Every President in History Has Played the Male Gender Card

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 20:57


When I was young, around 12 or so, I called a car dealership, and, having a high voice at the time, I sounded to the salesman like a woman. I'll never forget just how condescending he became after I said 'hello'.  It was 'dear this' and 'dear that', and I think he even spoke slower so I could understand his fancy car talk.  It was curious at the time, but I definitely put the pieces together when my Mom told me about sexual harassment stories in the corporate banking world in Florida.  It was also around the time of the Anita Hill hearings, so I was somewhat aware of the larger political currents.  I have used the words 'bitch' angrily a few times in my life during adolescence, and it sounded like an abuse of power, almost like a hate crime in itself.  I don't know why, but that's just how it felt, and I was always deeply ashamed of myself.  Being a straight liberal guy, and being subjected to masculine imagery of bloodthirsty soldiers, violent football cops and robbers shows and rapacious and immensely wealthy tycoons as aspirational idols is deeply confusing.  It sort of makes you think that your value system is somehow wrong, that you can't attract a girl and be successful unless you adopt one of these weird power positions, that sensitivity or intelligence or creativity isn't strength.  In my completely anecdotal mental survey of girls I've dated, it seems true for conservative girls and false for liberal ones (thank you, George Bush, for the resurgence of liberalism).

It's why 'four eyes' in an insult in school and why geek culture and science fiction fans are treated like freaks.  I'm obviously generalizing here, but I get why a lot of guys, even liberal guys, would miss the simple frequently overlooked misogyny in our culture.  I happen to obsess over it a bit because I'm fascinated with identity politics, but I get why people don't see it.

Still, if you're a male political strategist, wake up.  This is a woman's election.  People are tired of bullying, war, and marshal glory, and they want a different kind of power, one that isn't full of irresponsible certitude, sleazy salesmanship, and macho fakery that is the hallmark of the current boys club in DC.

And that's why I'm with Garance and Digby on this Hillary Clinton gender card travesty.  This country has been dominated by asshole white men for a long time, and if you don't think that Clinton's meek discussion of her gender at an all-female university she attended is a reasonable point of discussion you are not going to like the 2008 elections.  Here's Digby.

Every presidential candidate, and most other politicians, since 1980, have been bowing and scraping before this constituency. But for some reason, the hunting trips and codpieces and brush clearing and all that metaphorical crotch measuring isn't considered playing "the gender card." It's just considered the normal political pander to an aggrieved minority vote: the poor white males who've been treated terribly by all those powerful women and minorities and gays. What could be wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but this is truly sexist crap. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out there one upping each other on who will be the most macho sadists among the crowd of warring GOP thugs. Hillary goes to her alma mater and says that her education at the women's college prepared her to do battle with the political boys club and the gasbags' eyes roll back in their heads and they start drooling and whining that she's she's broken the rules.

Well boo fucking hoo. The rules are changing. Get used to it.

Half of this country is female and they've noticed, in case these manly men haven't, that presidential politics is a very exclusive a boys club and we don't find it all that odd to mention it. Certainly, if it's ok for politicians to literally walk around with a codpiece to show their masculine bona fides, I don't think it's out of line for a female candidate to speak to a younger generation of women at her college and take a little bit of pride in the institution and her own accomplishments --- since she does happen to be the first serious female contender for president in the whole history of the country. Excuse me for thinking she has the damned right to do it.

I saw Darcy Burner and Donna Edwards get defeated last cycle because of subtle quasi-sexist slurs.  And I'm seeing chuckles on the trail over things like this.

One older man at an event here, the last stop on Hillary Clinton's "Middle Class Express" bus tour, had a bit of beauty advice for the Democratic senator.

Ernest Kellenberger, 84, brought a printout from the Internet with several pictures of ... Paris Hilton.

He said Clinton should copy Hilton's hairstyle, pointing out a picture of the heiress with an upsweep.

He said Clinton having her hair "all hanging down like she just got out of bed" isn't going to work, especially in foreign countries

Playing the gender card?  Yeah, it's been done, for every single President in history.  I'm going to enjoy watching the male spasms of cowardice unleashed if Clinton wins, as she's sworn in and represents the more than half the population that is interrupted on a regular basis by men.  It's probably the only part of the Clinton Presidency that I'll like, but it's not a small deal.

I don't know what kind of post-debate polling is out, but I imagine that the gender gap is just going to get wider after this first episode of woman-bashing, if the polls move at all (which I don't think they will).  It's telling that Obama and Edwards and their boys club campaigns would be tone deaf to this and consistently think that the mediasphere, dominated by pundits, is where the primary voters are.  Sorry, guys, they aren't paying attention to MSNBC, they are too busy being harassed on the street and condescended to at non-clothing retail outlets.  Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus, and pundits are assholes.

Matt Stoller :: Every President in History Has Played the Male Gender Card

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

"macho fakery" (4.00 / 1)
People are tired of bullying, war, and marshal glory, and they want a different kind of power, one that isn't full of irresponsible certitude, sleazy salesmanship, and macho fakery that is the hallmark of the current boys club in DC.

So if people don't want bullying, war, and macho fakery, why is Hillary supporting things like Kyl-Lieberman and blasting Obama when he says he's willing to meet with leaders from countries we don't like without conditions?

John McCain <3 lobbyists


because (4.00 / 2)
Because she's a conservative.  I don't support Clinton, but I don't deny misogyny.

[ Parent ]
yep (0.00 / 0)
I agree on both points.  Although I do wonder if Hillary is trying to out-macho the rest of the field on foreign policy specifically because she knows she's at a disadvantage there.

John McCain <3 lobbyists

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure that Clinton is at a disadvantage... (0.00 / 0)
It may be regrettable, but I don't think that Clinton is at a disadvantage with respect to foreign policy.

Biden and Edwards voted for the same Iraq resolution as she.
Obama went to Connecticut in 2006 to campaign for Lieberman against Lamont.

Well - that takes care of the "frontrunners".


[ Parent ]
disadvantage (0.00 / 0)
By "disadvantage" I mean the fact that she is female and that a lot of people associate that with being "weak," so she may feel the need to "make up for" that by being extra-hawkish.

John McCain <3 lobbyists

[ Parent ]
Except you seem to confuse her class as a woman with arguments against her (4.00 / 3)
The fact she is a woman does not per se make arguments against her sexist. Your argument, and Digby's for that matter, absolutely depends on such broad generalization. I don't care if you support her or not if you are unable to discern when she is using your natural leanings to manipulate you.  No more than I care whom a poster supported when for a long time certain posters  on several A list blogs were claiming all arguments against her are right wing frames.  Have a problem with the way she raises money- well then- right wing frame. Have a problem with her double speak- well then- gender bias. It throws feminism by the way on its head. That because she is being treated as every front runner including Dean I remind you of  the scream- you seem to think that equates to unfair treatment through leaping to gender. If you want to make the argument about Democrats- fine. Make that one. That's at least not a logical leap. The problem with both your argument and Digby's is the underlying assumptions that she is manipulating (that criticism of her is gender based). The only thing  I can't tell is whether you are willingly being manipulated or not.

[ Parent ]
You're missing Digby's point (0.00 / 0)
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  I certainly do.  But Digby's right that the pundits are being ridiculously sexist; they aren't going after her for her position on Kyl-Lieberman, they are going after her for talking about her experience at a women's college, for discussing her experience as a woman, etc.

Chris Matthews in particular is so grotesquely sexist that it's just weird.


[ Parent ]
Look I am tired of this (0.00 / 0)
No I don't miss his point. My point is that his statement like yours is based on a set of assumptions which you haven't proven. Part of that assumption is what started what even if your own statement.

[ Parent ]
Righton! (0.00 / 0)
Does anybody ever remember a time when Matthews or Carlson didn't play the gender card?

Yeah (4.00 / 2)
that Matthews clip from the post below this one is just perfect.

[ Parent ]
I haven't been following this all that closely, (0.00 / 0)
but clearly the media's been acting like cretins: Digby's post is proof of that.

But I'm not sure what Obama and Edwards did. Link, anyone?


No he doesn't have one (4.00 / 1)
basically because they asked the questions of a front runner that is per se attacking her as a woman. in other words, treating her as a candidate of strength- just like you would any other candidate- is per se sexist. It turns feminsim as I say above on its head. The question is- what could they have done differently with a front runner? Would Stoller and Digby react differently if it was a male not a female ? The double standard that one has to unpack here is that of unfortunately of progressives who believe in per se rules about gender.

[ Parent ]
btw (0.00 / 0)
Stoller didn't say that Obama or Edwards did anything so much as fail to react to a situation.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Well now (0.00 / 0)
to  to sum it up: "two wrongs make a right. " That's gratifying to know.

Oh, and, I love, love love (0.00 / 0)
the self referential way in which you A list bloggers talk about this stuff. Is Digby never wrong- for that matter- what about you? The Clinton campaign, I will give them this, knows how to play A list blogger progressives like a violin. Use the right button, and you react on cue. At this point, there is not much different between you and the MSM except slightly varying dogma.

Pundits are from YourAnus. n/t (0.00 / 0)


Jeff Wegerson

One final point (4.00 / 2)
By the way, I am African American- let me cut and paste Obama's thoughts:

"I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else. And I think that that's why she's running for President.

"When we had a debate back in Iowa awhile back, we spent I think the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say: 'Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage'. I assumed it was because there were real policy differences there [...]

"I don't think that people doubt that Senator Clinton is tough. She's used to playing in national politics. And in fact that is one of the things that she has suggested is why she should be elected -- because she's been playing in this rough-and-tumble stage.

"So it doesn't make sense for her, after having run that way for eight months, the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: 'Don't pick on me. That is not obviously how we would expect her to operate if she were President."

I could just as easily throw this on you about race in this this campaign season.


Matt and women (4.00 / 3)
Matt, I don't know if you are married or not and if you are or have a significant other, what are their thoughts on this matter,

My wife is a strong feminist and she was appaled by Clinton's campaign of playing poor little me, those boys are ganging up on me.

She was leaning to Clinton and now is un-decided. She feels that Clinton's reaction to this debate is setting feminisim back 20 years.

By the way Clinton now came out and said that they went after her because she is winning and not because she is female. She and her campaign have now done a complete about face on this issue. I guess their polling has shown that their initial reaction to Hillary's poor performance is backfiring otherwise they would not have made the about face.

Remember, this campaign makes no move without polling or using focus groups.


[ Parent ]
How did they "hit" Obama in Iowa? (0.00 / 0)
In Iowa - were they "hitting" Obama on his inconsistencies with respect to foreign policy - or were they asking him his opinions? If he wants to claim that his experience in Iowa "awhile back" was analogous to what Clinton faced on Tuesday - let him prove it. Let him provide transcripts of the 15 minutes to which he is referring.

Did anyone ever ask him how he could justify campaigning for Lieberman after proclaiming himself to be the "against the war from the beginning" candidate?

Obama is also misrepresenting Clinton in the quote you provide.
Clinton never said anything like "Don't pick on me".
Anyone watching the debate last Tuesday could clearly see that Clinton is not one to "back off" as Obama claims.


[ Parent ]
I have no idea, I support Edwards (0.00 / 0)
the point of posting this was the cut through the bs. but apparently several of you have several layers of it to cut through. This isn't about gender, race or anything else- it's about the fact Clinton is a front runner. If obama using race, when he is questioned, he is wrong too. Period. They are being asked to  lead this country. They must answer tough questions. period. All of this stuff you want to turn into a discourse on race and gender is nice, and has its place, but when it comes to the questions- nope, no way. Not playing that. They need to answer the hard questions. I don't care if this is "politics." For me, it comes down to the bottom line as a progressive. Basically, if I find myself asking- what has this got to do with gender, then my radar is up. The same with race. The same with sexual orientation, religion or any other class for that matter. My response always will be- answer the damn question. If they had asked her, what do you think of this as a woman? That's out of bounds. But asking her what she thinks of immigration or Iraq or campaign finance (yes some of her supporter/surrogates have said questions about the later two are also 'sexist') then I got serious problems with the misdirection.

[ Parent ]
Why Don't you? (0.00 / 0)
Matt is obviously a racist.  You can't read one of his posts without seeing his hatred for Obama (who I'm sure he refers to by another word in his head) drip off the screen. 

Race has been played in EVERY ELECTION EVER!  There's a reason we've had 42 white presidents and, with the way Matt carries water for Clinton, about to have 43.  Because people like Stoller are so frightened of losing their power over society.  Oooh, a white woman becomes President because she happened to be married to the President?  Not a problem for people like Matt.  A strong black man works his way up to become the most powerful man in the world?  Now Matt, and those like him, are in trouble.  Because suddenly their little country club might have to open its doors to you know whos. 

Now, I'm sure Matt will scream his pretty little head off that him and Hilary aren't racists, despite the HEAPS of coded racist language they use.  Look at Matt himself, who has attacked Obama for being too bipartisan, and for his religion and for being a phony who only says things to sell books (aka, making money) and how we need to look beyond the media image to see what he really is.  What?!  Is a so-called "progressive" really using this type of coded racist crap?  My favorite is the line about Obama paying fealty to the Religious Right and calling it "evangelical tribalism."  Stoller managed to hit a hat trick of racism there.

In all seriousness, I don't think I can take this anymore.  I still like Bowers, but having to deal with all this racist bullshit from Grand Wizard Stoller, who desperately clings to Hilary as The Great White Hope, just to read it - well that offends anyone who honestly cares about people of all races.  I just pray that Obama wins to see the HRCs and Stollers throw their little hissy fits about having to live in a country run by a black man.


[ Parent ]
Because I don't believe Matt's a racist (0.00 / 0)
I do think he's being political like too many other A list bloggers as well as easily manipulated by identity politics without untangling what's actuallly happening. My concern over  his post is its simple minded assertions. Somehow he thinks talking about Digby makes the simple one to one nature of his analysis correct.

Also, I think its absolutely crazy to assert just because one candidate disagrees with another that's racism. Develop a thick skin. This is politics. More importantly- this is the Presidency. It's supposed to be tough and dirty. If you can't handle it now, you aren't going to handle it then.


[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
I was more or less posting that to mock the way that a lot of people are reacting about HRC.  It is just as ridiculous to say that attacking her is a sign of sexism as attacking Obama is a sign of racism, or attacking Romney is a sign of being anti-Mormon.  And I think feeding into this idea does nothing but set us all back and pretty much precludes having an open discussion about the real issues of sexism and racism in this country.

[ Parent ]
it's pretty effective (0.00 / 0)
manipulation of progressive biases and belief systems. i hve a hard time believing A list bloggers don't realize this which only reinforces the conclusion that i am forming that they simply want to be part of whatever gravy train happens to be the winner so they will accept even this obvious manipulation.

[ Parent ]
Great post (0.00 / 0)
Bravo Matt.

There are two subjects here (0.00 / 0)
1) Hillary use of the "gender card" which she clearly did, and it was right on for Obama to call her on it

2) jerks like Chris Matthews, who are obviously sexist pigs, using this incident to jump on her, and go wild with their sexist shit.

 


Identity politics...not pretty is it. (4.00 / 2)
How about this. Everybody on this thread stop for a second and realize that what truly matters not your gender or your race but rather your positions on the issues.

All the rest is Rovian distraction.

I don't care that Obama is black.

I don't care that Hillary is a woman.

I care about their vision, if they have one, for the nation. I care about their competence. I care about the structure of their campaign. I care about how smart and well-informed they are.

I care about who they are indebted to.

All the rest is our legacy of 40 years of Republican race and gender baiting and....

Just. Does. Not. Matter.

Past time to put identity politics in the trash can where it belongs and get down to the bone.

This nation must change or die and we need a President who understands that.

Not, more of the same....
 

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Well said, Matt (0.00 / 0)
The pile on at Drexel made me this woman more likely to vote for her.....even tho' her vote for K/L makes me sick.



God forbid (0.00 / 0)
rival candidates actually criticize each other at a debate, actually call each other on the fact that their answers are incoherent.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
what a bizzaro comment (0.00 / 0)
you are more likely vote for her because you feel she's being attacked by treated like every other candidate who has been a front runner in the past? Please, go back and show me when candidates have not been pushed around like this. The one time that they weren't that I can think of in recent memory is where we got Bush, a person who should have been tasted as to character. Replacing the GOP version of this with a Democratic version- "leader can't be question" all for group or tribal politics is perhaps okay with some of you but for me, I am sick of my various identities being manipulated for a small few to gain power rather than to improve the circumstances of the entire group.

[ Parent ]
Her hiding behind the poor women attack (0.00 / 0)
This makes me more likely to never support her if she thinks that because she is a women she should have certain priviledges in presidential politics.

[ Parent ]
hmm (4.00 / 2)
Digby on Clinton: [Clinton] does happen to be the first serious female contender for president in the whole history of the country.

I'm sure that Chisolm and Moseley Braun and Dole (among many others) all saw themselves as serious contenders for the Presidency -- the only difference is that they were never taken seriously. Why? Could it be their lacks of connections and money, both of which Clinton has in spades? Has so much changed since Carol Moseley Braun ran in 2003-2004 that it's now acceptable for a woman to run, but it wasn't then?

It's not what you know, but whom.

BTW: marshal glory -- Matt, did you mean "martial"? "Marshal" gives it a whole 'nother connotation...

"If the word populist means that I stand with ordinary Americans against powerful interests, the answer's yes, I am a populist." - JRE


not the same (0.00 / 0)
Chisolm and Moseley Braun ran purely symbolic campaigns, on shoestring budgets, and never came within shouting distance of fourth place.  Clinton is the first with a real shot.  Certainly, connections and money are a significant factor, but she has the money because people contributed it; she is not independently wealthy (the Clintons were practically bankrupt in January 2001, though Bill's made millions from speeches since then).

Of course, the reason she can raise so much money is that the powerful and successful are comfortable with her.  For those of us who want real change, that isn't comforting.  I think we can do better.


[ Parent ]
BS (0.00 / 0)
sorry but it is. Mosley wasn't running a symbolic campaign, and if she was someone probably needs to tell her that.

[ Parent ]
and by the way least we let you pretend further (0.00 / 0)
i suppose that argument could be made for every other non white or male candidate who has ever run. they were all symbolic from jesse jackson to al sharpton, if the measurement is who had the real chance to win. but then that could be said of all the second tier candidates now running- i suppose all the white males running of biden and the latino running are also symbolic. what makes your argument so said is that you are all claiming to be progressives and yet there is no history to what you posted at all.

[ Parent ]
regardless (0.00 / 0)
they never became serious contenders. it was for a lot of different reasons, but they never became particularly viable.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
That arguement is paper thin (0.00 / 0)
It also ignores that Obama is African American. Let's be clear. If we are going to start trading which is more likely to be affected in American society- look at the impact of how affirmative action played out for an example. yet, I don't see Obama walking around claiming race as to why people criticize him. At base, the core problem you face is that you can not prove clinton is being treated any differently than any other front runner or any other candidate. This plays into your desire to address gender I suppose, and were this really a gender issue, I might be with you- but instead it was a manipulation by a candidate much along the lines of a Sharp James approach- namely to get the expected parties riled up and blind to what actually has occured. Sadly it worked all to well on its intended target.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox