the disney empire and the alienation of hillary clinton

From the time we were young, boys and girls alike are infused with fairy tales. As we all know, the premise of fairy tales revolves around good vs. evil/victory over persecution, and generally portrayed through a victim/heroine/beautiful girl who usually is saved by a hero/bravado/prince after fighting some sort of battle against a villain/evil doer/often a wicked stepmother/witch/and in one case a weird female sea creature.

And intentional or not, this shit is keeping Hillary down.

At the end of the day our country has proved itself more ready to elect a man of color over a woman and whether you like Hillary or not it poses the question: Is misogyny embedded more deeply in our country's foundation than racism? The subtle and not so subtle mistrust, anger, sexualization, and underestimation of women in our society is indisputable and mainstream media does little to quell the flames with it's advertising and programming and yes, it's political coverage.

Portraying Hillary as manly, as emotional, as a bitch are all ways her gender is subtly and not so subtly brought into the equation. Online forums are no better, one of the popular political groups on Facebook is called Hillary Clinton: Stop Running For President and Make Me a Sandwich. We've found all sorts of ways to work Bitch into a statement about Hillary, both from Tina Fey's positive and brilliantly pointed Bitch is the New Black to all of the derogatory statements about why folks can't vote for her, she's too much of a bitch. Now if Obama was getting equal time for being called a Dick that would be one thing, but have you heard anyone say Dick is the new Black? Bringing Dick Back? I'm a Dick and Proud?

Oh wait. Dick's been in charge all along.

Before you call me a man-hater (which I am not) and a Hillary supporter, (which I am still undecided), or worse, that I am making a big deal out of nothing because this isn't about all women, folks just don't like HER; I ask you simply: If Cinderella's nemesis was a wicked Stepfather and she ended up selling the glass slipper on Ebay to pay for a Round The World trip with a couple of girlfriends would we be in this predicament today? And are we willing to keep showing our children that this way of defining women is acceptable?

And will we ever be able to see a woman as Commander in Chief?

Cross posted at one plus two.

Comments

[honglien123]

Great post Jen! It actually brings to mind something I've been thinking about for awhile. A lot of women who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton say so because they would rather see some other woman be the first female president which begs the question, which other woman? Of the various women in politics who have a snowball's chance in hell of being electable, (some names that come to mind; Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, hell, even Elizabeth Dole) are all similar to Hillary Clinton in the sense that they're all figures some folks love to hate. In my view, there is no doubt that mysogyny is more ingrained in our culture than racism. Racism is relatively new when you consider that patriarchical societies have been around forever. Remember, supposedly Eve was made for the sake of Adam and plenty of people take that seriously.

[cynematic]

I loathe the misogyny we all swim in. To think a regular Joe could ask McCain at a campaign event, "How do we beat the bitch [Clinton]?" and not show a SENATOR basic respect is just appalling. For McCain to reply "Excellent question" without himself demanding that his peer in the U. S. Senate receive a certain amount of respect is also appalling. THAT THIS EPISODE WASN'T CHALLENGED AMONG PUNDITS IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

For my own sanity, I've given up much mainstream media and no tv.

But I think the current print journalism response to Clinton's complaints of Obama favoritism (put out a few milquetoasty "negative" stories about him) is totally misguided. Journos need to deal with their own failure to call misogyny in their brethren when they see it, not swing the pendulum coverage the other way.

And I do mean brethren--just how many nationally-syndicated female op-ed columnists are there?

The upshot, for me: deplore the misogynist coverage Clinton has gotten, yet that mistreatment isn't reason alone for me to vote her in. (I haven't been impressed with the increasingly negative tack she's taken lately, either.) And I support Obama for feminist reasons--among them: I believe his basic message that we must take back democracy into the hands of the people before it's taken from us. This is a tack Clinton could've taken too, but didn't.

[cynematic]

Er, I mean, I watch no tv. What tv coverage I do watch, I choose on YouTube. I just don't think the benefits of tv campaign coverage outweigh the zillion and one negatives, in my opinion.

[Motherhood Uncensored]

After living in the South for almost five years, I can tell you that racism is out in the open. Misogyny is the hidden evil down there, and when you reallllly look, everywhere.

I had a professor once say that the racial issues of the South have NOTHING on the gender issues that still continue to exist.

And I have to agree he's totally right. We've just become blind to them. It's perfectly normal for women to make 70 cents to the man's dollar.

And we go on with our day.

As your first commenter said, what other woman? Believe me, I've never been a huge Hillary lover, but with her experience and her policies I have to say that it comes down to her likeability factor and who would have thunk it, HER GENDER.

I think what is most telling is when WOMEN in this country say we're not ready for a female president.

Misogyny 1, Progression, 0

[PunditMom]

You said what I've been thinking. I knew in my gut a long time ago that the underlying misogyny in our culture would be Hillary's biggest opponent. I just didn't want to me right.

[jaelithe]

Women I would vote for for president before I would vote for Hillary:

Nancy Pelosi. (Let's face it-- she wouldn't get elected either, but mostly because homophobes don't like her because she's from San Francisco. Well, okay, and maybe because she hasn't stood up to the administration as much as some of us would want her to. But still. I really like her.)

Donna Brazille. I loves me some Donna Brazille.

Claire McCaskill. Okay, so I'm pissed at her right now for caving on FISA, but did you see her take down Bill Maher on his show the other day? Cool as a cucumber. The woman has class, too: she wrote that bill that Obama co-sponsored to clarify "natural born" to end legal questions about whether McCain is qualified to run since he was born on a military base. She wrote it by hand on a piece of notebook paper. I am having secret fantasies that Obama will pick her as his running mate.

I could go on with this list. But I don't want to take over this blog.

Anyway, I agree with you, entirely, that the media has been discriminating against Hillary on the basis of her gender. I agree with you that misogyny in our culture is insidious, deeply entrenched, and currently more broadly socially acceptable than racism.

HOWEVER I disagree that misogyny alone is losing Hillary this election. Her campaign has been terribly mismanaged almost from the start. She has failed to deliver a consistent vision to inspire voters. And her husband, and some of her campaign staff, have alienated African-American voters by saying some really stupid racially charged things. (Let us not forget that early on in the campaign, Clinton was doing well among black voters; many black voters said in polls at the time that did not want to vote for Obama, either because they felt he wasn't "black enough," or because they thought it was impossible for him to win.)

I am fine with discussing how race and gender discrimination have affected this race. I think it's an important issue to discuss. But I believe reducing the results of this primary to the theme "Obama is winning because people don't like women" is ridiculously simplistic, and frankly that synopsis insults informed voters across the nation. It assumes that most or all voters are voting primarily on the basis of race or gender, which is simply not the case. Read what ordinary voters are saying about this election. Some of them ARE informed. People do care about the issues. People do care about the candidates' records. People do care about personality (outside of gender stereotypes). People do care about campaign tactics. People do care.

If Clinton were winning right now, would you be saying "Hillary Clinton is winning because racism is worse than sexism in our culture"?

Would you?

[jaelithe]

P.S. I totally agree with you that we need some new fairy tales. That's partly why my son owns Labyrinth instead of Cinderella.

"You have no power over me!" Damn straight.

[honglien123]

Lo and behold, the New York Times comes and answers my question of electable women (although they're all Obama supporters):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/nyregion/03bigcity.html?ref=politics

Jaelithe, actually, yes, if Hillary were winning, I think we would be asking the question of whether racism is worse than sexism in our culture. I have been reading what ordinary votersare saying about this election, if you could the people who comment on various blogs and "news" articles. A great number of them are misogynistic or racist or both. I don't assume that a great deal of voters on all sides know the candidate's stances on most issues and I've seen a number of the informed say they did not vote for Hillary Clinton because even though they liked her policies more and thought she would make a better president, because they didn't think she could win. The constant negative news about her does not help. Hillary Clinton is having the opposite happen to her that has happened with Barack Obama and the black community (who has its own issues to deal with in terms of its black nationalism pressuring Hillary supporters to switch).

[cynematic]

Great points, Jaelithe. Agreed with you on the progressive women in politics you named.

In fact, part of the reason *I've* been so invested in impeaching both Bush and Cheney is that Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, would've become president. Now wouldn't THAT have been grand? Suck on those eggs, women-haters. And surprisingly anti-war Robert Byrd, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, would've been right behind her.

Perhaps Steinem/Morgan/single-issue feminists hungering for a woman president "in their lifetimes" should've pushed harder for impeachment of our sitting ducks. Gotta think outside the box, sisters! Woulda coulda shoulda.

[cynematic]

P.S. And yes, I'm aware that Pelosi herself nixed impeachment proceedings, to my everlasting exasperation.

But I still think we need to think outside the box.

[Allison]

I'm with jaelithe on this one -- while I would adore seeing a woman president, I'm not fond of HRC. If nothing else, couldn't we simply have someone who makes it purely on her own merits, rather than who claims "35 years of experience" that's largely made up of first lady (state and national) duty?

Nancy Pelosi would be my choice as well; hell, she inspires me to think that my second/third career (after kids are back in school) could be political -- and I hate conflict!

Misogyny is definitely out there. What I find frustrating about it (and about the complementary racism toward Obama) is that it detracts from the larger conversation about policy and character. In this election, the policies between HRC and BHO are quite similar; it's the character differences between the two that have me firmly in the Obama camp.

[jaelithe]

Reading my comment over again, I wanted to say, I'm sorry if I got a little strident there. (Or maybe I should say, shrill, perhaps? Bitchy, even? Heh.) I suppose I'm just on defense because I'm an Obama supporter, AND I'm a feminist woman, and I feel like Obama supporters have been taking a lot of flack for supposedly letting gender influence their vote, when many of us (myself included) actually had an agonizing time choosing not to support the first viable woman candidate for president. My choice to support Obama has nothing to do with Hillary's gender (or her electability for that matter-- I personally believe Hillary would have more than a fighting chance against McCain, I believe in voting my conscience if there is a fighting chance my favorite candidate could win). In fact, I probably took a lot longer to definitively decide to back Obama than I would have if Hillary hadn't been a contender. Months longer, even.

[jen cinderella hussein plus two]

Jaelithe,
I love strident and I agree with your points. It was one of the reasons I couched it the way I did - because we have every reason not to like HRC (and not b/c she's a woman)based on her policies/past/whatever just as we can agree or disagree about BHO and JMC.

But the deeper level I keep going back to is how we are all conditioned as wee little things and how that royally screws up our view of women in general (nothing new here) but that as adults, we regress and use fairy tale tactics (wicked witches) to make our case.

And how would it be if those archetypes never caught on in the first place?

Oh wait, I know. We'd already have a woman president.

[Gunfighter]

Could it be that Clinton isn't doing as well as she and others thought she would because her message doesn't resonate?

Could it be that she doesn't campaign as well as her opponent?

Let's face it, the Presidency is often about what looks and sounds best. Her message is reactionary, she has been knocked of of her game more than once, she has had to go negative early, and the "experience" thing isn't flying.

I submit that if HRC was a man, she would still be struggling... and maybe even worse off.

[cynematic]

Gunfighter,
I happen to think yes--she's made some tactical mistakes in how she ran her campaign, and was unlucky enough to have an unusually unflappable opponent (or one who could become poised quickly) in Obama.

It's as if the overt and heavy-handed media misogyny compounded weaknesses inherent in her own temperament and approach, and these past few weeks the strain has shown.

It isn't fair. But then again, it never is. In retrospect, maybe she should have had a "feminist first-response team" ready to go on the offensive on her behalf every time Russert or Hannity or whoever went off--at the outset of her campaign. In my opinion, all the prominent establishment feminists might have been more strategically used to nip media misogyny in the bud *instead of* engaging in Oppression Olympics with (the) other candidate(s) about who has it worst, men of color or white women.

But if she's so "experienced," "battle-tested," and "ready to go from day one," how did this crucial part of strategy, and media relations, get overlooked? Surely it can't be a surprise to her that the world is deeply woman-hating. Question is, what is your successful method of coping with this? If you can't successfully manage/neutralize media misogyny in the campaign, how are you going to be an effective President? Getting caught flat-footed isn't very confidence inspiring.

And I want to make it clear I'm talking "containing known quantities like media misogyny" as a campaign strategy, and not blaming the victim. Senator Clinton deserves NONE of the misogyny aimed at her.

I watched the Obama campaign carefully after O'Reilly made his egregious gaffe using the word "lynching" and "Michelle Obama" in the same sentence. (In his bizarre, screwed up way, I think O'Reilly was trying to be chivalrous. But anyway.) I'm sure it ruffled feathers. But there seems to have been a decision made to exercise message discipline, and leave it alone for the time being. I hope there's a high level of efficient and forceful response from the Obama campaign and its auxiliaries for the inevitable underhanded attacks if he becomes nominee.