Monthly Archives: May 2008

I’ve been avoiding writing about politics, with the ridiculousness that has become the campaign for the democratic nomination, and the lack of a candidate on either side that I can really say ‘HOORAY, I LOVE THIS PERSON, I WANT TO SUPPORT THEM!’ about. As things go, I am supporting Barack Obama at the moment, mostly because it appears that he’ll be the democratic candidate, and he does have a few good ideas, though I can’t really claim to be terribly excited about him.

Apathy, yes, the political apathy that seems epidemic in my generation has managed to snag me. But it is not that I don’t care, it’s more that . . . there don’t seem to be any options that are really speaking to me at the moment. So, here I am, voting for Obama.

I never really liked Hillary, though I adored her husband. Any regular reader of this blog would know that I am a feminist. I would love to see a woman in the White House . . . just . . . not this particular woman.

But the point of this post is not to explain why or how I have made the choice that I have done. Rather, I want to discuss something I have noticed in the way that the media have portrayed Hillary, throughout her campaign. Things that I thought certain, in the world today, we had managed to move beyond. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I couldn’t help but notice the increasingly chauvanistic manner in which she was portrayed, using terms that have often been used to belittle women who dared to speak their own mind in the past.

She has been called nagging, shrill, and bitchy, all of which has been said of any woman who spoke out of her own accord in history. She’s even been compared to Glen Close in Fatal Attraction (Later retracted), and her laugh has been compared to the cackle of an old hag. If there was a negative female stereotype available to use, it was used somewhere. When she did not show emotion, she was cold. When she dared to show emotion, she was too soft and feminine for the job. What she was wearing took precedence over what she was saying, when little or nothing was said regarding the power suits Obama or McCain wear, or their new ties, or their hair.

And why-oh-why is Hillary Clinton’s cleavage newsworthy? The camera was at an angle looking down on her, and she is a woman, and she has given birth to a daughter, so it is not inconceivable that yes, Hillary has cleavage. Why dwell on it? Does it have some bearing on her policies? Did her breasts come up with her healthcare plan of their own accord? Should we interview them? What about Obama’s cheekbones? They are quite prominent and attractive. Surely they have just as much import in determining his political policies.

Little as I like her as a candidate, I can’t help but notice the media falling back on those old stereotypes and tropes that have always been used to discredit women, to pull focus toward their gender rather than what they are saying. Shouldn’t a politician’s history, personality, policies, and plans be more important than whether they have a Y chromosome?