Blogs and Stories
The Sexism Revival
The treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin exposes a streak of misogyny that runs deep in American culture.
Now that the election is over and racism is ostensibly down for the count, has sexism gotten a new dispensation? Has the "unlikability" (not to mention "unfuckability") of Hillary not only cost her the presidential nomination but brought out the streak of misogyny that runs deep in American culture, affecting the way men think about women and the way women think about themselves?
And what about Sarah Palin, the breeding babe who has emerged as a comely figure of fun with seemingly not a mote of self-doubt in her constitution? Has she furthered men's natural instinct to write off women as light entertainment, chattering nitwits with a shaky hold on the hard facts, and also triggered the self-hatred mechanism in the women who refused to go along with her as a "you can have it all" representation of how far feminism had come? (Legs! Clothes! Family! Career!)
Once again, it seems to be OK to talk about women as risible in their aspirations to leadership.
These are some of the questions that swirled through my head as I stood in the bar of a private club renowned for the eminence of its membership two nights after Obama had swept the elections. The occasion was the club's monthly dinner, and the bar was fitted out mostly with men in tuxes, except for several women in suitably festive garb. (The institution, like many such, had originally been a men's-only affair and still retains much of its Old World, Masters of the Universe tone despite the fact that it started admitting women in 1989.)
As I chatted with a small all-male group, one of them inquired after an absent woman's physical appearance as though he were in a locker room and another sheepishly asserted that he found Palin deeply attractive, as though this were a disclosure unworthy of him—or, perhaps, of the club's standards of political correctitude. (Feeling it incumbent upon myself to reassure him, in classic feminine fashion, I chimed in: "I find her attractive myself.")
Minutes later a woman mouthed hello to me over the heads of this boyish bunch and the short, bald man who had been dominating the conversation snapped at her: "Let me finish my story!" By the time I bid goodnight, the evening's patronizing atmosphere left me feeling as though I had stepped out of line without saying much of anything and should take my rightful place in hobble skirts in the back parlor with the rest of the weaker sex.
These snatches of conversation might not ordinarily have struck me as evidence of a sea change, a shift in the way that women are perceived, if it were not for the fact that Hillary Clinton had recently been demoted from presidential contender to possible secretary of state—a move that once again positions her as ready and willing to serve rather than to command—while Sarah Palin continues to brand herself on the talk show circuit with the same astonishing bravura she exhibited as a wild-card vice presidential nominee. Under these circumstances, it was hard to bat away the feeling that keeps tugging at the back of my mind, which is that although change may well be coming to Washington, the public discourse about women has taken several steps backward. (A poll conducted this week by The Daily Beast confirms these suspicions.)
The evidence may be difficult to pin down, but it hovers in the atmosphere, making this reversion felt in myriad ways. Once again, for instance, it seems to be OK to talk about women as risible in their aspirations to leadership; OK, too, for men openly to dismiss women as social and intellectual equals, the better to focus on how they rate in the all-important looks department. For a time, the feminist movement forced this chauvinist mind-set to go underground, but now women-bashing seems to be back in style. (And is it only me, or is there something about women's attitude to other women, especially those in the limelight, that seems to suggest that centuries of disenfranchisement has produced the Stockholm Syndrome rather than Steadfast Sisterhood?)
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Are Jews Really Liberal?
Daphne Merkin was a staff writer for The New Yorker and is currently a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and Elle. She is the author of a novel, Enchantment, and a collection of essays, Dreaming of Hitler.
Sex Scandal for the History Books
Daphne Merkin was a staff writer for The New Yorker and is currently a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and Elle. She is the author of a novel, Enchantment, and a collection of essays, Dreaming of Hitler.
Bright Nights, Shady City
Daphne Merkin was a staff writer for The New Yorker and is currently a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and Elle. She is the author of a novel, Enchantment, and a collection of essays, Dreaming of Hitler.
I think you are on to something with your comment about things not changing until women stop being primary caretakers. I have argued for a long time that we need to have more men involved in day care and elementary school education. I think you are right that the fact that it is women who are continually telling children be polite, play nice, etc. gives children the impression that these social values are inherently feminine. As many boys grow up they define themselves as the opposite of feminine and exaggerate macho behavior, with dire consequences for our society
.
I once told our German exchange student that I had read that Germany has a lot of men teaching lower grades, even kindergarten. He looked surprised and said "Not so many. Only about half." This is the case in most other developed countries and many have also have elected women leaders. They also have much lower rates of murder, rape, and other violent crimes. Those countries value education and teachers so there is no stigma attached to a man teaching young children. In the last few years Finland has prioritized the value of education and have seen a big increase in the number of qualified people, men and women, lining up for jobs even though they do not pay as well as those in corporations.
Puhlease! Your evidence of sexism consists of HRC not getting elected and Palin not being taken serioulsy. Seriously? The real problem here is that our culture, esp. the media, is obsessed w/ superficial issues, including in the case of women, a fixation on appearance. Certainly it is true that woman are subjected to the "male gaze" and judged harshly by "hypercritical" other females. It was always thus. But look, in the end the electorate got it right. At least a very good case could be made that voters made the right call by nominating Obama rather than HRC and further by deciding that Palin was totally unqualified. In other words, the results in this year's elections did not flow from sexism. Ironically, HRC, hero to PUMAs everywhere, rose to prominence, in part, because of who she married. At the same time, it is undeniablly true that she is a very smart, talented and tough politican. Both things are true. (She did not lose b/c she was "unfuckable" in your words). BTW men are subjected to similar kinds of scrutiny. Is so and so tough or is he a wimp? Is so and so an effete, volvo driving liberal? Did what's-his-name have an affair? Nobody I know said openly that s/he wouldn't vote for HRC or Palin soley on the basis of gender. I guess my point is that while there is still some sexism, it is not a major factor in our politics.
Hillary was taken seriously by many men, most notably Barack Obama. I think he noticed the competition.
As for Palin, it's personal. She's a lightweight, an ignoramus with a resume that should be limited to one page. She attracts males who are turned on by the idea of hot MILF in a bikini shooting moose from a helicopter.
I'm not suggesting that there is no sexism. Like racism, a large chunk of that will die off when its primary, old-line carriers simply die. But we've come far.
Most of us don't see Palin as representing 'woman' in some global sense. We can elect a woman based on her merits, her accomplishments. We've come that far. Just because we didn't do it this time, doesn't mean we can't or won't.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. The American electorate voted for the best candidate, and it was a male. Palin was a moron, and would have been a moron even if she were a man. Todd didn't get off scott-free, and clearly that guy is male.
I hate all this whining that women do;it is a fact of life that women will be judged differently than men. It is hard-wired into the brain that women be attractive to look at. Women, myself included, perpetuate this by having our hair colored, buying cute clothes, wearing makeup. It all matters, the whole package. It matters for men too, just not as much.
I believe women are generally more capable than men, and therefore up to the task of out thinking, outsmarting and outperforming them in every way. It just takes a really exceptional woman to do this in the public eye.
it's also the same for minorities. Obama, in order to win, had to be twice as smart, twice as good looking, twice as savvy as the white candidates.
Its the way it is, and will be until this generation's white males in power become the minority. It will happen, but in the meantime, relax, its a fun game, and almost everyone loves gossip.
Okay, let's admit that McCain, Biden, and Obama benefitted from their spouses--all attractive and intelligent women. Let's also admit that Palin probably suffered from hers--attractive but idiotic. But they do seem well-matched.
But don't such choices say something about judgment? Hillary is--still--married to an attractive, incredibly smart former-president. Some might suggest she should have kicked him to the curb a while back for many reasons, mostly from trailer parks, but she--that's she--chose not to. Probably because he smart and charming and a lot of other good things.
The game will, of course, continue, and I will resist asking liviapeacock what she's wearing, largely because she's right.
Women are more capable than men. And I don't actually hate that.
Hillary's campaign was a shambles and undone by her own sense that she was the inevitable candidate. Pride comes before a fall. Plus, orange pants suits are scary.
Palin was the VP pick in another shambolic campaign. If either of them had been up against an even more disorganized opponent they might have won.
If they had won, everything you say about the observations made about them would have been moot, and they only have any kind of traction at all because both women lost. They were out-campaigned by a better candidate, and a lot of things were said about him which were beyond the pale. That's politics, get over it.
Daphne, I have loved your writing for years but this sort of whining really is beneath you.
I am 48 years old and I still like to use the word feminist, even though my 21 yo daughter finds it trite and old-fashioned. I have voted for and against black candidates, for and against and female candidates, depending on who I thought was more capable. In my view, that's the goal of feminism -- that my own judgment is valued as equal to anyone else's. That my judgment is not trivialized because I am a woman . . . which is exactly what you do when you assert that HRC was not elected because of her gender. I didn't vote for her, and her sex had nothing to do with it.
We can't have it both ways. If we want HRC to be treated as a unique individual instead of as a skirt, we can't cry sexism when her individual characteristics are not appealing to some people. Palin is the opposite side of the same coin; she presents herself as Barbie, and cries sexism when people respond to her only on that shallow level.
I also wonder how much of this is generational. My daughter volunteered for Obama even during the primaries. She doesn't "get" what HRC is "so angry" about (her words). Her generation has grown up in different world -- a world that is different precisely because so many women got so angry, and then did something about it.
Thank you. I am convinced you are correct but cannot express it as eloquently. The fact that men tear down powerful women makes sense. The fact that women do the same is totally beyond me. She was by far the better candidate but it made absollutely no difference. My mother-in-law HATED her, but could not explain it. My sister-in-law moaned that 'she doesn't belong in the White House', but could not explain why either. Women detest strong women, I thing it makes them feel inadequate. I certainly don't get it. This election was a crushing disappointment and I ended up not voting at all. I realized that whatever my issues are, there's nobody out there that will ever really tackle them anyway. Michelle Obama, that high-powered corporate lawyer, will do the dutyful wife and mommy role in the White House. How pathetic. Laura Bush in color. Cigarette ads notwithstanding, we have clearly not come a long way.
Palin, I dare say brought it all on herself. With the under prepared for Couric interview, her own agenda for limiting a woman's right to chose, and the over the top clothing budget!
What irks me, is how much vitriol Clinton received throughout the entire campaign, and even now, as the "bitch". I am truly saddened by all this, I was an ardent Clinton supporter, but I supported Obama for the presidency and was prepared to flee the country should Palin become VP, but I couldn't help but wonder even at the time, if the path for a woman to become POTUS had not been completely quashed!
This user is no longer registered.
So that when Hillary Clinton ran for the US Senate with no legislative experience, after having held no elective office, there was suddenly a complete absence of sexism throughout the land? And how do we explain Michele Bachmann, one of the few human beings dumber than Sean Hannity, being re-elected even after making comments there were as offensive as they were devoid of any intelligence? Did we not make fun of Dick Cheney when he showed up at a state funeral wearing a hunting parka? Did we not listen to Sarah Palin as much as we looked at her and decide that she was a vacuum?
I agree Sarah Palin was treated unfairly. If she had been a man, she would have been laughed out of Washington after her interview with Katie Couric, Senator Biden could have destroyed her in the debate and not have had to worry about being called "sexist" for doing so, her six-year-four-colleges-broadcast-journalism bachelor's degree would have been media fodder, someone would have dared to ask her why her second-grade daughter was on the campaign trail and not in school (think of Obama taking Sasha with him and the talk that would have followed), and people would have read the findings of the ethics committee in Alaska and asked, "Wait a minute! What's her husband doing sitting in her office at the governor's mansion, calling in people within her administration to discuss their employment practices or having private "business" meetings with these people?" (again, imagine Ms. Obama sitting in President-elect Obama's office and doing the same). Yes, you're correct, Sarah Palin was treated differently because she was a woman. Indeed, she was.
Good job. One of your key points, which I believe several of those commenting missed, was the predominance of male writers in the media expounding upon feminine topics. Tokenism and patronizing are alive and well. I don't know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is the media a reflection of society or a causal agent? In any case, there seems to be a Galbraithian spiral at work here where they feed each other.
I would like my daughters to play on an even playing field. As you noted, the field has become more level that it has been in the past, but there is still much more work to be done.
I made the comment on another blog, but I'll repeat it here. If Obama wants to be a true agent of change, when he runs for re-election in 4 years he will replace Biden with a competent, qualified female as his running mate - one who has the potential to succeed him four years later, assuming he has 8 years of success in office. Now there is a real change which will not only help 10% of the population, but over 50% of the population!
Daphne,
On your insight that "strong women have always threatened men and will continue to do so as long as women remain the primary caretakers of young children," I wholeheartedly agree.
But women will remain the caretakers of young children because of financial reasons and for this reason alone, the continued complicated, messy and misogynist views of women in our culture.
Sure, the male-dominated bylines of this country's most esteemed publications gives me pause. But not even Hillary's agenda pushed hard enough -- nor has any other female politician or feminist group I've heard of -- to address this issue.
Yes, Hillary advocated for many changes to family/work life issues, but her agenda fell far short of solving the problems of ambitious young mothers caring for small children and simultaneously attempting to navigate a professional career. Hillary agenda included a platform to "ensure better access to affordable, high quality child care," but there were no details behind how to make that happen.
What's needed is a very simple change to existing tax policy. Right now. a professional working woman can deduct up to $5,000 in daycare expense per child annually. That's it.
As any mother nows, there's not a daycare center in the country that offers high-quality, full-time care for that. Most quality centers run $10,000 each year.
I'm sorry...I really am, but this is a hot steaming pile of fresh bullshit. Hillary's loss is no more an example of misogyny than McCain's loss is an example of misandry.
Placing a quota on institutions as if the mere presence of an equal number of vaginas and penises ensured equity is intellectually tired and antithetical to the meritocracy feminists have been rightly pursuing all this time.
Palin was reduced to her looks because based on what the electorate saw, there wasn't much else. How about McCain's jowels? Don't you think there was a subconcious recognition of the relative attractiveness of the two presidential candidates?
No one can deny that equal pay for equal work is still a critical issue and there are more challenges to be overcome. That said, your rhetoric regarding everything from childcare to career choices seems to correlate women's equality with the degree to which they act like men...and that's just not right.
There is a difference between the sexes in terms of how we think, how we act, and how we prioritize many things. Those differences don't imply superiority on any side...they just are. Call it cultural. There is NO difference in the quality of intellect, the capability of leadership, the capacity to succeed. Haven't we so often been told to respect diversity? Where's your respect?
Such a tired, tired argument.
Daphne: "serve rather than command"? Doesn't the Sec'y of State "command" the largest bureaucracy in the Executive Branch and doesn't the President "serve" the American people? And Hillary lost because she was "unfuckable" while Palin lost because she was "fuckable"? You really seem to be reaching for reasons here. Every election has its winners and losers. If Obama lost, certainly we would be hearing about how American could not rise above its racism. Women her.
This is 100% on target.
The misogynist crew (Chris, Keith and yes Rachael and several minor players) at MSNBC had a field day being sexist pigs during the primaries....and now they have started on Hillary again because of the Secretary of State position. Not one of the men or women for that fact that hate Hillary with such a passion are good enough to lick the bottoms of her shoes.
Proof of Dude Nation being alive and well and relentlessly insistant upon an attitude of Stockholm-Syndrome Compliance in vaginal-Americans?
Many of the comments here!
Dude Nation to Vagina Americans: Boo-yah! Quit Whining, Vagina-Americans! And your pantsuit is ugly! And here's some bad, simplistic Evo-Psych to prove how everything is the way it should be! Your argument has been refuted!
Anyway, thanks, Ms. Merkin. It's nice to see that intelligent women are getting what's going on.
Don't get me wrong for what I am about to say, I frequently open doors, and pull out chairs for my loving wife, that I am deeply in love with, however: I find it funny that "feminist" women enjoy bitching about everything that doesn't go their way!!! I am a man, I enjoy women, if I see one that is attractive, I am going to look, so what!!! I thought this was a free country? I don't think that the gender of a leader has anything to do with murder rates, or much else. I think it is up to the intellegence and capability of the leaders. I believe that murder rates are lower in other countries because they are not considered the "melting pots" of the world. To attribute it all to a leader just because they are women is ridiculous. In other words, I think that we all know why Palin lost this election, and shame on you "feminists" still upset about Clinton, for christ sake she didn't even leave her husband after he admitted to getting a helmet wash "among other things". That is someone that you all feel comfortable with as a spokeswoman for your gender? (No wonder why sexism is still going strong)!!!
I am a old feminist who actually risked arrest in the late 1960s re abortion rights and so feel i have a right to comment on this silliness. Take the long view, sister. Wearing makeup is the burka of our civilization. When women are able to go into public without looking like drag queens, perhaps respect will follow. Or... do you think men should start wearing make-up too? Pallin is a silly, silly woman. It's real progress when i do not have to defend every silly woman who buys completely into consumer culture.
Meanwhile, Kay Hagen and Jeanne Shaheen won Senate seats. Many female candidates in the House/Senate won or held their seats. And Beverly Perdue won as NC Governor.
The New Hampshire state Senate also became the first female-majority chamber in the U.S.
But never mind. All Ms. Merkin pays attention to is the White House, right?
My favorite line in this piece is "The evidence may be difficult to pin down, but it hovers in the atmosphere." So now misogyny in politics is a quasi-mystical experience? It's the laziest writer's trick in the world to mention "something I overheard" and stretch it out into a grand thesis.
Much harder to see the pluses alongside the minuses.
I find this faux outrage tedious. Where was the outrage by those concerned feminists when Michelle Obama was called everything but a child of God? Are you telling me that feminist concerns only translate to caucasian women? Hillary herself stated that she could stand the heat in the kitchen and yet for all your concerns about equal treatment you treat her like a hot house flower. Enough already. If women want to play on the world stage then we better grow a bigger pair of ovaries and stop whining when we get insults rather than compliments. Politics is a knife fight not a tea party! As far as Sarah goes, she lobbied for that position on the ticket. No sympathy there.
I find this article to be extremely demeaning to the women who, for want of a better term, work the balls off of most men.
It is not the fact that HRC did not win the primary for the Democratic nomination that makes this country a misogynists dream, nor is it an acceptable argument to believe that Sarah Palin was a viable candidate for any office other than dogcatcher. In America, we have gone beyond the pale of misogyny, to one where a candidate is judged by the content of their intelligence and not the size of their breasts.
I would have voted for HRC, but for one thing, she would not apologize for her vote to start the Iraq conflict. This was the foremost thing on my mind, not the looks of her wardrobe, not the makeup she wore, but the content of her political ideology.
As for Sarah Palin, without doubt she was and is the dumbest bunny on the planet Earth. I could never conceive of voting for someone who did not know that Africa was a continent, who could not name one other Supreme Court case, other than Roe v. Wade that she disagreed with and for the topper of the cake, could not name a magazine that she had read within the last 6 months. To me this shows a complete lack of insight into the world, and this is brought on by the "faith" that she espouses. For in the "charismatic, Pentacostal circles," that she runs in, even looking at anything other than the Bible, is quite out of the ordinary and frowned upon by those in authority.
Look out America, if Sarah Palin is ever elected to the Senate or the Presidency.
Amen to RandyDuck and Tulku2! Stop calling everything "sexist". Real sexism is electing (or hiring) a woman just because she is a woman, nudity in movies and advertisements and chastising a woman because she wants to stay home with her children.
Clinton won close to 17.5 million primary votes. Her own campaign stated she won the most votes in history. If sexism is as big an obstacle as you say, then I'm shocked she made it past Super Tuesday. I think HRC did have to fight sexism, just like Obama had to fight racism and McCain often had to deal with agism. But I think overwhelmingly this election was decided on issues, not on any of these stereotypes.
Are women judged differently in our society than men, sure. Often this difference is unfair to women, focusing on more superficial qualities. But I also think there was a large ammount of lumping any criticism of female political candidates as being a form of sexism. The Palin campaign in particular tried this tactic often to cover up for the erratic behavior of their candidate. Honestly, ANY PERSON who struggles to name what paper they read is going to be hit hard in the media. Any public official who can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade will feel the wrath of the spotlight. John Edwards was hammered over $300 haircuts he received during the 2004 election. Comparing his media run with what Sarah Palin had to endure thanks to her $150,000 wardrobe shows that Palin ACTUALLY may have gotten it a little easy.
Finally, you cite as evidence in your article a lunch you had with a group of men and OK! magazine. As a history teacher and an academic, I was looking for a little more meat here. I'm surprised you didn't mention OK! magazine's expose on Lindsey Lohan's debate on if she is truly a lesbian or just bisexual as the 'smoking gun' evidence. :)
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.