Where was this originally printed/posted?

fucker......
which papers did this appear in? I want to e-mail the editor about this disgusting thing.

I third that request. Where did this come from?

On a side note, it is not even remotely true. Hillary is damned either way- she gets blasted in the press for being too tough/cold/calculating/whatever. But here we are with a published cartoon that says "boo hoo, she's a woman." It makes me insane.

I wish they'd make up their minds. Is she a heartless castrating bitchmachine, or a weepy emotional overwrought female? I'm so confused.

It's an Pat Oliphant cartoon from the Washington Post, probably a week to ten days old.

I wish they'd make up their minds. Is she a heartless castrating bitchmachine, or a weepy emotional overwrought female? I'm so confused.

The fuck...?
I second (or third or fourth) what everyone else has been saying. She's damned if she's tough and, although I do not get the sense that Clinton will ever be the type to "soften up", it's pretty clear that she'd be criticized for being too sensitive if she did.

Hillary, as all women, are the targets of sexist double standards.

But I have little sympathy for Hillary, as an individual, when she and her campaign inject racial stereotypes into the poltical debate and seek to marginalize Obama as the "black candidate."

Over-the-top ignorant attacks on Hillary as woman only help her cause politically--as we saw in NH. Attacks on Obama, from the Clinton camp, would never have the same effect.

I must say, as a black man, Hillary's campaign has really driven home the fact that I simply don't matter. It's OK for a democratic candidate to play racial fear games, and I'm expected to vote for her in the general election?

I'm sorry, I simply can't do that--not even for the Supreme Court. It's simply too much to ask of me. Thank God I don't live in a swing state.

(Of course, for women that are not powerful like Hillary, these oppressive gender double-standards are much more potent.)

Since this is the first time in the history of the United States that a woman has run for presidency, I think we can expect a whole helluva lot more of this. It's always hardest at first when breaking new ground. But perserverance will get results eventually, even though I expect it will be slow-going.

I am continually reminded of a line from one of my favourite movies:
"If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it."

*Disclaimer: YES, that was from a Star Trek movie, in case anyone was wondering, but that doesn't mean open season on Trekkies in this thread - we take enough flak as it is! ;) ;)

I like this guy's take on the cartoon, from the POV that hanging that cartoon in one's cubicle could be grounds for sexual harrasment/causing a hostile work environment, so the paper CERTAINLY shouldn't be printing the damn thing.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/01/hostile-environ.html

And how Feministe points out that Senator Clinton is at the age where she must be post-menopausal. The cartoonist doesn't even know basic biology.

Actually, this is far from the first time that a woman has run for US president. The first was Victoria Woodhull in 1872 and the most recent was Carol Mosley-Braun, who ran for a bit in 2004.

More on women running for president, and how each of them has been treated as the first to ever run, here:
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/01/16/mclemee

she IS damned either way (frigid bitch vs. omg silly emotional woman!) and the cartoon is uncalled for.

the problem is that if she does win the nomination, this is TAME compared to what the republicans are going to be throwing her way. expect a hillary-bashing-fest 24/7 until november.

in case anyone is interested, the "artist" here is Pat Oliphant, and the cartoon is from Jan 10th. i plan on complaining loudly to the Post. ...and now i have to find a new online crossword puzzle, as i've been doing their's everyday for a year. damn.

Oops, sorry thatabbygrrl - my mistake.

Of course, I have the excuse of not being from the U.S. Of course, I suppose this means you can hack on our education system for not teaching us dumb Canucks about presidential history, but then again, I highly doubt any of you U.S. folks could name all of the Canadian Prime Ministers.

Well, you're kind of right, Mz.Stilletto, in that this is the first time a woman has made a serious run at the White House, a run in which it is conceivable she could end up there. So your point in general still stands, I think.

Robbie, I'm not convinced that sexist attacks on Hillary only help her out. I don't buy into the kinds of arguments that suggest one small New England state represents the US as a whole, and she and Obama are neck and neck. Certainly, racist attacks on Obama are scummy; I just don't think they're any more scummy or damaging than sexist attacks on Hillary.

It's a Pat Oliphant cartoon, and it's not even sexist in intent. Pat Oliphant is probably the biggest cartoonist in the world, and is most certainly not sexist. You're all barking up the wrong tree.

You people need to learn to differentiate between commentary on sexism and sexism itself. See the little Bill Clinton in the corner? See him saying "This is when PMS goes nuclear yuk yuk."? Wow, that was awfully sexist, Bill! But it sounds a little sarcastic! Almost a little... tongue in cheek! Almost like... a joke!

Oh yeah, because it's a cartoon. A cartoon that's making fun of all the sexist coverage of Clinton

Whoever is writing letters to complain about this cartoon needs to get a sense of humor ASAP. It's literally a joke that you just don't get.

Oh! It was a joke! Don't I feel silly now.

Alex, if this is truly commentary ON sexism, Oliphant sure doesn't get his point across too clearly. But I don't really think it is, for exactly that reason--it would be a bit more obvious if that were the case.

Everyone else, I've just sent a letter to both the comics dept. and the paper's ombudsman. i really hope nobody is angry that I used some of the points made in this comments section as fodder for my canon. it's only because i thought they were good arguments. feel free to copy and paste my letter or steal any part of it. :)

To Whom it May Concern,

I am deeply offended by the comic drawn by Mr. Oliphant and printed on January 10th, 2008. The cartoon is clearly sexist, depicting Hillary Clinton as a weak, emotional woman. Because, of course, being weak and emotional are purely feminine traits. Right. Mentioning PMS as a cause for a woman's emotionality? Aside from the fact that Ms. Clinton is obviously post-menopausal (Mr. Oliphant may want to take a basic high school biology course), what does PMS have to do with anything? Oh right, I forgot, we women can't possibly overcome the hormones that course through our bodies, turning us into weepy, overwrought, mood-swinging monsters. We are not strong enough to 1) not break down into tears in the face of valid criticism or--as in the case of this cartoon--invalid criticism based solely on negative stereotypes and bigotry, or 2) take any course of action not based on our feelings. I am not voting for Hillary in the upcoming primaries, but nevertheless the sexism represented in your newspaper is damaging to the relative "equality" of women everywhere. The display of this particular comic in any workplace could easily be grounds for sexual harassment or creating a hostile workplace, so it seems obvious to me that the printing of it in your newspaper is clearly reprehensible, sexist, bigoted and just plain wrong. This is truly a shameful act by both Pat Oliphant and this publication. Welcome to the 21st century, cavemen of the Washington Post.

Disappointedly,
Georgia P*******

re: Georgia

I think it's obviously a joke on the sexist commentary. Hey, but then again, Bush was re-elected. I've learned to never overestimate peoples' average intelligence.

Robbie, I agree with EG that I don't see how subtle sexism (which is everywhere) is helping Hillary. I certainly don't want to marginalize racism, which is every bit as bad and insidious -- but everyone in the country (absent a handful of acknowledged kooks) at least agrees that racism is wrong. You will not find such agreement with respect to sexism. It is still socially acceptable to *openly* mock women simply for being women. So I don't see how doing something that the majority of Americans have no problem with can cause the kind of mass backlash the media is pretending is out there (it's not massive, it's a handful of feminists). Can you imagine the national uproar if this cartoon had depicted Obama wearing a basketball uniform and speaking gangsta slang in an effort to negotiate with foreign countries? The paper would be positively CRUCIFIED for that, and rightly so. but the only outrage you'll hear about *this* comic will come from decidedly feminist circles.

I'm not trying to start up the conversation of "which is worse," because you can't compare the two. They are both evil, and that's that. Personally, I'm disappointed that the two marginalized groups here have devolved into petty bickering rather than focusing on what left-minded people *supposedly* care about: equality for all.

Also, here I am genuinely curious -- I will acknowledge it's entirely possible that I'm simply more sensitive to gender bias than I am to racial bias (and I want people to point out to me when I'm suffering from white blindness, truly I do) -- but I honestly don't know what the racist things Hillary is saying are -- is it the MLK/LBJ quote thing? Or is there something more? Maybe I just don't read the papers enough, but I do know that what I read and hear from Obama supporters (and his campaign) is at best a bored shrug of the shoulders about sexism as an issue, and at worst outright misogyny (and, yeah, there are plenty, PALENTY of liberal misogynists -- calling yourself "liberal" doesn't give you a pass), whereas I haven't heard a whole lot about Hillary or her camp attacking Obama's race. Again, obviously I am more sensitized to one than the other, and I obviously spend more time on feminist blogs than I do on blogs dedicated to race issues -- but... isn't it possible that the same holds for you as well, in reverse?

Mz.Stilleto, Star Trek VI, right? As a fellow proud trekkie and general sci-fi nerd, I appreciated the quote :)

Alex, thank you for pointing out that feminists have no sense of humor. If only someone had told us before that we were supposed to LAUGH at jokes, not get MAD about them! Thank you for pointing us toward the light!!

(And, uh, no duh it's a joke. Just because something is a joke doesn't mean it's funny -- there's NO indication that the cartoon is making fun of sexist coverage -- the little Bill in the corner only suggests that Bill is something of a sexist, which he is. The "you're not helping" comment could just as easily be interpreted as meaning "you're only going to make her mad" or something similar, as anyone who's ever been told a stupid PMS joke knows could tell you -- it makes us wimmins so damn emotional, you know. So even if he meant it as a swipe at the media, he sucked at it)

Alex: You may be thinking of this cartoon; it's understandable, they both work for the same paper.

Of course, I'm sure this cartoon is a comment on people's racism, not racism itself.

If it were meant as satire on the sexist coverage of Clinton, shouldn't the cartoon have focused on, I don't know, media coverage rather than the hypothetical reactions of "the bad guys"? Considering I've heard about how other countries "won't respect us" if we have a female president ever since I started studying presidential elections in school, this seems to just be one more example of that "argument."

re: The Law Fairy - I said nothing about feminists not having senses of humor.

And no, I don't think the cartoon was one of Oliphant's better ones. But I don't think it's intention was sexist humor, but rather to expose how stereotypical the usual attacks on Clinton are.

But hey, why not? Send a million emails. Boycott the paper. Tar and feather Pat Oliphant. He's just some sexist cartoonist. Twenty years of liberal cartoons, a Pulitzer Prize?

What does that matter, when he just used sexist humor as a tool to expose the stupidity of sexist media coverage! The horror!

re: moriath - Because most of the media coverage talks about how Clinton won't be "strong" enough to stand up to terrorists. The cartoon was making fun of this by showing what would happen in this hypothetical situation where all terrorists care about is whether or not she's wearing a pantsuit, or should bring flowers. Get it?

Is this really that difficult?

"Can you imagine the national uproar if this cartoon had depicted Obama wearing a basketball uniform and speaking gangsta slang in an effort to negotiate with foreign countries? The paper would be positively CRUCIFIED for that, and rightly so. but the only outrage you'll hear about *this* comic will come from decidedly feminist circles." - The Law Fairy

It is a bit different considering Clinton just cried during a speech a few weeks ago and then won NH with many talking heads in part crediting the tears for the victory. Any of the male candidates would be getting hit much harder if they had done that. I doubt, in fact, that they would still be in the race. As for your hypothetical example, if Obama made a public appearance in a basketball uniform speaking “gangsta� slang in an effort to win South Carolina, I think the cartoon you imagined would be fair, too (cynical pandering is absolutely fair game for parody). As he has not done this, however, I agree that it would be out of line.

The real problem here, in my opinion, lies not in Clinton crying but in the reactions of the other people in the cartoon (PMS, flowers, ect.). These are where I think it is difficult to see if the writer is laughing at sexism or with it.

PS. I said 20 years because he was very liberal for 20-odd years. His entire career is probably something like 50 years at this point. He's not as liberal as he once was, and some people have complained that a few cartoons had racist caricatures. I would agree, since his drawing style is definitely showing his age -- the drawings were offensive. The jokes in the cartoons, however, were not racist in intent. His sense of humor, however, remains on the liberal side of the fence.

Just wanted to clarify that, since my sentence was misleading.

This should have a warning...do not view immediately after eating because you will throw up in your mouth a little.

Alex, one does not have to intend to be sexist or racist in order to be sexist or racist. Clinton has been accused of being racist over her remarks about Martin Luther King; she almost certainly didn't mean for the remarks to be racist (at the very least she's too savvy of a politician to say something overtly or intentionally racist), but the perception has widely been that they were. So whether or not Oliphant intends his drawings to be sexist or racist, they're certainly coming across that way, which means he probably has some lingering issues of his own.

noname:
Please. I beg you. Hillary Clinton did NOT CRY. Her voice cracked. There were no tears. I thought we were past this.

re: moriath

Wait a moment, the reason why it's okay to be mad at Pat Oliphant is because Clinton was also wrongly accused of something?

I think the issue here isn't with Pat Oliphant, it's that people are way too quick to scream SEXIST! RACIST! at the slightest hint of it. Saying that we should scream racist/sexist because other people scream it all the time is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and completely nullifies the purpose of raising awareness of racism/sexism.

Let me preface this by saying I haven't liked alexmlwallace's tone in this discussion and I'm not trying to come down on that side or defend those arguing tactics.

However, I am a little conflicted about this cartoon. I see two interpretations: either the cartoonist is mocking Hillary for crying and saying she won't be able to cry her way out of presidential conflicts or he's mocking the way the media's become obsessed with the crying moment as if it proves she's totally unqualified to lead.

To be honest I saw the latter interpretation first and I'll tell you why. The (male) leaders on the right are all saying things that are stereotypically female and that would sound ridiculous if said by someone in a leadership position. I think the cartoonist could be saying something like "We don't expect men in positions of leadership would act this way, so why should we be so quick to assume that Hillary would?"

To The Law Fairy: Yup, Star Trek VI it was! "The Undiscovered Country"...

Corny, but appropriate. Glad someone appreciated my nerdy quote! ;)

It is a bit different considering Clinton just cried during a speech a few weeks ago and then won NH with many talking heads in part crediting the tears for the victory. Any of the male candidates would be getting hit much harder if they had done that. I doubt, in fact, that they would still be in the race.

Yes, well, the fact is that the talk heads were scrambling to figure out how on earth their previous predictions could have been so wrong wrong wrong, and I really don't see any reason to credit what they say. They were just trying to tell a just-so story; I doubt they have any real insight into why Hillary won NH.

Further, as many feminist posts on the so-called crying pointed out, several male politicians have wept in public with no adverse results.

Twenty years of liberal cartoons, a Pulitzer Prize?

Alex, calling oneself a liberal, espousing liberal ideas, and BEING a liberal do not grant a get-out-of-sexism-free card. As I said before, there are plenty of liberal misogynists out there. Far too many. Even though many people would apply the term "liberal" to me, I don't like calling myself a liberal, for a number of reasons, including that the liberals have all but abandoned women.

eedlebeedle, thank you for demonstrating how one could have presented Alex's view cogently and with maturity, rather than rushing in here asking what's wrong with us for not thinking it's funny.

I disagree with your interpretation, though... I honestly can't really even see it. A couple of the leaders are saying kind of stereotypically "girly" things, but to me the intended effect seems much more to mock the idea that a crying woman could get anything done -- like, "hello, people, these leaders are not going to suddenly turn nice just because we have a woman in office." And I don't think they're meant to be "girly" (to make the point that, of course leaders don't act this way), in part because one of them is complaining about how he does what she tells him, but she still doesn't like his tie -- something a man is more likely to say complaining about his wife. Or suggesting buying flowers, something men stereotypically do for women. To me, it makes the dynamic patently gendered -- it will make America the sobbing housewife to the world's bewildered husband. Really, really offensive implication. Also, by the non-sexist interpretation, the Bill Clinton remark in the corner doesn't even make sense. I am genuinely, sincerely trying to see how it could be construed as mocking stereotypes rather than mocking women/Hillary... but I just can't. And I know I'm a reasonably smart person -- if I can't really "get" it that way even after engaging in mental gymnastics, I don't think a broader, nonfeminist audience who will give the comic about 5 seconds of their attention, will "get" it as social commentary rather than social conformity.

"Further, as many feminist posts on the so-called crying pointed out, several male politicians have wept in public with no adverse results." - EG

Yes, but what did they cry about?

law fairy--that was what i thought the cartoon was trying to say as well.

i get that it's open to interpretation, but it seems ambiguous at best. if that's not what he meant by the piece i don't think he did a very good job of communicating what he did mean.

noname and fellow Hillary-bashers: Jebus.

She wasn't "crying" about herself, even though the media is trying to make her look selfish for misting up a little bit, reflecting on the campaign. A more charitable interpretation would be that Hillary actually cares about the issues she says she cares about, like health care. Which would mean she's misting up for other people. I'm not saying I buy this, but you can bet your ass that if it had been a man they would be giving him the benefit of the doubt. Hillary, as a woman, they don't.

Also, check out this blog entry's list of male presidents misting up. How is Hillary getting emotional about her campaign more selfish than Bush getting emotional about his son? The son thing, if anything, is more selfish because men like Bush see their sons as extensions of their penises. Therefore, Hillary was getting emotional about how much she wants to change the world, and Bush was getting emotional about his penis.

But Hillary is the one who isn't fit to lead.

Law Fairy and rileystclair, oh I agree that this probably the more obvious interpretation and probably the one that most people will get after "5 seconds." So if this was not the cartoonist's intention he kind of blew it. If it was his intention it's definitely sexist and complaint-worthy. But I think we owe it to ourselves to go through the "mental gymnastics" to try and see things like this from different angles. It makes out arguments stronger and takes away ammunition from those who accuse us of knee-jerk reactions. Plus it makes for the most interesting Feministing comment threads. If only the internet was all intelligent people hashing out ideas reasonably, with well thought out arguments! A girl can dream :-)

I'm surprised no one's pointed out yet how dumb it is to talk about PMS for a sixty-one-year-old woman.

Here's the best antidote to that Oliphant cartoon:
Tom Toles 'toon

And for anyone doubting Oliphant's sexism, look here (via Mithras): Oliphant's misogyny

Alex, it's not like people on here don't understand using irony to criticise in cartoons. It's just that... this cartoon isn't. It's as simple as that.