polyglot conspiracy

A while ago - before the presidential primary races really heated up - I wrote something that intimated a feeling I was getting about media coverage (as one genre of public discussion) of the primary candidates. Namely, that the coverage (and other public discussion) was often sexist, and that certain (sometimes adamant) refusals of this fact were instantiations of larger refusals of the persistence of sexism in US society. As we’ve gotten to the point where Hillary Clinton is being called on to withdraw from the race and Barack Obama is presumed to be the Democratic nominee, I’ve been rediscovering political blogs and leftie news sources, the likes of which I haven’t really paid attention to since the 2004 election (which left me feeling so battered by the electoral process that, truly, although I ought to feel invigorated and hopeful this time around by the impressiveness of many of the Democratic candidate options, as well as the real possibility that we could get a changemaker in office, I somehow still feel pre-defeated. The first election I could vote in was Gore.v.Bush, and the second election was Kerry.v.Bush, and…well…when those two elections are the only ones that [Democratic] voters my age have to reflect back on, it’s a wonder that any of us show up to the polls at all. Seriously. Destroyed. Faith.).

Anyway, I’ve rediscovered the political blogosphere and leftie news sources because I’ve been seeking articulated understandings of how this sexism has played itself out in the race between Clinton and Obama. And I’ve been quite happy to find it articulated recently in several places, and I want to link to them here because they’re exciting: it’s exciting that people are talking about this, that people are pinpointing what it seems like are massive undercurrents of misogyny (often intersecting with racism) by pundits, journalists, bloggers, and plain-ole-people. It’s a relief to find this stuff, but it’s also disturbing, naturally. Also, let’s make a couple things clear right off the bat to fend off any ill-meaning meanie reactions to this post:

1. I have supported neither Obama nor Clinton in the primaries. I will support whoever gets the nomination when it comes time to vote against John McCain.

2. My acknowledgment here of sexist discourse throughout the campaign does not imply that I don’t acknowledge racist discourse throughout the campaign, or that I think sexism is somehow “worse” than racism. (An impossible belief, to be sure.)

So here’s some good reading on the subject:

-Shakesville has been keeping track of sexism with its Hillary Sexism Watch - see Part 90, with links to all prior posts. It also has been doing an Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black /Dude Watch, which is now at Part 43.

-Jessica Wakeman from Huffington Post: On Sexist Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton. Key quote:

Surprise, surprise, feeling protective of Hillary Clinton when media coverage manhandles her as ball-busting, overemotional or Anne Boleyn-grade manipulative is regarded as really not cool. And I don’t say this because I think I am a martyr or I enjoy feeling like one — I say it because I’ve had some frustrating conversations, mostly with men, who think one of two things:

1) They don’t see the coverage as sexist or offensive altogether, or

2) They do think it’s “a little” sexist but Hillary’s such a uber-rich, out-of-touch, shady Republicrat, anyway, that it’s just a sexist tint to a legitimate criticism of her smarmy ways.

-Betsy Reed from The Nation: Race to the Bottom. An important article that talks about the importance of feminist perspectives on the campaign, but at the same trouble with Hillary Clinton as a representative of or catalyst for feminism (including because of how she seems to treat/talk about race).

-Rebecca Traister from Salon: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! Includes interviews with women expressing palpable but often inarticulable feelings of misogynistic tendencies on the part of Obama supporters (and others). Key quote:

There are many unpleasant realities about Clinton: She voted for the war; she has taken hawkish stances in defense of Israel; she voted to declare Iran’s revolutionary guard “a terrorist organization”; she sponsored a flag-burning amendment; she has not run a great campaign, waiting until this week to fire Mark Penn; she is a Clinton. But while these are all qualities that might rightly inspire political dislike, or a withdrawal of support, they don’t often incite the kind of hissing fury with which her primary run has been met. Were it her husband -– a man who has exhibited many of these same flaws (and more!) -– in the same place, he might or might not be trailing Obama, but it is hard to picture the kind of seething, violent animosity being flung at him.

When sexism is acknowledged in this primary campaign, it has been attributed to either Chris Matthews or the conservative, Rush Limbaugh, Iron My Shirt brigade. Little open recognition has been given to the possibility that there might be some gender discomfort behind the army of liberally minded Obama enthusiasts. But progressive politics has not always been female-friendly politics; ’70s feminism was born partly in response to the inequities of the antiwar and civil rights movements. It’s certainly possible that the youthful Obama movement has its own brand of female trouble.

O’Brien said, “With straight white male progressive friends, I feel something that makes me viscerally angry and afraid — the viciousness of the rebuttals to the suggestion that [Obama's and Clinton's] policies are roughly equal or that Clinton’s have some benefits to them, the outright dismissal of any support of her, the impossibility of having a nuanced conversation … The whole ‘Hillary Clinton is a monster’ theme is so virulent.”

-Amanda Fortini from New York Magazine: Has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Caused a Feminist Reawakening? I largely agree with the point that a lot of women who felt like we were in a “postfeminism” era probably now are realizing that we’re not, but see Betsy Reed’s column linked to above for troubling implications of such a “reawakening.”