Wednesday, August 27, 2008

I Don't Support Female Leaders (Or, Why You Shouldn't Dismiss My Arguments Based On My Gender)

Well, I do (I should also mention that this is a follow up to yesterday's Bite Me So Hard For That, which in turn stemmed from Boston and Chicago Are Now States). But not all of them, and not all of the time. Which is why this question, "Did [Andrew Sullivan] offend your feminist sensibilities simply because he attacked a female leader?" galls me so. Which is why my friend's further comment, "Clearly identity politics is a big part of the reason why you like Clinton so much" kind of makes me want to tear my hair out. But I'll get to that point later. First up is this: there is a right way and a wrong way to criticize and critique and condemn human beings in general and politicians in particular. Let me get this out in the open right away: comparing a politician to a nagging wife is not the right way. Calling a politician a she-devil is also not the right way. Criticizing and commenting endlessly on a candidate's love of pantsuits, her hair, her make-up, what shirts create cleavage, and her skin all also fall under the "wrong way" of criticizing a political candidate.

You know what else falls under a bad way to criticize a candidate? When you call them out for something that other candidates have done, and do not call out those other candidates as well. Take, for instance, Andrew Sullivan. When he criticized Hillary Clinton for using the Senate as a stepping stone to the White House, he lost credibility with me as a Hillary Clinton critic because he -as far as I know- failed to make the same criticism of Barack Obama. I think in both cases it is a ridiculous criticism, but by making it about one candidate and not about another who has done the exact same thing (and with less time served), the critic shows an obvious bias. Same sort of deal when Sullivan calls Hillary Clinton's feminist credentials into question (and her political integrity) for utilizing her position as the wife of one of the most skilled politicians of our time in her bid for the presidential elections. For capitalizing on the fact that she -through no want of her own, mind you- shares the Clinton name. And a case can be made that political families are bad, especially in this society which is supposedly a meritocracy. But Andrew Sullivan -again, as far as I know- offers up no criticism of those other political families, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, or even the Adamses, who trade on the family name and recognition for political prizes. And for the record, Andrew Sullivan is not the only person who irritates me when he does this; Keith Olbermann also committed a similar bias when he called out Hillary Clinton for going on Fox News and for not calling out Obama even though he had appeared on the channel 3 days before. That is not sound punditry, and in both Olbermann's and Sullivan's cases, it hurts their own credibility in their critique of Hillary Clinton -based not on sexism but just simply on an incredible bias.

And this has nothing to do with identity politics and everything to do with fairly and objectively criticizing a politician and a human being. So let us get to the second part of this, the identity politics. Say, some conservative woman was running for president. Phyllis Schlafly, Condoleeza Rice, Ann Coulter, or Laura Bush. I would not, ever, vote for any of these women for even the school board. They run the gamut from people I respect but disagree profoundly with to women whose very spot in the public eye makes me fume. If analysis of Ann Coulter focused mainly on her hair style or criticisms of her outfits, I would be just as mad as when this happened to Hillary Clinton. If Condoleeza Rice was called a bitch by another candidate's supporter, only to have that candidate laugh it off and say, "Good question", I would be irate. If Laura Bush's economic policy was ignored so joke after joke after joke could be made about how she made men cross their legs and how men didn't like her because she reminded them of their shrill first wife, I would see red. If Phyllis Schlafly was called a she-Devil and had devil graphics pop up every time her name was mentioned, I would react in disbelief and disapproval. Why? Because even though I disagree with these women, even though I would probably feel as though the country would go to hell in a handbasket if they were elected, it is still demeaning, dehumanizing, sexist, and wrong. These comments are reserved for women. These remarks that limit women are meant to make sure women know their place in society, and that place sure as hell isn't the leader of the United States of America. Because that is the sort of treatment no human being should be subject to, let alone a candidate for higher office.

You want to criticize Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, or any other woman in the national spotlight? Go right ahead. Do so with your grown up words, though, and not those crappy adolescent words like "bitch" or "whore". Do so by criticizing her actions, and refrain from criticizing actions she takes when other men have taken them without comment or reproach -or reproach and criticize men who take that path alongside your criticism of the woman. It isn't that difficult. It isn't that hard to treat women as equals, and not fall back into sexist, baseless, and ridiculous arguments. And this goes for all politicians and human beings; if Andrew Sullivan really dislikes Hillary Clinton for Hillary Clinton, it would do him some good to point out where her policies were flawed and by scraping the parts of his article that criticize Hillary Clinton for doing what countless politicians -including one running right now as the presumptive Democratic nominee- did without taking into account the hypocrisy of doing so. If you want to criticize Hillary Clinton's feminism, fine. But do so without pulling out Margaret Thatcher as your counterpoint of what a feminist rise to power looks like, because that does nothing to further the point that Hillary Clinton could have done it better. In fact, if you want to talk about what feminists should acknowledge or shouldn't acknowledge, maybe the first thing the writer should do is take a look at what feminists care about and not presume to know best who is or is not a feminist. If you want to make a case for how it is more feminist to rise to power without help than it is to enact feminist legislation or further a feminist agenda once in office, more power to you. But accept that feminists don't have to think that Clinton is a feminist dream soured, and that they may be just as right based on their own criteria as you feel you are based on your own. And let me make it absolutely clear that I do not -do NOT- think every criticism of Hillary Clinton is based in sexism or stems from sexism or connotes sexism. But some of it was, and some of it continues to be, and some of it will continue to be fostered upon women in the media in the same way with the same level of rebuke -which is to say very little. It affects Michelle Obama to this day, because we did not call it out when it happened to Hillary Clinton forcefully enough and strong enough and with important enough backers. If those people who made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton -and now Michelle Obama- were given the Don Imus treatment, there would be much less overt and outright sexism in the news media. But that did not happen, and it should have. 

I wanted Hillary Clinton to win, first and foremost, because I think she would have made an excellent president. I wanted Hillary Clinton to win because I think she is one of the best and brightest our country has to offer. I wanted Hillary Clinton to win because I calmly and objectively looked over much of what I cared about in relation to Clinton, Obama, and McCain, and decided that Hillary Clinton was my candidate. That isn't identity politics. It isn't not identity politics, but it isn't that Hillary Clinton has ovaries and so she was the one I chose. And yes, over time, the baseless attacks strengthened my desire to reach the Oval Office. But that also wasn't entirely about identity politics. It was based partially on how she handled the constant attacks based on little more than just her gender. And it was based, once again, on the fact that dealing with that level of criticism day in and day out only made me more aware of how extraordinary she was as a human being -and as a woman. I identified with what was being done to her; I recognized it as abuse on the basest level. But I would have done that if any woman, conservative or liberal, had been placed in that same situation.

At the same time, I fail to see exactly what is wrong with some of identity politics. It makes sense to say, "This is a person who cares about what I care about" as long as that thought has voting records and a history to back it up. I'm not talking about the identity politics that led to George W. Bush getting elected because he was "ordinary folk" and couldn't deliver a speech, but real honest-to-God identity politics where the person in question is able to identify this candidate as being someone with a similar take on the issues and a similar outlook on how best to achieve their goals. That isn't about being a woman and connecting to a woman because year in and year out, women have had to play the identity politics game with no women in the field. Women are constantly being asked to identify with men politicians, with male characters, and with male stories. We constantly have to insert ourselves into the story when there are no females (or very few females) on the horizon . So to suggest that I -or countless other women- were drawn to Hillary Clinton through the identity politics of gender is to ignore how long and how many times women have had no woman on the scene -and we've done just fine countless times identifying with what we were given. And we'll do it again this year, and four years from now, and probably four years after that.

9 comments:

mikhailbakunin said...

You really need to read more of Andrew Sullivan's writing before you rip into him like this.

Yes, he is clearly biased against the Clintons, and you're right that he sometimes loses perspective. But you're TOTALLY misrepresenting his comments about Hillary Clinton using the Senate as a stepping-stone.

His contention (as I know from reading his posts regularly) is that Clinton remained with her husband out of political expedience because she knew she was going to run for president. It's fine that she had presidential ambitions. Obama certainly had similar ambitions, but he didn't compromise his core values to realize them.

If you read Sullivan's blog (and it's fine that you don't), you'd see that he has criticized Clinton extensively on issues. But Sullivan is a moralist, and his biggest concern is with Clinton's character. He argues that she cynically exploited the feminist meme, using her gender to rally support and win primary victories. This may be totally false, but Sullivan has good reason to believe it.

He hates the Clintons because he's seen them lie to, exploit, and betray gays Americans time and time again. He'll never trust them, and he'll never believe that anything they do is genuine. In his view, Hillary Clinton uses everything at her disposal to advance her political career. Her values have become little more than political props, and she can't be a feminist (or a any -ist) because she will always be willing to sacrifice the cause for her own ambitions.

I'm obviously not as cynical as Sullivan. I think that Clinton (unlike her husband) has moments of humanity, but she's allowed herself to accept moral flexibility as a way of life.

I have no idea why Sullivan considers Thatcher a paragon of feminist virtue. All I can say is that he's a British Tory and they all swoon over her. I think he would say the he respects Thatcher because she never tried to use her gender for political gain. He makes a similar argument about Obama with regard to race, but I don't think it's very convincing.

I do agree with you, by the way, that Obama has made moral compromises on the road to the nomination, and Sullivan doesn't scrutinize him as much. I think Sullivan would say that this is mainly because he has a much longer history with the Clintons.

In my mind, the difference between Obama and Clinton is one of degree, not of kind. But Obama has had to put up with some pretty vicious ad hominem attacks, and he hasn't resorted to using Rovian tactics like Clinton.

Of course, he also hasn't been in the public eye quite as long . . .

mikhailbakunin said...

Don't get me wrong, Clinton has had to put up with vicious ad hominem attacks, too. But she dishes it out as much as she takes it, and most of the attacks against her haven't come from the Obama campaign.

I can't admire Clinton for being tough--or sympathize with her plight--when her campaign is calling Obama "exotic" and "radical." If that's not race-baiting, I don't know what is.

petpluto said...

"you're TOTALLY misrepresenting his comments about Hillary Clinton using the Senate as a stepping-stone."

Really now? Then explain it to me. Because from where I'm sitting, if he makes that criticism of Hillary Clinton and not of Obama, then I can rightfully call that assessment baseless.

"He argues that she cynically exploited the feminist meme, using her gender to rally support and win primary victories. This may be totally false, but Sullivan has good reason to believe it."

That doesn't mean I can't criticize him when I believe he is wrong. Maybe I should read more of Sullivan's writings, but I have read bits and pieces of it since this primary season began and he has exhibited a profound bias against the Clinton camp which tempers his effectiveness as a Clinton critic and which makes his overall message less convincing than if he actually checked that bias.

He may have reason to hate Bill and Hillary. But that doesn't mean that he explains his hatred well or that his hatred is something I have to acknowledge as being valid or right or as complete truth.

"His contention (as I know from reading his posts regularly) is that Clinton remained with her husband out of political expedience because she knew she was going to run for president."

I know; and I think he's wrong, and what's more I don't think it matters. I think that is an idiotic point to cling to, especially because it is something that can neither be proven nor refuted. It is thus a ridiculous thing to focus energy on, because we can't KNOW if she is truly in love with him or if she was just using him. And speculation will relate once again back to the bias one takes to the table, which is really not very useful in political discourse and does nothing to prove that Hillary is an amoral hack of a politician or a wronged woman.

"I have no idea why Sullivan considers Thatcher a paragon of feminist virtue. All I can say is that he's a British Tory and they all swoon over her. I think he would say the he respects Thatcher because she never tried to use her gender for political gain."

No, she was too busy not doing anything for those who were also of her gender once she reached the PM slot. Succinctly put, I cannot see how one man can criticize and demean one woman's feminism -and ridicule the feminists who still believe in her- and hold Thatcher up as the feminist paradigm. Either he accepts that there is more than one way to be a feminist, or he doesn't.

mikhailbakunin said...

You've read, as far as I know, one post by Andrew Sullivan. How can you possibly know what he's said of Obama for the past two years? Read "Goodbye to all That: Why Obama Matters"--his essay in the Atlantic.

Character issues in general are impossible to quantify. But they tend to be the most important issues to voters. While it may be impossible to know whether Clinton was using her husband, it's totally fair to speculate based on the her previous attitudes and actions.

You can't "know" if anything in philosophy is certain. Why discuss it?

I agree with you on Thatcher, but Sullivan just as a gay crush on her. I don't know what else to say. That doesn't nullify his opinion of Clinton.

Like I said, character seems to be more important to Sullivan than what ISSUES a candidate actually pays lipservice to. Clinton can talk about women's rights all she wants, but she throws women under the bus when it comes to furthering her career.

That says a lot.

mikhailbakunin said...

By the way, you're bias TOWARD Clinton. That doesn't negate your opinion.

petpluto said...

"You've read, as far as I know, one post by Andrew Sullivan."

I have read more than one post, as I said here:
"I have read bits and pieces of it since this primary season began"

"Sullivan just as a gay crush on her. I don't know what else to say. That doesn't nullify his opinion of Clinton."

It does make his opinion on FEMINISM suspect. It makes his opinion on what makes a good feminist suspect, because if Thatcher is his rubric, then his vision of feminism and mine are completely different. This isn't me attacking him. Much of what I've been writing hasn't been attacking him but criticizing how he (and others) have responded to Hillary Clinton and people in general. I focused on women because you know what? That is what has been most prevalent in the campaign season so far. In a month or two, I'll probably be writing something on race, because talk of how Hawaii is exotic just because Obama went there is driving me crazy as well.

"While it may be impossible to know whether Clinton was using her husband, it's totally fair to speculate based on the her previous attitudes and actions."

What evidence does anyone have about Clinton's marriage other than the fact that she is a woman who wanted to run for political office? Seriously. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Edwards, and about any other woman who's husband was caught cheating and decided to stay with him. The rubric for "well, she doesn't really love him" seems to be nonexistent. There are no statements, no looks, no nothing from Hillary (and now Elizabeth) that show how little they love their husbands. But Hillary is attacked for it, mainly because she had the gall to show political ambition. Show me any sort of proof that Hillary Clinton stayed with Bill Clinton for the votes, other than the inkling of people who were bound to dislike her anyway. And I'm not saying it isn't possible that she did. I'm saying that we can't know, so anyone can make up their own little fairy tale that best suits their view. Which is NOT exactly good. Who are we to know how much religion played a part in Clinton staying in her marriage? Since she is deeply devout, it may have had some effect. Who are we to know if she had some strange premonition that she "needed" Bill to win the candidacy (in which case, she needs a new crystal ball)? We don't. How are we to know if these are two people who stay together for political reasons or if they really do care about one another and work together well as a team? We DON'T. We create our own fairy tale. So constantly bringing it up like it is some sort of truth is disingenuous at best.

By the way, my version of the fairy tale is nicely supplanted by moments like Bill saying, "I love you" over and over again to Hillary at the DNC, and in countless articles and books I've read in places like Newsweek and the Times. I'm still not sure what supplants Andrew Sullivan's vision of the Clintons, and what's more neither one of our visions should be published as a truth because as far as I'm aware, I'm not privy to the details of their marriage.

Character is important. But some aspects of character we can infer. We can infer that Bill Clinton was a sleaze -though a brilliant public speaker- and we pretty much could from the beginning. We COULD infer from John McCain's affair and subsequent marriage that he is also a sleaze -but we do not, because (a) that is not the story that gets play and (b) because it is kind of irrelevant to whether or not he would make a good president. Unless he was caught messing around with a man as he attempts to block gay rights, it doesn't really matter. Sex -who we have it with and why we have it- doesn't really matter unless something else makes it matter, like Bill Clinton lying about it and wagging his finger or Ted Haggard teaching about the immorality of homosexuality and drugs while 'experimenting' himself.

Also, here's this: who the fuck gets to say what marriage is or isn't, what it should encompass or shouldn't? No, seriously. If there are two people who are no longer in love but still have affection for one another and enjoy the other's company, are we going to call foul? If there are two people who are married and can still co-exist and so don't want to get a divorce, should we examine every inch of their lives? No, because their marriages work for them. And that is my problem. If someone came up to me and told me that my relationship was a sham because it didn't fit into the mode of a "traditional" marriage -and was further supported by the fact that I was not a "traditional" woman- I would have a strong urge to punch that guy square in the nose.

"You can't "know" if anything in philosophy is certain. Why discuss it?"

Okay, philosophy and theory is entirely different than discussing what goes on in someone's bedroom. One can be published in an academic journal, and one can be published in US Magazine. If my philosophy is "Jer sucks" and I make suppositions about your relationships and your motives and your hair style and your pants, then I don't have a real philosophy and I've done a piss poor job of explaining why you suck besides.

If Hillary Clinton sucks, then say why she sucks -like you would a man. Seriously. We don't focus on Bill Clinton staying married to Hillary for political benefit. We don't discuss how McCain is looking a little worn around the edges. I am not -am NOT- opposed to having an actual debate on Hillary Clinton; I'm not opposed to reading articles by people who ardently hate her and who explain why without saying things like, "She didn't go about this the feminist way". Fuck that. There is NO "feminist way". There is no cut and dried way to be a feminist. You can explain why you think Hillary Clinton equals a fail for feminism, but you can't call upon all feminists to wake up and reject her without also exploring the fact that YOUR feminism may not be MY feminism.

And as I said in the post, this isn't just about Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton -due in part to her position as a divisive figure- has exposed how not to criticize a candidate. It isn't just Andrew Sullivan, though his bias was fun to use because it WASN'T based entirely in sexism but still failed for me in some fundamental ways.

This post came about because you said I engaged in identity politics once Clinton started to really get attacked because I empathized, and I think you're wrong. And I believe I would have reacted as strongly to every "bitch", every "cross my legs", every man imitating a woman's apparently horrible voice with "take out the garbage", and single reference to how her outfit isn't getting the job done, how her hair isn't quite right, how her face is wrinkly, how the American public doesn't want to see a woman age in the White House, how PMS and menopause is of such great concern no matter who the female candidate was -Republican or Democrat or Third Party. This isn't just about Hillary Clinton; it is about how women are treated and how this woman in particular shows how women are treated. And along the way, a point about objectivity and how to best support one's viewpoint. Because if you eat a chocolate bar and I say, "he sucks because he eats chocolate", and then John eats a chocolate bar and I see it and say NOTHING, my first point has been made kind of mute.

petpluto said...

"By the way, you're bias TOWARD Clinton. That doesn't negate your opinion."

You know what? I'm not getting paid. I could put up blog post after blog post with "I TOOOOOOTALLY heart Hillary Clinton", and I'm not getting paid so it has less of an affect.

Two, I try to check my bias. Seriously. Three, these posts aren't about "Why Hillary is GOD" but "What Others Have Done Wrong". It hurts to see a woman -any woman- dehumanized and made less relevant because she is a woman. I'll probably begin posting about Michelle Obama in earnest at some point, because she's been hit with the stick as well. And it hurts the arguments of those who dislike Hillary if they are sloppy, if they allow their bias to interfere with what they find relevant, or if they rely on sexist remarks to get their point about why Hillary sucks across.

I've explained why I like her, but I also like articles and news clips that do a good job criticizing her, calmly and fairly objectively. Keith Olbermann has done it. Jon Stewart has done it. Newsweek has done it. The news on PBS did it and then did it some more after her speech at the DNC. And they did it without a single "bitch" or questioning why she remained married. Which was key, and allowed me to weigh their evidence. I WANT to be able to weigh the evidence without first having to sift through bile or anti-Clinton sentiment.

mikhailbakunin said...

"And I believe I would have reacted as strongly to every 'bitch', every 'cross my legs', every man imitating a woman's apparently horrible voice with 'take out the garbage', and single reference to how her outfit isn't getting the job done, how her hair isn't quite right, how her face is wrinkly, how the American public doesn't want to see a woman age in the White House, how PMS and menopause is of such great concern no matter who the female candidate was -Republican or Democrat or Third Party.

That is identity politics. I'm not saying you're being partisan. I'm not even saying it's BAD. I understand how you can feel that way, but you feel that way because you're a female and you can identify with Clinton.

I totally agree that you undermine the strength of your arguments when you start using sexist soubriquets to attack your opponent. The bigots who spew that kind of hate enrage me, but how can I feel bad for Clinton when her own surrogates are implying that Obama's a terrorist?

The final point I'd make is that male politicians are criticized for who they marry, too. McCain is constantly called a gold-digger by Democrats for marrying a wealth woman. John Kerry was, too.

I think that's a pretty fair charge, especially when leveled at McCain. Marrying "up" certainly helped his political career. And while there's no way of knowing whether McCain truly loves his wife, I think the fact that he called her a "cunt" says a lot . . .

petpluto said...

"That is identity politics. I'm not saying you're being partisan. I'm not even saying it's BAD. I understand how you can feel that way, but you feel that way because you're a female and you can identify with Clinton."

No, it is common decency. If I were a man, I would be just as appalled with the dehumanization of a fellow human being. If male politicians had comments made about the type of pants or the size of his package or how whenever he talked, all the pundits heard was "Give me the remote", I would be just as appalled and just as angry, because that is gender politics and it is based completely on the gender of the person in general and not about what is actually of importance like their policies, their politics, and their success rate.