May 31, 2008
The Sexist Trashing of Michelle Obama
Kathy G. on (Michelle) Obama bashing:
[T]he feminist blogosphere has largely ignored the extremely nasty racism, sexism, and character assassination that has been targeted at Michelle Obama. Worse, some "feminists" have themselves gleefully joined in the Michelle-bashing. Tami quotes one Hillary supporter who wrote a vitriolic post about Michelle with the charming title, "God Damn Michelle Obama"; among other things, the writer takes a cheap shot at Michelle's physical appearance. Tami also cites a post by another Hillary supporter who attacks Barack for somehow being less than a man; it's the typically vicious, catty, and extremely sexist Maureen Dowd dealio.
This kind of crap from people who, like Michelle, are Democrats and feminists saddens me. That the right would pull this kind of shit was a no-brainer, but it's more painful when it comes from people you think are your allies. I guess it shouldn't surprise me, though. When I wrote an earlier post about the attacks on Michelle, I got a couple of troll-riffic commenters who more or less said that bashing Michelle was a-okay with them, and as best I could tell, those commenters were Democrats.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:31 PM | Permalink
Comments
I have had the opportunity of seeing MS Clinton (her majestic thighness face-to-face) nothing to write home about... Unless is about her idiosyncratic relationship with the truth.
On that issue, her family makes Pinocchio pales...
Let's not be nasty, for God's sake! and accept losing with decor.
Posted by: Felix E F larocca MD | May 31, 2008 3:01:50 PM
This is an unfair characterization of the feminist blogospher IMHO. Many feminists, even Sen. Clinton supporters, have expressed concern that the blatant and horrific misogyny that has been characteristic of the coverage of her campaign is about to be turned toward Mrs. Obama. Pro-Obama feminists, many of them at least, have been in the forefront of decrying the misogyny as it relates to Sen. Clinton as well, although the Obama campaign continues to be silent about the treatment of Sen Clinton, except to the extent that they have actually encouraged it. This is very disappointing indeed and a challenge to the notion that Obama is the great conciliator.
I am a supporter of neither Sen Obama or Sen Clinton. That does not stop me using my feminist brain. The misogyny is harmful. The worst of the harm is not to Sen Clinton. She will survive. The women who have watched her treatment are harmed. Perhaps especially, the young women who might otherwise have run their own campaigns. And people wonder why there aren't more women running for office. I couldn't take a day of it! My thighs are too thick! I guess Dr. Felix, commenter above, is physically perfect and thus feels he has the right to comment on the imperfection of others. The size of Sen Clinton's thighs has nothing to do with her ability to govern. If the complaints against Sen Clinton were more principled and intelligent, it might be worth paying attention to them.
Posted by: hysperia | May 31, 2008 3:49:28 PM
Of course there are lots of misogynist cracks at Sen. Clinton's expense, such as that in the first comment on this thread. But that doesn't mean that she is immune to all criticism. She does have her genuine faults, as does Sen. Obama. As do we all. Can we all agree on that?
I am already sick to death of this stupid campaign, and there are still five months or so to go. I'm just waiting until election day, so that I can cast my vote and it will be all over with for another four years.
What you're seeing these days is what passes for democracy in this most democratic of all nations on earth in the year 2008. (Snark, snark.) It's all about wacky pastors and who does or doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.
Posted by: JonJ | May 31, 2008 6:36:26 PM
If Hillary Clinton were anything less lovely than a perfectly ordinary-looking woman in late midlife, she'd probably get a pass. These pot shots many of us take might be understood as the language of extreme frustration -- we are outraged by lies, we are disgusted by double-talk, we deride. Is there sexism here? Oh, yes. Yes, yes, yes.
People who admire and support Hillary tend to think her appearance is that of a woman in perfect command of herself and her world, that she is indeed charming to behold, and that any woman her age should look so good. Might there not be some sexism, too, in the way HRC's appearance has been lavishly praised by her adherents? Do we ask these people to dial it down in the name of relinquishing some stereotyped conversations about not only their candidate, but all women? No, we don't -- but we should, and we would if we were serious about giving sexism the boot. Hillary is not running on her looks, period.
Inside all our heads lives a political cartoonist: W is a deer in the headlights; HRC is hippy, beyond dowdy and crazy-looking. Unless you like the president and think he's dudely, or need Hillary and what she stands for badly enough to find her not only virtuous but beautiful. I have big, big issues with Hillary's appearance, and cannot possibly defend myself on the basis of these issues being rooted in politics. There are my ethical issues with her, my political issues with her, and my issues with her appearance -- which I shall leave undetailed. I cannot imagine why the latter matter in the least. They don't, actually. One of the most brutish aspects of sexism is that, even if you are -- like me -- a woman who thinks there's something pretty about most women, when you look at yourself or at a woman you deeply dislike, suddenly you look with the eyes of a 25-yr. old boy. Unforgiving, to say the least.
The uncharitable remarks about HRC's persona that people of both genders have helped themselves to are a real lesson -- to us and for us. It's useful to think them over as snark, and to consider how far towards getting the candidate we prefer that has gotten us. A good tool for staying medium-sane in an unprecedented primary season, maybe? Well, how has failure of gallantry towards the persona of Hillary served you? Not to make the mistake of thinking other people are necessarily like me, but I wish I hadn't said the nasty things about her looks that I have said -- even if it was a safety valve that helped me cope with the threat of her presidency. It's useful that we have all had this look in the mirror, too. I mean -- Yipes!
One very real reason for moderating one's scorn if it takes the form of tasteless and mean-spirited remarks about physical imperfections is this: you lessen your credibility when it's time to make substantive remarks. Men and women who have been making sexist comments are going to have a harder and harder time getting taken seriously when they have serious observations to make. It's very, very difficult to make a penetrating comment about a new Hillarian atrocity if you've said too much about helmet hair. As I should know. If sexist antics were seen in their proper light, as detracting from the gravitas of the person who stages them rather than from their target, they would disappear much faster than they are -- apparently -- doing.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 1, 2008 12:03:36 AM
The misogyny towards Sen. Clinton has been on display even here on 3QD. Our "friend" Felix E F larocca MD and his cohorts make sure of that.
Posted by: Eric | Jun 1, 2008 1:30:33 AM
Misogyny = hatred or dislike of women. I'm so tired of the sloppy use of this term - it just furthers a boy who cried wolf dilution of a serious matter. Clinton has given us plenty of reasons to dislike her, and none of them have anything to do with her vagina ("full seating" being her crackpot latest, but there will be more tomorrow I'm sure). The bizarre mindset that thinks any criticism of HRC is sexist (Ferraro) is utterly absurd, but judging from some of the comments an obviously useful shield to blur all unflattering analysis together.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 1, 2008 4:46:57 AM
Is it possible to say loud and clear that Michelle has twice now made remarks in public that have not helped advance her husband's cause and that those remarks are sure to be used, not again Sen Clinton--but by the GOP against Obama. I
that said, am i being anti-Obama, misogynist? If so, then no one, of either gender, can be allowed to make a critical observation?
Posted by: fred lapides | Jun 1, 2008 9:24:11 AM
@Jesse:
Misogny, in common usage, is broader. From wikipedia:
> In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful.
And what do you make of larocca's above reference to HRC as "her majestic thighness"?
Finally, don't you think someone, such as yourself, who uses a single anatomical feature (and a sex organ at that) to represent the fact that she's a woman problematic? Is womanhood simply about having a vagina in your mind?
Posted by: Eric | Jun 1, 2008 1:37:57 PM
quote: "that said, am i being anti-Obama, misogynist? If so, then no one, of either gender, can be allowed to make a critical observation?"
Well said. If Mrs Obama is going to make asinine statements about the first time she's proud of America or about $10,000 not buying the summer camp and dance lesson value of the days of yore, then she's fair game. More to the point, if McCain's wife had uttered these inanities, the netroots would be replaying them non-stop as examples of rich whites being out-of-touce.
Unless she learns a bit about the United States in the next few weeks, Michelle Obama could be one of McCain's best spokespersons.
Posted by: harkin | Jun 1, 2008 2:50:30 PM
Eric,
Sorry, but I’m going with Webster’s over Wikipedia. To say that there are entire cultures that are “misogynist” is to offer exactly the kind of dilution of the word that I spoke of. All societies have norms and expectations for both men and women, some healthy and some not so. I would urge you to be cautious in judging which is which for cultures that you don’t inhabit yourself, and ask yourself as well whether or not simple “hatred” is really the likely motor driving the custom in the first place.
As for the vagina in my mind . . . the imposition of gender norms must start with the recognition of the baby’s sex: penis/vagina becomes boy/girl, I was just referring to this short hand. Nothing too “problematic” that I can see.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 1, 2008 3:52:02 PM
Jesse, your preference for "Webster's" (clearly a gendered name) over "Wikipedia" (a gender-neutral name) is clearly misogynist.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 1, 2008 7:22:50 PM
Eric and Jesse. Thanks, now I have a John Denver song stuck in my head.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 1, 2008 8:32:28 PM
Having grown up in a culture which outside my own home, was overwhelmingly paternalistic if not misogynistic, I nevertheless learnt the follies of judging women by their looks or other feminine stereotypes very early on. My formative teen years, when I became conscious of my own femaleness were spent during Indira Gandhi's iron rule in India. 90% of the teachers in my all girls school were women - some of them formidable specimens. I therefore never equate fat thighs with a fat brain nor a beautiful face with a beautiful mind.
From the very beginning of this campaign I opposed Hillary Clinton's candidacy and spewed my fair share of vitriol against her. But I don't recall saying anything sexist or misogynistic or ever commenting on Hillary's looks, dress, hair, legs or cleavage. I did take issue once with a particularly unflattering photo that was posted on this blog. I am against both Clintons, not just the female half of the duo. My antipathy has to do with their politics, self absorption and untrustworthiness, not their genders. But now I will say something about HRC's looks. That beatific smile and the rosy sheen on sixty year old Hillary's cheeks which have so amazed us is actually the maniacal glow of a severely deluded narcissist. I concluded that after she made the cold eyed comment about RFK's assassination in the month of June as one of her reasons for staying on in the race.
Like Jon J, I too am tired of this campaign - can't wait for November and get it over with. Nobody is looking very good right now. Not McCain, not Obama and certainly not "win at any cost, slash and burn" HRC.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 1, 2008 10:14:47 PM
Ruchira, it's true you haven't been saying ugly things about Hillary's looks. Neither have I, for public consumption.
But what goes on in the privacy of one's own mind, and what one lets slip among people who know the worst and love one anyway are different from products of the rather unbuttoned mood the "comments section" seems to bring out. Like you, I am concerned on behalf of the nation and the Democratic party that Hillary is in some essential fashion not quite right in the head, and therefore clinically unfit for the job she seeks -- and could still get. She has some extremely unfortunate micro-expressions that feed into this, and the camera is always on her. If it should come to pass that she is definitively defeated in her struggle for the nomination, I will be greatly relieved -- not because I don't like her, but because I'm unconvinced she's well enough not to be a real threat to everyone. Since way back when, I have seen her as ethically challenged beyond a level I can tolerate, and I have been as uncertain of her politics as...well, as she is. That she may not be mentally healthy enough to be a safe president began to occur to me this spring.
The interface of this kind of thinking with misogyny demands to be looked at -- by me, anyway. Am I comfortable suggesting Hillary has a poor reality test when, if Hillary were a man, I would be thinking...what? Do I for instance think W is crazy? (Talk about unsafe presidents...) No, only bad -- God, so bad. I think I may indeed be faster to question Hillary's psychological fitness because she is a woman, and that is certainly a form of misogyny. I worry that the disservice her campaign has done to future women seeking high office will prove extreme, precisely because she has played into so many negative stereotypes about women seeking ultimate power -- but then I have to be honest, and remark that these stereotypes might well be harbored by me. Certainly, her adherents who picketed the RBC meeting on Saturday seemed like very disturbed and childish women. Or am I seeing things?
Wendy Wasserstein said of our generation -- hers and mine -- that we were the ones for whom the rules changed in the middle of the game. I have proven to myself -- and I'm not proud of it -- that one can be a card-carrying feminist who struggles with some sexist issues regarding this historic campaign. That said, I am perfectly whole-hearted in believing questions not only of moral but of mental fitness should keep Hillary away from any position of greater responsibility than she now holds.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 2, 2008 12:09:31 AM
Elatia,
That you have begun to doubt Hillary Clinton's mental fitness to lead is not misogynistic in my eyes. It is a logical fear caused by the casual falsehoods and ruthless machinations that have been on display during this campaign.
I, unlike you, have questioned Dubya's mental competence on several occasions. And that too had nothing to do with his maleness.
I agree with you that we women tend to feel collective guilt, anger and discomfort over the shameful conduct of one of our own more readily than men identify with each others missteps. But is that misogyny? Perhaps. It is still better than blowing someone's head off when crossed as some men are prone to doing.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 2, 2008 12:57:42 AM
Ruchira, there are so many rotten man in the power game , that a man who would identify with that, could feel guild for generations to come!!! It is still uncommon for woman to come close to a big job and it seems only if they are able to adopt all or most of the bad traits of there male predecessors. I am looking forward to the day when woman in there own right, with there own set of values present a real alternative to the destruction. But is it really about male visa female values ? Or a wrong system which brings out and only encourage the worst of humanity ?
Posted by: mica hubertus mick | Jun 2, 2008 3:14:57 AM
Post a comment