Letters to the Editor
-
As usual, public discourse has to talk AROUND the issue...
Is Hillary Clinton playing the gender card? Yes, the card she was dealt. And, frankly, she's playing it beautifully.
If she were the dealer, I have no doubt she'd prefer to shuffle the deck so that she wouldn't have had to release a book on entertaining in the White House, or have to prove she's as tough as man, tough enough to be president but not too tough to emasculate us in the process. She'd probably prefer to not routinely be called a "bitch" (and far worse) for the past 15 years, and prefer to not have to actively work to "soften" her image or "laugh off" criticism. She'd just BE -- and still trounce most of her competition by being better prepared and harder working.
But she's not the dealer; she's just one of the players in what has been a very male-dominated game. So instead, she has to embrace the silliness of a diamonds or pearls question with a laugh and an answer that assures everyone that powerful and wicked-smart though she may be, she's still a woman.
I actually think a lot of the criticism that she's not genuine and is too calculating is derived from the fact that we've all had a front row seat of watching her negotiate fifteen years of brazen misogyny without being allowed to fight back in full force. She has HAD to be calculating in order to navigate our society's conflicted responses to gender and power. Yeah, sometimes it's transparent, cloying or annoying. But I reserve my disgust for a society that requires that of women in the spotlight. Her "performance" on the public stage in regard to how she handles what is at heart a dehumanizing set of propositions is overall remarkable.
Remember her famous Tammy Wynnette gaffe? Perhaps it was impolitic to make the remark she made -- but I believe it was an honest attitude about how she's not going to let a gender role define her. Fifteen years later, she's still having to answer for it. That she deftly incorporated the "kitchen" reference in response to the recent "gender card" nonsense is a sign that perhaps she's skillful enough to get us past these narrow views of her. Much like Madonna is in pop culture, Hillary has been a Rohrshack test for society's views on women in power. Ninety percent of what's said about her is really about us. It's alternately infuriating and fascinating. That she plays the game is a necessity not of her choosing. It would be nice to judge her on her competence, experience and ideas for the country -- but sadly, we are left to also judge her on how she handles being judged for being a woman.
So kudos to you, Joan, for highlighting what should be obvious -- but sadly is not. Our society is still shamefully sexist and our political culture and media culture not only moreso -- but dishonestly so as well.
I don't have a TV so I get whatever video news there is off the web. After reading your initial post on the debate last night, I scoured the internet looking for the clip of Senator Clinton answering Campbell's question. I didn't find it until today (on the NY Times site, where they have an excellent new feature: the full video linked to the full transcript -- click on the transcript and that spot in the video cues up. Add search and it's a killer feature!)
I digress; I didn't find the clip until today and in the process I was amazed that of the two dozen or so news stories and commentaries I read about the debate, yours was the only one that highlighted the "Campbell..." moment. And when I finally saw it on video, at first it seemed that you might've overplayed the effectiveness of it. It was a small moment, ripe with subtext yes, but it came and went quite quickly.
But then I realized what is so true of almost all political coverage these days. We're given the packaged "bites" of what the MSM believe will keep the story alive -- and titillate our desire for conflict and emotional release. But, without the commentary, just watching the stuff, each of us is seeing it through the lens of our own experience, opinions, world views etc. I wondered how many thousands of women (and feminist guys like me) saw that moment and connected with Clinton. How many of us are saying to ourselves, "Of COURSE gender is an issue here. Why else would it take so long to even get to having a credible women as a leading candidate?"
These past few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been accused of wanting it both ways; wanting to prove that she's as strong and tough as any male commander in chief, but wanting to be the female victim when the criticism gets too tough.
I say baloney. It's not Hillary who wants it both ways; it's the rest of us.