I don't know if I'm early or late to this recent conversation of media and institutional sexism dooming Clinton's campaign. But I just wanted to say this:
Hillary's campaign survived past the New Hampshire primary as a result of sexism—in her advantage. Those near-tears rescued what, to that point, had been a strategic and rhetorical disaster.
If a man had gotten choked up at that New Hampshire diner and said: "I just don't want to see us fall backward," his campaign would have been over.
His opponent (especially Hillary) would have labeled him a wimp, not strong enough to take the pressure of the presidency. And, to be honest, she wouldn't have had to press that label: We all would have thought the same thing. Don't believe me. History has plenty of fairly recent examples.
Sexism goes both ways Nobamas. I know you want to own that burden. But, to some extent, sexism is a load we all impose on each other and that we all must carry—even if it is distributed unequally.

SilaPorta

Good post. I’ve suggested in a past post that sexism as it related to bias against women was not a major issue during the primary because Senator Clinton was the only woman and beat all of her male competitors except Senator Obama. But your post is a good argument that sexism did play a role and it worked both ways. Good post.

OK let me get this right, sexism helped Hillary because she cried. Other wise she would have been out right then and there.

Then when Bill Clinton suggests that Obama being part Black was an advantage he was a racist. Forget the fact that Obama had equal support from white voters if you break it out by race, while what happened among Black voters. 92% for Obama, I cannot see an advantage to that. Do a little math and in any state with more than 10% black voters any other candidate needs to be the overwhelming favorite among all other voters to even break even. It is like running a hundred yard dash but Obama gets to stand on the 10 yard line.

Sexism was a factor in Hillary's loss. There were enough subtle and not so subtle comments that work to dissuade people from voting for her. You have the balls to suggest that there is not discrimination against women in the US. They get paid less, get respected less, often are assigned the more menial tasks, and when they are just as motivated and driven as a man they are viewed in a negative way. So sexism is a reality, just as racism is reality. I know people who would not vote for Obama because he is black and I know people who would not vote for Hillary because she is a woman. What number that represents I do not know. But while both exist, I think that Obama suffered less from the media side of things because the media stayed far away from making any comments that could be interpreted as racially biased yet sexist statement would have to be pretty blatant before anyone would come out against it. Just like these generalities about McCain's age would never be laughed at if the generalities used were based upon race.

Victim-hood is a badge of courage for the inadequate.

Raptor5618: "You have the balls to suggest that there is not discrimination against women in the US."

LeRoy: You must be reading between the lines, because neither of the previous posters said any such thing.

If they did not say that, I apologize. But quedog said it was not a major issue. I guess that does not say it does not exist, rather it was insignificant.

I think it was pretty significant in that the media would attack her in ways that were sexist that had to affect her.

That being said I think that Hillary did enough on her own to insure she did not win. But sexism did not help and perhaps if it were not an issue she may have held things closer where she could have got back in the game. But you play the game the way it is played and she lost so it doesn't really matter.

Like all those who moan about Gore, it is over with.

NightSwimmer:

Victim-hood is a badge of courage for the inadequate.

Your comment does nothing to dignify your position, it does however, illuminate your confusion about the underlying issues of sexism via demeaning females as a way to undercut their abilities in all aspects of society.

I knew the minute Obama was brought into the equation that this political season was going to be filled with racism charges against White’s not supporting him instead of a more political seasoned professional, i.e. Senator Clinton. America has grown considerably in race issues but when it comes to women this nation continues to be trapped in gender bias towards females.

The overt misogynist comments by the news media and political hacks for Obama towards Senator Clinton, combined resulted in millions of angry women and men and you attribute their outrage as victim mentality? I suppose you don’t think Obama’s supporters wouldn’t have gone ballistic if the tables were turned, eh? Charges of racism would have been all over the media 24/7! MSNBC might as well change the name to ONBC! Actually, the lack of professionalism by the entire news media during this election season is beyond contempt. Talk about Clockwork Orange!

I'm not attempting to dignify my position. I'm just bored with the whining. It's getting old.

The news media isn't nice to anyone. Get over it. You don't have a Constitutional right to be protected from rude comments.

Hillary supporters wouldn't be bitching if she had won. Republican poseurs are regularly coming aboard the Fray pretending to be Hillary supporters bitching just to stir up enmity. It has all gotten very tiresome. It is a tempest in a teapot.

Here is what Quedog said: "I’ve suggested in a past post that sexism as it related to bias against women was not a major issue during the primary because Senator Clinton was the only woman and beat all of her male competitors except Senator Obama."

Now you say: "But quedog said it was not a major issue. I guess that does not say it does not exist, rather it was insignificant."

LeRoy: Quedog was not claiming that gender bias does not exist in our society (as it obviously does); he was saying that he did not think it was a major issue during the primary. That is an entirely different claim from denying the existence of gender bias as a persistent phenomenon in our society. If, on the other hand, you wish to claim that gender bias was in fact a major issue during the primary, perhaps you should feel obliged to explain Quedog's observation that Senator Clinton beat all of her other male competitors. To use a boxing analogy, there were about ten people 'in the ring' at the beginning of the primary, and Clinton and Obama were the last two standing. If gender bias was a major issue in the Democratic primaries, it seems that Clinton would have been among the first eliminated. She was not.

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Oh, dear, Silas. You are so wrong. So wrong.

Bush cries all the time. John Boehner wept like a baby. While their careers might be over it's hardly because they cried. All Senator Clinton did was tear up a bit.

It's openly sexist to think tears or crying has a damn thing to do with not being qualified for the White House. Crying no more disqualifies a person than the color of their hair does.

I've told this story before and it bears repeating. I was a military training instruction. One of my female students started weeping in the middle of a test. I was going to toss her out and chew some ass but I decided to let her press on a fail miserably in front of everyone. Not only did she not quit, she didn't fail, and she performed better than the others.

I was grateful for this chance to learn not to judge people by something as extraneous as tears.

NightSwimmer wrote:

"Victim-hood is a badge of courage for the inadequate."

I'm intrigued, NS.

It's easy to state that a lot of so-called victims claim victimhood where nothing of the sort existed.

It's also easy to state that certain actual victims fall back on their victimhood as a catch-all excuse for whatever failures or disappointments they encounter.

But what I don't hear from disparagers like you is what exactly those who are genuine victims of genuine trauma or societally-engineered obstacles should do or say about the conditions in which they find themselves.

Is a woman who has genuinely been the victim of sexism in the workplace or career track NOT supposed to declare herself as such?

Is an African-American who has genuinely been the victim of racism as s/he attempts to succeed in life NOT supposed to indicate such?

Do you mean to suggest they should just keep it to themselves and continue as though nothing particularly unusual has been going on?

You see, NS, when you make a dimwitted statement such as the one in your post, what you are really saying is: Don't bother me with facts, it didn't happen to ME so therefore it didn't happen at all.

Thus it becomes easy to label those who claim 'victimhood' as nothing more than whiners and slackers seeking to find some means to mitigate their own inadequacies. And it certainly takes the heat off you so that you don't have to behoove yourself to either empathize or react against the victimizing force. You can convince yourself that NO ONE is a victim of ANYTHING. And so you announce your status as one of the privileged white male majority who take no responsibility for any misfortune that befalls someone who isn't white or male.

The only way a victim can successfully repudiate and conquer his or her victimhood is through the application of justice. When justice is thwarted, the victimization becomes permanent. What better way to prevent those who are neither white nor male from succeeding than to co-opt justice, and the first step toward that is by putting on the blinders as you have with your pusillanimous post.

Therefore, you are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

I doubt sincerely you will understand any of this.

Oh no. I understand victim-hood. Don't fool yourself into thinking that I have led a charmed life. I've had my own crosses to bear.

My only complaint is against false claims of victim-hood designed to seek pity or vent anger.

If you have been wronged -- by all means, seek justice. I'll have your back.

Adrasteia says:

Bush cries all the time. John Boehner wept like a baby. While their careers might be over it's hardly because they cried. All Senator Clinton did was tear up a bit.

It's openly sexist to think tears or crying has a damn thing to do with not being qualified for the White House. Crying no more disqualifies a person than the color of their hair does.

LeRoy: On the other hand, Edmund Muskie's political career imploded on him when he appeared to be crying. Perhaps you remember that incident. I wonder if standards have not changed over the years, if it is now 'acceptable' for a male politician to shed a few tears. Perhaps the context is all-important. [What are they crying about?] Perhaps there is even a political double standard: it's OK for a Republican male politician to cry, but if a Democratic male politician does it, why then, he must be a big ol' wuss, and no one in their right mind would want him for President.

Can't imagine good old Harry Truman ballin' his eyes out.

Hilarious Of John McCain video debates himself.

<link>