Hillary Clinton and Mysogyny

[thorny_locust]

@ThelmaLou

For those of you posting in (or reading) this thread who don’t like Hillary but declare that your dislike is not based on her gender (and I believe you or at least believe you are sincere) WHY don’t you like her?

I’m not wild about her for two reasons: one, I think she listens way too much to large-business interests; and two, when she ran for Senator, she dithered back and forth about whether she was going to run until the other possible candidate quit in disgust, because the Democratic establishment, and Clinton herself, all appeared to assume the nomination was hers if she wanted it, and a primary wasn’t necessary. I don’t know who I would have voted for in the primary as I hadn’t done a thorough research job on the other candidate (who was also female, if it matters); but I did think they should have had a primary, and that Clinton herself should have said so.

Having said that: I certainly don’t hate her; I thought she was so much better than Trump that there wasn’t any comparison; I thought that as Senator she was an effective politician; and I voted for her.

And I agree that the Republicans had been campaigning against her, including though not only on misogynistic grounds, ever since Bill Clinton first ran for office. That’s a huge part of the reason why I thought she shouldn’t run for President and why I thought the Democrats shouldn’t nominate her: because I thought both she and the party had massively underestimated the effect of that 24 years of relentless demonizing, and I was afraid that she would lose.

@veryfrank

While I don’t think she and Bill ever had that, I do think that at some point in the late seventies or early eighties there was a conversation that went something like this.

I don’t know that she was happy about it; but I think she knew that Bill was a tomcat, probably before she married him, almost certainly by not too long after that; and, given everything she knew overall of the man and the marriage, she decided that she’d rather have tomcat Bill than no Bill at all.

Lots of women have made that choice; in many circles, at many times, it was considered pretty much normal. Some of them were happy with it, and just couldn’t say “open marriage” in public. Some of them weren’t happy with it, but figured all the other choices were worse. I don’t know which category Hillary Clinton was/is in. But in any case: I figured that decision was between Hillary and Bill, and wasn’t any of my business.

(I suspect she was furious at him for not managing to keep it in his pants during his presidency, though; because that derailed much of the political agenda.)

@Chronos

Personally, what I dislike most (among a number of reasons) about Clinton is that she’s built her entire political career on her marriage.

She was a politically ambitious woman who married a politically ambitious man, very likely at least in part because they shared that ambition; and in 1978, or even in 1992, it would have made no sense for the couple to have run Hillary instead of Bill. It’s easy to underestimate how much things have changed. Yes, there were women politicians in 1978; but few who were taken seriously, especially for upper levels of executive office.

She was still politically ambitious when it did become possible for a woman to have some significant chance of winning the Presidency. So she ran for it (the Senate was IMO a deliberate stepping stone, designed to ward off claims that she had no actual experience.) I can’t fault her for that. I think she’d probably have done it (though most likely with some earlier additional office holding) even if Bill hadn’t gone in for politics, or hadn’t been elected. And I think she might well have pulled off making it, at least, to Senator: because her own abilities were, and are, significant.

Are you suggesting that anyone who’s been married to a politician should never be a politician themselves?

[Red_Wiggler]

Lurleen Wallace says “hey.”

[F.U.Shakespeare]

@Chronos

Meanwhile, I couldn’t tell you anything about the spouses of Kamala Harris, Tammy Duckworth, Tammy Baldwin, or Elizabeth Warren, and the only thing I could tell you about Nancy Pelosi’s husband is that some nutjob attacked him recently. They’ve all gotten to where they have on their own merits, like any politician should, and I’d be happy to see any of them as President. And the reason I like all of them is that I think that they’re more forceful, and fiercer political fighters, than most of their male colleagues, despite those being supposedly male traits that people disapprove of in women.

Also, what is the substantive difference between a woman who succeeds in politics with a husband who’s POTUS/governor, and a woman who succeeds in politics with a husband who’s way richer than Bill Clinton was?

[Crafter_Man]

Hillary? She’s terrible. A condescending and hateful person. (And I’m not a right wing idiot. I also hate Trump.)

[BlinkingDuck]

I don’t like Corporate Democrats, I seem to have to vote for them frequently (I made a thread on this many moons ago about how I give up on the Dems and politics in general but that I will vote Dem exclusively until the day I die because the alternative are far-right autocratic extremists).

In 2016 I voted for Clinton even though they torpedoed Bernie.

All that aside. All EVERYTHING aside…

Except for the possibility of George Washington, the USA took the most qualified candidate for the President the USA has EVER had…and threw her away like garbage. Except for the fact that the was Corporatism-all-the-way, like her husband, she would have been EXCELLENT.

I know that sounds mixed up and confusing…but, my God people, she was exemplary qualified. To this day, if the USA faced a considerable threat from without - I would want Hillary Clinton to be leading.

[BlinkingDuck]

Hillary hateful? Come on. Condescending? Oh yeah, that is likely true…but hateful?

Remember, when people on the Right make an accusation, it is an admission. The very first evidence that I noticed for that among Trumpers was in the debate when he said “She has hate in her heart”. An accusation by Trumpers is actually an admission. THEY/HE have/has hate in their/his heart.

No…That woman had little hate. I’d like to think you don’t believe it as well and are just being untruthful…but I know better. You rely on what you are told. Read her writing…listen to her lectures…with an OPEN mind. There is little hate there.

Condescending? Sure. In Spades. But little hate.

[Dr_Paprika]

I personally like wonks and have positive feelings about both Clintons. I know many people who dislike Hillary to various degrees. Some of this is doubtless due to misogyny and unrelenting messaging. Not all of it.

She lacks many of the natural political gifts of her husband. She has been in politics long enough to attract a lot of flotsam. Trump said he liked her, before he ran for election and did the aggressive stage mannerisms at their debate.

I don’t agree with all the criticisms. Some see her as preachy, condescending, too polished, insincere, compromised, elitist, or dislike pantsuits, or don’t like strong and smart women, or look for any rationalization to dislike Democrats, or think she understood and cared little for business. Her husband’s laxity did not help among more religious people already disinclined to look for the positive. Bill has also been in politics long enough to attract plenty of jetsam, but he presumably handles it better or is treated less harshly for various reasons.

Much was made of the ”deplorables” comment which was a mistake, but pretty mild compared to Trump’s labelling. She served reasonably well as Secretary of State and I prefer politicians with more knowledge and values and less charisma than the reverse. I understand why some find her grating and why many preferred Obama too.

[Sylvanz]

I find it telling that she worked for a change in healthcare that would have been better than the ACA. However, she gets nothing but an eyeroll for that historical attempt because ~clutching pearls~ she was married to the President who put her in charge of designing the program.Talk about sleeping your way to the top amirite?

I will admit I don’t remember the details of the program anymore so many years ago. But they tried. It was the first attempt to do anything about the state of our broken healthcare system in many decades. I bet if the pubs hadn’t killed it, the program would have been a success. We’ll never know.

No, she was not far enough left for me. There really isn’t a Democrat who is. I’m really not a huge Hillary cheerleader. She’s a brilliant, moderate, politician. And like most Democrats too corporatist. The deep, seething, visceral hatred of her from many, and the sneering dismissal of her by many others, just defies any other explanation but misogyny. IMHO

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@BlinkingDuck

Remember, when people on the Right make an accusation, it is an admission.

For example, I’m on the right, and I don’t think the Left cracks down hard enough on illegal aliens.

[Great_Antibob]

@Crafter_Man

(And I’m not a right wing idiot. I also hate Trump.)

This is such a fucking idiotic statement it almost deserves its own thread by itself

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ulfreida

They haven’t exactly convinced me. That would require my knowing more about their other opinions, especiallyh about other women in positions of power. But some of their arguments I believe have legitimacy, such as her well-known hawkishness. That’s something you could dislike about anyone – or like. It’s a purely political opinion. Other things are clearly biased, such as disliking her ambitiousness; since when is that a negative quality in our flavor of politics? Or her speaking voice. Or that she used her position as a popular politician’s wife to advance herself – that would be a legitimate criticism if she had not clearly been uber-competent and hardworking, indeed brilliant compared with the sawdust-for-brains men who occupy many higher offices.

Since I listed some things I dislike about her, here are some things I don’t give a shit about with her:

1. Her speaking voice. It’s fine. Can’t really think of a politician whose speaking voice bugs me. Trump’s faux-folksy bullshit? McConnell’s swallowing-a-gulp voice? I probably hate those because of their politics, though.
2. Her marital relationship. None of my fucking business. Unless she’s committing sex crimes, or engaging in a relationship that compromises her ability to do her job, none of my fucking business.
3. Her ambition. You have to be pathologically ambitious to become president, and she’s no different from anyone else who’s made a real go at it.
4. Her wonkishness. That’s the best thing about her.
5. Her lack of inspiration. I’ve got that same lack a lot of the time, and I identify with it. The degree to which charisma matters in our political system speaks ill of something, but I’m not sure whether it speaks ill specifically of our political system, or of our culture in general, or of our entire species.

@BlinkingDuck

I know that sounds mixed up and confusing…but, my God people, she was exemplary qualified.

True that. I dislike both her politics and her scorn for people who approach leftist ideals differently from how she approaches them, but I can’t say a single word against her qualifications.

[AHunter3]

A note about the hawkishness thing, if I may.

For eons and eons, it was said that a woman should not be Prez, and that no one would vote for one, precisely because only a man would have the balls to understand when you have to deploy the military. When you have to land on America’s enemies with your jackboots on.

It was inevitable that a male Republican politician campaigning against a Democratic woman seeking the Presidency would at least imply that America would be less safe with a woman at the helm, if he didn’t come right out and say so loudly and blatantly. Heck, just being a Democrat running against a Republican would prompt that argument even when both candidates were male; toss in “female” as well for the Democrat and you’re getting it in spades.

Hillary Clinton went into the fray as insulated against that as she reasonably could be.

So keep that in mind when you visualize her as a rabid military interventionist.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Ulfreida

I assume everyone, particularly but not exclusively males, in this culture, is biased toward men and against women. As I said, it is the default.

Everyone has the potential for numerous biases. They have the potential for all sorts of motivated actions and reasoning. It is fine to be on the look-out for them but it is not helpful to assume they manifest in every specific situation unless it can be proved otherwise. That’s an impossibly high bar.

I agree with your evaluation criteria. The only thing about a criticism that actually matters is the truth of it and the importance of it. And those apply equally regardless of sex.

[veryfrank]

@thorny_locust

Lots of women have made that choice; in many circles, at many times, it was considered pretty much normal. Some of them were happy with it, and just couldn’t say “open marriage” in public. Some of them weren’t happy with it, but figured all the other choices were worse. I don’t know which category Hillary Clinton was/is in. But in any case: I figured that decision was between Hillary and Bill, and wasn’t any of my business.

(I suspect she was furious at him for not managing to keep it in his pants during his presidency, though; because that derailed much of the political agenda.)

I’m also of the opinion that a politician’s private life is their private life. But Bill Clinton’s utter inability to reign in his libido tied up the government and our culture for over a year, hamstringing his administration’s agenda. It’s a much more concrete than “butterfly flapping its wings” chaos theory. Though I personally think that the Elian Gonzales imbroglio did more to cost Al Gore the state of Florida than anything else, it’s conceivable that he could have still taken the electoral college if not for everybody’s exhaustion over the Clinton drama. It shouldn’t have concerned us, but it wound up having real-world consequences for the country.

[Babale]

@Saint_Cad

@Acsenray

I dislike Klobuchar because she throws staplers at her employees. I don’t think I’m holding her to a different standard than I would a man.

Maybe not but studies show that many would view that behavior as positively aggressive, fostering motivation, eyes on the price … if she were a man.

I never even heard that Klobuchar threw staples at people. I dislike her because she’s got quite regressive stances on some topics, like healthcare.

[thorny_locust]

@veryfrank

I’m also of the opinion that a politician’s private life is their private life. But Bill Clinton’s utter inability to reign in his libido tied up the government and our culture for over a year, hamstringing his administration’s agenda.

This is true.

I will say, however – though I agree that he should have by the 1990’s known better – that Clinton grew up in an era in which it wouldn’t have done that. Kennedy was screwing everybody female who would hold still long enough; half of Washington knew it; I’d be surprised if Jackie didn’t know it. But it wasn’t publicized; and it didn’t diminish or derail his political power. Somewhere between Kennedy and Clinton, that changed; though I couldn’t put my finger on an exact year.

[veryfrank]

@thorny_locust

Somewhere between Kennedy and Clinton, that changed; though I couldn’t put my finger on an exact year.

In brief so as not to derail this any more than is necessary, I’d guess Watergate. Once nefarious dealings by a Republican president were aired in public and caused him to leave office, nothing was considered off-limits even if it wasn’t specifically political. My mother, not exaclty a liberal, said during the Clinton impeachment that it was Republicans’ long-simmering revenge for Nixon’s downfall, and that tracks for me. Bork was another brick in that wall as well, then Gingrich’s scorched-earth philosophy meant that the gloves would be forever off.

[DavidNRockies]

@thorny_locust

Somewhere between Kennedy and Clinton, that changed; though I couldn’t put my finger on an exact year.

Slight detour …

“Until Bill Clinton … there had not been coverage of any infidelity on the part of a sitting president in the mainstream press,” says Alison Dagnes, a political science professor at Shippensburg University and editor of Sex Scandals in American Politics.

Before then, journalists didn’t report on presidential affairs because they didn’t consider them newsworthy. Even if a president’s affairs were well-known to his friends, staffers, and journalists, Dagnes says the public didn’t learn about them until “after the president was out of office, most of the time after the president was long dead.”

SOURCE

I was double-checking the ‘reason’ that I’d always heard. FWIW.

[thorny_locust]

@veryfrank

In brief so as not to derail this any more than is necessary, I’d guess Watergate. Once nefarious dealings by a Republican president were aired in public and caused him to leave office, nothing was considered off-limits even if it wasn’t specifically political. My mother, not exaclty a liberal, said during the Clinton impeachment that it was Republicans’ long-simmering revenge for Nixon’s downfall, and that tracks for me

In brief because the long answer I had typed out really does look like a hijack: I think that’s part of it but not all of it.

I do think, to bring it back to Hillary, that she/her marriage did get caught in a cultural shift in attitudes about sexual relationships, affecting both issues of infidelity and of a lot of other things related to sexual and in some cases not-really-sexual behavior; and that both of them may have to some extent been thinking in the old patterns, especially during the early part of the marriage.

[Dr_Paprika]

Surely this topic has been discussed on this board before?