Quick Hit: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!

Rebecca Traister at Salon takes on the sexism that has no name in the presidential elections in, “Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!” Here’s a teaser for you:

Yet some female voters have begun to express nearly as much disenchantment with the Obama-mania of their peers as with their Clinton-promoting mothers. And even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots.

Come back and let me know what you think in comments. (If I’m not quick to answer, it’s because I’m about to take Monty to the vet to get neutered. I’m nervous about it, but he had one last hurrah with his pillow last night so I don’t feel so bad.)

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

98 Comments

  1. MirandaJay
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    “Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons. Hillary was early in her life, but are you really tring to convince me that Hillary being MARRIED TO THE PRESIDENT didn’t somehow give her some privilege and acceess that others don’t have?”
    Wow.

  2. EG
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons.
    Whereas Hillary not only made herself, but made her husband president. You really expect me to believe that his success had nothing to do with her intelligence and contacts?

  3. -jro-
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    ALSO- my mom and grandmother are hardcore Clinton supporters. NEVER in my life I had I ever heard my sweet mother utter anything remotely racist until this Easter sunday- when she and my grandmother went on and on about Obama with you can guess what kind of terminology. I think another article needs to be written- instead of “why are Obama supporters being sexist?” how about “why are Clinton supporters becoming Racists?”

  4. Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    @EG: Thanks. Funny, I was JUST reading that somewhere else.
    Weird. I really don’t know where I fit. I hate being at the end of the baby boomer years but I’m definitely not a Gen Xer.
    Is there a 2.5 wave? :)

  5. Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    @EG – not meaning to hijack the comments here so I’ll make it quick but reading up now, I can see that I was definitely doing very third-wave related work in 1990 through the mid-90s – writing and teaching healthcare professionals how to ID victims of domestic violence in pediatric settings, training to do hotline work at domestic violence hotlines etc.
    Other observation: I always felt my mother missed out on the second wave because she married young, had kids quickly, her mother died and my dad suffered a severe heart attack – all within about seven years and she was overwhelmed by expectations she’d adopted. Then, when we were older, she got more into it – maybe she did more than I’ve ever known – I’ll have to ask her!
    But I can see how I repeated the pattern somewhat and thus missed the knowledge or the sense of being in the third wave – I was marred in 1992 and had kids from 94-2000. I was working in nonprofit mental health for children and families, but was not engaged much in the writing about or activities of third wavers.
    Anyway – thank you – I’m learning a lot these days.

  6. D.N. Nation
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Obama boys, eh?
    Such unfortunate timing. We’re Obama supporters, by the way.

  7. EG
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I think that’s a reference to the obnoxious Obama girl video, but I agree–unfortunate timing, given the givens.

  8. WheresTheBeef?
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Diana- Fair enough, I can see how my capitalizing the word Clinton could’ve led to that interpretation. Here’s the passage from the article I was addressing:
    “I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls “just a man.”
    As I mentioned, the polling in this area has been pretty consistent. The numbers just don’t bear that out.
    Anders- I don’t know how you read that article and don’t find that she’s promoting the idea that Obama supporters are cultlike. In addition to the above quote, where she says just that, I lost count of the number of times she used the words “fanatics� “glassy eyed� “messiah� “maniacs� and on and on in reference to Obama and his supporters. At best, it is condescending and dismissive, and at worse, these are some pretty sinister sounding characterizations (note: by making this point, I am NOT saying that Clinton supporters aren’t portrayed unfairly too). Beyond that, I agree with you 100%. I don’t think that many of these people will actually vote for McCain in the general election. I don’t see how anyone could profess to support Clinton and Obama’s policy positions and then vote for someone with the opposite position. For me, it goes without saying that I would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.
    Finally, I think you’re right that these vocal minorities often represent the worst in either candidate’s support base. It almost seems inevitable in politics that the lunatics (and I hesitate to use that word) on the fringe get to color the discourse.

  9. annajcook
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Is there a 2.5 wave? :)
    As someone born in 1981, I’ve always resisted the concept of “waves” when it comes to feminism. It can, at times, be useful shorthand for characterizing different phases of activism, but I dislike the way it shoehorns people of certain age-groups into stereotypes, and highlights the supposed generational conflicts between older and younger feminists. As an historian, I also find it extremely reductionist when it comes to describing the variety of women’s experience of feminism(s) in the past two hundred years here in America.
    In college my women’s studies profs used to tease me about being “2.5″ . . . I say claim it if you want :) . Otherwise, just embrace being a feminist, with no “wave” attached.

  10. SarahMC
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    If it doesn’t apply to you, it’s not about you.
    If you aren’t one of Obama supporters calling Hillary a “cunt,” describing her as “shrill,” or insisting she “go back to the kitchen” and let one of the men be president, Traister is not talking about you!
    She did not say that ALL Obama supporters fall into the “Obama Boys” camp. She is not calling ALL of you bullies. That’s pretty clear. If you’re not part of the problem, stop being so defensive about it.
    We don’t have to “look for sexism” when it’s thrown in our faces every single day. Check out Feministing’s own Hillary Sexism Watch. Or the long list of sickening sexist anti-Hillary remarks over at Shakesville. There are what – dozens of blatantly misogynist anti-Hillary Facebook groups?
    This election has made it perfectly clear to A LOT of women that we are still considered second-class citizens by our peers.

  11. kissmypineapple
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Regarding someone’s comment upthread that it is unfortunate to judge a candidate based on their supporters – I disagree. I agree that judging them on the MSM depiction of who they are would be bad, but if you attract racist, sexist, hatemongers, then I think there must be something racist, sexist, and hatemonger-y about your campaign. And I want to look at that.
    I also completely don’t understand the whole dynastic politics thing. So… because three men were president before her, only one of which she had anything remotely to do with, she should be punished? That’s ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons not to support Clinton (though, I am a Clinton supporter), but that just doesn’t seem like one of them.

  12. SaraP
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    The article did make me uncomfortable. Because I am a feminist and an Obama supporter. And I do not consider my support for Obama to be blind, glassy-eyed, or cultish. It was actually a very difficult decision to come to. And while there are reasons I don’t like Clinton, you better believe that if she is the Dem nominee, I will be out campaigning for her as hard as I can. Because this is not about “taking my candidate all the way or leaving the game” it is about getting someone in the White House who will stop the decline that this country has been in for the past 8 years. And both Obama and Clinton are light years better than McCain in that respect.
    This race is very toxic. There are lots of fences that will need to be mended once we have a candidate. And I think responsibility of mending those fences falls equally on the supporters of both candidates. I have heard both Clinton and Obama supporters (in about equal numbers) threaten to vote McCain if their candidate doesn’t win. I have heard both sides spew hateful things at the other. Neither side is blemish free in this race. But I would hope that those of us who are voting on the issues will realize that when it comes to what is most important–policies and issues–both Clinton and Obama are strong candidates. Claiming you are voting on the issues for either, and then voting for McCain is so inconsistent it’s incomprehensible (to me). And, perhaps I’m naive or an idealist, but I believe most democrats can get beyond the divisiveness of this election to realize that either of these candidates is far better than McCain. It’s dirty now, but when it’s over, we’ll all have to focus on the next fight and the bigger picture.

  13. SarahMC
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    KMP – apparently some people need to look up the definition of “dynasty” huh?
    A woman becoming president after her husband does not a dynasty make. Even a son becoming president after his father does not a dynasty make. But I guess it sucks for Hillary that everyone’s tolerance for pseudo-dynasties ends where her candidacy begins. What a coincidence.

  14. Posted April 15, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    @Annajcook – I think you are on to something, for sure. It isn’t about age, certainly not entirely anyway. Although there’s no denying the influence growing up in a certain time can have on us, it does not have to define us – if we choose to be defined or define ourselves at all.
    I agree about resisting the assignation of waves, it’s just that I’ve been trying to understand the feminist language that I feel woefully illiterate in.
    Very helpful thoughts.

  15. Asa
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    As a male feminist I noticed immediately how blatantly gender-biased media coverage and rhetoric concerning Clinton has been. I slightly favor Obama’s policies, but I’m cynical enough about the government that I almost wish Clinton would win so that we in the U.S. and even in progressive circles could have four to eight years in which to possibly notice how deep and pervasive sexism is in our culture. It’s easy for a straight white male such as myself not to notice the subtler forms of misogyny during the normal course of things, but when a woman in a role that is not normatively feminine becomes the center of our immense media apparatus it’s really fucking hard to ignore.
    Of course, people are capable of herculean efforts when it comes to maintaining the invisible foundations of their privilege.

  16. dedf
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    “Obama and McCain are self-made men/persons.”
    Give me a break! most men have always had other male mentors who got them where they are today in any business.
    Women for the most part had to make it alone in a field where they are not wanted.
    For those who say they have done the research about Obama…are you listening to the biased media? His resume is thin.
    ….and I can’t see not giving this woman a chance to do the great things so many believe she can do…

  17. Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Aside from the obvious bitch bashing, a lot of the negatives people have about her I feel would not be as much of an issue if she were a guy.
    Posted by: MLEmac

    WTF? Aside from the misogyny of thimbledicks like Tweety Matthews, the “misogyny” is a strawman on the part of Clinton’s supporters.
    Hillary Clinton is detested because she not only supported the Iraq War, but voted to let Dubya to start a new war with Iran. She is also disliked for supporting NAFTA, GATT and other schemes that have seen American jobs shipped to China.
    On top of all that, Clinton and her machine have lied, cheated and tried to steal at every opportunity. At the Senate District Convention last month, Hillary’s campaign tried to challenge the credentials of precincts that just happened to go for Obama. The reasons given were absurd, and the Clinton campaign offered to withdraw their challenges IF they got half the delegates no matter what the actual vote totals were. It was a ploy to gum up the works and cheat. It was only when Obama’s campaign threatened to introduce a motion to seat ALL delegates that the Clinton thugs backed down.
    In other words, Hillary Clinton is a clone of Joe Lieberman, and this giant red herring about sexism is shit for the birds -unless you think Lieberman was disliked because he’s a woman and not because he’s a two-faced huckster.

  18. alikatze
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    In re-reading the comments posted today to this article here, I am amused to note that *so many* posters immediately did exactly what the original Salon article griped about: ranted about Hillary and how much they hate her w/o ever really saying WHY.
    Sexism is alive and well among both genders — no matter how many “waves” of women have come and gone, and fought the same damn oppression.

  19. Marguerite
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    I am just a high school student in Utah and even in my very small liberal community, I have heard extreme Hillary bashing akin to what Traister comments on. It is very disheartening in such a limited, Democrat community that should be more united. Thank you so much for posting this article.

  20. Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    That Salon article makes me want to scream.
    There has been both sexism and racism in this primary, which pains me. The depiction of Obama as an unqualified, affirmative action candidate taking a position from its rightful owner–a white woman–is itself part of a racist paradigm.
    But what I find unforgiveable is the Clinton camp’s use of the racist Southern strategy. Though my preference has been for Edwards, then Obama, I would have supported Hillary Clinton as a nominee. I was so happy in Jan. 2008 because the Dems had a slate of excellent qualified candidates. The reason I cannot now support Clinton is not due to sexism, but because of actions over the recent months that I find deplorable.
    The vibe I get from some Hillary Clinton supporters is that there really is no legitimate reason not to support their candidate. Even the Salon article said something like, even if the Obama supporter doesn’t say anything sexist, I can’t help feeling that they really have sexist feelings. WTF? How denigrating! What are the chances of Salon posting an article about how “even if Hillary Clinton supporters don’t say anything racist, I can’t shake the feeling that they really are.”?
    This truly is the silly season.

  21. alikatze
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Hm, Newbaum Turk’s post wasn’t up at the time I wrote mine. However, I totally disagree with NT about sexism — hello? No one is spitting hatred and profanity at Obama for his Blackwater connections, or over the fact that he had some nut as his “spiritual advisor” for 20 years!

  22. everybodyever
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    EG: Hell yes to everything you have said on here, particularly with regard to that insidious “just not this woman” excuse I hear so often. You said it much better than I could have.
    On a different note, Spottieottiedopalicious said:
    But Hillary getting elected would seem to indicate to me that yet again, a woman can only ascend if she is tied to the right man.
    Jesus Christ, this is so incredibly depressing and fucked a statement. So should we stop voting for wealthy people, because voting for them indicates that poor people can’t run for president? We’re living in a sexist fucking world, and we can’t stop it just by refusing to vote for a woman because she’s married to somebody who formerly held office. We can make up these excuses about why this particular woman isn’t the right kind of woman to stand as a beacon of why we should elect a woman, or why this guy is the wrong kind of black guy to really empower black people, or whatever bullshit. But all that placing such restrictions will do is raise the hurdles to electing somebody who will actually make a damn bit of difference to the people of this country.

  23. joshua
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    As a Hillary supporter, I do have to acknowledge that she’s done a lot to offend and alienate the people who support her opponent. There’s been a near-constant barrage of thinly veiled racist remarks, if not from Clinton herself then from the people on her campaign. Obama is a pipe dream. He’s all flash, no substance. (The same thing is constantly said of superior black athletes. A scrappy white player like David Eckstein is exalted above a better performer like Alfonso Soriano.) He’s Jesse Jackson all over again. “Real Americans” (i.e. white lower/middle class Americans) won’t vote for him. There may be an element of truth in each of these critiques, but in total they make me very uneasy. I’m a longtime supporter of Hillary and think she’s the more electable candidate, but she has run a very ugly, negative campaign, and Obama attacks, while maybe equally unfair, have largely stayed away from identity politics. My support for her is far less enthusiastic than it was six months ago.
    That’s not to say that the bile that’s constantly spewed against her isn’t sexist. The media’s treatment of her has been unfair and disgusting. But she’s done quite a bit to justify people’s impressions of her.

  24. zombietalk
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    I fully identify with the first person this article talks about.
    I am an Obama supporter, but I also don’t think Hillary is a bad candidate or even a candidate that I wouldn’t vote for. When campaigning for Obama with others from my university, it continually made me uncomfortable the veracity in which others would attack Hillary. When I’d tell others that I would fully support Hillary if she was given the nomination, it was met with silence and a “well, I’d rather vote Republican!” attitude. I’ve seen people worked up in a fervor over Hillary Clinton with just the simple justification of “I don’t like her”.
    I think it’s worrisome and that’s why this article disappointed me. This is something that I believe should be legitimately looked at, but when it’s skewed so anti-Obama, it’s just reinforcing this “us against them” mentality. I think there are many people who hide their hatred of Hillary as a strong female behind a veil of ardent Obama support, but not all Obama supporters are that way and there’s no way to open a dialogue about this when all Obama supporters are painted as sexist cultists.

  25. prairielily
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    The article really doesn’t say all Obama fans are cultist. A lot of the people complaining about sexism are Obama supporters. It’s specifically about creepy Obama supporters, not ALL Obama supporters. There are plenty of great Obama supporters, but there are also some fucking creepy Obama supporters. I don’t hold that against Obama at all, but I do hope that if he’s elected come November, none of those people end up with any political power. I want them shut out in the cold.
    I had a male friend who is an Obama supporter tell me the other day that he would vote for McCain over Clinton because he has more INTEGRITY. John McCain. A man who falsely portrays himself as a maverick despite his incredibly conservative voting record, a man who cheated on his first wife while she was in the hospital, and most importantly, a man who was part of the Keating Five! Wouldn’t it be great to be implicated in a corruption scandal and still maintain an air of integrity?
    It matches what Spottie said up there about McCain being a self-made man, doesn’t it? A man who was born in a privileged military family, went to USNA, and married an heiress is a self-made man, but Hillary Clinton isn’t, because she MARRIED THE PRESIDENT. It’s like it doesn’t even occur to these people that in 1975, she would have had no idea that he’d win the 1992 election. We know she can’t see the future, because otherwise, she wouldn’t have voted for Iraq.

  26. meeneecat
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    “I am amused to note that *so many* posters immediately did exactly what the original Salon article griped about: ranted about Hillary and how much they hate her w/o ever really saying WHY.” [alikatze]
    AND
    “If it doesn’t apply to you, it’s not about you.
    If you aren’t one of Obama supporters calling Hillary a “cunt,” describing her as “shrill,” or…
    She did not say that ALL Obama supporters fall into the “Obama Boys” camp. She is not calling ALL of you bullies. That’s pretty clear. If you’re not part of the problem, stop being so defensive about it.” [SaraMC]
    I agree with both of these commentators. I don’t understand why so many posters here are getting defensive about this article. The article wasn’t talking about ALL Obama’s supporters, like SaraMC says, the article is talking about SOME Obama supporters. The real issue is why do some supporters feel the need to bash the other democratic candidate with such misogynistic and sexist slurs and what should be done about it. And also, the fact that the tone and volume of these slurs is so noticeable that it may be having an effect on ALL voters, including Obama supporters that don’t support these sexist remarks, undecided voters who may be turned off by the name calling, and Clinton supporters who are incredibly offended by the repeated sexist attacks. Frankly, I’m disappointed that Obama hasn’t spoken out about this yet and I’m also disappointed that more Obama supporters (some here included) haven’t expressed their disapproval of these sexists attacks either (and instead resorting back to the predictable “this is why I like Obama, and this is why I don’t like Clinton” speech). I’m not saying any Obama supporters here are sexists, and I certainly think it’s wrong for any supporter to attack a candidate because of either their race or gender. But, as an undecided voter, I’m becoming increasingly disgusted by the tone of the sexist Obama supporters, especially because they make the rest of the supporters look bad and reflect poorly on the campaign in general. Before I started noticing this, Obama’s candidacy was appealing to me, but because of all the Hillary bashing that I perceive to be coming from some of his supporters this has drawn me away from him a bit. I just wonder if the sexist remarks by some of Obama’s supporters is having the same effect on other undecided voters and, also, why do some Obama supporters keep spewing out such sexist hatred, especially when it could turn off undecided voters. This, I think, is a more important question to ask, than the “why I like this candidate and don’t like the other” posturing.
    Again, I’m disappointed that some of the commentators here are getting defensive about the article and resorting to a predictable dialog of why they don’t like Clinton and why they like Obama. I think there are a lot more important questions to ask here, especially about what this underlying misogyny says about society in general, and what effect, if any, the name-calling could have on voters.

  27. RishiGajria
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    “I’m about to take Monty to the vet to get neutered. I’m nervous about it, but he had one last hurrah with his pillow last night so I don’t feel so bad”
    Poor Monty. I have long felt that neutering is a very practice. But, Folks who keep pets want them to be calm. So, I guess…

  28. RishiGajria
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    “And you wonder why men are always worried about feminists cutting their balls off…”
    Ha,Ha
    Stereotypical, But still funny.

  29. RishiGajria
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I meant to say cruel and unusual practice. Neutering that is.

  30. Vodalus
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Actually, neutering is far from cruel and unusual. It’s done under anesthetic and as mentioned by a previous poster, most male dogs are fully capable of humping even after the surgery. In other words, the dog generally has no idea that he’s missing out on anything. Most arguments against neutering are just thinly veiled castration anxiety; there’s no denying the fact that thousands of unwanted dogs are put to sleep everyday due to careless owners of unsterilized pets.
    As for the Obama/Clinton thing… The article is doubtlessly flawed, as are all timely articles on politics. Everyone has an agenda. The complaint about the Clinton campaign preying upon racist fears is legitimate. However! The level of virulence and impunity with which Clinton is publicly attacked is unprecedented.
    People of color overall get the short stick in life. I don’t doubt that; the success of the Obamas is a testament to both of their internal resources. I think that upper-middle-class white women do not win the Oppression Olympics.
    But it is not acceptable for any mainstream figure to make explicit, racist public statements. Whereas sexism and even straight up misogyny are acceptable. If you complain, non-feminists say “well, they just have a different opinion than yours” or “why can’t you just celebrate the differences between men and women?” My favorite game is to replace blanket statements about women with Black, Gay or Jewish. The vast majority of the time, the comment becomes instantly unacceptable.
    That doesn’t make either racism or sexism less important. That doesn’t mean that if you fight the one, then you get to practice the other. There are women of color and they suffer on both fronts.
    To me, this article resonated really strongly because no one has any problem pointing out that Clinton’s supporters implement racism in their campaign against Obama. At least the nastiness of the public attacks on Clinton will open the eyes of all those insisting that sexism doesn’t exist anymore. Because we’ve all recently admitted that Obama has had to overcome racism! Yay, we can now acknowledge the hatreds still pervading our society! >.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/MN9HUPVEO.DTL&type=politics

  31. Dave Rickey
    Posted April 15, 2008 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    Let me share a little anecdote. About 15 years ago I worked for a large bank, in their proof-transit dept (sorting and shipping checks). My boss on that job was a Phillipino man, probably in his 50′s.
    I didn’t like working for him, at all. I was almost always his top performer, on nearly every metric (being a bank, they had a lot of them). But he was always very critical of me, and made it clear he didn’t really want to work with me. About half the staff was also Phillipino, and sometimes he would start giving instructions in Tagalog, and get angry at me when I’d ask him to repeat them so I could understand them. We clashed a fair number of times over procedural stuff, sometimes his boss would get involved and almost always over-rule him.
    After about 2 years, I left to join the USAF. On my last day, he pulled me aside and asked “You don’t like me, right?”
    “No”, I said.
    “It’s because I’m oriental?”
    “No,” I said, “It’s because you’re an asshole.”
    I don’t like Hillary Clinton. I’ve distrusted her for a long time, but I didn’t dislike her any more than any other politician of her ilk until she started going negative in this campaign. Now it’s bordering on hate, because I think she’s putting her ambition ahead of the country.
    I hate *a* woman. Because of what she’s done, not what she is. Does that automatically make me a misogynist? Because it really seems that’s what is being claimed here, nobody can come up with a way that Obama supporters are being classically misogynist, or even using coded or camoflaged mysogynistic attacks, but they hate a woman so it must be misogyny, right?
    No. A lot of us just think *this* woman is a grasping, lying, asshole who is playing games with the future of the country because her own ambition is more important than anything else. We hate the person, not any particular class of people she might be a member of.
    –Dave

  32. Wildberry
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 12:05 am | Permalink

    What, you think your anecdote makes you free of suspicion of sexism? Or do you think we’re too stupid to understand the concept of disliking the person, but not because of her gender without an example?
    And your language doesn’t really make me think that your opinion of her is based solely on logic.
    If it seems to you that people here are saying that criticism of Clinton automatically equals misogyny, then you obviously haven’t paid much attention, because several people have precisely otherwise several times.
    “nobody can come up with a way that Obama supporters are being classically misogynist, or even using coded or camoflaged mysogynistic attacks, but they hate a woman so it must be misogyny, right?”
    Cunt, bitch, shrill, nagging, “tea and cookies,” “Make me a sandwich,” “Iron my clothes,” none of this counts as misogyny? Gee, thanks for clearing that up, I was getting worried about the state of our nation for a minute there.

  33. Jem
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Meenecat, I am with you. As with KMP, too, about the fanbase havin an influence.
    However, much as baseless vitriol against her pisses me off, I will vote for whoever the fuck gets the nomination, even if it ends up being Obama, who lately has been failing in my book.
    What is wrong with you people who say you won’t vote or will go McCain??? Are you fucking kidding me? He is better than her/him?
    You know DR, I was going to write Oh, “Read the comments. This isn’t about you” but then it hit me that this IS about you… your anecdote didn’t work. Baseless vitriolic shit-flinging is not a political statement. Maybe next time you can, you know, explain why you hate her POLICIES so much.
    Seriously, what the fuck did she ever do to you to make you spend so much energy hating her?

  34. irishgirl1983
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 1:17 am | Permalink

    There is a conflation here of really messed up misogny directed at Hilary, and people passionatly advocating for obama.
    I’m sorry, but dudes in your life being excited enough to call you about Obama isn’t fucked up.

  35. Vodalus
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 1:44 am | Permalink

    Dudes in your life thinking that you aren’t capable of determining your own candidate of choice before the day of the election… that is messed up. Especially the fact that it isn’t just one guy or several guys deliberately coordinating efforts. When you have a half-dozen guys calling up to pressure you into voting coincidentally, that’s indicative of a systemic flaw. Not that you should be voting in the primary anyways if you don’t have a legitimate, issues-based preference.
    That’s also not the only complaint.

  36. dedf
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    “…because her own ambition is more important than anything else.”
    Yes, like the male politicians are the only ones who truly care about the country….not ambitious at all. LOL!
    That line is used so often to discredit Hillary…in and of itself I find it sexist. You really think that the men are not ambitious enough to do what it takes to win?
    I think it is sad that obama supporters will not acknowledge the lies, ruthlessness, and indiscretions Obama is guilty of….wait I know why; they aren’t talked about in the biased media.
    Imagine a woman being ambitious!! the horror!!!

  37. SarahMC
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    RishiGajria, neutering is actually the humane, KIND thing to do for your dog. I agree that this illogical opposition to neutering is just castration anxiety. Neutered dogs are less aggressive, and have fewer health problems. Intact males are literally controlled by their hormones. Plus, neutering cuts down on unwanted puppies. There is no downside to neutering your dog.
    Oh, Dave. If you have legitimate reasons for disliking Hillary and do not couch your dislike in SEXIST terms or double-standards, we are not talking about you!!
    However, if you decide to call her a whore, or complain that she’s too ambitious, you are being sexist.
    It’s like some people don’t even understand the definition of “sexism.” Opposing a woman isn’t necessarily sexism. Opposing her ’cause she’s not hawt enough, or because you think she’s “power-hungry” (a candidate for POTUS? Power-hungry?! Who’da thunk?) IS sexist. It’s not that complicated. Getting all defensive about it only makes you look guilty.

  38. gomillis
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Here’s a concrete example of misogyny directed against Clinton by an Obama supporter. A friend of mine, supposedly a “progressive” guy asked about Clinton: “If she can’t satisfy her husband, how can she satisfy her country?” I have heard similar sentiments elsewhere. Another friend (again, a “progressive guy”) made a photo album on facebook of “unflattering pictures of Hillary.”
    If anyone’s confused about why those things are misogynistic, I’d be happy to explain it to you.

  39. Posted April 16, 2008 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Fine. I’m sexist. I get it. I always knew I wasn’t a truly enlightened male, but coming to this site has made me realize what a misogynist asshole I really am, so I will refrain from oppressing you with my comments.

    People of color overall get the short stick in life. I don’t doubt that; the success of the Obamas is a testament to both of their internal resources. I think that upper-middle-class white women do not win the Oppression Olympics.

    One of the best comments on this issue. Since you do not want the support of people like me, I will retire to the people of color corner in the oppression Olympics and give the simplest argument I can on why I support Obama instead of Hillary:
    It’s harder to be a black man with a single mother than an upper-middle class woman. Feminists have drawn their line in the sand, so don’t be surprised when the vast majority of minorities throw our lot in with the side you oppose. There’s a reason why black women are voting for Obama overwhelmingly; the POC have spoken.

  40. alikatze
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Wow; Spottie, I’m amazed that *as a male* you feel you have the right to speak for Women of Color! Holy cow. Never mind the egregious sexism WoC face in mainstream PoC culture (“gangsta rap,” anyone?!)….

  41. puckalish
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    okay. i haven’t read any comments yet, but “dark and funky”!?
    okay. now, i’ll read s’more.

  42. ReedRudy
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    This article is EXACTLY on point. She exactly pin-pointed every bit of what I’ve been feeling this election season. Right on!

  43. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    “give the simplest argument I can on why I support Obama instead of Hillary:
    It’s harder to be a black man with a single mother than an upper-middle class woman.”
    First of all, I notice you don’t note the economic status of the man in this scenario, or the “race” of the woman. I find this odd…
    Second of all, I think a lot of the comments of yours being criticized were separate from this particular belief of yours.

  44. Jess
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Honestly, I think this has nothing to do with people’s love of Obama and everything to do with their hatred of Hillary. I don’t think the two have anything to do with each other. People would still be saying these things about Hillary no matter who the other Democratic candidate was, and sadly it’s because so many men are threatened by such a headstrong, powerful woman.

  45. adminassistant
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Oh for fuck’s sake.
    From the OED:
    dark 1. a. Characterized by (absolute or relative) absence of light; devoid of or deficient in light; unilluminated; said esp. of night.
    2. Of clouds, the sky, etc.: Reflecting or transmitting little light; gloomy from lack of light, sombre.
    3. a. Of the ordinary colour of an object: Approaching black in hue.
    It’s racist to assume that dark = African American. So let’s get over “dark and funky” now, please.
    AND:
    Until someone shows me the Obama equivilent of “Get Out Of The Race And Make Me A Sandwich, Bitch” I am unable to believe that the level of sexism against Clinton (regardless of party or preferred CANDIDATE) is negligible.

  46. cuddlebot3000
    Posted April 16, 2008 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    I’m personally not a big fan of either of the Clintons, mostly due to their apparent inability to distinguish reality from fable, and the attendant drama this creates. But I will happily vote for her in the election if she’s the nominee, and I think we should all be thrilled that we have not one but TWO viable candidates in the running this year. This should be considered a welcome change from our recent past.
    As the campaing wears on I’ve been getting more and more sensitive to the back-and-forth bickering between their respective supporters. While it’s to be expected in politics, the vitriol has become more and more intense as this primary season wears on. I’ve seen absolutely disgraceful attacks directed at each of them, and nobody’s camp can claim the moral high ground here. No, we’re not all to blame, but it’s disingenuous to pin the blame on one side or the other.
    It’s fair to point out that Hillary has been the victim of sexism, but not without acknowledging the racist garbage Obama has been subject to as well. And trying to weigh one against the other isn’t a very productive activity either. Racism and sexism both suck. Period.
    I just wish everybody could put all that behind them and focus on what matters — taking out McCain!

  47. Dave Rickey
    Posted April 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    To those that don’t like the language I used: I was being blunt, but not sexist. Everybody has an asshole.
    Of course you have to be ambitious to run for POTUS, but at some point, I would think you have to look at whether that’s realistically possible. It’s not for Hillary, no matter what fairy tale the “Fact Hub” and HillaryIs44 are dishing out most recently. Oh, there’s an extremely remote chance she could get the nomination, but no scenario in which she wins in November. That’s just the cold hard math of the situation.
    Her continued candidacy is an ongoing gift to the McCain campaign, and has been for over a month. It serves no rational purpose but to kneecap Obama for the general and give her a chance to run again in 4 years.
    Think about what that means, not just for the country, or the Democratic party, but for women and for feminism. Just for starters, kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, it’s amazing it’s survived Bush and McCain would get to replace at least 2 of the votes sustaining it.
    It’s not just her candidacy, which I didn’t have a problem with. It’s what her “Scorched Earth” strategy has as side effects. And she is way too smart not to know it. So, to put it in the bluntest terms, her ambition is more important to her than your reproductive rights.
    That’s far from the only negative consequence, but it’s the one that strikes nearest and dearest to the readership here. So, maybe you should stop asking why Obama’s male supporters hate her, and start asking why you don’t.
    –Dave

  48. dedf
    Posted April 19, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Dave: That’s just the cold hard math of the situation.
    Nice try Dave, but according to the math Obama cannot win the nomination either.
    If Obama cares so much about the country, he should step down. He has shown he is inexperienced and cannot handle the country. Please don’t let you ambition destroy this country Obama.
    Also, it is known that the media has been in that tank for him and that should scare everybody in this country…that his indiscretions and questionable friends are being hidden by the media. This is Bush all over again.
    So we should be asking why men are so gullible to not see this.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

232 queries. 1.338 seconds