"Maybe I wouldn't feel this way if I hadn't agreed with every last nasty word of it..."

You agreed with every last nasty word of it, and the sexist frame in which it was presented.

On the one hand, the sexist frames you and many of the other XX-factor bloggers employed in your coverage is a poignant, if somewhat startling example of the manner in which (apparently) unconscious misogyny rampant in our culture is internalized by even the women who inhabit it; once swallowed, undigested, you'll perpetually regurgitate those memes until you have the courage to examine them.

On the other hand, the apparent invisibility of the inherently sexist nature of the memes you promulgated, (and still promulgate, I guess), to yourself and such a large proportion of the population, is a depressing reminder of the intractable nature of prejudice (and, perhaps, the duality of self-loathing and externalized disgust).

I hope the repetitive broadcasting of your beliefs doesn't prove too much an impediment to figuring it all out. [Hint: it's long past time to stop digging, because the hole only gets (even) deeper from here.]

Here's a question for you Fielding:

Give me some kind of example of criticism of Hillary Clinton that doesn't employ sexist memes. I mean that in the following sense. Hillary is a politician, surely it is fine to criticize her, just as it is fine to criticize Obama. Some of the criticism of Hillary must have been non-sexist, right? So, if you don't mind, please demonstrate the fact that you don't take all criticism of Hillary as deploying some mind of sexist meme by pointing out a case in which criticism of her was non-sexist. I'm only asking because I question your onjectivity on the issue and I'd like you to demonstrate it.

Hillary adopted, seemingly without qualm, the tactic of "triangulation", in which she assumed positions typical of the rival political philosophy, and used those to leverage influence on other issues. It's reasonable to assume that Hillary's position on military spending and national defense was, uhm, strategically, rather than philosophically motivated, and that her liberal constituents felt betrayed as a result. Hillary Clinton is as Machiavellian a politician as any I can think of.

-We could have a whole different discussion about that, the political climate that motivated such a tactic, and whether or not there was a shining liberal idealist waiting for the chance to burst out once she was in a position to actually accomplish something (I'm convinced there was/is), but that's not what you asked for. For whatever it's worth, I still feel betrayed by Bill on "welfare reform", and many feel similarly betrayed by Hillary on positions like military support, or the rather unfortunate changes to banruptcy laws. That's what triangulation does - it leaves people feeling alienated (and candidates vulnerable to allegations of flip-floppery, ala Romney, who used the tactic to get elected governor of Massachussets).

Unless you want to argue "assume positions" has some sort of unsavory connotation, I think the first paragraph is what you were asking for. Alternative, sexist frames might include things like "she was trying to be a man", or that she was "unfaithful" to her constituents. Perhaps I could've thrown something in about employing wiles, or her strident posturing, her hysterical manipulations, or (I guess I could pull up a Dowd article take examples from her).

Am I making sense? Nobody's angry about Clinton being criticized. What I'm angry about is the manner in which her gender was used to undermine her credibility (and feeling rather betrayed by liberal media figures who participated in this sexist tactic).

The irony is - what the liberal media did smacks of triangulation.

But that's a post for another day.

Good stuff. Thanks for the reply.

So here's my follow up question. You seem to be saying that it's wrong to criticize Hillary if the criticism of her has something to do with, or is based on, her gender, that if the criticism of her is mererly that she is too much or not enough of a woman then that's unfair.

What I'm wondering is how you feel about the left wing medias portrayal of Bush as a Cowboy. This seems to be just as much a use of his sex to paint him in a negative light. The attempt is to make him appear too masculine, too brash, too concerned with his own "cajones" to be objective about things like Iraq. The cowboy reference, used by the left (the right probably liked it), was an attempt to make him appear out of control, much the same way that a charge of hysteria would be of Hillary.

My point in raising this is that I think that you are right to point out that some sexist things were said about Hillary in the MSM, but you're wrong to think that sexism is only used against female candidates, as you seem to be insinuating. People use gender in all kinds of ways to point out all kinds of faults with people. It's a way of encapsulating what we see as wrong with someone in a way that people will readily understand. Right or wrong, everyone understands what you are trying to get accross when you call Hillary hysterical just as they understand what is meant when someone calls Bush a cowboy. This isn't meant to defend sexism, just to point out that the use of gender memes isn't exclusively an anti-woman tactic.

But, as in any discussion we might have about oppressed groups, we'd probably have to divert off into a discussion about social groups and power dynamics, competition, and the problem of vichy feminism. Frankly, even the stereotypic attributes that reflect poorly on men are lauded in certain circumstances (violence turned protection, for instance). I don't think the comparison is nearly so level as you portray it. Bush cultivated his image as a cowboy. Cowboys are potent. Cowboys are decisive. Cowboys act with certainty. I defy you to come up with any similarly positive connotations for a "hysteric".

Frames can be very subtle. If I wanted to slip a sexist frame under the umpire's nose, I might write a post about personality and foreign policy, the importance of emotional stability, and gradually evoking images of the staid pater vs. the emotionally reactive woman. Sound familiar?

And of course, they're not limited to sexism (though racist memes are trickier, due to a greater backlash problem). I anticipate, however, you're going to see some clever, but concerted attempts to evoke ideas about tokenism, and I am sort of waiting for the next round of "IQ/ethnicity" discussions to erupt, because that's a hybrid meme that's proven surprisingly robust with the more educated set. I promise I'll holler about those too.

But I do feel betrayed by/alienated from my party. Obama's handlers are very sophisticated about this sort of thing (Hillary's, not so much), and the least they, or the Democratic national committee, could have done is said something about it (he missed a golden opportunity to flex his progressive rhetorical muscle - this time on the topic of sexism).

I'll vote for him, though. I just wish the XX-factor bloggers would figure it out. I wish Obama would figure it out, frankly. I'm uncomfortable with the rift in the Democratic party (and losing patience with a "winning side" that seems determined to persist in alienating a "losing" side via invalidation, often enough using sexist frames to discredit vocal critics) and how any Democrat could assume the election's a done deal, after we just elected the worst president in history (twice!) escapes me.

That's some pretty weak criticism, though It must be; you agree with every word of it, and still supported Clinton.

Yes, "cowboy" has some positive connotations for some people, but you can't really say the same thing about "Obambi" which was meant to portray Obama as both naive and not-masculine-enough. Even the term "elitist" has sexual connotations in that elitists are usually seen as more feminine than non-elitists, they are not "rugged" or "strong". The idea that frames can be subtle cuts both ways.

What about Hillary's own attempts to portray herself using sexist frames. She spent the better part of the nomination process trying to portray herself as "tough" and "manly". She tried to appeal to heartland voters by trying to appear more masculine than Obama (beer and a shot, anyone). Isn't it supremely hypocritical to deploy those memes for your own electoral gain and then cry foul when someone uses them to portray you negatively. If sexist memes are bad, and they are, then surely that applies as much to "hysterical" as it does to "look at me I'm more manly than Obama". Both are an attempt to use gender roles to for political gain.

I find it odd that people such as yourself decry the DNC and Obama for not stepping in and dealing a blow against all of this sexism during the campaign. It's hard to depict yourself as tough, especially as a woman, if a bunch of men are sweeping in to defend you when someone calls you bad names. In fact, it's impossible. Surely you can imagine the kind of republican attacks that would have conjured up. Moreover, not only would it rob Hillary of her much desired "tough" meme, it would give Obama the much desired "chivalrous" meme. And undercutting Hillary's "I'm tough" meme, even if it was the right thing to do (in a sense), probably would have increased the margin of votes by which Obama won.

One last point. I'm curious just how you think feminists would have responded to Obama and the DNC defending Hillary. It seems to me, from what I've read, that one of the central themes of feminism, for some feminists, is that they don't need men to defend them, they can do it for themselves. I ask this because I can imagine a very likely scenario in which Obamam gives this great speech defending Hillary and denouncing (and rejecting) sexism and some feminists having the opposite reaction you indicate you would have. I can readily imagine some feminists saying things like "We don't need men to stick up for us!" or, as I noted above "He's just trying to make her look weak!" or "This is another example of men thinking that women can't handle things themselves!" .....etc.

Thoughts?

p.s. I'm delighted that things have calmed down enough that we can actually have this conversation without it blowing up.

Thanks for your post. And I like the example. It's been a very frustrating election for me. And it is made more difficult by hearing the gender biased tone coming from women who identify themselves as feminist. What I fail to understand is why the same group of women who argue that sexism (or if it's more comfortable to hear a less loaded term, gender bias) is endemic to our society think that they will somehow be immune to that bias. No, just b/c a woman (and a successful one at that) makes a remark it does not automatically excuse it from being sexist.

I adored Clinton in the 90s. I heard her speak in Chicago and met her once in CA, and I remain convinced that she has some great ideas and knows how to implement them. Her vote on the authorization bill made me nervous, but I was willing to allow that I don't know what I'd have done in a difficult circumstance. The flag burning amendment really did leave me wondering what she stood for politically. But I also have been torn on the issue, b/c I wondered if a woman could have been a Presidential front-runner without this sort of "triangulation". We see that she could not with it.

But what I don't understand is why we can't talk about the issues, including how being the first serious female candidate has impacted her election strategy, without using loaded words that connote all kinds of sexist stereotypes. As you demonstrate, it's possible to be critical without reducing the conversation to locker room slang (hmmm, is that gender-biased against men?). Obama makes me nervous b/c I really don't feel that I know anything about his politics except that he opposed the war when he had no political stake in the argument. The rest could really just be stuff politicians say when they are running for something. But I'll vote for him to keep the Religious Right's agenda out of the Oval Office. Nonetheless, I feel that as a nation we were somehow shortchanged. Instead of having a conversation about how new ideas and also some racial or gender diversity could revitalize American politics, we devolved into a debate over whether racism or sexism is more pernicious and ended up demonstrating that both can be used in political discourse with some amount of impunity. Clinton supporters did choose to overlook some of the campaign's subtle (and not so subtle) messages of racism; Obama supporters and most of the MSM decided that sexism just isn't possible in this day and age.

I really do feel that Hillary's embrace of the old frames hurt her deeply, along with a lack of a consistent message. It was much harder to support her and her campaign when she was all but explicitly repeating James Carville's nasty crack that if she gave Obama one bll, they'd both have two. Reinforcing the sexist frame that leadership = masculinity = strength = good is offensive, and it undermines your own argument. How could she position herself as 'more masculine' than a war hero?

The idea that Hillary Clinton isn't allowed to present herself as tough is sexist right there. What you're doing is limiting her. You're saying she can't do or say certain things, just b/c she's a woman. This doesn't get applied to men. Bush can cry, it never gets mentioned. Clinton cries, she's a 'manipulator' or even the b-word. That's unfair treatment, hence it's sexist.

As far as Bush and the cowboy image, he deserves every last bit of it. He talks like a moron, swaggers like a jerk, and whines like a five year old.

But she wasn't presenting herself as tough. She was presenting herself as a polyorchid transvestite.

nerdnam:

The idea that Hillary Clinton isn't allowed to present herself as tough is sexist right there. What you're doing is limiting her. You're saying she can't do or say certain things, just b/c she's a woman. This doesn't get applied to men. Bush can cry, it never gets mentioned. Clinton cries, she's a 'manipulator' or even the b-word. That's unfair treatment, hence it's sexist.

As far as Bush and the cowboy image, he deserves every last bit of it. He talks like a moron, swaggers like a jerk, and whines like a five year old.

People aren't saying that Clinton can't be tough, they're saying that she was adopting a male role of traditional toughness and trying to paint Obama as more effete. That in itself is more demeaning to women, but it's Hillary, so it's ok.

When was the last time anyone stated that Clinton was not fit for the White House because she was a woman?

The last time someone said that Clinton wasn't fit b/c she was a woman? I would guess the last time one of the XX Factor ladies made a post.

'Toughness' isn't a male attribute--not by a long shot. And to present oneself as 'tough' isn't to make a claim that one's opponent is not tough.

In any case, even if she did 'adopt a male role,' or call Obama 'effete' (which word I HIGHLY doubt was ever said), why the hell can't she do that? Men are allowed to present themselves--or their opponents--pretty much any way they want. Why can't Hillary do the same?

nerdnam:

The last time someone said that Clinton wasn't fit b/c she was a woman? I would guess the last time one of the XX Factor ladies made a post.

Could you provide an example of that?

'Toughness' isn't a male attribute--not by a long shot. And to present oneself as 'tough' isn't to make a claim that one's opponent is not tough.

But Mrs Clinton asserted her "toughness" in such a way that she was saying it was masculine. "Cojones" are always masculine. That's kind of the point.

In any case, even if she did 'adopt a male role,' or call Obama 'effete' (which word I HIGHLY doubt was ever said), why the hell can't she do that? Men are allowed to present themselves--or their opponents--pretty much any way they want. Why can't Hillary do the same?

Hmm... I guess the question then becomes, why can't her opponents?

nerdnam:

The last time someone said that Clinton wasn't fit b/c she was a woman? I would guess the last time one of the XX Factor ladies made a post.

'Toughness' isn't a male attribute--not by a long shot. And to present oneself as 'tough' isn't to make a claim that one's opponent is not tough.

In any case, even if she did 'adopt a male role,' or call Obama 'effete' (which word I HIGHLY doubt was ever said), why the hell can't she do that? Men are allowed to present themselves--or their opponents--pretty much any way they want. Why can't Hillary do the same?

First, none of the XX Factors ladies has ever said such a thing.

Second, as I said, it wasn't about her toughness, you can be female and tough, it was about her attempts to paint herself with a maculine toughness and Obama as prissy. Essentially, she's the man; he's the woman. Isn't that furthering gender stereotypes?

Thirdly, "effete" was my word, I never claimed that anyone said it.