part of her Presidential resume.
If she was honest and competent, I could see voting for her in this most dreadful of election campaigns. The fact that she is a woman just does not enter into the equation as far as I’m concerned.
A few weeks ago, having drinks with fellow ladies of a certain age, the conversation suddenly turned to politics. Turns out they were all fanatical Hillary supporters. Bizarrely, they even looked like her.
Questioning her achievements, I was told ‘it’s time for a woman!’ Questioning whether she was the best candidate the democrats could find, I was told, “it’s time for a woman!” They cried that my lack of enthusiasm was responsible for destroying the country, “It’s time for a woman!” Yadda yadda.
Most curiously, they were aghast that I would not have ‘stood by my man’ if I were in a relationship with someone like Bill or Weiner, what?
My husband, who was there too, and considers himself politically liberal, was shocked by their views, “All they care about is that she is a woman. They could not name one achievement.” And he could not think of one either.
Esther:
It doesn’t surprise me in the least. That’s always been a big big part of the pro-Hillary equation.
But I would like to add that she does have one other big big accomplishment. Of course, it’s one that’s shared by most people in the world—and that’s this: she’s not Donald Trump.
I believe that is the accomplishment that will get her elected (sigh).