Race and gender
I have in my possession a car bumper sticker that I cannot quote here in full. It uses a particular word to refer to Hillary Clinton, and goes on to describe her as "shaped like a pear". The first amendment is a wonderful thing but is this going too far?
a respected columnist, in the British newpaper the Daily Mail:
"Reporting from America on the shaky Clinton campaign, 麻豆官网首页入口 correspondent Justin Webb joked that some men think Hillary's problem is 'she reminds them of their first wife'.
"Do you think Justin would have reported that voters thought Barack Obama's problem is 'he reminds them of their pool boy'?
"No, I don't think so either. Taking a pop at a 60-year-old woman for her age and stature is considered fair game. But you won't get any schoolboy sniggering at the black male candidate. No, Siree. That would get you fired, wouldn't it?"
My defence in this case is that I was quoting from on the Clinton marriage to make the point that these slurs (or truths) are out there. But, being honest, I would not have used it if I did not think it had a certain power and veracity - and, of course, I would never have used such a slur (or truth) associated with Obama's race.
But hold on: maybe I would. More important, maybe many media outlets already have - what about the suggestion that he is which at one early stage in the campaign we heard repeatedly and which he and his people have been forced to address?
It is tricky, this female thing, as tricky as race. I think I agree with the New York Daily News columnist, that - and a hugely difficult one to counter...
UPDATE:
Two contributions worth adding to this discussion. First - and secondly my friend Punditmom in DC, who is hardly a classic downtrodden Hillary Clinton voter but in what we might call the classic New Hampshire model...
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
It all comes down to 鈥減olitical correctness鈥.
It basically prevents a person from expressing themselves, all because a person may not like being called names, boo hoo. When I was at school, this was called character building, accept it, move on, ignore it鈥tc. But today, oh can鈥檛 call them fat, or old, even though they are, because it may upset them. It is of course 鈥榮old鈥 as prevention of bias in one form or another. In reality it gives the minor voice, the majority voice and almost always disproportionately so. Taking this away will of course reduce the minority opinion back to being minor. Hence the dilemma鈥..dammed if you, dammed if you don鈥檛.
This keeps a strange hold on the real issues that need to be debated. As the 鈥渘ame calling鈥 becomes the focus, rather than the ideas and issues being debated or suggested.
If someone鈥檚 shape is similar to that of a pear鈥his is a factual statement, so what?
Alison Pearson implies that there's something sexist about Justin's remark that Hillary Clinton 'reminds men of their first husband'. Actually, it's an equal-opportunity insult, one which was originally used by a woman journalist during the 1988 Presidential campaign to describe George Bush Senior: "he reminds women of their first husband". Garry Trudeau picked up the line and used it against Bush in Doonesbury.
Sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose.
"Reporting from America on the shaky Clinton campaign, 麻豆官网首页入口 correspondent Justin Webb joked that some men think Hillary's problem is 'she reminds them of their first wife'.
"Do you think Justin would have reported that voters thought Barack Obama's problem is 'he reminds them of their pool boy'?
If you spend about half a second thinking about this - you will know that the remarks aren't equivalent in their perniciousness. Webb's remark is a mild rebuff about Hillary's dowdy appearance while the pool boy remark is genuinely problematic.
Anyways, the only person who has brought race into the campaign has been Hillary. Obama has run a remarkably race neutral campaign that focuses on his cerebral, thoughtful, personality and policy style. Hillary made a very pernicious remark about MLK, and then went on to run down her opponent by shooting from the shoulder of a black elite buyout.
Politicians like Hillary play this game very well - make something deeply disturbing up to hide their own missteps - and I think American voters are smart enough to look through that.
Let me also make a comment and say that while white women (and even black women) to a large degree have in the fold of mainstream and are seen as important and regular players in modern companies and society - like they should be - the fact has still eluded black males. To equate problems with gender and race in US is actually something only a delusional reporter can do. And of course there are plenty of them.
Yeah, tricky, "this female thing" - learning to deal with a representative of just over half the world's population. Hang in there, I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
It does not matter about what slurs are made really, we all know that Obama will not win the election due to his race, therefore the female thing is not as trickyas the race thing...sorry to disapoint.
Indeed. The 'female thing' is just terrible isn't it? Bad enough a woman is trying to do something as crazy as become Commander-in-Chief of the United States; what'll happen when once a month she just can't stop herself pressing that big red button?!
References to the Senator as 'nagging', 'shrill', a 'witch', and a 'first wife' (yes, this comes with baggage Mr Webb and you know it) are sexist. There is absolutely no way to get around that. You would never direct that kind of dismissive attitute toward Senator Obama (and you shouldn't).
Look at that and tell me it's not sexist. Please.
As we are all scientists these days we must carefully analyse the two statements, proposed to be equivalent. The comparison I find made by Ms Pearson is not equivalent or valid, in fact it's a lot worse: her comment is racist(are pool attendants of any particular colour?), sexist (no mention of pool girls) plus it implies a different rank between people of different colours (the pool owner and the one who is demeaned by cleaning the pool). The comment about 'reminding them of their first wife' implies no similar demeaning duty pertaining to the wife, and does not attach itself to any particular 'race' of 'husband or wife. Plus, the number of men with a wife far outstrips the number of those with pools (and who then can afford a 'pool boy'). Thus, there is basically no equivalence and merely paints Ms Pearson in an unfavourable light with regard to her racial attitudes. Ok, that's the science of it.
P.S. Stick to your guns, Justin! There's a long battle ahead in this election and many minefields to cross!
to above N/A please remember one thing before your assumption.... never say never
If democrats are not careful, they could go into the general election completely divided over this race issue. I hope that they can quickly unite behind a candidate to face the republican war machinery, otherwise we should be prepared for another republican President.
I wouldn't call what you said sexist but I think there is definitely a huge difference to the way people are treating the two candidates. First off, being a woman is not a minority. Like Bluestocking said, we are over half the population and it is about time we started acting like it. Being a racist is a grave moral and social crime yet sexism is hardly given a notice. Hillary is an amazing, intellectual, driven, and EXPERIENCED woman...oh but wait, she's a woman. If we had the chance to have such a great male candidate would we even be second guessing it?
Mr. Webb, this is not Britain. If you are faint of heart, perhaps the next flight out to write about the "gentle people" of the warm friendly Caribbean islands for the next year would be a prudent alternative choice for you. If not, get your heavy duty shock absorbers checked, strap on and secure your seat belt and shoulder harness, get your crash helmet on, put your sun visor down, and prepare for a very bumpy ride. The roller coaster of an American presidential political campaign has hardly begun. There will be meteors flying in all directions including at the media, mudballs, dirt dug up from the past both real and invented so disgusting it may be hard to stomach. At times it will be gut wrenching. My advice is not to get caught up in it yourself but remain a observer and bystander. Last time late in the process, Dan Rather, CBS Television's News' "anchor man" had his career and reputation destroyed late in the game by a bogus letter which was supposedly found by an informer and very damaging to President Bush's reputation. Rather reported it as factual news. It was demonstrated to be a fraud by bloggers on the internet within fifteen minutes of his broadcast because the typing fonts in the letter did not exist yet at the time the letter was supposedly written. Rather and his organization are now as in much disrepute as the NY Times is for the Jason Blair fiasco. Don't think 麻豆官网首页入口 would be immune either, especially as an alien presence in the US. Anyway, enjoy the show and maybe take some Dramamine. Katty Kay seemed to relish the last one and that will likely be timid by comparison. When the stakes are this high, anything goes. BTW, don't expect any laws such as those about slander or libel to protect anyone in the campaign from anything said or written, they won't.
The fact of the matter is, ignorant men are afraid of strong women. This bumper sticker highlights it as do the many sexist and crude blog postings all over the web.
Hillary is strong, would be strong and will be strong as President. Forget race, forget gender, forget "personality"...we are looking for a leader to guide and lead us through our ills.
After seven horrendous years of ineffective, corrupt, directionless and poor leadership, Hillary is exactly what this MAN thinks we need. She can make herself even stronger by choosing Obama as her running mate (that is, if she wins the nomination, which I believe she will).
"If we had the chance to have such a great male candidate would we even be second guessing it?"
Considering she was unpopular long before she made a bid for the presidency, I would say certainly. Just as one should not automatically dismiss Hillary for being a woman, so should one not automatically accept her for being one.
I never expected such disgraceful language from a journalist, let alone a female one! That aside, the election focus should be about the integrity of the candidates - on that score Obama is winning.
So any sexism must now be balanced by racism?! Two wrongs do not make a right.
I'd like to point out the obvious and remind all that reference to Obama as a black man is using the old 'one drop rule'. Obama is mixed race, and referring to him as black is like saying if you mix red paint with white paint you still have red! i'm sure we all know that's not the case. anyhow, as a black man myself i think the person who should win the presidential race should be whoever has the nation's best interests at heart, and whoever can tackle the numerous issues facing America - be that candidate man, woman, black, white, asian, young, or old.
When one analyses Barack Obama, surely he should be a white American (after his mother) and a black African / Kenyan (after his father). Why is he always refered to as a black American. Can someone please explain?
To Spin, who suggested that Obama has led a race neutral campaign, I think if you look a little closer you'll find he's definately using his colour to win votes. Starting his speechs with 'They told us it would never happen..They told us this day would never come...' in his best MLK, preacher voice. I'm not suggesting Hillary is any better, using her crocodile tears to win over female voters. Obama and Cinton are manipulating us in the best ways they know how.
Black is neither a minority. Any statistician, or layperson endowed with an active intellect, would tell you that you cannot peg a demographic's true numerical presence based on statistical information that is nearly a decade out of date (2000 census) and was in the first place inaccurate (underreporting due to "socio-economic conditions"). But the word 'minority', and in particular being part of one, is a very effective political weapon, so even when blacks and Mexicans undeniably outnumber whites in this country, as they already do in many major cities, they will still be referred to as "minorities" so that those who invented the rules of this game can retain their socio-political clout. Whether it's 'racism', 'sexism', or whatever, it's all just petty moral blackmail -- nothing more. And if you don't get behind it and scrape your share, you're a villain, or as the good crusading "clare" has it, actually guilty of a "grave moral and social crime".
It's funny. I always thought the gravest social crime was forcing a political view on others.
Obama has run a remarkably race-free campaign. Clinton has not done the same with regards to gender. She is using it to her advantage.
The issue is not gender or colour, its the economy and who the individual voter see it affecting them. When voters feel positive they may risk experimenting. When they are wooried instinct will tell them to go for the familiar.
Ayear ago nobody would have put money on any Republican, now a Republican win like quite a possibility. If the economy gets worse an a major American Corporation such as Ford goes 'belly side up' Hillary Clinto may get the Democratic Nomination but will not be the next President. Sorry, but that is the way it is, everywhere.
Comments about whether Obama is 'black enough' are not a simple matter of shade.
Race and colour matter in America because of history. Blacks feel cohesion and shared experience because they share the history of capture and slavery; just as many white Americans share a history of slave ownership (though the majority of white Americans are more recent arrivals and can't be tarred with this brush).
Obama's lack of black is simply because he doesn't share that history. His mother shares the blood of slave-owners, his father is an indigenous African who was never enslaved (at least not in America.
There's no fault or blame, but he seems different to most black Americans because he is.
A male with Hillary's "record of experience" would likely be given the same experience-based scoffing that Senator Obama receives. Contrast the two in their decision making abilities and their actions.
Sen. Clinton traveled the country drumming up support for the then-popular Iraq War while Sen. Obama spoke against it quite vehemently. His warnings that Iraq would be a war of undetermined length, cost and consequence turned out to be true.
Clinton voted for the war without even reading the intelligence estimates. Does America want their next President to be just as dim as their current one?
All of these folks who get so bent out of shape when a man says anything negative about Clinton need to remember that many women are making the exact same comments. I don't hear anyone complaining that people are mocking John McCain's age, Dennis Kucinich's size, or any other "trivial" attributes of other candidates. This isn't because they are men, but because the observations are more or less true.
I see it as the double standard that feminists selectively choose to ignore or accept, whichever way suits them best. Men in general are fair game, but as soon as anyone raises a word of mockery about Clinton, they must be sexist. All that does is cause men (and women, too) to have a negative view of feminism. Either choose to be equal, or to receive special babying; you can't have both and be taken seriously.
It is unfortunate that United States citizens cannot see past their own borders. Maybe the newly constructed fences to the south are obstructing our view. While women ARE as capable - if not more capable- of making rational decisions and running the US government, for me the Obama Vs. Clinton argument is all about foreign relations. Pick Clinton, and the US is not only demanding change from and invading Muslim countries, but doing so at the order of someone these cultures see as inferior (a woman). Pick Obama, and the US has already gained some international credibility because he is, FOR ONCE, not a white, middle-aged christian. While this won't get the US far in repairing the damage from Bush's awful campaign, any thing will help at this point.
Race and gender are just two of the divisions encouraged by collectivist politics. Any who doubt this should read carefully the histories of the fully collectivist regimes over the last century.
Western nations today are "semi-collectivist" in that any human activity, statement or idea is considered fair game to be made into a political issue. Why the surprise that racism and sexism would enter the Democrats' contest for their party's nomination. (Because they're "not supposed to be?")
Politics itself is simply a milder form of warfare, with the same objective, gaining and holding power. That is the objective of the Clintons and of every other contestant for president, although some may have hypnotized themselves with some nonsense about "public service."
Take these two major factors into consideration -- the inclinations of collectivist and semi-collectivist culture and the accompanying nature of politics -- and there should be no surprise at all. That there is surprise shows the extent to which we, the voters, have allowed ourselves to be hypnotized.
Justin, that was also a phrase that Hillary apparently used herself prior to her first Senate run. She does have a sense of humour!
And what a dreadful comment about Barack Obama from the Daily Mail. I'm no fan, but that was beyond the pale.
I'm a black female and an American. I lean towards Libertarianism, yet I'm open. I still don't know who I'm voting for. This "gang" like mentally of women against the men, is just stupid. To be stereotypically, it's like women want men to behave like women, and men just want women to shut up. It's not sexist to make a statement that is related to women (and unfortunately, I can totally see Hillary "nagging" at Bill). I will say, I wasn't a supporter of either a year ago, and especially Obama, but the more Hillary talks, the more I'm leaning towards Obama.
I've been trying to figure out "the female thing" for decades and I haven't gotten anywhere.
So what power and veracity do 鈥渢hese slurs (or truths)鈥 have, Mr. Webb?
Does Hillary actually remind men of their first wife? Would those first wives be 鈥渕istakes鈥 or 鈥渂itches鈥 or beloved wives who died tragically in car crashes? What data does Sally Bedell Smith provide to support that claim? What data do YOU have to merit the use of and repetition of her claim? As you don鈥檛 seem to know whether it is a truth or a slur I assume you haven't bothered to determine the facts--a rather important part of a journalist's qualifications and reputation I would think.
Smith鈥檚 book actually contains 9 claims about Hillary (and 1 about Bill Clinton) all of which had been debunked before her book was written but which she nonetheless chose to repeat as fact, all of which serve as unfounded but useful slurs on her character. That makes her a dubious sopurce to blithely quote and then to lean on for your defense.
Clearly you have no interest in 鈥渂eing honest鈥濃攜ou鈥檇 prefer to regurgitate unverified gossip from partisan sources and present them as being true and relevant, then demur when challenged and avoid any responsibility for perpetuating falsehoods by failing to check the facts yourself. What鈥檚 more you then choose to pile-on by writing that her 鈥渢earing-up was a low blow鈥 when the journalist you link to DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT and what鈥檚 more provides nothing but unfounded opinion of his own to serve as 鈥榮ubstantiation鈥 for your own unthinking prejudiced opinions.
It doesno bother bother me so much that you appear to be a chauvinist, but that you do so in the guise of a political 鈥渞eporter鈥 and an 鈥渁nalyst鈥 when what you write is devoid of facts (post a video of Hillary actually crying as you and others insist she did) relevance, honesty, rationality, insight, subject matter expertise or evidently any professional integrity.
Given the huge importance of the 2008 Presidential elections not just to US citizens but the rest of the world, I would expect at least for 麻豆官网首页入口 journalists to treat the election process with maturity and responsibility as they do when reporting on other significant elections around the world. In your case though it appears no such professionalism is needed or need be applied. If you seriously expect your work to be taken seriously, you should take it seriously yourself鈥攊nstead you apparently prefer to indulge in juvenile gossip rather than honest factually based reporting. We get more than enough of that from most of our self-serving self-referencing US-based media.
Stay warm on the campaign trail and thanks for the link! ;)
Sign a petition asking Obama and Clinton to keep race out of the election for good.
Well said Simon Waugh!
WHY WHY OH WHY does the 麻豆官网首页入口 feel it needs to follow the American model of 'mainstream message = media coverage'. You will of course realize I am referring to Ron Paul. Every time i turn up the TV or radio to listen in on what's going on state-side I am left mildly furious that Ron gets little or no mention, even when there seems to be sufficient package time to include the likes of Giuliani. As usual even our beloved 麻豆官网首页入口 seems to be using the 'Hello' style of journalism 'if you've heard of them before they MUST be news worthy'. Wake up Aunty and re-address the coverage white-wash.