CE Week #12: “Clinton campaign exposes us”
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
November 21, 2007
“So,” the woman asked, “how do we beat the bitch?” And Sen. John McCain laughed.
It was, he said, an “excellent” question. Yes, he went on to express respect for Hillary Clinton, to whom the woman referred. But not once while answering that question at a campaign stop in South Carolina recently did he suggest that it wasn’t appropriate to call Clinton a “bitch.”
Can you imagine if the Democratic front-runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this Hebe?”
Can you imagine if it were Gov. Bill Richardson and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this spic?”
Can you imagine if it were Sen. Barack Obama and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this coon?”
I guarantee you, McCain would not have laughed and if he had, we would now be writing his political epitaph. But the woman asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” and McCain did laugh and now shrugs off any suggestion that he should have done more.
He’s wrong.
I get that many people don’t like Clinton. I don’t like her much myself, and my reasons echo the consensus. She seems cold, calculated, brittle.
Here’s the thing, though. I find that I can’t name a single female national political figure I do like – not respect, not agree with, but “like.” Oh, I can name you many men who, their politics aside, strike me as likable: McCain, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, even cranky old Bob Dole.
But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright … I cannot see myself – we are speaking metaphorically here – cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold.
Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge, and yet also, warm.
Consider one of the many anti-Hillary smears now circulating online. It purports to be a compendium of profane, ill-tempered tirades she has unleashed upon subordinates. Your first thought is, what an unlikable person. Your second is, or should be, wait a minute. Does George Bush never use potty language? Was Bill Clinton never brusque? Does Dick Cheney always say thank you and please?
But it’s different, isn’t it, because she’s a woman? With the men, toughness reads as leadership, authority, getting things done. With her it reads as “bitch.” There is a sense – and even women buy into this – that a woman who climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be a woman. Indeed, that she gives up any claim upon femininity itself.
Nor is that assessment only perception. To the contrary, it has been quantified in a number of scholarly studies and papers. For example, in “Formal and Informal Discrimination Against Women At Work: The Role of Gender Stereotypes,” a research paper published this year, authors Brian Welle and Madeline E. Heilman report that the woman who succeeds at what has traditionally been men’s work – and what is a presidential campaign if not that? – risks being seen as “hostile, abrasive, pushy, manipulative and generally unlikeable.”
Sound like anyone you know?
We demand certain “feminine” traits from women – nurturing, caring, submission – and the woman in whom those traits are either not present or subordinated to her drive, ambition and competence will pay a social price.
“How do we beat the bitch?” the woman asks. She asked it without blinking, without a second thought, righteously. And John McCain laughed.
That’s telling. The ostensible purpose of a campaign is to reveal the candidate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, it seems, is revealing a whole lot more.
Wow, McCain just dropped from being one of my favorite Republican candidates to being one of my least. This article doesn’t address it but, if someone had asked “how do we beat the bastard?” McCain would have probably stated that his opponent wasn’t a bastard and shouldn’t be referred to in this way. This is just another example of partisanship getting in the way of us helping America which is truly important. Whatever happened to our Presidential nominees acting with a little class and some manners?
Aside from this, I like how this article addresses the sexism involved with Hillary. The fact is that Hillary is probably the most centrist candidate and should be the LEAST offensive to conservatives. Of course, conservatives have some history with Hillary when she cited her husband’s infidelities as part of a vast right wing conspiracy. I don’t really think however, many remember this instance. If one thing has been shown it is that the public has very short memories. I think the most offensive thing about Hillary to conservatives is that some (maybe even more than I thought) believe that a woman’s place in life is in the kitchen bearing children. One could argue otherwise but, don’t they argue that family values are important; children need a mother figure and a father figure?
Wow, first off I want to start by saying I don’t really agree with anything in this article but I think that it is interesting points that are brought up. Kind of contradictory points that are brought up.
I’m not stupid, women will never be equal to men because of stupid gender stereotypes. Let’s see, women are supposed to stereotypically be warm and cuddly and nurturing. But there are many women that break stereotypes. And men that do too. Those stereotypes that we still use today do not apply to the modeern world in which we live in. Women no longer grow up hoping to find someone rich (well some do) instead, just like men, they must get an education and become successful to make a living to support themselves. AS the divorce rate climbs more and more people from both genders are being forced to become independent. President is one of the only jobs that women haven’t had a crack at and why not? If the foundation of this country says we are equal then we should have an equal shot at it.
Also, I think the writer is completely wrong about his definition of bitch. Men can be bitches too. I think bitch is used more to describe the coldness that Hilary seems to contain than the fact that she is a women. Think of how many times a day we use that word. I can’t say I’d ever say any of those other words he compared it to. I think that the word bitch is becoming less and less of a sexist term and more of a term just used in general to describe things that are rude, mean or cold towards you.
I’m not saying it should be used regularly. Or that it can be used to describe women with a free pass… I’m saying that it’s different from those other words. Just as the word “chick” used to be a bad word for women (or at least thats what my mom says… maybe her mind is going) it is now acceptable.
Ok, so McCain probably should have said something in Hillary Clinton’s defense and corrected the reporter. I agree with Derrick when he said that McCain probably would have come to the defense of one of his male opponents…which makes him look extremely insensitive and sexist. But, no one can really know how he would react if something derogatory was said about one of his male opponents, because we’re not John McCain. But all of that is just a bunch of woulda, coulda, shouldas. It seems to me that the author was getting at the question of whether or not a woman is indeed capable or even suitable to be put in a leadership position – whether it be speaker of the house or President of the United States. I personally think that women are definitely capable of holding a leadership position. When it comes to a woman being suitable or not, I think our problem is that we’re not used to it…. so it seems kind of weird at first. However, if put in the position, I think that America would probably get acclimated pretty quickly to being led by a woman. Except, I don’t think that America would react well to being led by Hillary. It’s ok though, because my whole family has decided that if she becomes President, we’re all moving to Mexico! Haha
~ Maggie
P.S. Derrick do you really think if the reporter said “bastard” instead that McCian would have said, he’s not a bastard… he has a mother…
I think bastard in that context would be different too. Like, “how do we beat the bastard?” is the grown up talk version of, “How do we beat the little stinker?”
Also it has to do with the tone of voice… not that I’m an advocate of if your black you can use the N-word type thing… but… I really don’t think it is as offensive as the article writer makes it out to be… I’m sure Hillary’s a big girl she can handle it.
I also think that the context might be lost a little bit in the translation from mouth to article… if that makes sense. Bitch might have a different connotation when you write it than when you put it in an article…
Let’s face it… I’m sure that not only McCain but all the rest of the republican… or any candidates are calling her the bitch too… Just because they are candidates for president doesn’t mean there moms still follow them around with a bar of soap.
I think the points of this article have a lot of truth to them. It is a fact that men have always been seen as dominant. That is just what we are used to, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. This is why I don’t think Americans are ready to elect a female President—a leader must be dominant. As much as we would all like to say we don’t stereotypically judge anyone we know, or even the people we don’t know, based on the perceived surface alone, I know this is just not true. Since we do not have the time to dig beneath this deceiving picture, for most of these people in our lives, the surface is all we will ever have. It is unreliable and inconvenient, but will also never change. Hillary’s situation is kind of similar to what we like to call “little man’s syndrome.” A big guy can be assertive, leader-like, and get things done. More often than not it is the smaller guy that is blown off as being a little “B” word.
McCain is an alright candidate, but it really don’t hear much about him in the news. It surprises me that McCain laughed at that comment. A presidential candidate should not be laughing at inappropriate comments like that. I don’t believe that he is respectable because he called that question “excellent”. That is just wrong for anyone to say about a women. I believe that he is scared that Hillary the master politician that she is will win the Presidency and he hates that. He seems now like he is one of those old grumps that doesn’t think highly of women and has the sexist view that women are not as good as men. I feel that if anyone else was in Clintons spot it would have been look at as much worse. Many people would have jumped at women for dissing Obama or Edwards. Is that because they are men? I think that has a little to do with it. Also it might be because she is such a great politician and no one is really getting that close to her and that scares alot of people. They feel better when they put her down. Much like Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump.
I agree with Evan that a presidential candidate shouldn’t be laughing at an inappropriate comment. I guess it makes them look very presidential haha. I dunno what McCain was thinking. Oh well. Anyway, this article does raise some interesting points. I do, in a way, think some of them are true.
“But it’s different, isn’t it, because she’s a woman? With the men, toughness reads as leadership, authority, getting things done. With her it reads as “bitch.” There is a sense – and even women buy into this – that a woman who climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be a woman.”
Now that I think of it, I feel that way sometimes. To me, I guess it’s just a little bit “shocking” to have an authoritative woman around me ‘bossing’ me around. I mean it’s ok (I’m not sexist or anything)…I don’t think women who tell me what to do are “bitches”. It’s just that at first, I think it just feels kind of “out of place” having a woman telling me what to do. It’s like I have to pause for a second and be like “Wait, am I dreaming? Did I hear that right?” But other than that, I really don’t have a problem with a woman being on top.
-Jason Wong
I like this article because it brings to surface somethings we may not want to discuss openly- lest we sound sexist. Whether or not America is ready, a female politician is a front runner in the presidential race. I think although many people may say they have no problem with a female leader, subconsiously they already have a stereotypical vision of what a women is that Hillary doesn’t fit. Coming from a family where my mom wears the pants, I respect a leader who is assertive and powerful. While she may not be cuddly, that doesn’t mean she won’t make a good leader. I also don’t think that a women has to be devoid of feeling and feminity to be a good leader either, just take a look at Eleanor Roosevelt. She’s the type of woman I feel is extremely hugable but was also a great leader and person. I think it’s time we look less towards how lovable Hillary is, and pay more attention to her policies.
ps- John McCain-WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? That is completely inappropriate, he’s a politician, shouldn’t he at least be politically correct? I want Hillary to win just to look at him and say “the bitch is BACK”
Well, this article and these responses have definitely set feminist theory back twenty-five years in regards to complexity. We’re back at “The Feminine Mystique” levels now, and that was, to say, Not a complex level.
Our perception of Hillary Clinton is deeply rooted in both Freudian pre-birth, Freudian post-birth, and post-Freudian forces, especially the Oedipal state of disunity and the conceptualization of the eternal mother and the disillusionment wrought by the contemporary rejection of histriological gender roles… Judith Butler would scorn you all. All of you.
But that’s not my point. My point, at which I will arrive shortly, is that the perception of sexism is hypersensitive: goes beyond the bounds of actual sexism. In the article it is stated that McCain went on to express his respect for Hillary Clinton. It really is but splitting hairs to whine that he didn’t come right out and say she wasn’t a bitch. He, being a perpetual politician, may have just not wanted to say the word bitch lest it become a b-roll blunder of the tallest order. Whatever the case, I don’t think McCain is sexist, or at least, I don’t think any sexism that may or may not be rooted in the McCain cortex is evident in this exchange. The comparison to the racial slurs is fallacious. Spic, Hebe and Coon are slurs crossapplied to all members of a race that defame them for the soul cause of being members of that race, whereas bitch is a specific subset of the female race, or in other words, not every girl is a bitch…. A much more apt comparison is, as the Skaggalatron brought up, bastard. And no, I don’t think that if someone had said, “So how do we beat the bastard” McCain would have, or would have had to expressly come out and say, “well he’s not a bastard.”
Response to Vanessa:
I think the question used ‘bitch’ because Hillary was a woman. I am sure that if she were asking about Ron Paul, she wouldn’t have said “how do we beat the bitch?”. Call it a hunch. I also think the author was commenting on how stereotypes for females still exist and seem to be more excusable than other stereotypes. I think it’s only a matter of time (hopefully) before we embrace a female president. No longer in the days of corsets and dowries, perhaps it’s still hard to see woman transcending specific gender roles or characteristics. I have hope that one day we will be able to embrace those female leaders who are slightly more direct and callous. She’s a woman and she’s tough and bony, deal with it.