Evil Mommy vs. Jesus
In a good but mis-titled article, Steven Stark comments on the deep weirdness of the current movement to get Hillary to quit:
It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. And while it does have its origins in an effort to preserve party unity, it also has its roots in an odd and vitriolic crusade to purge the Clintons and hand the nomination to a candidate who has yet, after all, to win a single large state’s primary (other than his own), let alone the nomination.
The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled “The Hillary Deathwatch”), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:
• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.
• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.
• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.
• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.
• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.
In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.
Okay, class, who can tell me what all those candidates had in common? Starts with a p…..
That’s right! Penis! Yes, all candidates with penises have the right to compete.
Clearly the rules are different for penis-less lady candidates:
Yet in one of the tightest races in modern history — before the opponent has come close to clearly clinching the nomination, before a number of voters have been given the chance to have their voices heard, and when Clinton still has a chance, albeit a slim one, to win the prize, she is continually vilified for failing to see the light and bow out. What gives?
I know! I know! Pick me!
…Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history. That’s being driven by Clinton fatigue, but it’s also being driven by a concerted campaign that examines every action the Clintons take and somehow finds the basest, most self-serving motivation for its existence. Thus, in this case, when Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she’s constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party. Is there a fair amount of sexism in the way she’s being asked to get out of the way so a man can have the job? You be the judge.
No, there’s not a fair amount of sexism. There’s a huge amount of sexism, both conscious and unconscious. All this talk of Clinton fatigue is bullshit — in 2004 the party was wishing they could re-nominate Big Dog after his speech at the convention. What’s going on now is that lay-deez aren’t supposed to reach for power, and those who do are evil unnatural witches who consort with demons, eat babies, and fuck ponies for fun.
Can anybody name me a single über-powerful woman in the entire history of Western civilization who hasn’t been vilified as a freak of nature? (And if you’re thinking Elizabeth I, think again. She was constantly whispered about and her whole “Virgin Queen” shtick was a canny counter-move to replace the usual sex-fiend demonization of strong women with an almost equally unnatural asexual image.)
But there’s also this:
Finally, there have been others who have observed how the Obama campaign resembles a religious movement (in both its positive and negative aspects). Thus, we have the growing messianism of Obama supporters — both on the Web and in the media — whose comments seem to convey the strong impression that it’s time for everyone to participate in the coronation of the chosen one.
The religious fanaticism surrounding Obama is utterly antithetical to democracy. The children (biologically and/or mentally) who worship him don’t think of Barry as a candidate for office in a representative government; they think of him as a messiah. How dare anyone oppose Him? And that the person opposing him is an Evil Mommy just makes it worse, because Mommies aren’t supposed to compete! Mommies are supposed to sacrifice everything so their babies can be happy. Evil Mommy! Evil!
20 Responses to “Evil Mommy vs. Jesus”
-
anna says:
Why do you say “Western civilization?” I think Eastern civilization has been just as sexist. Women aren’t allowed to be Empress (in their own right, not as a consort) in Japan, for example.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:23 pm EST -
Violet says:
Because although most of Eastern civilization has been as patriarchal as Western, there are actually some signal exceptions, such as ancient Korea, parts of Indonesia, and several still-extant cultures in the hills surrounding the Himalayas.
Western civilization has probably had some exceptions too, but it’s a little more iffy.
-
julia says:
Great points. Just this week I saw a letter to the editor in our local paper saying Clinton is ‘out because she has an angry mommy voice.’ And I live in a so-called progressive city.
I have heard some Latinos and Mexican American men say they are for Clinton. My theory is that Latin America has a recent history of women presidents: Violeta Chamorro, Michele Bachelet – a single mother and an endocrinologist, Kristina Kirchner. They had Evita Peron, about whom books have been written and an opera has been made. They love their mothers – I mean really luuuve their mothers. Is there misogyny in America Latina? Claro que si! But it’s different – women are allowed and even encouraged to go in to areas in which they are discouraged here in the United States.
-
julia says:
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner defeated a woman in the 2005 election, Elisa Carrio. Kirchner has been compared to Evita Peron and Hillary Clinton.
Hugo Chavez called to congratulate her on her victory and said ‘women will save the world’.Will the US be the last country of the first world to have a woman as president?
-
Violet says:
I think the Latin American gender situation vis-a-vis women leaders is very interesting. In my view it’s all connected up with Catholicism and La Virgin. For the most part Marianism works to enforce limited gender ideals for women — a woman is supposed to be long-suffering and obedient and demure, like Mary, etc. But if you can ever break through that a little bit, as has started to happen in the recent past, then there is the opportunity to exploit another aspect of Marianism, especially in Latin America, and that’s the devotion to a female as the Great Mother of us all and the most potent positive force in the lives of humans. That’s still light years away from where we want to be as feminists — we want women to be human, for chrissake, not mythical or demonic beings — but it does offer at least one window of opportunity.
Whereas in traditionally Protestant countries like the U.S., there is no room whatsoever for an all-powerful female. It’s pure masculinism, through and through.
-
donna darko says:
There is greater inequity between genders where resources are most concentrated so there is greater inequity between white men and women in the United States. And there’s a 30% pay gap between white men and women, 20% between Asian men and women, 10% between black and Latino men and women.
-
Apostate says:
I disagree with your view, Violet, that Indonesia is progressive as far as women go. You have mentioned this before and my knowledge of the country and its people forces me to demur. Perhaps you can point me to your sources?
-
Violet says:
Oh no, not Indonesia as a whole, not by any means. There is an ancient culture group within Indonesia called the Minangkabau which is matrilineal and matrifocal. Under pressure from Islam and the surrounding patriarchal culture they have taken on some patriarchal flavor for sure, but historically the culture is woman-focused, with women controlling the farms and so forth. I suspect that prior to the arrival of Islam they were even more matrifocal. As it stands right now they still refer to themselves as “matriarchy,” though it’s probably more accurate to refer to them as a just a gender-balanced society.
-
julia says:
Excellent points, Violet and Donna. I would never have thought of the Marianism/Puritanuism analogy, or the concentration of resources and gender inequity.
In Latin America, many poor women work for wealthy women for very low wages as ‘domesticas’ or maids. This is another reason why upper-class and occasionally middle-class women have risen to power while being wives and mothers at the same time. The poor women do the housework and childcare. Then they take the bus or train for hours to get home at night and do their own housework, childcare and husband care. Some domesticas stay overnight all week, with only one day off. So women still get to power ther on the backs of other women – in that sense it is no different from patriarchy.
-
tdraicer says:
One Obama supporter I know recently explained to me that an Obama win is the only hope to “save civilization.”
Religious fanaticism indeed.
-
Melissa says:
Loved this post. Thinking with the little head has gotten a whole lot of people in a whole lot of trouble.
Angry Mommy voice??? When my mom used that voice- shit got DONE! -
julia says:
Hillary came to Eugene, Oregon, yesterday and spoke at a local highschool. She was tired, losing her voice, but she speaks powerfully and lays out her platform in a no-nonsense way. I was glad to see young women chanting her name and a third of the crowd were men.
I just looked at the front page of our local paper,
The Register Guard. They have a huge photo of her on the front page, an unflattering shot, and then a horrible shot of her talking to two young girls. She must be in the middle of a laugh but they caught her with her head up at an angle,eyes to the ceiling, it makes her look crazy.
I am so tired of this.
It reminds me what she once told Gail Sheehy:
“They take hundreds of shots of me, and only print the bad ones”.
On a good note, I was surprised to see a male friend of mine, who waited in line for three hours in the cold drizzle to get in to see her.
He says she is extraordinary and blew him away in her interview on 60 minutes.
There is some hope. -
24hrlib says:
And when a male candidate uses an “angry” voice he is considered flexing his policies. Someone with a strong opposition. Someone being fearless.
-
Violet says:
Personally I don’t even hear the allegedly angry tone in Hillary’s voice. In fact, there are a whole bunch of things about Hillary that I just don’t see and have never seen.
I think her voice sounds fine, just a normal sort of Upper Midwest female voice. Nothing about it is unusual or grating or anything else. And she looks good — actually I think she’s quite attractive and looks great. Great bone structure in her face. Her suits are flattering and she’s always beautifully groomed. She’s a good-looking older woman.
And of course I’ve always been impressed by her brains and breadth of knowledge and sheer work ethic.
I’ve just never understood the visceral antagonism so many people have to this woman.
-
Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA says:
Why Won’t That Stupid Bitch Quit?
Great post!
-
anna says:
I think right-wingers (and some left-wingers) have gone on for so long about how unpleasant she is that people expect to see it, even when it’s not really there.
-
octogalore says:
Nice work here. Yeah, why Steinem was eviscerated for making the point that a black WOMAN in Barry’s situation would not be considered revelatory still confuses me. She too, presumably, would be asked to step aside “in the interest of the party.”
I’ve seen a few comments from Chicagoans at Taylor Marsh’s blog and other places saying that they and other locals don’t understand the Messiah thing, they see Barry as an effective media creation who’s actually and old school politico. A smart one, but pretty traditional in substance, who’s been marketed effectively as being transformational. They’re saying they don’t see the Emperor’s clothes, and wish others would figure that out.
-
Lost Clown says:
One Obama supporter I know recently explained to me that an Obama win is the only hope to “save civilization.”
See I just hear that he’s going to fix everything that’s wrong with the government. hardee har har
(Is he secretly superman? Because I seriously doubt even superman could do that.)
-
Crowlie says:
This seems like simply more of the patriarchy making personal attacks on any woman who dares to stand up to the construct, and implicit in that personal disapproval is an unspoken threat. We all know what men can do wo uppity wimmin if they feel like it. The subtle psychological message to other women observing the criticism of Hilary is to shut up and not step out or they’ll get what’s coming to them.
Seems the cock culture penis-as-a-weapon values are alive and well in the good old US of A.
-
donna darko says:
Here is a great article. What took Salon so long?
« A hypothetical | Home | The will to lose »
