Chris Matthews is a journalist and television talk show host, well known for his nightly hour-long talk show on MSNBC, “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” Last weekend, Chris Mathews pinched Hillary Clinton on the cheek. A journalist pinched a presidential candidate on the cheek. This “open letter” to Chris Matthews on Wonkette sums up my feelings exactly:
I’m so sure that this was entirely not a sexist way to assert dominance over a powerful woman that I double dog dare you to pinch the cheek of every candidate you talk to from now on… Otherwise, I will be forced to think that you believe we’re all totally “cute,” like babies and kitties and puppies are, and that you believe we’re likely to be equally effective in positions of power.
Add this to the endless list of sexist things that Clinton has been forced to endure since the start of her campaign. There was the biting criticism she endured after crying on camera when a woman in New Hampshire asked, “How do you do it?…How do you keep up beat and so wonderful?” Her tears became a reason for her rivals to question her “strength and resolve” as a leader.
More recently, a man stood up in the middle of an auditorium while she was giving a speech, held up a bright yellow sign that said “Iron My Shirt,” and began chanting the phrase over and over until he was ejected. Her response?
“Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well,” Mrs. Clinton said.
When everyone had settled down a bit, she said, “As I think has just been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.”
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
13 comments
That's an interesting quote: "I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling.”
I don't know if I agree with that - or maybe I disagree more with "oppression olympics", where marginalised groups try and assert that they are far more marginalised than other groups. I don't know if it would be harder for a woman, or a black man, to be elected as American president, but more than that I think that such comparisons (do black men or women have it harder in the US?) are generally counter-productive.
Posted by Thea
January 8, 2008, 6:44 PM
You should read the Daily K-OS piece - it talks a bit about how Obama is not facing the same kind of circus that Clinton is on a daily basis. The media is taking Obama seriously while Clinton gets mocked for crying and gets her cheek pinched by a reporter.
It's not about who is more oppressed in America, but rather who is having a harder time running for president. With all of these incidents I think Clinton is winning that particular contest. Do you not agree that Obama is taken far more seriously as a candidate by the media and the public? Can you even imagine if Edwards (or anyone) suggested Obama couldn't lead because of his race?
Posted by Stacey May
January 8, 2008, 6:57 PM
I definitely agree that Obama is taken more seriously as a presidential candidate. Media and public reaction to Clinton's campaign show the gap quite clearly. I've totally had it with all the vitriol and condescension directed at Clinton for daring to run for president while in possession of ovaries. The gender double standard seems so deeply entrenched that many people either celebrate it or refuse to see it for what it is lest their lives have to actually change. The horror of having to compete on a level playing field! Egads! The amount of work involved in struggling towards genuine equality! Egads!
Posted by C.K. Kelly Martin
January 8, 2008, 9:06 PM
Between "Iron My Shirt!" (which apparently may be a radio station prank) and the "emotional meltdown" (the response to which was rightly lampooned by a writerless Jon Stewart on A Daily Show tonight), and then the New Hampshire primary win, it's been a topsy-turvy couple of days for Clinton.
The tears debacle is incredibly overplayed—she didn't cry on camera and her recovery was quick. On a couple of non-political internet forums I read, people went as far as to say the incident solidifed or made their decision not to vote for her, which strikes me as about as silly as not voting for Howard Dean because of the infamous "Dean scream."
I'm not a big supporter of Clinton personally, but my opposition is based on some of her political stances, not because she might've faked some not-tears at a breakfast discussion. Someone wake me when the mainstream political discourse stops sounding like Entertainment Tonight.
Posted by Wesley
January 9, 2008, 12:10 AM
It sounds like a contest to see who has it tougher -Clinton as a woman, or Obama as a black man.
Just to give some perspective on who is more oppressed, it's a race between a WHITE woman and a black man. Could you imagine if a black woman in the running made it as far as Hillary? or an Asian woman, Hispanic, Indian? Probably not, because like it or not, race factors ABSOLUTELY in the electability of the woman, Hillary could not run an electable campaign if she was any other race.
And I'm not trying to bring down Clinton for that, she'd make an excellent president and the way the press has treated her has been deplorable in a lot of ways, but until the Iowa caucus, they were also calling her campaign "unstoppable", so I think saying the media weren't taking her candidacy seriously is a bit of a stretch.
Yeah, the media were ridiculous to jump on her so-called "tears", because I actually found it made her seem much stronger and genuine than her usual steely resolve mode. But when Barack placed 2nd in the N.H. primary, all I could hear was, "Is it the Tom Bradley Effect? Is it because of race?"
So to say Obama hasn't had to deal with stupidity and ignorance from the media because of his race, I would disagree with that statement. I've seen countless examples of subtle and overt racist comments towards Obama (and some examples because of what it means for his particular race AND gender), and countless examples of subtle and overt sexist comments towards Clinton.
Posted by Jaye
January 9, 2008, 5 AM
Hey SMF - I think the question of who is more oppressed and who has a tougher time running for president is sorta the same thing - my point wasn't that Hilary is having a harder time than Barack, but that the comparison is not useful. And it sorta gets my goat when people who consider themselves members of marginalised groups make comments about how they have it the hardest - eg "this is the highest glass ceiling."
Posted by Thea
January 9, 2008, 11:06 AM
Regarding Clinton's New Hampshire win last night:
"Clinton fought back, but she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy."
From the Washington Post.
Posted by Stacey May
January 9, 2008, 12:55 PM
No question that discrimination isn't only based on gender and that Obama is facing his own barriers (I don't think anyone here has said otherwise).
"this is the highest glass ceiling."
Unfortunately Clinton's statement is almost universally true at this time. In 2005 only a handful of countries came close to having equal political participation for women: Rwanda (48.8%), Sweden (45.3%), Norway (38.2%), Finland (37.5%). Canada has a dismal 20.8% women in national parliament and the USA only 15.2%.
And can you imagine Chris Matthews pinching Obama's cheek? Man, that guy makes me nauseous.
Here's hoping the best candidate wins - on his or her own merits.
Posted by C.K. Kelly Martin
January 9, 2008, 12:58 PM
I still don't think that means that women have the hardest time getting elected - what are the stats for, for example, numbers of indigenous people elected, in countries that are settler countries (like the US, Canada, Latin American countries, Australia...). Is info like that even common knowledge?
What I'm really trying to get at is that while the terrible way Clinton is being treated is doubtless (and disturbing), playing the "I have the hardest time" card does not endear her to me. Oppression is intersectional - so that means that a woman, depending on who she is, may have a heck of a lot more privilege than a man.
I think because feminism in particular has had a very poor track record of recognising how much things like race and class intersect with gender to create a lack of privilege, when highly educated, intelligent, privileged white women like Clinton make comments like that, it makes me roll my eyes. (That's definitely not to say that I'm diminishing the fact that she's being belittled because she's a woman.)
That's why "oppression olympics" are not useful (and actually create rifts between groups that could be working together) - our position in society is far more complicated than whether or not we are men and women. How much money do we have? What is our race? What is our family background? What is our education? How do we sexually identify, how do others sexually identify us? Do we have a visible disability? I think being a really good feminist involves recognising that oppression is very complex, and forming alliances with groups that are marginalised in a different way than we are.
Posted by Thea
January 9, 2008, 1:20 PM
I didn't say she was having the hardest time getting elected, I said she "is having a harder time running for president." As in, no one from the Washington Post is suggesting Obama wear a shock collar intended for dogs? No one is pinching Obama on the cheek?
I agree with you on every point about oppression being intersectional and that she indeed has "a heck of a lot more privilege" than many, but every day I hear a new story about how the media and her peers are using sexism and gender stereotypes to imply that she shouldn't be president.
Think for a second what would happen if the media or Obama's peers used racism and racial stereotypes to do the same.
The reality is the more the media paints her as a "nagging shrew" the harder she has to work.
Today alone we have...
Fox News:
"When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.'"
and the headline
"Clinton's Nagging Voice is Reason She Lost Male Vote."
And from Slate.com
"...failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female..."
Clinton has been asked in debates whether or not she prefers "diamonds or pearls," had her cleavege critiqued by journalists on f'ing CNN, and has been called a "hellish housewife" who "cackles." In fact an entire article was published on her "cackle" in the New York Times.
Posted by Stacey May
January 9, 2008, 2:12 PM
"I think being a really good feminist involves recognising that oppression is very complex, and forming alliances with groups that are marginalised in a different way than we are."
I definitely agree with that. And this:
"Think for a second what would happen if the media or Obama's peers used racism and racial stereotypes to do the same. The reality is the more the media paints her as a "nagging shrew" the harder she has to work."
It seems nearly every negative stereotype about women is being used against Clinton in the media. In effect it's impossible for her to say or do anything without resentment about her gender either screeching at her or pinching her on the cheek.
Posted by C.K. Kelly Martin
January 9, 2008, 2:26 PM
Wow, surprised you missed this article. Says it all for me:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/01/0...
Posted by Jaye
January 9, 2008, 10:46 PM
I haven't seen a link to this here yet but Bob Herbert (NY Times) has a really good article about politics and misogyny.
"The fundamental problem...is that women and girls are dehumanized, opening the floodgates to every kind of mistreatment."
http://tinyurl.com/yvtqvd
Posted by C.K. Kelly Martin
January 21, 2008, 6:05 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.