In which I am politically incorrect
Matt pointed me to this post by Garance, which he found to be "a bit of a low blow." It's not my fight, but I'll way weigh (oops) in anyhow and say that I agree with Matt, and for reasons that have entirely nothing to do with our...mutual gender.
I understand--as do, I would guess, most thinking people--that gender (along with a million other factors, socially constructed or otherwise) affects how people interpret things. But that goes both ways, doesn't it? Garance lays down this tidbit to imply that Matt, Ezra, Sam, and the mostly-male punditocracy antagonize Hillary Clinton because she's a woman: "Today, the Gallup Poll reported that 'Clinton's highest level of support is among 18- to 49-year-old women; her lowest, among 18- to 49-year-old men.' And so, with all due respect to Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark, their views on this site must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics, as well as their judgment."
I concede that sexism--both latent and overt--is part of the reason she polls so low with men, and why some male pundits attack her, which undoubtedly adds to the low polling numbers among men etc. etc.
But let me also be offensive and suggest that if it's fair to conclude that Hillary polls so poorly with men (including Matt, Ezra, and Sam) in some part, because she is a woman, then it also fair to suggest that Hillary polls so well with women (including Garnace) in some part...also because she is a woman?
As pernicious as gender-driven antagonism is to determining who should be president, I think gender-driven camaraderie is, in its own right, harmful to answering the same question.
Comments
Ok, I'll bite. Rather than trot out that old women's studies war horse -the double standard - I think we should all step back and remember who we're dealing with. Hillary Clinton's image has been fluffed and folded so many times over that she's become Historical Figure first, female presidential candidate second. Maybe if the gender war-mongering eased up a bit, Hillary would shed the weird, restrictive self-consciousness and act like an all-around attractive candidate. With that said, I hate all male politicians. Oh, to hell with it - I hate all males.
I don't agree. I am female and for the most part I don't see alot of support for her by women in the blogs. I don't want to speak from where I live as it's in Illinois so much support is pro-Obama (me included). I could go 15 miles up to Wisconsin and ask around. lol.
But, alot of women ( and on women run sites and the ones with a high amt. of over age 40 readership)there is not much love for Hillary out there.
Most males and females feel the way I do about her. She is plastic. phoney. A corporate owned, DLCer. Republican lite in her views. The 1984 recreation ad, the reason it was so popular is that Hillary was perfectly cast. We see her exactly that way.
It does not have to do with gender. It has to do with Authoritarianism.
"I'll way in anyhow" is way wrong; you might weigh other spellings (I hate SpellCheck, too).
"...the mostly-male punditocracy antagonize Hillary Clinton because she's a woman:
OK, so that is why Hillary doesn't like them, but why are they antagonized by her?
"I concede that sexism--both latent and overt--is part of the reason she polls so low with men"
Are you conceding that you yourself are sexist? Or are you graciously conceding that, despite the high-minded example of those such as yourselves, *other* men are sexist?
I am quite sure it is not your place to make that concession on behalf of others. However, if you want to concede your suspicion that sexism is a factor, that would not antagonize me.
"As pernicious as gender-driven antagonism is to determining who should be president, I think gender-driven camaraderie is, in its own right, harmful to answering the same question."
Good point.
For my money, MS. Franke-Ruta seems to be telling us that TAPPED has:
(a) a bunch of male writers who are just average guys, with average education, average political views (and average blue-collar jobs?), and
(b) a bunch of women pundits too shy to actually express their views and risk a confrontation.
Cancel my subscription.
Post A Comment