Sexist Female Hogwash
I've never done this before, but then again, I've never encountered a column that begged for it so desperately. I copy and paste a column from the Boston Globe from Monday, February 19. This column is exactly the kind of garbage the Boston Globe thinks passes for serious scholarship. My comments do not appear before the column or after but within, (parenthetically) and italicized.
Hillary Clinton and the glass ceiling
By Dr. Marcia Angell, February 19, 2007
NOW THAT the presidential campaign is underway, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy is the subject of intense (you wish) discussion. In polite company, people (no, just liberal elitists) often insist with a virtuous (an almost exclusively liberal elitest trait) air that the right thing to do is to vote for the best candidate without regard for gender. But that is a limited view of what's at stake. The fact that Clinton is a woman is not a bad reason to vote for her, and unless you see the perfect man, it may be reason enough. Let me explain.
In the 218 years since George Washington became (uh, you mean, "was elected") president, every one of his 42 successors has been a man. For most of that time (but what about the time before when female queens ruled Europe?), of course, there were no women leaders anywhere in the world. But that changed long ago -- with Golda Meir in Israel, Indira Gandhi in India, Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and now Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia, and Segolene Royal, a candidate in France's next presidential election. It's way past time for the United States to catch up. Women are not a minority group. We make up the majority of the electorate, are more likely to vote than men, and are on average better educated.
So here comes Clinton -- well-qualified, talented, and smart. Why the unease about her (uh, she's a lying, coniving, two-faced, commodities-manipulating, opportunist?)? To hear people talk, it has nothing to do with gender. What we hear is that she is polarizing, opportunistic (oops, I'm bagged), too tough (please), and, finally, that most self-fulfilling of all prophecies, not electable. Note the vagueness and personal nature of these criticisms; they mostly go to style, not substance -- the kinds of judgments that have everything to do with gender (many of us believe in a strong national defense, respect the sanctity of life, think our money is our money, and support judges that agree with these few beliefs but I guess minor reasons why others oppose Sen. Clinton can be cherry-picked by a pro-Hillary extremist).
The exception (the exception?!; should I list all the exceptions?) is her ill-considered 2002 vote for the war in Iraq. But every other Democratic candidate who was in the Senate at the time was equally craven. (Barack Obama, who did oppose the war, was not yet in the Senate, so didn't have to cast a vote.) Now that the political winds have changed (cowards always know exactly how the political winds are blowing), the other candidates are falling all over themselves to admit their mistake (like I said, cowards). That is harder for her. An apology may be disarming in a man, but a woman has to worry about appearing weak or indecisive (oh, the unfairness of it all!). Yet I have little doubt that if elected, she would move as fast as any of the others to get us out of (I'm quite sure you mean, "surrender in" not "get us out of") Iraq.
All of the parsing of Clinton's personality and policies ignores the elephant in the living room: She is a woman and the first woman with a serious shot at the presidency. As such, whatever she does will be wrong (paranoid victim, so unbecoming), and wrong (still paranoid victim and even more unbecoming) in a way that does not apply to even the most closely scrutinized male candidate (whoa! so dang paranoid). She will be held to the standard applied only to women trying to break the glass ceiling (the what?! glass ceilings definitely exist but in environments where men create barriers to the advancement of women; the conditions are simply not met to use the phrase here) -- she will have to be perfect according to shifting and often contradictory standards.
I have some experience with glass ceilings (poor victim, now I'm sympathetic to your cause). I entered medicine at a time when it was an almost exclusively male preserve. As with Clinton, criticisms of women usually focused on personal attributes, not ability. We were expected to possess the stereotypical masculine traits that were then associated with doctors, but also satisfy stereotypical notions of femininity -- a tricky juggling act that men were not called on to perform (again, oh, the unfairness). Those days are mostly behind us in medicine, but not in politics, and they won't be until we have a woman president (really?; that's what will put this behind us?).
The major Democratic candidates are similar in ideals and programs. That being the case, the fact that Clinton is a woman should weigh in her favor. Supporting Obama because he is African-American (racism apparently not offending Dr. Angell) does not somehow compensate for the exclusion of more than half the population from the highest office in the country; it simply underscores it. If we wait for the perfect woman to come along, we'll wait a long time. And in the meantime, we'll (yes, YOU will) continue to elect men every four years who will often be seriously imperfect (well, we are men, after all).
Clinton is well qualified by experience and ability to be president, and she has by all accounts been a hardworking and conscientious senator. But we should also pay attention to the fact that the election of a woman in and of itself would be a momentous step toward full equality in the United States and a powerful message to the rest of the world.
Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, is a guest columnist (a Harvard education obviously not what it used to be). (End of column and the test run of the embedded sarcasm).
I bolded and italicized the most glaring problem with Dr. Angell's glass ceiling screed: who, exactly, does Dr. Angell think has been electing US Presidents?
I've never done this before, but then again, I've never encountered a column that begged for it so desperately. I copy and paste a column from the Boston Globe from Monday, February 19. This column is exactly the kind of garbage the Boston Globe thinks passes for serious scholarship. My comments do not appear before the column or after but within, (parenthetically) and italicized.
Hillary Clinton and the glass ceiling
By Dr. Marcia Angell, February 19, 2007
NOW THAT the presidential campaign is underway, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy is the subject of intense (you wish) discussion. In polite company, people (no, just liberal elitists) often insist with a virtuous (an almost exclusively liberal elitest trait) air that the right thing to do is to vote for the best candidate without regard for gender. But that is a limited view of what's at stake. The fact that Clinton is a woman is not a bad reason to vote for her, and unless you see the perfect man, it may be reason enough. Let me explain.
In the 218 years since George Washington became (uh, you mean, "was elected") president, every one of his 42 successors has been a man. For most of that time (but what about the time before when female queens ruled Europe?), of course, there were no women leaders anywhere in the world. But that changed long ago -- with Golda Meir in Israel, Indira Gandhi in India, Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and now Angela Merkel in Germany, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia, and Segolene Royal, a candidate in France's next presidential election. It's way past time for the United States to catch up. Women are not a minority group. We make up the majority of the electorate, are more likely to vote than men, and are on average better educated.
So here comes Clinton -- well-qualified, talented, and smart. Why the unease about her (uh, she's a lying, coniving, two-faced, commodities-manipulating, opportunist?)? To hear people talk, it has nothing to do with gender. What we hear is that she is polarizing, opportunistic (oops, I'm bagged), too tough (please), and, finally, that most self-fulfilling of all prophecies, not electable. Note the vagueness and personal nature of these criticisms; they mostly go to style, not substance -- the kinds of judgments that have everything to do with gender (many of us believe in a strong national defense, respect the sanctity of life, think our money is our money, and support judges that agree with these few beliefs but I guess minor reasons why others oppose Sen. Clinton can be cherry-picked by a pro-Hillary extremist).
The exception (the exception?!; should I list all the exceptions?) is her ill-considered 2002 vote for the war in Iraq. But every other Democratic candidate who was in the Senate at the time was equally craven. (Barack Obama, who did oppose the war, was not yet in the Senate, so didn't have to cast a vote.) Now that the political winds have changed (cowards always know exactly how the political winds are blowing), the other candidates are falling all over themselves to admit their mistake (like I said, cowards). That is harder for her. An apology may be disarming in a man, but a woman has to worry about appearing weak or indecisive (oh, the unfairness of it all!). Yet I have little doubt that if elected, she would move as fast as any of the others to get us out of (I'm quite sure you mean, "surrender in" not "get us out of") Iraq.
All of the parsing of Clinton's personality and policies ignores the elephant in the living room: She is a woman and the first woman with a serious shot at the presidency. As such, whatever she does will be wrong (paranoid victim, so unbecoming), and wrong (still paranoid victim and even more unbecoming) in a way that does not apply to even the most closely scrutinized male candidate (whoa! so dang paranoid). She will be held to the standard applied only to women trying to break the glass ceiling (the what?! glass ceilings definitely exist but in environments where men create barriers to the advancement of women; the conditions are simply not met to use the phrase here) -- she will have to be perfect according to shifting and often contradictory standards.
I have some experience with glass ceilings (poor victim, now I'm sympathetic to your cause). I entered medicine at a time when it was an almost exclusively male preserve. As with Clinton, criticisms of women usually focused on personal attributes, not ability. We were expected to possess the stereotypical masculine traits that were then associated with doctors, but also satisfy stereotypical notions of femininity -- a tricky juggling act that men were not called on to perform (again, oh, the unfairness). Those days are mostly behind us in medicine, but not in politics, and they won't be until we have a woman president (really?; that's what will put this behind us?).
The major Democratic candidates are similar in ideals and programs. That being the case, the fact that Clinton is a woman should weigh in her favor. Supporting Obama because he is African-American (racism apparently not offending Dr. Angell) does not somehow compensate for the exclusion of more than half the population from the highest office in the country; it simply underscores it. If we wait for the perfect woman to come along, we'll wait a long time. And in the meantime, we'll (yes, YOU will) continue to elect men every four years who will often be seriously imperfect (well, we are men, after all).
Clinton is well qualified by experience and ability to be president, and she has by all accounts been a hardworking and conscientious senator. But we should also pay attention to the fact that the election of a woman in and of itself would be a momentous step toward full equality in the United States and a powerful message to the rest of the world.
Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, is a guest columnist (a Harvard education obviously not what it used to be). (End of column and the test run of the embedded sarcasm).
I bolded and italicized the most glaring problem with Dr. Angell's glass ceiling screed: who, exactly, does Dr. Angell think has been electing US Presidents?
posted by Zack at 11:26 AM
4 Comments:
Good one Zack. But it's like trying to describe an elephant to a blind man.
But I love it.
Bob
This was so funny. Are you able to email to her your comments on her text? This format was much more effective, and humorous, than just refuting her points one by one in your own editorial. Good job!
(BTW, the paper does Harvard no favors by mentioning the author's affiliation!)
ZR, although your points are well-taken, whether you like it or not, millions upon millions of American voters will agree with Dr. Angell. The months to come will be interesting indeed.
Folks,
I went back and read the post and I have to say, I'm not crazy about it. I mock the Dr.'s scholarship and my comments were certainly punkish and certainly less scholoarly than the Dr.'s.
My few central points, which I could have made without the embedded comments, were:
1. As I've written so many times, you are a sexist or a racist if you vote for someone because of their gender or skin color just as you would be a sexist or a racist if you voted againt someone because of same.
2. Women cannot whine about a condition they create! If women want to be sexists and vote only for women, they can certainly fill the White House, the Senate and the US House of Representatives with as many woman as they choose. Ah, but for Madison's Factions, which I have written about quite a few times.
Post a Comment
<< Home