Anti-Feminism on the Left

I never had Maureen Dowd pegged as a woman-hater - until Saturday. That's when MoDo unleashed the worst in a long series of attacks on Senator Hillary Clinton that was, frankly, a pathetic scattering of weak, misogynistic crumbs. Look, you can oppose Clinton on many grounds if you're a Democrat sizing up the 2008 field: her support for the war, some of the failures of the Clinton presidency, even the clearly apparent size of her massive ambition (though how this is a downside for a politician is beyond me). But too many of my friends on the left are far, far from gender neutral in summing up Mrs. Clinton.

Let's run Dowd's column from Saturday's Times - headlined "Henny Penny Harridan" through the handy code-word and loaded-phrase collander, shall we? Ready, go...

Harridan
Woman of passion (sarcastic reference)
Enigma
The Taming of the Shrew
Bring Rummy to heel...
Staged a drama in three acts...
Hectoring
Queen of Hearts
Climactic demand for his head...
Hillary unmanned Rummy...
She tartly summed up...
You harridan hippy-dippy Henny Penny (In Rumsfeld's imagined voice)
Hauteur, self-righteousness, scriptedness, infighting and belief in [her] own manifest destiny...

Well, you see Maureen, about that tone. You wouldn't use it on a man. You used it because Mrs. Clinton is a woman, the first in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency. Now, the points she raises are mostly valid - to see how it's done without snarling "bitch" in the gutter, read Bob Herbert's column the next day. He nails Mrs. Clinton for her war positions, and hits damned hard. But there's no gender implications in his prose. Herbert treats Mrs. Clinton as if she's the real deal, someone worthy of detailed public attack. In other words, as a man.

Dowd is not alone, of course. I've heard similar stuff from people I like and respect, very gender-specific, all of it from the left. These days, it seems like the Republicans - your John McCains and Lindsey Grahams and Newt Gingrichs - treat Senator Clinton with more respect.

Not Democrats who don't like her - or those who want to snuff out any candidacy now, before she build up a head of stea. Today's Boston Herald has a piece on New Hampshire pollster Dick Bennett who strangely seems very comfortable "going beyond the numbers" - as the football analysts say - to bring on some anecdotal mysogyny from the Granite State's progressive front lines:

Lying bitch
Shrew
Machiavellian
Evil, power-mad witch
The ultimate self-serving politician
Criminal
Megalomaniac
Fraud
Dangerous
Devil incarnate
Satanic
Power freak
Political whore

As Rummy said to Hillary, My Goodness Gracious! Reads like a woman-hating Maureen Dowd column.

UPDATE: This post is getting a lot of interesting comments courtesy of James Wolcott's crowd, so I'm moving up with Typepad's nifty, er, "feature" feature

Tags: Hillary+Clinton Maureen+Dowd Clinton Dowd misogyny woman-haters feminism 2008

Comments

[Fred]

Outstanding post. Modo is obsessed with the Clintons. I hope Hillary is defeated in the primaries because I've had enough of the DLC triangulating Clinton way that lead to the near-death of the Democratic party and liberalism. (still not sure if it won't happen). But she has no right to be treated this way by Dowd and her cohort.

[Matt]

Excellent post, Tom. I can't bear to watch Dowd do this again. It's amazing to me that she hasn't learned anything from the last six years.

[klyde]

dowd hates hillary becase she has two things dowd has never never been able to get: A job with real influence and a husband.

[klyde]

dowd hates hillary becase she has two things dowd has never never been able to get: A job with real influence and a husband.

[klyde]

dowd hates hillary becase she has two things dowd has never never been able to get: A job with real influence and a husband.

[Lev Raphael]

Let's not forget that Dowd also wrote very cruel things about Howard Dean's wife. Not to mention her virtually making up the quote about Kerry and Nascar, a quote the Republicans used and used and used. The NYT has never called her to task for that, and old public affairs editor admitted to me that a lot of people had written in complaining about it.

[anonymous]

Mrs. Clinton is a woman, the first in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency.

Argh. No she isn't, and I wish that people would stop saying this. I understand why John McCain and other Republicans say it -- they want to run against her. We have no excuse. If Hillary is nominated, she will lose. Actually, if she is nominated, it will be the cleanest election the Republicans have run in decades, because this will be the one time they can be statesmanlike and coast to a win.

So Dowd's being mean to Hillary in print? You're going to have a hard time convincing me that that's worse than making us think that Hillary is electable.

[Rhetoric Buster]

anonymous, I believe you misunderstood Tom's claim regarding Hillary. He didn't say that Hillary had a fair chance of winning if she was nominated. He said only that she is "the first [woman] in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency." Since "shot" does not automatically mean "decent odds if nominated" at this point in time I believe the claim is undeniably true.

[klyde]

Sorry for the triple post. Server issues here at work.

[Slappy]

Even if Anonymous is incorrect about the meaning of Tom's words, he/she is entirely correct. Who would win? A pro-war Republican or a pro-war Democrat? Clinton's hopes went down in flames with Lieberman's. Good riddance.

[anonymous]

anonymous, I believe you misunderstood Tom's claim regarding Hillary. He didn't say that Hillary had a fair chance of winning if she was nominated. He said only that she is "the first [woman] in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency." Since "shot" does not automatically mean "decent odds if nominated" at this point in time I believe the claim is undeniably true.

Posted by: Rhetoric Buster | Aug 14, 2006 2:05:12 PM

Look, I do understand why people are pissed off at Dowd's column. There are any number of ways to make it clear that Hillary Clinton should not win the nomination without resorting to cliches about powerful women. But as Tom said, it's the Republicans who treat her with respect. Why? Because she can't win the Presidency. You can parse "a real shot" any way you want to, but it is suicidal for us to nominate her. In terms of the real effects of their words, what Dowd said in her column is much less harmful for this country than what Watson said in his post, misogyny or no misogyny.

I will note that my take on her lack of electability is different from Slappy's. I think that her negatives would still be there even if she were clearly opposed to our ongoing presence in Iraq. Is it true that "New Hampshire pollster Dick Bennett . . . strangely seems very comfortable 'going beyond the numbers' - as the football analysts say - to bring on some anecdotal mysogyny from the Granite State's progressive front lines"? I don't know, but frankly, he's doing a service in pointing out that she's not electable. The fact that Tom can write that Hillary has "a real shot" after reading Bennett's comments means that he's missing the important point.

This comment will probably get me flamed for being relatively unconcerned about misogyny. That is absolutely true (I'll add that I don't entirely blame people for disliking me as a result). But I'd gladly see a hundred more columns like Dowd's in print if it will convince Democratic primary voters not to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton.

[Sally]

Too many Dowdisms are about Hillary's gender although that is vehemently denied time and again. As terrible a person and president Bush is, I doubt anyone has written as many negatives about him (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) in one column as the anti-Hillarys do. Get over the fantasy Republicans want her to run. Just like they are anxious for Bill to be her campaign manager. I think not, ladies and gentlemen.

[anonymous]

Get over the fantasy Republicans want her to run.

She's not electable, and therefore Republicans do want her to run. There is no other reason why she's the only likely Democratic candidate that McCain, Gingrich, Graham, etc. talk about with respect.

[Slappy]

Anonymous: "I think that her negatives would still be there..."

And what are these negatives? I believe her pro-war stance will tank her in the primary. If she were to win the ticket, there would not be enough of a difference between the candidates to convince any undecided votes to go Democrat and it would piss off the the anti-war vote to boot. But if you think she is unelectable because she is so hated, I disagree. Bush was vehemently hated by a sizable percentage of the population and he still won the popular vote. Is this your reasoning? I don't think it is possible to win in '08 unless the Dems run someone who the Republicans do hate as much as we hate Bush. The differences between the two parties need to be exposed and enlarged, not hidden and lessened. They (Bush Co) treat her with respect because she is pro-war and therefore she can't run an anti-war campaign. I wonder why you think her not electable if not for her war stance.

[anonymous]

And what are these negatives? I believe her pro-war stance will tank her in the primary. If she were to win the ticket, there would not be enough of a difference between the candidates to convince any undecided votes to go Democrat and it would piss off the the anti-war vote to boot. But if you think she is unelectable because she is so hated, I disagree. Bush was vehemently hated by a sizable percentage of the population and he still won the popular vote. Is this your reasoning? I don't think it is possible to win in '08 unless the Dems run someone who the Republicans do hate as much as we hate Bush. The differences between the two parties need to be exposed and enlarged, not hidden and lessened. They (Bush Co) treat her with respect because she is pro-war and therefore she can't run an anti-war campaign. I wonder why you think her not electable if not for her war stance.

Posted by: Slappy | Aug 14, 2006 5:09:43 PM

Why is she unelectable? The biggest reason is that she's a woman, and simply put, the American electorate isn't ready for a woman president. Almost any attribute that is viewed as a positive or neutral for a man is viewed as a negative for a woman. But the biggest tripmines are national security issues. In order to prove their toughness, women candidates would be required to show hawkishness in a way that men wouldn't. Now, as it happens, Hillary is probably as close as you can get to the Bush line on Iraq without falling prey to out-and-out Liebermanism.

And this happens to be the stance that she would have to take if she wanted any chance at being President. Look, there's a reason why "the ultimate self-serving politician" is on the list above. I think that there are a fair number of people who suspect that she's a hawk to protect her flank politically. You'd have to be a Condoleeza Rice to deflect these criticisms. Except that being black is enough to make you unelectable nationally -- you get the idea.

And yes, the fact that she's hated is the other chunk of the equation. Sure, you can win despite being vehemently hated by a little less than half of the voting population (Bush's approval ratings in 2004 were below 50%, but not by that much, and in those polls, mild disapproval was still disapproval), but you cannot possibly spin this as a positive or even a neutral. And that's why she absolutely does not have a realistic shot at being elected President, and that's why she shouldn't be nominated.

As far as the respect thing goes, you and I agree that ultimately it comes from her unelectability. The only way I could prove to you that it's not due to a pro-occupation stance is if a hawk other than Hillary wins the nomination and doesn't get swift-boated. Because I suspect that a non-Hillary hawk would get the same working over that Gore and Kerry did. But I can't prove it unless and until it happens.

[expatjourno]

Dowd relentlessly sniped at Hillary when Bill Clinton was president. She lost all credibilty with me for that. I never read her anymore.

[chuck]

HRC is where she is at because she married a fast track guy. Nepotism is not merit and the vast dumb-voter conspiracy will never cast their votes her way. She will lose... she is now a "brand" created by the GOP with years of demonization and hatred. Hillary is hated like no other. NO one I know would ever talk about her with ANYTHING other than distain in public.

I loved some of the stuff people wrote in response to Dowds book last year. She and Brooks are all style and hollow bluster. They got A's in creative writing and went on to the NYT without anything to say so they just channel their id every few days. They both should be doing weather or fashion.

[Berken]

Fantastic. Only seven of 16 posts are on topic. Such is the power of Hillary-phobia. Otherwise sane moderates and liberals can't stop themselves from reflexive savaging her even when the topic under discussion is "People who reflexively savage Hillary."

Amazing, isn't it, the power of propaganda? Even people who KNOW their buttons are being pushed can't help snarling and barking on command.

Dowd's bitchy, gossipy writing style--and I freely apply that to any female or male who writes like this--is one of liberalism's chief contributions to the decline of liberalism and the decline of American public discourse in general. It took me years to convince myself that the MSM as a whole were as phoney and witless as the worst of what I saw on TV. The final proof was when Dowd won the Pulitzer for her shallow, dumb, and thoroughly dishonest editorial columns.

Consider the insight in the reference above to a "creative writing" course. When I took those courses, the teacher would quote the mantra "show, don't tell," and give examples of the "telling detail," the small fact that explains a character or situation to the reader. Example: "As he walked by, he turned to leer for a second at the 13 year old in the bikini."

Creepy guy, right? And how many reading this are having the Pavlovian reaction of creating a Bill Clinton joke? See how easy it is to push those buttons?

Now, this is the way Dowd structures a lot of her writing. It is dishonest because this is a style that is supposed to be used for writing FICTION. When writing NONFICTION, you use logical argument and accumulative evidence to reach a conclusion. Basing a statement on a single interpreted detail (Gore's suit, Clinton's non-inhaling, Carter's lust, Ford's stumble) works in fiction because the subject is the author's world and we trust him/her to get his own world right. Political columns are written about the real world. Basing a description of any situation on one or a few interpreted details is assuming god-like powers of divination and related requirements of faith in the reader. Describing a human being in this way is cruel and unfair.

But, our political discourse is mostly fictionalized. MoDo is just one bad example.

[deering]

Bleh--I knew Dowd was working that "Mean Girls" crap when she went after Elizabeth Dean for no good reason at all. it's fairly clear from Dowd's own work that she's still trying to be the good little Catholic schoolgirl obeying daddy/a good (e.g. powerful) man. That's why she discounts her achievements and wastes any number of column inches periodically groaning about why there are no good men around; that's why she dated obvious bad-news guys like Michael Douglas and Aaron Sorkin. And that's one of the reasons she fundamentally doesn't like women, even women you would think she has things in common with. She can't see women as anything but competition, dowds-to-be-looked-down-on, sluts, or queen-bees-to-be-taken-out. Hillary is the "queen bee" who didn't go down like Dowd wanted her to, which is why Dowd is still so rabid about her.

[Sally]

The Fourth Estate has gone the way of the other three.

[Phoenix Woman]

-- The Fourth Estate has gone the way of the other three. --

Sally, the Fourth Estate was the first to go -- and it was planned that way, ever since William Simon set out the conservatives' plan to take over the media in the 1970s in the wake of Watergate. If we had a decent Fourth Estate, Reagan would never have been elected in the first place, and we'd all be a lot better off.

-- dowd hates hillary becase she has two things dowd has never never been able to get: A job with real influence and a husband. --

What's more, he's a desirable husband. (Say what you will about his politics, but Bill Clinton has good looks and charisma out the wazoo.)

Dowd has always had this weird Glenn-Close-in-Fatal-Attraction-like thing going for Bill Clinton. So of course she's insanely jealous of the woman to whom Bill, infidelity or not, will remain married for the rest of his life.

[Sickduck]

"HRC is where she is at because she married a fast track guy. Nepotism is not merit and the vast dumb-voter conspiracy will never cast their votes her way." Sorry but, whether you admit it or not, Hillary is a bright, accomplished and successful woman on her own, a much better and worthy candidate than Dubya.

[Wil Burns]

Even McCain has "baggage" just like any other candidate, from his perceived flip-flop on abortion (saying he is pro-life, but stating he would support his daughter if she decided to have an abortion, which is really pro-choice), to his flip-flop on Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson, to his connection with the "Keating Five" scandal, to his admission that he cheated on his wife upon returning from Vietnam despite the fact that she was injured from a car accident.

All of the candidates have "baggage", but only the Democrat was portrayed as having "baggage".

[shoopnyc]

She is a wanna be Sex In The City Carrie Bradshaw! Determined at all costs to be hip cool sexy, and well, smart. She will be the reason that "Times Select" will NEVER work!

[CAFKIA]

Hillary Clinton is completely electable. If we on the left want her to be.

Hillary is not my first choice to head up the ticket. No sitting legislator will ever be. However(comma) I have and will commit publically, privately, openly, honestly, and fervently to supporting which ever democrat gets the nomination REGARDLESS of which rethugnantcan gets the nod.

If Hillary is the one chosen, then we will have to work all the harder to get lazy-boy dems out to vote to counter the Hillary-hate effect but, there is no physical or logical reason that it can't be done. Hillary IS electable and saying she isn't will not change a thing. (Although it has some potential to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

CAFKIA