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?)
Of course, any vaginal-American running for high office is instantly consigned to the scrutiny of the reductionist male gaze and the hypercritical female one. Hillary's cankles were as closely analyzed as her competence, just as Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most powerful woman in government, is more famous for her pearls than her policies. What Clinton failed to realize is that when it comes to female candidates, accomplishment is a sideline; Americans, both men and women, want gossip. Can she really believe we're more intrigued by what bills she's helped pass than her relationship with Bill? Small wonder the woman lost.
Strong women have always threatened men and will continue to do so as long as women remain the primary caretakers of young children, the front-line enforcers of society's inhibiting agenda. What seems newly in evidence is how resistant women are, consciously or not, to putting one of their own in power. It was, after all, a woman who asked John McCain at a November campaign meeting the question that launched almost a million You Tube hits: "How do we beat the bitch?" Young women today appear less concerned about the limitations imposed on them with good reason; they can indeed become lawyers and doctors with greater ease than would have been imaginable in the 1950s. The attitude seems to be that as feminist goals have gotten closer—no matter that women are still routinely paid less for their labor—there's no need for the strident rhetoric or far-reaching vision of the women's movement.
But here's something to give pause: The special election issue of The New Yorker has five male writers commenting on its implications; there is only one woman featured in the issue (although she has two pieces, as if in compensation). Similarly, the November issues of Harper's and The Atlantic are top-heavy with male writers, notwithstanding the fact that The Atlantic cover touts a story headlined "Should Women Rule the World?" which turns out to be a rather cutesy review of a book by DeeDee Myers with that title, not a serious consideration of the question at all.
Meanwhile, a recent issue of OK! magazine promised to tell readers about Michelle Obama's style ("Michelle looks amazing in yellow") and "her date nights with Barack." You know, girly stuff, as befits our interest in a Grownup Girl. Can it be that Samuel Johnson, the 18th-century writer and wit, was not all that far from contemporary truth when he observed that when it came to women it was best to keep one's expectations low: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
If we keep our expectations low enough, the surprise is not that Hillary Clinton didn't become our first woman president but that she made such a strong showing in the primaries. A round of applause for the lady walking on her hind legs.
Daphne Merkin is a cultural critic who has made a name for herself with her often unnerving candor and elegantly High/Low reflections. She was a staff writer for The New Yorker and is currently a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and Elle. Her work appears regularly in Slate, Travel & Leisure, and Book Forum, among other publications. She is the author of a novel, Enchantment, and a collection of essays, Dreaming of Hitler.
10 Power Food Combos
Divya Gugnani is the CEO and founder of BehindtheBurner.com, an emerging culinary media brand that creates expert-based content about food, wine, mixology, and nutrition.
How Obama Wins in 2012
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono.
How Barack Beat Bibi
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
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.
BernieO
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.
Cyberdog
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.
slemay
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.
liviapeacock
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.
slemay
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.
smdunne
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.
jazzyhands
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.
AngelaM
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.
Xelene
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.
pacifistgunslinger
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?
momfromtexas
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.
sjnrrslt
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!
ohiomom
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.
RandyDuck
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.
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.