Why Hating Hillary Isn't Misogyny
Camille Paglia is right on, in her piece in the UK Telegraph, "Why Women Shouldn't Vote For Hillary Clinton." An excerpt:
What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar.Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called "Hitlery" or "the Hildebeast" on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she's portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House.
No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife.
Furthermore, Hillary's mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary's options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience.
Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.
If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon.
This was a good article. Paglia is usually surprising to me in the direction of thinking that she takes on any issue but she's always thought provoking and a master of English prose. She's a great writer.
On a somewhat off topic note: Congratulations to Danika Patrick for becoming the first woman to win an Indy Car race this Sunday in Motegi Japan! I'm sure it's not her last and I predict she will eventually win the Indy 500.
Bikerken at April 21, 2008 12:23 AM
Paglia's last sentence is, um, striking. Allusive, and all that stuff.
Crid at April 21, 2008 1:46 AM
I'm predicting this even:
"If Hillary-OR-Obama loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist-OR-racist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon."
sorry, I'm voting for a dead cat, and a penguin, because I can at least identify with their identity politics... or something. Bill n' Opus '08
SwissArmyD at April 21, 2008 2:59 AM
I've been sayin' all along what a phony bitch Shrillary is. Most of the comments at the link agree with Paglia, which is a good thing. Shrillary is dillusional at best. After the primary in PA today, it'll be a done deal, hopefully.
SwissArmyD, I've been voting for Bill n' Opus since the 80s. My candidates never win. o_O
Flynne at April 21, 2008 5:40 AM
Used with permission, Amy? Is 27% of an essay an "excerpt"? Is this 'fair use'? Or are you disregarding poor Camile's rights?
By the way, I agree HRC is no feminist. She is a conservative. And she is a political opportunist (like a chorizo eating vegan or a libertarian who just doesn't endorse free movement). Good enough reasons to vote otherwise.
JJ at April 21, 2008 6:47 AM
SeanH at April 21, 2008 6:56 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/why-hating-hill.html#comment-1541513">comment from JJThe piece I posted is indeed "fair use." Please, be my guest, write to Camille Paglia and see if she's distressed at the chunk I posted, intended to drive people to her original work, which I'm sure it has.
The above post is from a weenie named James Johnson, a University of Rochester poly sci professor, who posts photographs, art, and cartoons on his blog -- not thumbnails driving traffic to the original -- but photographs used in full, without permission from or payment to the photographer.
He also doesn't like that I criticized Rebecca Solnit's silly snivel complaining that men keep women down (when it's actually just that Rebecca Solnit appears to be too meek to speak up).
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/rebecca-solnit.html
Instead of taking responsibility for what he's done, taking all these photos, he's coming on my site to attack me on every comments section.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 6:58 AM
Mr. Johnson, I buy the bandwidth here, and you may not carry out this little attempted war of yours all over my site, turning every discussion into a podium for yourself.
Johnson's site is here:
http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 7:01 AM
Here's what the people who think those who dislike Hillary are misogynists miss: though there are some who will not vote for a woman based upon her sex alone, they are a small enough minority that even conservative places like Texas have no problem electing women to their highest offices. The reason that people aren't voting for Hillary (in enough numbers for her to win) is Hillary. She doesn't seem nice, or funny or human, and has a long track record of being that way. Instead of learning the details of Democratic machine politics, she should have been studying old Ann Richards tapes.
justin case at April 21, 2008 7:21 AM
Poor Amy! I didn't attack you I raised a question based on your self-righteous indignation about breaches of copyright! You, after all, raised the topic in the first place - even though it was irrelevant to the theme of the initial comment thread. Any question is an attack? And your reply is off point since writing Camile is not the test of fair use. You should know that. The copyright holder is likely the newspaper. And you simply did not follow your own advice. Hypocrite.
So now you say, "I'm going to take my marbles and go home." I will spare you the trouble. Bye.
JJ at April 21, 2008 7:22 AM
I can't decide whether to be a misogynist or a racist next November, so I suspect I'll be doing both.
Jim Treacher at April 21, 2008 7:37 AM
It's telling that JJ's paragraph is poorly written - and he's a teacher!
You can always tell who the liberal moon-bat in the room is - they're the first to leave when a good fight begins.
Good job as always, Amy, for bringing Camille's perspective to the fore.
Ally at April 21, 2008 7:41 AM
Hey! I'm the resident attention whore on this site, JJ! Back under your rock! Back, I say! o_O
Flynne at April 21, 2008 9:01 AM
And your reply is off point since writing Camile is not the test of fair use. You should know that. The copyright holder is likely the newspaper.
Dude, your ignorance of IP law is showing. First, an excerpt of a piece + commentary is textbook fair use; no permission from the copyright holder is required for this. Second, it's doubtful a writer of Paglia's stature fully assigns her copyright to the paper or syndication service; she probably grants them a license. The publisher has a copyright on that particular form of the publication. So inquiring with either Camille or the paper would work if one were seeking to find out the opinion of the copyright holder on the issue of rights. Though, as noted before, that is irrelevant to the issue of fair use. My guess is that the paper is more than happy to have: 1) a machine readable inbound link from a blog with decent traffic and a respectable number of inbound and outbound links because this helps that paper in Google, and 2) some additional readers who follow that link.
justin case at April 21, 2008 9:03 AM
And your reply is off point since writing Camile is not the test of fair use.
Justin, above, is correct. No newspaper ever owns my writing. They license it for publication (get the right to publish it first, and then I can resell it elsewhere). I retain the copyright.
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 9:14 AM
> I will spare you the
> trouble. Bye.
No! Come back! Don't leave! We want to know what you think about stuff!
> It's telling that JJ's paragraph
> is poorly written - and he's a
> teacher!
Yeah.
Crid at April 21, 2008 9:21 AM
No! Come back! Don't leave! We want to know what you think about stuff!
Anything but "fair use."
Amy Alkon at April 21, 2008 9:37 AM
JJ is just a drive-by asshole. He's a professor of a "soft science" because his brain isn't capable of the rigor required by either a hard science or a professional art.
Which is why he is so ill-informed as regards intellectual property law.
He couldn't hold up his end of an argument with an engine hoist.
brian at April 21, 2008 10:31 AM
Mostly off-topic, but its a Hillary blog spot, so a tiny bit appropriate:
I've finally gotten through my pile of books to this one Amy recommended: Mistakes were Made (But Not By Me). http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208799369&sr=8-1 (Please feel free to update this post with the link that would give you a %, Amy.)
When I got to the part about memory, I recalled a couple blog items about Hillary and Obama and how they had "misremembered" a few things about past experiences. If I recall, it was suggested that they outright and knowingly fabricated these errors to make themselves sound better. I wondered how that conclusion was reached given what I'm reading now about how we all adjust our memories to reduce dissonance between how we view ourselves and what really happened. Isn't it possible that Obama really thought he met his sister at the airport. And that Hillary really believes she was under fire? For the record, I'm not defending either of them, nor does my Canadian ass have any say, but it did strike me as interesting how quickly we assumed the very worst of these two when its apparently something everyone does with their memories.
moreta at April 21, 2008 10:47 AM
I have no problems voting for a woman. I'd vote for a three legged lesbian vegan if her policy ideas made sense. Hillary is about as Marxist as you can get. She doesn't want to lead the country, she wants to nanny it to death. Have you ever watched her give a speech? She is very hitleresque in her delivery. She starts out slow and deliberate, increasing in volume ever so slightly and by the time she gets to the punchline, she is screaming at the top of her lungs and barely stops before adding on, "YOU FUCKING MEN!" She's got some serious issues with anger. The stories of her raging in the white house are legion. As far as her policies would go, I think she would disregard national defense all together. She is the kind of person who thinks that if we just don't respond to anything at all overseas and bring all our troops home from all over the world, everyone will just like us and everything will be rosy. That's not reality.
As far as the other two steamiing piles of candidate, I don't care for either one of them any better. McCain is bitter, senile, has two feet in the grave and wants to turn America into the worlds dumping ground for welfare cases. Obama is a closet black panther who can barely stomach us 'typical white people.' They all make my asshole want to chew tobacco.
Bikerken at April 21, 2008 1:05 PM
Paglia makes some decent points - but her last line is affected tripe.
Jody Tresidder at April 21, 2008 1:46 PM
You are such a delicate little thing.
Crid at April 21, 2008 3:27 PM
I suspect JJ is a closet Alkon fan, perhaps he even holds some deep desire for her, hence his continued return despite his apparent distaste for her advice...perhaps this hostility is passive aggressive behavior meant as a substitute for his own inability to express his true feelings, and a result of his blaming her for already having someone in her life and not realizing who the better candidate is. Then his attacks are his way of drawing attention from our lady of advice, as it is better to be hated and noticed than to be benignly ignored.
I kid of course. But wouldn't that all be amusing? ;)
Whatever the case, I suspect the professor will have more to say now and in the near future.
Robert H. Butler at April 21, 2008 10:36 PM
JJ, Amy is hot! Leave her alone. (Re: Robert Butler's post) :-)
I guess Nora Ephron would call Camille Paglia a woman-hating racist white man. Heh.
Me me me me me at April 22, 2008 10:50 AM
Leave a comment