I believe Hillary Clinton is getting a raw deal because she is a woman. I know you’ve heard this before and you don’t buy it. You have examples of things she did that prove she deserves the treatment she is getting in the Media. Do I love 100% of the things she has done during this campaign? No. I don’t doubt your examples of her harsh rhetoric but I still think she is being classified as a Bitch cause she is a woman.
Look to me Hillary is six and Barack is half a dozen. Their differences on policy are not substantive in my opinion. Those of you who disagree can send me your comments, site your examples and do your best to try to cure me of my wayward thinking but alas you are barking up the wrong tree. Save your breath to use on a person who feels war mongering, religion equates morality and accentuating fear are platforms the next president should stand on instead of health care, helping the middle class and an exit strategy outta Iraq.
Let me just preface this opinion of mine with the fact that say I am a minority. By that I mean I’m a woman or female or not male and I’m biracial or a person of color or not white. Take your pick of adjectives you feel comfortable with. I’m just me to me but others feel better putting on a label and commenting how my race or gender affects my choice. Duh of course it does as it does with everyone. I’ve had life experiences of discrimination based on my gender and race that have formed the filter I perceive the world in. So have we all. Is it important that I put my identification as a woman before my identification as a person of color? Probably.
My experiences being a woman executive were more disconcerting then the ones I had being a person of color. An example would be my superiors’ questions regarding whether my level of bitchiness was increased by my menstrual period. The way I see it Sen Clinton is being perceived as a bitch when she is just being tough. A woman who is tough is a bitch while a man is just being himself. When the Bush machine railroaded Kerry’s campaign with the swift boat ad that was considered some ingenious politics. When Hillary sarcastically joked about solutions mythically appearing rather then concrete policy as to how we can get there, she was vilified. Her scrambling to defend herself and her record has kept her more on the defensive, thus aggressive, side then Sen Obama has had to be in reference to his thin resume.
Am I invigorated and inspired by Barack Obama? Yes I am. Does it feel good after almost 8 years of being demoralized and unhopeful? Yes it does! But do I think that we are sooo far up shits creek without a paddle, that we need a woman who can multi-task and knows how to get her hands dirty cleaning up the mess? Yes I Do!!
Have I given up on hope? No. Have I given into the idea that my leader shouldn’t be a dreamer? No. Have I given up ever being able to obtain the ideal this country was built on? No. I’ve given into reality. Does that make me a cynic? I don’t think so. I like to think of it as being realistic. Is my motto No we can’t? No. I still believe in dreams and the dreams I have for this country. The reality is though that those dreams can not be achieved until we fix the clouds they rest on. The reality is that having them is great but I feel that the thick skin Hillary has developed from the process of continuous beatings for her policies and decisions enables her to have a slight edge in knowing how things work in our government and that this will help to enable her to eventually get things done.
My ideal would be that Hillary get elected so she can help clean up the international mess the Bush team has made. That she can start to repair our international image, restore international good will, create a plan to get us out of Iraq, get universal healthcare to finally become a reality and stimulate the economy.
After some of the damage is repaired, I would love for Barack to come into office to help put us back on track to fulfilling the ideal this country can be. The idea of the United States of America is still a great one but so much has been broken. We’ve been taken so far off track. Instead of being a country that inspires, who innovates and who leads. We’ve become a country who attacks, who instills fear, who bullies, who bitches and moans and who is entitled. And to get from off track to ideal may take a woman who can dole out some tough love about reality and sweet talk our detractors so that they can once again believe in our potential.
I need Mom to come clean up the mess. Then my charismatic big brother can come in to lead me to the promise land after Mom has cleaned the debris blocking the road.
As in all things this is just my opinion. If Barack gets elected, I’ll be right there behind him giving him my vote and my support. Because you know what they say about opinions and ass**** everyone’s got one.
You don’t cite any examples of why you feel she is being unfarily treated, only that you think that she is. Yet you ask everyone who feels differently to do so. This doesn’t make any sense.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you (I can’t because it’s an opinion), but I’m disappointed that you started your post this way.
For the record, I had commented on a blog that actually did list specific examples of why she’s treated unfairly because she’s a woman.
I’m under the firm belief that gender roles are a social construct and have little if anything to do with biology.
“Yes it does! But do I think that we are sooo far up shits creek without a paddle, that we need a woman who can multi-task and knows how to get her hands dirty cleaning up the mess? Yes I Do!!”
Aren’t you yourself reinforcing a gender role here?
Why couldn’t a big brother do what a mom can?
Or are moms only good for cleaning up messes?
There’s much more to Hillary than her gender and much more to Obama than his race. The (legitimate) ciriticism starts and ends there. That’s to say they are irrevelant. All other reasons for approving or rejecting either candidate are fair game.
Yes, there is sexism everywhere and Hillary has been the victim of it as many women of authority had to endure. But your case implies she deserves special treatment so she can overcome this adversity to become President.
No. She deserves equal treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.
There’s nothing wrong with demaning an equal playing field. There’s something seriously wrong with implying one gender is better suited to solve the nation’s problems.
This is no different than saying one race is better suited or one creed.
The first step in fighting double standards is to not make them yourself.
Let me start by saying thanks for reading my blog. I’ve gotten so use to writing this just for me since not many people read it and as I am a Hypersomniac I get tired easily. So I didn’t site examples to back up my thoughts cause I didn’t think anyone would read it and I was tired but also because I thought the tag of Bitch in reference to Hillary Clinton was so prevalent in the media that examples would have been redundant. Please note I didn’t ask you, the reader, for examples of how she has been treated unfairly or fairly. I said “I don’t doubt you have examples of her harsh rhetoric but I still think she is being classified as a Bitch cause she is a woman.”
What examples can I give of how she has been unfairly treated? Lengthy conversations on her hairstyles and clothing choices over the years. Chris Matthew’s and Rush Limbaugh’s (just to name two media personnel) numerous comments in reference to Sen Clinton as a Bitch. The much publicized McCain supporter that asked him “How do we beat the Bitch” referring to Sen Clinton and his not condemning the reference. A comment by a media person that she was being “uppity”. Even Saturday Night Live noticed something when Tina Fey did a comedy skit called “Bitch is the New Black” (NBC took the clip down off of youtube sighting copyright infringement or I would have posted a link to it) which I thought was hysterical and spot on. Although SNL isn’t the definitive barometer when it comes to public opinion I think that humor is the best when it strikes true.
The corresponding male expletive to Bitch is Bastard I believe but it doesn’t hold the same negative feelings. Wikipedia describes Bitch as: “It is also frequently used as an offensive term for a woman, taken to mean that she is malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, or unpleasant.” And “The word “bitch” has long been in use to refer to a woman in contempt, as shown in an 1811 dictionary which describes bitch as “the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore.”[2]” You never hear Bitch or Bastard in reference to Sen Obama or any of the other male candidates. You never hear the media discuss the male candidates hairstyles or clothing choices and how these choices made them look attractive or unattractive. What does that have to do with how capable a candidate is at running the government? None. You also would never have heard anyone refer to Sen Obama as “uppity”. I think if you did the label of racisms surely would have been called out.
You say, “I’m under the firm belief that gender roles are a social construct and have little if anything to do with biology.” I agree with you to an extent. Discrimination because of gender and race are learnt behaviors. No one is born a racist but there are differences in how Women and Men deal with things and therefore how they are as leaders. I don’t think one way is better than the next but I do think they deal with issues differently.
Men are task orientated and attack one issue at a time. While women are multi taskers and attack a bit of an issue at a time (I’m talking in generalities). If three problems needed addressing, a woman might solve a little bit of each problem first (I would hope the worst part of each problem) while the man would solve the first problem completely and then move on to the other problems. Does this make the women better as a problem solver? No. It makes her different. And I chalk up these differences to the hardwiring of the male and female brain and how they had to evolve to survive.
I was not “implying one gender is better suited to solve the nation’s problems.” I was saying that Women are good Multi-taskers. I do believe that the male way of leading and managing is so engrained into the corporate structure that it makes a female way of doing it seem more foreign.
It is better described in this paper The Debate: Do men and women have different leadership styles?) :
Time after time in management development programmes at Cranfield, women managers demonstrate their different working styles……..The problem with letting males dominate organisations, as we do, is that leadership style is narrowly defined.
The successful male managerial stereotype is so strongly embedded in organisational life that female managers are pressured to conform to it.
My somewhat sarcastic labels of “Mom” and “Big Brother” were meant to convey how Moms can be good multi taskers. To convey how Moms are good at getting your teachers to see how much potential you had on parent teacher night even if you didn’t seem to be doing well in a subject. I’m not saying Men or Dads couldn’t do that. I was using the label to convey how we “usually” think of Moms and how they help us.
“Big Brother” was used to convey how we would look up to an older sibling. The one we want to grow up to be like, to emulate. The one who gets on the basketball team and is popular. The one who invigorates us and the rest of the school with spirit and therefore helps us win the crucial football game of the season. I’m not saying our Big Sister couldn’t do that.
I do not believe I was “imply[ing] she deserves special treatment so she can overcome this adversity to become President” as you stated. I believe as you say that “She deserves equal treatment. Nothing more, nothing less.” I’m just not sure she is getting it. That is my opinion.
Hope this clears up any issues or questions you had in regards to my position and this blog post.
May the best PERSON win and may our country start on the road to our potential SOON.
Thanks for making that clear.
I will say this… If Obama or Clinton come to office, each would not be the sole discretionary force in goverment. There are both men and women in the administration and each would proceed to handle each situation as it arises when it arises.
The structure of government is such that the problems can only be solved by priority. This doesn’t mean one by one nor all at once. It means both.
Any noticable difference in priority with each campaign will disappear as the candidate who wins will take office. The reality of the situation will dictate which priority the nations problems will be ordered and each will be approached one by one for assesment. Then solved by a team of individuals simultaneously.
The mess we’re in now was partly the result of an army of yes-men at the feet of the Decider in Chief. Neither Clinton nor Obama are likely to play this game.
But, I do agree.
May the best person win.
Pingback: 2/3 of Dems Say Hillary Should Stay in Race With Either Ohio or TX Win « Donna Darko