I don’t like Hillary. In fact I find her abrasive, annoying, manipulative, deceitful, shrewish, and, worst of all, liberal. However, when I saw the NY Daily News headline about her I was pissed off on her behalf. They had the poor taste (to say the least) of writing Hillary Clinton suddenly vulnerable as bruises start to show.
Who the hell is the editor that let this shit through? Is it really appropriate to evoke the image of a battered woman when you are talking about a female candidate’s slipping in the polls? Next they’ll say that her planting of questions at a campaign stop in Iowa gave her a black eye. Why not just tell her to get back in the kitchen before you show her the back of your hand?
Would they say that Kucinich has been emasculated for his poor showing in the polls? Why not call Obama “boy”? How about if they call Edwards a pussy for being against the war?
IAMA New Yorker so I only read the Daily News occasionally online but this is absolute bullshit. The Neanderthals who wrote that piece of garbage need to be driven down to the local women’s shelter and be made to apologize for demeaning those women by comparing Hillary’s polling numbers to their abuse.
I suppose we should be glad that they didn’t try to say that they noticed her getting aggressive at certain times of the month or that her campaign had that “not so fresh” feeling.
Yes, do a Google news search for any candidate’s name and the word “battered” and you get tons of hits, casting the candidates both as the battered and the batterer.
Have you considered the possibility that not everybody has the image of abused women invoked by the simple use of the word “bruise”? Even when used referring to woman, in an obvious metaphorical manner?
That’s what I thought. See, I thought we were going to pugilism for our metaphor, not to woman-beating - and I think it is patronising and demeaning of the OP to assume that the only reason we would picture a gutsy political contestant as taking a beating is that, being female, she must necessarily be a helpless victim of a violent partner. If it was a man, we’d be picturing one of those awesome 15-round slugfests that Ali and Frazier got into, back when boxing was boxing.
Have you ever called a male politician ‘shrewish’?
Everyone has a right to their own political opinions and insults are a dime a dozen, but there are certain ones that seem to be reserved for women only, and often have to do more with ‘bad vibes’ or personality than hard facts or positions. Shrewish. Shrill. Hysterical. And, my personal favourite, a ‘congenital liar.’
ETA I find the ‘vulnerable’ as odd as the ‘bruises’ bit in the headline. Not scientific, but Hillary+ vulnerable comes up with way more than that word paired with anyone else in the running. Despite what the polls may say.
Sorry, but the headline strikes me (ha ha) as simply a reference to the battles of politics, and their results on a candidate’s popularity and election strategy. And the OP’s “shrewish” comment is priceless.
Personally, i get much more annoyed by the constant media references to Clinton’s clothing and appearance. I know that women tend to have a wider variety of clothing options than men in fields like politics (dark blue or gray suit, red power tie for men), but unless she appears on Meet the Press in something completely inappropriate like an Oscar de la Renta evening gown, or a pair of cut-off denim shorts with a halter top, they should just focus on her fucking politics.
Also annoying is the media tendency to refer to her as “Hillary,” while tending to use last names when referring to male candidates.
I must take issue with this. She’s not really that liberal.
The headline clearly evoked pugilism to me. Clinton’s been an aggressive campaigner, giving and taking jabs without being slowed down; but now it’s starting to show. She’s vulnerable as a candidate in a tough campaign year, not as a female victim.
Can I just say that I don’t need the mental image of HRC in cut-off denim shorts and a halter top, no matter how much of a hottie she might have been back in the day? :eek:
I’m offended, but not for the same reason. I’m offended by the fucking pathetic state of media coverage of politics. I was listening to NPR briefly one morning a week or two ago, and they couldn’t stop using the metaphor of candidates landing blows on one another.
The idea of using some kind of scorecard like a boxing match, rather than evaluating the merits of the positions a candidate expresses is so common, so easy, and so braindead as to do nothing but further the whole spectacle of how we select a president. To do otherwise, however, would take work and intelligence, and that’s just too much to ask from the media.
Unless both Hillary and Bill are involved in the same story, there need be no confusion.
The first mention of someone in a news story or newspaper article should always contain the person’s full name anyway, and the audience should then be able to work out who is being referred to when the last name is used later in the story.