The post-New Hampshire media narrative, same as the pre-New Hampshire media narrative: sexism doesn’t exist
How pernicious is sexism in American life? So pernicious that the media and the pundits and a large segment of the population, it seems, are determined to pretend — to us or to themselves — that it doesn’t exist. Ergo, the shameful treatment of Hillary Clinton in the press, and the determination of women to vote for her, has nothing to do with sexism. Because sexism doesn’t exist. Not in America.
In the wake of the New Hampshire primary, the punditocracy went nuts trying to figure out why so many women voted for Hillary and why the press didn’t see it coming. The New York Times inadvertently stumbled into part of the answer with this article: Women’s Support for Clinton Rises in Wake of Perceived Sexism. Not “Women’s Support for Clinton Rises in Wake of Crying Jag,” because that didn’t happen. No, women’s support for Clinton rose because they were fucking FED UP with the misogyny of the press, which reached a tent-pitching crescendo in the crucifixion that followed the so-called “crying.”
See, that’s the problem with being a journalist nowadays: occasionally, in the course of investigating stories, you actually happen upon the truth. This is inconvenient if the truth doesn’t correspond to the dominant media bullshit, and the dominant media bullshit in this case is that sexism doesn’t exist and everybody in America despises Hillary almost as much as Chris Matthews does because she’s Satan with a Vagina, that’s not opinion, just fact, no sexism here at all.
Notice that the Times was already hedging with the headline of the article: “perceived” sexism. Women perceive sexism, though the Times can’t go so far as to say it actually exists. Women just think it’s there, probably when they’re having their periods. But who really knows? It’s like Sasquatch, or UFOs maybe.
That women in New Hampshire and the country reached the breaking point with the unremitting misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton is almost certainly the truth, and probably accounts for a good deal of her last-minute support. (That and the fact that many women deeply long to see a woman in the White House, even if Hillary’s politics render them ambivalent about supporting her openly.)
But this narrative — this truth — must not be allowed to stand. Because sexism doesn’t exist, see? So a competing narrative has taken shape, one far more to the liking of the sexist media. And in the grand tradition of Dude Planet, the narrative designed to discount the possibility of sexism is, in itself, mind-bendingly sexist. Actually it’s just a continuation of the one the media was already working on before the primary, the one where Hillary broke down crying on camera, either from womanly weakness or because she’s a stone cold manipulative bitch, take your pick. Page Two of this narrative is that the women of New Hampshire saw the tears and instantly started lactating or something, then rushed to the polls to vote for poor Hillary out of sympathy, because that’s what women do, see? They cry and they moan and they don’t really understand the issues or the world or anything, that’s complicated guy-stuff, they just gather in the menstrual hut and sniffle and watch Oprah and hug each other.
The media loves that narrative. They want it to be true. It doesn’t matter that it’s not true, because our media isn’t about truth anyway.
As for the business about how what women were actually responding to was the sexism leveled at Hillary, especially by the media itself and especially after the tears nonsense — gone. Into the memory hole. Never happened.
The New York Times made it official today with its lead political article: The Crying Game. Watch how it’s done, in three easy paragraphs:
Paragraph 1:
“I’m not prepared to concede that there are Americans who decide based on who cries,” he said, referring to Mrs. Clinton’s misty-eyed response to a question in Portsmouth the day before. “I’m sorry, I just don’t think that is quite possible.”
Translation: Granted, at first some people weren’t buying the Crying Narrative (including this very paper three days ago but god forbid we should say that out loud).
Paragraph 2:
In the days since then, commentators, analysts and pollsters have offered more sober explanations for why the polls favoring Barack Obama were so misleading. Maybe race was a factor that polling couldn’t account for. Maybe voters leaning toward Mrs. Clinton were wary of showing their hands to pollsters. Maybe the Granite State had one of its customary contrarian convulsions.
Translation: Could have been racism, could have been reticence, could have been Yankee contrarianism. What? The sexism of the media and the anger of feminist-minded voters? That we reported on in this very newspaper just three days ago? Never happened. Sucked into the memory hole. Sexism doesn’t exist.
Paragraph 3:
Any or all of those factors could have contributed to the surprise result. But social scientists say that the pop-psych 101 hypothesis — linking emotional breakdowns to ballots — cannot be dismissed so easily.
Translation: Aaaaannnd drum roll, please. Social scientists say…and you can fill in the rest. Sob fest, breast leakage, menstrual hut, sympathy. Probably some daytime TV in there too. Crying Narrative ROOLZ!
Sexism? Doesn’t exist.
Having disposed of the unpleasant-but-brief confrontation with its own foam-dripping misogyny, the media can return to its comfortable rut: Obama is the voice of change, Hillary’s a shrew whom no one really likes. And sexism doesn’t exist.
Over at the Washington Post this tactic is on full display in Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope:
Obama’s Jan. 3 triumph let loose a giddiness bordering on exhilaration among voters and, especially, media commentators, who hailed his triumph as “historic,” even though he was not in fact the first African American to win a major presidential nominating contest. (Jesse Jackson won 13 primaries and caucuses in 1988.) By contrast, when Clinton overcame long odds to become the first woman in U.S. history to win a major-party primary, no leading news outlet trumpeted this landmark feat. Many failed to mention it at all.
A promising start, right? You’d think the writer would go on to examine why Hillary’s ground-breaking run isn’t being treated as the revolution that it is.
But no. According to the preferred narrative, only Obama is revolutionary. Hillary’s just sloppy seconds:
Many of the voters and pundits who were thrilled by Obama’s compelling Iowa speech 10 days ago remain intoxicated, heady with the hope that he can deliver not just “change” — any candidate running would do that — but a categorically different kind of change from Clinton or the Republican candidates. So what explains the magic?
The most obvious explanation is Obama’s stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity. The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer — a promise about overcoming America’s shameful racial history — that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.
And that’s it. That’s the extent of the analysis. Obama’s election would be revolutionary, and that’s why people are enthusiastic about him and not Hillary. And granted, it would be revolutionary, no doubt about it. Our country’s racist legacy is deep and ugly, and the election of the first African-American president would stand as a magnificent milestone in our rocky and ever-faltering path towards a more just society.
But there is not a single line in the entire article about how electing the first woman president would also be revolutionary. Not a single line about our country’s history (and most of civilization’s history) of female oppression; about the yearnings of generations of women for a voice and a representative and a leader who looks like them; about the breakthrough that all true progressives long for — men and women both — to a world where gender is no barrier; about the potent symbolism of a woman (finally) as President of the United States. Not a single line.
In other words: electing the first black president? Transcendent, transformative, profoundly symbolic. Electing the first woman president? Eh.
Because sexism doesn’t exist.
Even Newsweek sounds the same note:
This year Barack Obama is either a smooth but insubstantial media-created savior, or he is the embodiment of hope and change whose election would transform America, redeeming us from our racial sins. And Hillary Clinton is either the boomer Daisy Buchanan who has ruthlessly plotted her way to power so that she can bring about a liberal utopia, or she is the hardworking, experienced policymaker and advocate who knows how to fight the good fight in Washington.
Notice how the parallelism falls apart? Obama can potentially redeem us from our racist sins, but Hillary’s just another policy wonk. And this in an article that, schizophrenically, nods to the possibility of the first woman president as being something vaguely appealing. But not revolutionary. Not something that would serve as a powerful symbolic redemption of a shameful history.
Because sexism doesn’t exist.
6 Responses to “The post-New Hampshire media narrative, same as the pre-New Hampshire media narrative: sexism doesn’t exist”
-
Victoria says:
As usual, Violet nails it.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:51 am EST -
kiuku says:
THIS IS SO INFURIATING. There were NO TEARS. There was NO EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWN. There was NO SYMPATHY needing. I was actually inspired. Why does the media give no room for the fact that people, especially women were inspired by Hillary? That she spoke to women on a deep level..and that women understood her with the “how do you do it all” question..and that they identified with her. What the fuck? That show of emotion was not pitiful. It was inspiring. It showed she cared.
-
kiuku says:
I hope that these sexist articles just pisses women off even more to vote for Hillary Clinton. Possibly women who have had their humanity, and their emotions infantilized, and dismissed as a manipulative “game” before by men. Hillary gave a powerful, vote swaying talk, and this is how it is portrayed?
-
Colleen says:
Fabulous post. My inability to even compare to your ghostly greatness makes me want to give up blogging.
-
B. Dagger Lee says:
AAAGHHGGHHG! I’m not going to be able to handle the next 11 months. The media’s narrative is “Will black people vote for a white woman? Will women vote for a black man in the secrecy of the voting both? Is Hillary a racist? Is Barack being sexist?”
THE WHITE MALE LIBERAL MEDIA DOES NOT FEEL A BLACK MAN OR WHITE WOMAN SHOULD BE PRESIDENT, and they’re going to spin the race to favor JOHN MCCAIN.
-
julia says:
Violet, Violet!!! Thank you for writing what I have been waiting to read!
Before the NH primary, I swore I would never vote for a major party again. But I am SICK of sexism!!!!
I grew up in the 70’s and there were some major gains for women and girls, and there was hope. I was so excited when Hillary won NH. And nobody said a word! None of my women friends would join me - nobody cared. So I celebrated herstory in the making by myself and smiled a secret smile all day long.
It riled me that Dennis Kucinich wanted a re-count.
None of the papers said ‘Hillary Clinton slams Obama’ but yesterday they said he slammed her in SC.
Nothing has changed: men are terrified of women and will do everything they can to keep us down.
I was very disturbed by a certain feminist blog in which almost all of the comments were anti-Hillary Clinton. Since they both work for the same bosses, I’d rather have Hillary. She has been working for this for at least two decades and IT’S HIGH TIME WE HAD A WOMAN!!!!
