About that New Republic cover

By Kathy G.

This is in response to questions in the comments about why I consider the current TNR cover of HIllary Clinton to be sexist, and why such a cover would be categorically different from publishing a similar cover with a similarly crazed-looking male candidate (like John McCain):

Yes, you could create a cover with McCain looking crazy/ugly as well. But in the context of the society we live in, it would not convey the same meaning at all. Think of it this way: a cover that showed John McCain eating watermelon would be weird but not especially objectionable, whereas a cover that showed Barack Obama eating watermelon would communicate an entirely different, and far more pernicious, set of meanings.

A crazy-looking McCain would signify nothing more than "gee, that guy sure looks crazy." A crazy-looking Clinton invokes an entire history of stereotypes that have been used to discredit women and deny us power. Arguments that women are "hysterical" or "crazy" or "too emotional" have been used to try to deny women their rights and prevent them from taking leadership roles. And portraying women as "ugly" also plays into the double standard -- "unattractive" women tend to be judged far more harshly than "unattractive" men. Such stereotypes not only discredit the individual women involved, but manage to discredit women as a class as well, partly because their power often lies in the suggestion that "all"" women share whatever the particular negative trait happens to be.

I took one look at that cover and immediately my feminist hackles were raised. As the excellent Jeff Fecke of Shakesville put it:

Boy, TNR, could you spread the misogyny any thicker? "Voices in her head"? Really? Why code it? Why not just come right out and say what you're thinking -- call Hillary a "hysterical woman." After all, we all know what the etymology of "hysterical" is, right fellas? Them girlz is kee-raz-ee!

Look, you don't like Hillary Clinton? Fine! Write all you want about how her votes suck, her policies suck, her advisers suck, how she's mismanaging her campaign, how her attacks on Obama are hurting the party and helping the Republicans. And I would actually agree with you about a lot of those things.

Criticizing her ideas, policies, and actions is fine. What's not fine is using sexist stereotypes to ridicule and discredit her, or any other woman, for that matter.

Any questions?

Comments

[Bukko in Australia]

Now we know what Hillary would look like doing the Dean scream...

[tlsintx]

way to spell it out, kathy g.
this crap is so insidious and accepted it requires a thorough explanation.

[arbitrista]

Over the years our political culture has developed a "racism check" - things which could be interpreted as racist, even if they weren't intended to be, are out of bounds. For some reason we don't have the same thing with sexism. I'm really not sure why.

[Dave von Ebers]

Just came here via a link from Jesus' General's blog, and I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not a fan of HRC, for the reasons you suggest, but it's damn near impossible not to see that photo for what it is, or what it intends to convey: It's a picture of a hysterical woman.

Ironically, if anyone in the Clinton campaign is acting shrill and hysterical, it's hubby Bill, not Hillary herself. How's that for turning stereotypes on their heads?

[Donald A. Coffin]

The reproduction of the cover in your original post only hints at how truly awful the real thing is. (My TNR arrived in yesterday's mail.) And, as you say, it's not just the picture, although that's bad enough by itself. But the text...

And the article to which the cover refers only reinforces the impression made by the cover.

[ben]

Kathy,
I agree with you about the photo. I basically agree with you about the "voices in her head" thing, but I have a quibble I'd like to air out. I'm not sure what to make of it.

If a right-wing female candidate who exudes rage against, say, feminism, secularism, those opposed to the Iraq war, and Muslims, and seems generally crazy is running in a GOP primary against another (male or female) right-wing candidate with socially conservative and hawkish views substantially similar to those of the first candidate but who seems more open to reasoned debate, should we really be categorically opposed to using characterological or psychological terminology to raise our concerns about the first one? (Perhaps one would rather the first candidate win the primary in the view that she would be more vulnerable in the general, but say this is a hard-red jurisdiction, so that the winner will likely be elected.)

Of course none of these extreme considerations apply to Sen. Clinton, who is very smart and progressive, especially on domestic policy. But at least so far, I find it hard to make categorical statements about references to a (male or female) candidate's personality, emotional style, and the like. The presumption should be against them, especially in tabloid headlines, because those play into misogynist stereotypes more than a long discussion of these flaws does. But it's hard even to draw that line, because if a candidate is crazy enough, you want the knowledge of his or her badness to achieve widespread circulation, which means it will in some sense be dumbed down into a headline or tag line about the candidate.

Perhaps the ultimate point is that we need lots more female candiates, so that criticizing one harshly would have less capacity to reflect on the notion of women in leadership positions as a class.

Anyway, these are preliminary thoughts, thanks for reading.

[ben]

Edit: The third-paragraph sentence that begins "The presumption..." should have said, "The presumption should be against them, especially in tabloid headlines, and especially with women, because those play into misogynist sterotypes more than a long discussion of these flaws does."

[ben]

Since we're talking about stereotypes of women's alleged irrationality, here's a wonderful counterpoint-times-a-million, featured on msn.com today that I came across a little while after posting here. This amazing woman, Alia Sabur, graduated from college at fourteen, received her Ph.D. (in Materials Science) at eighteen, and is now the world's youngest professor at 19. (Also? She holds a tae kwan do black belt and is a skilled clarinetist who has played at Carnegie Hall.) You cannot read about her without smiling. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273418>1=43001. There's much more at aliasabur.com.)

[ben]

Corrected URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24273418>1=43001

[ben]

ok, typepad has been screwing with me, try this. use the URL in the links above but in place of the character > use ampersandGT

[crack]

Yeah, this is what I think whenever I see SadlyNo!'s picture of Malkin. It's just the man keeping women down.

[Ampersand]

Over the years our political culture has developed a "racism check" - things which could be interpreted as racist, even if they weren't intended to be, are out of bounds.

This is not true. Overt, obvious racism is out of bounds; but relatively subtle racism and double-standards remain commonplace.

[Retief]

"Criticizing her ideas, policies, and actions is fine. What's not fine is using sexist stereotypes to ridicule and discredit her, or any other woman, for that matter."

Are those the Marquis of Queensbury rules for campainging? Is there anyone on this planet that follows them?