New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | August 3, 2004

Centuries of patriarchy, decades of anti-feminist backlash and widespread fear of strong women fail to keep Cathy Young from voicing her opinion of the woman who would be First Lady.

Comments

|8.3.04 @ 1:04AM|#

joe-

I realize that most anti-Hillary people don't have the same objection that I have, but I dislike her for one simple reason: Political power should not be based on your last name.

And yes, I am opposed to all of the following people holding office: George W. Bush, Harold Ford Jr., Teddy Kennedy, Jeb Bush, my Congresswoman Lois Capps (widow of Congressman Walter Capps), Mary Bono, hell even Senator's son George H.W. Bush. If I wanted to be ruled by people who got the job based on DNA I'd move to Saudi Arabia.

|8.3.04 @ 1:04AM|#

what fyodor said!

joe,

for someone to be accused of being a "lesbian, husband-abuser, ..." they HAVE to be a woman. I have not heard the 'nymphomaniac' bit before; did anyone call her that, or are you sexing up her image?

my problem with her was her trying to pull the "co-president" shit. most of the accusations that were leveled at her can be explained (deserved or not) in terms of what she said and/or did, without having to resort to 'gender-bashing'. It is she (and now THK) who complain that they are victimized for their gender, while taking advantage of it.

|8.3.04 @ 1:08AM|#

Heinz-Kerry is subject to ridicule because she speaks with an accent that some might think of as French and because she gives the impression that regular psychotropic cocktails are barely keeping a lid on her sanity.

Rodham-Clinton is subject to hatred and slander because she has a strong mommy-dearest vibe going. She reminds me of a female version of Ross Perot.

It's pretty obvious that both of these women are "off" in a way that is immediately obvious to most people. Sure, they are strong, remarkable and accomplished women, however, their excess baggage (not their plumbing) tends to overshadow their accomplishments.

Back to your regularly scheduled psuedo-intellectual circle jerk.

fyodor|8.3.04 @ 1:09AM|#

"The demonization of Hillary Clinton is distinctly different"

But it's nonsense that it's any worse. "Different" I'll go along with, which is why I left myself the out of "not the whole story." Yes, it's true that different attributes of a public figure opens said figure up to different kinds of unfair treatment, and yes, gender is one of the attributes that political animals will seize on to demonize their opponents. Those fuckers will use anything that might work. The only issue I think is really worth discussing in this context is whether Americans are really intimidated by strong or outspoken women and whether they are really incapable of accepting women in positions of power. Ms. Young's point, and I second it, is that that is clearly not the case based on the available evidence. If you want a serious debate Joe, address that.

|8.3.04 @ 1:12AM|#

When your only claim to fame is that you fuck rich/powerful men, don't expect that people will take you seriously.

|8.3.04 @ 1:31AM|#

One thing Hillary Clinton in 1992 and Theresa Heinz Kerry today have in common is that they demand the right to be considered seriously in the public arena based on practically no actual accomplishment. Kerry is a rich widow with a big mouth. I personally find her entertaining but can think of nothing she has accomplished in this life that entitles her to be taken any more seriously that the guy on the next bar stool. Clinton in 1992 was a mommy-track junior partner at a mid-size regional law firm. As one who achieved at least this level of professional distinction in the practice of law I can testify to what a modest achievement it is. The fact is, if you stood on a corner outside my old law office in Phialdelphia at lunch hour for fifteen minutes, you would see a dozen lawyers with more claim to professional status. The world now and then is filled with women of genuine accomplishment, but these two were and are not among them.

|8.3.04 @ 1:49AM|#

What about the possibility that Ms. Rodham was being fairly demonized? I knew of Her Highness from her days serving on the Legal Services Corporation board. Ronald Reagan fired her and other commision members. They refused to quit, not having absorbed the lesson of the Andrew Johnson impeachment, that the President is the head of the Executive Department, and that, except where expressly spelled out in legislation setting a length of term for such offices, minor officials serve at his pleasure. This stirred up a minor Capitol Hill duststorm, ending in a compromise wherin the nature and composition of the board was changed. But HR-(not yet C) lost the initial legal battle. Hill was also a poobah at the Children's Defense Fund, a lobbying group with the goal of bloating federal social welfare spending. She also was touted for her role as Gov. Clinton's advisor on education policy. Everything in her past screamed "busybody statist who sidesteps the law when it suited her."

The co-president crack was just a lit match to an already laid fuse.

For Mrs. The Late Sen. Heinz, her funding of lefty whackos such as the Tides foundation are enough to make me dislike her, Eva Gabor accent or no.

Kevin

|8.3.04 @ 2:04AM|#

I'm sure if a married woman is elected president in the near future and her husband tries to play himself as part of her presidency, people will hate him as well.

Too easy. Plenty of people already hate Bill Clinton.

|8.3.04 @ 2:26AM|#

Wow, now that I see her being called "whore," and people start referring to who she "fucks," I guess I have to reassess my belief that people drag her gender into political debates as a way of demonzing her.

fyodor|8.3.04 @ 2:44AM|#

Only I (and others here) agree that people use her gender as a means of demonizing her. As they would use anything at their disposal to demonize whomever was a target on the other side. What Ms. Young and I (and others here) dispute is that her gender is the reason for her demonization. Which is what Erica Jong and Heinz Kerry clearly claim. Gonna ever address that, Joe?

|8.3.04 @ 2:53AM|#

"One thing Hillary Clinton in 1992 and Theresa Heinz Kerry today have in common is that they demand the right to be considered seriously in the public arena based on practically no actual accomplishment."

Indeed!

The only case I've ever heard of Hillary Clinton taking was the Whitewater deal, and, considering the number of people who went to jail, professionally, that's nothing to be proud of. Other than that, can anyone verify that Hillary Clinton took another case? It seems to me that if you project yourself as a professional woman, and, therefore, sympathetic to the plight of working women everywhere, you should have, at some point, pulled your own weight without being the wife of the Governor.

Cathy Young is right to suggest that Theresa Heinz Kerry is similar to Hillary Clinton in that way. THK is in no way typical of working women everywhere, and if you buy the argument that you need a smart, working woman in a place of influence to represent women's concerns, surely you don't mean THK. For goodness sake, when she replied that the Bush Administration probably didn't even know how to speak French, it played like Maria Antoinette asking why the peasents don't eat cake.

If Kerry is elected, I would expect THK to quickly eclipse Hillary Clinton as the most hated woman in America, and I expect her to be hated by plenty of Democrats too. Like Hillary Clinton, as far as anybody knows, THK hasn't worked a day in her life, and if there's anything America hates more than the idle rich, I don't know what it is. In Hollywood parlance, she's a cross between Hillary Clinton and Leona Helmsley! I can see the political cartoons now.

|8.3.04 @ 3:07AM|#

Ken, correction - TKH did work for a while as a translator for the ..... UN.
before hooking up with megabucks Heinz.

Which is propably why it isn't mentioned much.

|8.3.04 @ 3:14AM|#

"Wow, now that I see her being called "whore," and people start referring to who she "fucks," I guess I have to reassess my belief that people drag her gender into political debates as a way of demonzing her."
I use the same language to refer to men that use their wife's riches to get power.

We are not using her gender, we are using her history. Minor difference between the two.

|8.3.04 @ 6:58AM|#

There's another feminism that isn't retro :

On the impending visit of a disliked Aunt Mary : ``my mother had spend the afternoon gathering up all the dogs of the neighbourhood, in advance of Aunt Mary's appearance, and putting them in the cellar. I had been allowed to go with her on her wonderful forays, and I thought that we were going to keep all the sixteen dogs we rounded up.

``The big moment finally arrived. My mother, full of smiles and insincerity, told Aunt Mary that it would relieve her of a tedious chore - and heaven knows, she added, there were a thousand steps to take in that old house - if the old lady would be good enough to set down a plate of dog food in the kitchen at the head of the cellar stairs and call Judge and Sampson to their supper ... when the door opened and they could see the light of freedom and smell the odor of food, they gave tongue like a pack of hunting hounds. Aunt Mary got the door halfway open and the bodies of the largest dogs pushed it the rest of the way. There was a snarling, barking, yelping swirl of yellow and white, black and tan, gray and brindle as the dogs tumbled into the kitchen ...

``When the last one had departed and the upset house had been put back in order, my father said to his wife, ``Well, Mame, I hope you're satisfied.'' She was.''


There is no question here of marrying into power, taking opinions seriously or not, subservience. It is all strength and interest.

Nobody takes me seriously, particularly; or rather, the question doesn't come up naturally. There's the mistake in general.

Taking seriously is retrospective, part of an account, and the account has to have a reason to come up.

``She warned them but they didn't take her seriously,'' does not report a gender bias but an account of how it is he was warned and fell afoul of something anyway. ``I didn't take her seriously.''

What has Heinz-Kerry warned us of, that we didn't take seriously? Some account has to be needed, and some circumstance has to require the account; and that has not come up.

Taking seriously is empty, otherwise. It is part of posturing and bitching.

|8.3.04 @ 7:10AM|#

I think Hillary drove people batty because she was given a forum to promote her (appalling) policy views but when things got heated, she had the option of escaping debate and reverting back to her role as First Lady. Few if any elected politicians or appointed officials have that luxury. (FYI Margaret Thatcher's husband's name was Dennis; in my view, an example of the perfect political spouse)

|8.3.04 @ 7:11AM|#

You know, I really like these 20:1 gang-ups. It's so rare that I get to enjoy a fair fight. Let's get started, shall we?

Uh, Ken, recoveringphillylawyer? Hillary Rodham Clinton served as an attorney for the Watergate Committee. How many federal commissions of historic significance requested YOUR services? If the answer is none, mix two parts gin with one park shut the hell up, and serve chilled.

First of all, somebody quote me the part where I said that Hillary was hated because of her gender. Ms. Young, and several of the posters here, seem to believe that there's a mutually-exclusive dichotomy, that the obvious loathing is either based on opposition to women being powerful, or it is based on other things, and gender plays no role. My position, summed up as "...people drag her gender into debates as a way of demonizing her," is that opposition to her beliefs, actions, or personality often gets filtered through a sexist mindset, which can be seen in the furious, sexually-charged language with which she is denounced.

The failure of crimethink's attempted parallels is very telling. He (he?) writes, "So if I call Bill Clinton a womanizer, or wonder if Kerry's is a marriage of convenience, it's because I'm anti-man?" The charge of "womanizer" against Bill Clinton was based on fact; the guy was a serial philanderer. Compare this to the litany of charges I listed above (lesbian, husband abuser, witch, etc), none of which have any facts at all to support them. As for the Kerry charge, the rarity (I don't think I've ever actually seen it made) of that attack applied to Kerry stands out agains the ubiquity of the charge made against Hillary, despite the fact that the Heinz fortune leaves him just as open to the charge as the Bill political prowess leaves her.

RC raises a couple of significant points. First, that Hillary willingly went along with the cookies and baking and name-changing in order to advance her political interests. He uses this as a reason why we shouldn't feel sorry for her; well, I'm not trying to make you feel sorry for her. I'm trying to get you to understand the dynamics of the public perception of powerful women. And by agreeing that she did these things to improve her perception, you're agreeing with my analysis. Thank you.

Second, he raises the hatred of Bush as the equivalent of the hatred of Hillary. OK. What sexual perversions has he been accused of? Even the most virulently hated male politician gets hit with attacks that are about his politics, not his sex life.

See, now look at thoreau. He opposes Hillary like he opposes many other politicians, and attacks her in the same way - by saying she's wrong, her actions were wrong, and her beliefs and methods are wrong. Would that all Hillary-haters were able to keep their opposition on that level. But for some reason, references to sex acts and stereotyped femal roles alwalys intrude on the discussion. I wonder why that is.

|8.3.04 @ 7:17AM|#

fyodor, "her gender is the reason for her demonization" means a couple of different things. One way of reading that is that people have a philosophical opposition to women holding power, like they did in the 1800s. I don't think that's much of a dynamic any more.

Another interpretation is that people hold women to a double standard, taking offense at behaviors by a woman that they don't object to, or object to less, when done by men. Who elected Michael Powell? Who elected Henry Kissinger? Yes, using your connections to accumulate political power is unseemly, but I don't see sexually-charged attacks on these men.

|8.3.04 @ 7:28AM|#

So glad to be the model Hillary-hater.

If only everybody could learn to hate the way I hate, the world would be a better place :-)

|8.3.04 @ 7:55AM|#

OK, Joe, so how come nobody I ever heard called Maggie Thatcher any female-demeaning names. Only one was "battleaxe", which is not too bad, and I'm not really sure what it's meaning is. She was called "old", but then she was old, just like Ronnie was.

The Reason (TM) that Hillary Clinton was called "bitch", "whore", and "lawyer" was because she was all of these things, lawyer being the worst. The Reason that Margaret Thatcher was called none of those, was that she wasn't.

|8.3.04 @ 8:31AM|#

"And yes, I am opposed to all of the following people holding office: George W. Bush, Harold Ford Jr., Teddy Kennedy, Jeb Bush, my Congresswoman Lois Capps (widow of Congressman Walter Capps), Mary Bono, hell even Senator's son George H.W. Bush. If I wanted to be ruled by people who got the job based on DNA I'd move to Saudi Arabia."

Those people "got the job" because people voted for them. That wasn't the case with Hillary when she was pushing her nasty health care agenda.

|8.3.04 @ 8:54AM|#

"Who elected Michael Powell?"

Who elected Colin Powell? They both appointed to real political positions, and I'm pretty sure both required senate confirmation. Do you really think anyone would think any differently of Michael Powell if he were Michelle Powell? I doubt it. Gender has nothing to do with it. But if Michael Powell had appeared with Colin in 2000 and said "Hey, if you appoint my father Secretary of State, you get two for one!" I think most people would find that pretty outrageous.

|8.3.04 @ 11:20AM|#

Finding concrete data on Hillary Clinton's accomplishments between the time she graduated from college and the time she moved to Arkansas isn't as easy as it should be. But I did find this:

"After graduating from Wellesley College in 1969, Hillary Rodham went to Yale Law School, where she met Clinton, a fellow student. She served as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund and was also on the congressional Impeachment Inquiry staff in 1974, at the tail end of Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal. Hillary left Washington for Arkansas, marrying Bill Clinton in 1975."

http://www.who2.com/hillaryrodhamclinton.html

Law school is typically a three year program, so, assuming she went straight to Yale, that would have her graduating around 1972. Then she did some work, whatever that means, for the CDF and she was involved, somehow, with Watergate, which means something, I think. So, I guess you're right joe, her three-year career was so scary formidable before she took on the demanding responsibility of becoming the First Lady of Arkansas. What a sacrifice!

Comparing Hillary Clinton's professional credentials to someone like me isn't fair though. I've raised millions of dollars from investors and been and played an important part in the financing, acquisition, development, lease-up and sale of millions of square feet of commercial property. My investors get angry when I don't have room for them in my new deals because, rather than getting them a prison sentence, I typically fetch them a remarkable return. Hillary, even with Yale on her resume, just can't compete.

But that's beside the point. The point is that working mothers who never went to college and work as receptionists, waitresses, cashiers, sales people, insurance agents, business office managers and bus drivers really are professional working mothers, but, in spite of Hillary Clinton pretending to be one of them, she is not. Adding insult to her lie, she uses this false image to promote universal health care, etc. which, I am convinced, would actually cause working mothers harm.

|8.3.04 @ 11:23AM|#

That is to say, as a professional working mother, Hillary Clinton can't compete with receptionists, waitresses, cashiers, sales people, insurance agents and business office managers.

|8.3.04 @ 12:01PM|#

Cathy Young brings up Hillary Clinton's travails during the 1992 campaign as evidence that powerful, outspoken women don't get unfairly demonized.

Yesterday, Michael Young brought up Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War as evidence of the need for military action to fight dictatoriships.

Bad week for the Youngs.

|8.3.04 @ 12:17PM|#

How bad can a week be for a writer who is being paid?

From my perspective, Rodham Clinton has been either demonized or elevated to sainthood... it just depends on the constituency. I can make the statement about the current American president. Certainly some measure of the acrimony and the adulation towards Rodham Clinton is generated by her gender. Methinks more of it is due to her relationship with former President Clinton. If memory serves, he was something of a controversial public figure. Of course, this sidesteps the whole issue of the victim mentality....

|8.3.04 @ 12:20PM|#

"Cathy Young brings up Hillary Clinton's travails during the 1992 campaign as evidence that powerful, outspoken women don't get unfairly demonized."

Um, no she didn't. She pointed out that despite the claims of feminists that Hilary was demonized for being powerful and outspoken, it was a tiny minority that actual held that view, and it was not a general public perception.

I'd say I expect better of you, but I'd be lying.

fyodor|8.3.04 @ 12:26PM|#

No Joe, Ms. Young brings up Rodham Clinton as a parallel to Heinz Kerry, two women who claim demonization based on the inability of Americans to accept strong women in public life when the ample presence of strong women in public life clearly demonstrates that there is no such inability. Everyone in public life gets "unfairly demonized" at some point or another, it goes with the territory. Whatever the reasons for criticizing Rodham Clinton or Heinz Kerry, and whether the criticism is fair or not, the claims of gender victimization are baseless, or at the least not the whole story.

|8.3.04 @ 12:32PM|#

After re-reading Cathy's article, it is clear that Joe is mistaken.

Did Joe not grasp what Cathy was saying, or is he intentionally distorting it?

|8.3.04 @ 12:34PM|#

There is a disturbing trend these days in which people will say some ridiculous thing and turn any opposition they face into a cause for First Amendment martyrdom; for which they will be lauded by the victim culture of the American left.

What they ignore is that it's entirely possible to be "strong" and stupid at the same time.

In Kerry's case, it seems all too much like a subtle reversal of the concept of needing validation and approval from men. If we disagree with you, it's not because we acknowledge your right to an opinion and just have a different one. It's because we're "afraid" of you. You don't need our approval anymore but you'll be damned if you can live without clinging to notion that we tremble at the thought of your courageous independence.

It spares them the trouble of dealing with pesky things like debate and dialogue. After all, why bother discussing things with people who are �afraid �of you when you can just keep preaching to the choir?

|8.3.04 @ 12:43PM|#

"Everyone in public life gets "unfairly demonized" at some point or another, it goes with the territory."

Not everyone has multiple news cycles devoted to a comment about cookies. No male figure - not one, in my entire life - has had to appear on cooking shows and change his name so as to appear sufficiently domestic. Not everyone is accused of being a lesbian, a nymphomaniac, a husband-abuser, a schemer in a marriage of convenience, involved in witchcraft, a hater of marriage, or the cause of the murder of a family friend resulting from an affair (Vince Foster). The common denominator in the above list is Hillary's gender.

And do I really have to make the case that the attacks thrown at Hillary have been made with particular ferocity and regularity?

The demonization of Hillary Clinton is distinctly different from that of other public figures, because of its intensity, and becaise of the relationship between the charges and her gender.

|8.3.04 @ 12:55PM|#

Not everyone has multiple news cycles devoted to a comment about cookies. No male figure - not one, in my entire life - has had to appear on cooking shows and change his name so as to appear sufficiently domestic.

Pardon me if I don't shed any tears. She made the calculation that compromising herself in those ways would help her achieve her goals.

The demonization of Hillary Clinton is distinctly different from that of other public figures, because of its intensity, and becaise of the relationship between the charges and her gender.

Bullshit. The demonization of George W. Bush by the Bush-haters easily matches whatever was said about Hillary by the Clinton-haters. Bush is a mass murderer. Bush is a moron. Bush is the tool of evil corporate fascists. BUSHITLER LIED!!! I also think a case can also be made that much of what inspires hatred of W in many quarters are precisely his masculine attributes.

Its all a matter of whose ox is being gored.

|8.3.04 @ 12:55PM|#

And your point is what? That it's a bitch being a famous public figure? Nobody said Hillary didn't get it with both barrels, just that this isn't an indication of the prevailing reality of public attitudes, but partisan attacks from the true believers.

And of course you are completely ignoring the points about your first post.

I'd say I expect better of you, but I'd be lying.

|8.4.04 @ 1:12AM|#

"Backtracking in such a way as to make it look like forward progress is an important skill in the legal profession, and you've both acquitted yourself admirably."

Pointing out, in direct contradiction with your assertion to the contrary, that Hillary Clinton's professional record is woefully inferior to my own, and pointing out that Hillary was never a working mother, at least, not in the way most people understand the term, constitutes "backtracking"?

Thanks for the laugh.

...Oh, and FYI, I'm a developer, not a lawyer.

P.S. At least you seem to have good taste in music.

fyodor|8.4.04 @ 1:24AM|#

Joe,

You've watered down your message I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. FYI, the women (including Heinz Kerry) that Ms. Young quotes do not use the qualifiers that you do. They seem to be claiming the black & white vicitimization that you claim to be too nuanced to endorse, and that's what doesn't hold up. And while maybe (maybe) you're right that women face tougher time taking power than men because maybe the insults that are available to their opponents are more potentially scathing than those available to men's opponents, this is so labyrnthianly subjective (interesting that in another thread you describe the equally unfair treatment given Hilary's hub) that Ms. Young's point, that strong women in power are not automatically rejected, is clearly the larger one while yours, that some "double standards" still exist (life is so full of supposed double standards that I doubt they ever would or could be completely eliminated) is quite the smaller one.

And BTW, your example of Henry Kissinger would hold more water had he been married to Nixon! :-)

|8.4.04 @ 2:04AM|#

It isn't that hard to find HRC's professional history. From:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html

"After graduation, Hillary advised the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge and joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives......She joined the faculty of the University of Arkansas Law School in 1975 and the Rose Law Firm in 1976. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, and Bill Clinton became governor of Arkansas. Their daughter, Chelsea, was born in 1980.

Hillary served as Arkansas's First Lady for 12 years, balancing family, law, and public service. She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, Legal Services, and the Children's Defense Fund.....in 1993....the President asked her to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform."

Those who pooh-pooh her caseload at Rose are missing the point. She was a rainmaker. People assumed that when they hired Rose they were getting the Governor's wife's firm, and, rightly or wrongly, an in with the Gov.

What in this resume could one reasonably conclude a single Ms. Rodham, with no connection to AG or Gov. Clinton, would have accomplished? Maybe Rose would have hired a newbie Yale lawyer with Washington experience, but chances are those two ships would never have met. Hillary might have become an activist of the Marian Wright Edelman or Kate Michelman type, known to wonks but not to the general public, or a Washington insider lawyer like her fellow Watergator, Richard Ben Veniste of the 9/11 commission. The accident of her hitching her wagon to a political juggernaut like Bill Clinton shouldn't have given her any special influence than other private citizens.

Kevin

|8.4.04 @ 4:11AM|#

Not everyone has multiple news cycles devoted to a comment about cookies.

If a Colin Powell made a comment like "I could have stayed home eating fried chicken and watermelon, but I decided to pursue a career in the military instead", you can bet your ass it'd be covered for "multiple news cycles".

Clinton played on a popular stereotype of housewives as people who just screw around all day. In doing so, she insulted a sizeable portion of a demographic group -- women -- who tend to vote for Democrats. Naturally it made the news!

|8.4.04 @ 8:06AM|#

OK Joe. Her great accomplishment is serving as a law clerk to an important committee when she was fresh out of Yale? Sorry to burst your bubble but every other twenty-something walking out of the Union Station Meter stop in the morning is a lawyer to some important sounding federal commission or committee. If that is all she had to show gor herself at age 45, I rest my case.

|11.15.04 @ 8:27PM|#

Did Hillary Rodham Clinton ever work on the Barry Goldwater campaign?