Don't Just Dismiss the Double Standard, January 8, 2008

The jackets, the cleavage, the cackle … a seemingly small (minded) series of sexist slaps that are typically dismissed by the enlightened with a disgusted headshake or a cynical and knowing laugh. However, the recent treatment of Hillary Clinton in the media, and in particular the coverage of a revealing and “emotional moment” from the trail in New Hampshire yesterday, remind me and others that the root of these slights is a troubling and real bias with implications for all of us.

In today’s New York Times, Gloria Steinem gets to the root of the punditry’s bias in their treatment of Senators Clinton and Obama. I strongly urge you to read the full story but I will share a particularly compelling piece here:

“But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t. What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.”

The “misty-eyed” moment on the trail in which Clinton revealed how deeply and personally she feels about her work to make change happen was met with derision by the supposed “better feminist” John Edwards.

Katha Pollitt at The Nation takes Edwards to task saying:

“John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power.”

Katha offers more scathing and witty retorts to Edwards’ selective sexism – see the full post here.

And just so you don’t think this is just a “Chick Thing,” joining us in our outrage are Matt Stoller at Open Left and Ezra Klein at The American Prospect.

We may try to dismiss the individual slights but we cannot responsibly deny the burden of this bias and the cost not only to Hillary Clinton but to all of us.

Welcome to 2008,

Ramona