In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A Thought Experiment

Ashley

I’ve never been part of the sisterhood of traveling pantsuits, but I have to say, Hillary Clinton has been making me a very happy camper lately, with her work to address rape as a war crime in the Congo and her awesome response to a journalist asking her what her husband thinks about international policy.

When I saw that, it made me want to give Hillary a high five. Imagine my surprise when I saw how the Associated Press characterized her completely justified (and completely kickass) response: US Official Struggles to Explain Clinton’s Outburst.

Mmm. It is a struggle to explain such mystifying and inappropriate behavior, is it not?

Imagine, for a moment, a journalist at a press conference back in the H.W. Bush days asking James Baker what his wife thought about our invasion of Iraq. Imagine Baker, quite reasonably, stating that questions should be directed at him, not his wife. Imagine the AP writing a story about Baker and his inexplicable “outburst.”

Somehow, I find such a scenario unlikely. I can’t quite put my finger on why.

37 thoughts on A Thought Experiment

  1. Go Hilary!

    Dang that was awesome!

    I wasn’t too big a fan of hers during the Primaries (I always respected her, though), but wow, I have even more respect for her.

    *High fives to Hilary!*

  2. But… what was she supposed to say? How is that an inappropriate outburst? I mean, I know that’s the point you’re making, but how could she possibly have negotiated that situation to the satisfaction of the AP, then?

    I know men find female anger absolutely terrifying, for some inexplicable reason. But there’s barely even an edge in her voice, and everything she said was completely correct and reasonable. It’s not like she let loose and called him an asshole or something! The way the AP presented it is beyond pathetic. You find yourself wondering what kind of insecure sad-sack wrote that article, which I don’t think is the desired response to a newswire which is supposed to be presented neutrally. Fox is ludicrous too, of course, but you expect that.

  3. The article characterizes the questioner as a “Congolese Student” speaking through a translator, not a journalist.

  5. I guess edge is in the ear of the beholder. I sensed an edge. Was it justified …maybe yes. But politicians, male and female, often get called out/ridiculed for expressing too much of any emotion (Howard Dean anyone). President Clinton was often the subject of “Bill’s showing anger” stories throughout the 2008 campaign for relatively bland statements he made. So it’s no suprise, nor particularly unfair, that Hillary is subject to the same trivial news stories.

    True, Hillary is the top diplomatic officer–but her husband is a former president who, as the s.korea negotiation proves, is still a big player on the international scene. I don’t think the question was completely out of pocket. And I suppose if this were a question and answer segment after she gave a speech…then maybe she already made it clear what her positions on the topic were.

    It may have been a kick ass response from Hillary, but as a top diplomat, ass kickin is not a good look. Especially from a top official to some poor student. She could of just said, “I can’t speak for Bill, but I and the Obama admin believe……” and kept it moving

  6. Bertie:

    Diplomacy doesn’t always mean making nice-nice. Conciliatory behavior is a very important part of the process, but maintaining your own credibility is absolutely key. In this case, the question (as she received it- I understand there may have been a translator’s error) put the U.S. Secretary of State, key agent and co-creator of our foreign policy, subordinate to a man who currently holds no position in government. Letting that slide without showing a couple millimeters of fang would damage her own authority. It would not have been good diplomacy, but rather an ultimately self-defeating act of conciliation.

  8. nentauby: I understand where your coming from, but I disagree. I think the potential loss of credibility by letting it slide is much less than what has actually now happened. By “showing fang” she’s allowed a story and a meme to develop…”Sec. Clinton is insecure in position..doesn’t want to be shown up by Bill.” That’s the undercurrent of all the press coverage.

    Had she just kept it moving would there even be a sound bite to discuss. Much like Obama and the “stupidly” comment, the press is going to blow everything out of proportion.

    And all though Bill doesn’t have a job, he is a popular former prez. He’s not like James Baker’s wife in the original post, and he isn’t quite like just any other unemployed ex-pol. He is one of 44 in the history of this country with more foriegn policy experience than Hillary or Barack at this time. He is an international celebritician made relevant right now because 10 days ago he secured the return of 2 americans from N. Korea–a country we dubbed the axis of evil a couple of years ago.

  9. THAT was an awesome response from Clinton, and she was wholly justified in it. Heck, after watching the clip a second time, I say she held back instead of unleashing all hell.

    This also reminds me of the campaign, and another comparison that runs along sexist lines. From my warm cozzy home up here in Northern Canada, I saw how the current Vp had a slight stumble of emotional being choked back in his first open debate with Sarah Palin, and there were warm outpourings of support for him and how strong he was (including here, which is not a dismissal of the people here or the support shown for him).

    Now, compare to when Hillary herself revealed a little bit of emotion during her campaign for democratic nomination, and the major news media were immediately on her, crying about her crocodile tears and how ’emotional’ she was and whatnot. It’s almost the same thing here with this little (kickass) reply.

    Thus, it just seems to me, sadly enough, that it’s business as usual for the media to portray women acting human as weak and emotional and out of control.

    Well, I should say American Media.

  10. If the roles were reveresed, and it was HRC who was the popular former President, I have a feeling we’d see bucketfuls of sympathy about the emasculation of Bill (and men in general). Sheesh.

    She cannot win–no woman in her position can win. If she answered, it would prove that she’s toothless and weak, and that her husband is the person who matters. Responding the way she did means that she’s having an outburst, she’s hysterical, rude, emotional. I’ve seen her reaction charecterized as a meltdown as well.

    BTW, being irritated isn’t an outburst. Snapping at someone isn’t an outburst. I saw her reaction, it neither an “outburst” nor a “meltdown.” It was an irritated response. I think the MSM is being hyperbolic and histrionic in their charecterization of her response. I mean, please. If you want to see repeated examples of outbursts or meltdowns, watch Bill O’Reilly. FFS.

  11. Ashley: I’m not arguing that female politicians aren’t generally hurt more by shows of emotion/anger than male ones. That is a point I am happy, or actually unhappy, to concede. By citing that article are you conceding that Clinton is in fact showing anger? Because the women in the study were purposefully acting angry, so it only seems relevant if Clinton were showing anger as well. If so, I think that was not a smart move on Clinton’s part for reasons stated in my previous post. I think part of the hoopla is because this was a sharp exchange with a student—not a political adversary (like during a debate) or with a hostile journalist. The power differential between Sec. of State Clinton and the student was substantial—and it makes the exchange seem more out of proportion. just my opinion.

    If you don’t think she’s showing anger, edge, etc. then we just fundamentally disagree on what we are seeing.

  13. @bertie–

    I don’t want to derail, but I was just pointing out that you may be perceiving Hillary’s response as both more angry, and more of a problem, because she is a woman.

  14. Quite possible. but I think showing any irritation, edge, etc. to a question from a no-name student, when you are the secretary of state is a bad look. I honestly don’t think my assessment would change if it were colin powell. If colin responded in the same way (hand gestures and all) I’d probably note he’s letting the south bronx come out and that he needed to ease up on the young’n asking the question.

  15. Bertie– The fact that Colin Powell’s anger would receive a racist treatment similar to the sexism Hillary is facing is the reason I used Jim Baker as an example instead.

  16. I noticed this story in UK rag “The Metro” as I was riding the bus this morning. It opened:

    “THE STRAIN of visiting four African countries in a week took its toll on Hillary Clinton when she snapped at a question about her famous husband.”

    Which if anything is even more dismissive. All the coverage I’ve seen has also downplayed the role of the question in terms of its offensiveness.

    As far as the sexist reactions go: I have seen plenty of white male public figures respond to questions much more aggressively than that, and with less provocation. I think what HRC said was exactly what needed to be said. It is a shame that it came on a question from a non-English speaking student, but similar dismissive attitudes are pervasive in society anyway, so she was bound to face something like this eventually. It’s just an inversion of the meme “and what does your wife think?” directed at a husband, when his wife is actually right there beside him. Because in our society, there is still an underlying belief that it is the man who determines that.

    The idea that she should have just let it go, I think comes more from the expectation that women are trained to be meek, submissive, avoid displeasing anyone. I think it’s important that that notion should be challenged in public, and HRC has shown that women can and (some) will stand up and say, “erm, I’m right here!”

  17. I was watching a re-run of last night’s Daily Show and they mentioned that the student had actually asked about what Obama thought and there was a mistranslation. Did anyone hear about that or is there not anything to it?

  19. the article linked in this post notes that the student meant to ask about president obama’s thought, and either (1) out of nervousness, he misspoke or (2) the translator erred.

    i think it may be useful to consider this.

  20. I was sympathetic to that explanation at first, prairielily, but how does one confuse the name “Obama” with “Clinton,” AND insert the word “husband” in there?

  21. the article linked in this post notes that the student meant to ask about president obama’s thought, and either (1) out of nervousness, he misspoke or (2) the translator erred.

    i think it may be useful to consider this.

    …. before criticizing the student, yes! (seriously, please! it makes me uncomfortable when ppl make this into a focus on the student)

    but before looking at how clinton’s response is being treated in our media? because it would be, and is, the same no matter what the student (meant to/actually) ask(ed). and that does merit criticism.

  22. I just got off a message board forum where a bunch of dudes were feigning outrage out how “angry”, enraged, and inappropriate HRC was.

    Having just seen the video, she seemed completely measured to me, given the stupidty of the question, and gave a fully appropriate response to an assinine and sexist question.

    LOL, what are these wingnuts seeing in this video that I’m not?

  23. ” # douglafem says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 8:08 pm – Edit

    the article linked in this post notes that the student meant to ask about president obama’s thought, and either (1) out of nervousness, he misspoke or (2) the translator erred.

    i think it may be useful to consider this. ”

    ——- Sure but that was not how the question was presented to her. How was HRC supposed to know that it was mistake on the student or translator’s part?

    The fact that it was an error is not really relevant because she was asked for her *husband’s* opinion.
    I believe that her reaction to the question she was asked was perfectly justified.

  24. In an English forum, I would be completely sympathetic to HRC. The question, as far as HRC knew, wasn’t just about what Bill Clinton thought, but involved her being a MOUTHPIECE for him.

    In this situation, as the Secretary of State, she knows that there is always a possibility of a mistranslation, so I wish that she had kept the same words, but hadn’t used the hand gestures. I really only say that for the student’s sake – I would be SO FUCKING CRUSHED if the translator messed up my question (or I did) because I was scared and Hillary Rodham Clinton told me off because she thought I was an idiot. I could care less about the media thinking that she’s an angry person, because the question as she heard it, deserved that response.

    The reason I buy the mistranslation explanation is because this type of phrasing – speaking through your mouth for someone else – does not sound super offensive in my family’s native tongue. I can also easily imagine a nervous student mentioning a president without being clear as to which one, and the translator misunderstanding which president he meant. I think we all know that when you’re translating, you try to preserve the meaning of what is said, not the actual words themselves.

    Regardless, I think the student learned a valuable lesson in phrasing questions as clearly as possible.

    Also… I think this is the first time that I’ve ever seen video footage of HRC seeming anything less than personable, and I think it’s pretty telling that the media has jumped on it. “At last… after almost twenty years… we FINALLY have footage of her that we can play while calling her a bitch! She finally did something we can use!!!!!!”

  25. When I first heard about this, Hillary’s response was described to me as her “losing it” over a question. Now that I finally get to see an actual video of her “losing it”, all I can say is “Wow, Hillary is pretty badass.”

    Seriously, she reminded me of some of the best moments Martin Sheen had on the West Wing. And sounding like Martin Sheen on the West Wing can only ever be a compliment.

  26. You know, the SecState had been on a tour listening to women and girls being gang-raped by soldiers and rebels. You don’t suppose that her being surrounded by evidence that female=”less-than-fully-human” had anything to do with her refusing to take any crap devaluing her because of her gender (even if it were mistranslated crap)?

    I give her credit for not jumping off the stage and throttling the questioner, which is probably what I might have done in the same circumstances, after hearing days of rape-as-tool-of-war survival stories from the survivors. (One good reason for me never to aspire to being SecState.)

  27. but before looking at how clinton’s response is being treated in our media? because it would be, and is, the same no matter what the student (meant to/actually) ask(ed). and that does merit criticism.

    THIS.

  28. I really don’t blame her for getting miffed about the question, even if it were a mistranslation. I would have probably said the same thing in her situation.

    I don’t care for how blown out of proportion this whole thing is. I’ve seen “meltdowns” and people “losing it” before (Yay for the internet), and what Hillary said was neither of the those things. Sure she was a bit snappy, but anyone can be snappy. Politicians are people too!

  29. LOL, what are these wingnuts seeing in this video that I’m not?

    A woman standing up for herself. Don’t you realize how scary that is?

  30. The question was not about her husband, it was about Pres. Obama. That’s why it is being characterized as inappropriate and an outburst. She completely misunderstood what the person was asking and responded like someone just waiting for a reason to have an outburst. I think she is justified in being upset about people always trying to compare her to her husband and keep her in his shadow, but this was a completely legit question asked of the Sec. of State about the Pres. she serves. As a high ranking cabinet official and head diplomat not to mention pretty high in the secession to POTUS, it was a perfectly fine question. I feel just as much empathy for the student/journalist who had to stand there and be berated and scolded like a school child for asking a perfectly legit question as I do for Clinton, more so as a matter of fact.
    But yeah, calling it a meltdown is complete BS and IMO has everything to do with her being a female. Goes back to the whole hysterics and lunacy terms thrown at women if they dared show any emotion other than affection and complacency. The media didn’t make this big a deal when Cheney told someone “F you” during the conduction of official business or when Lieberman said he’d like to challenge Matthews to a duel. Anytime a woman stands up for herself or shows a backbone she’s being “outrageous” and “stubborn.”

  31. “The question was not about her husband, it was about Pres. Obama. That’s why it is being characterized as inappropriate and an outburst. She completely misunderstood what the person was asking and responded like someone just waiting for a reason to have an outburst. I think she is justified in being upset about people always trying to compare her to her husband and keep her in his shadow, but this was a completely legit question asked of the Sec. of State about the Pres. she serves.” – Tracey

    Wait – she “misunderstood” and it was a “legit question…about the Pres”? The translator, or the student, misspoke. The question AS ASKED was about Bill Clinton, whether or not the intention of the student was to ask about Obama. At least, that’s how I’m reading it. So to expect her to know it was really about Obama is to expect her to read minds. Sure, why not throw that on the pile of demands- don’t get angry or snappy, and definitely, be able to read minds. Is there no end to what we expect of women so as not to offend men?

  32. Tracey, the question was what her husband, President Clinton, thought of something. They didn’t ask what President Obama thought. That is not the question that was presented to HRC.

  33. Charity: I explicitly said the double standards on women is BS.You can make a point without suggesting someone said the exact opposite of what they actually said, and your post suggests that I think women should be able to read minds and not get snappy or angry. If you care to read the entire post I made you’ll notice I specifically said she is justified in her outrage over the constant expectations of being nothing more than her husband’s shadow. If you are going to accuse me of telling women not to be angry or snappy you better damn well be able to back it up, as of now you can not, so can the garbage. If it is coming out that the translator was correct and it was a question about B.Clinton then I am even more behind her and admit my error in believing the initial reports, but I will not let people sit behind a screen and accuse me of placing double standards on anger and behavior when it comes to women when I explicitly stated such standards are unjustified hogwash and an attempt to paint “real” women as nothing more than passive and affectionate. Now, if this is a misunderstanding of what the last few sentences of your post meant, my bad, but they were included in a post directed at me and I can not be expected to read minds.

  34. Tracey, HRC can’t be expected to read minds either. This is what you said:

    The question was not about her husband, it was about Pres. Obama. That’s why it is being characterized as inappropriate and an outburst. She completely misunderstood what the person was asking [bold mine] and responded like someone just waiting for a reason to have an outburst.

    If you listen to the audio, you’ll hear the translator ask her about Mr. Clinton. HRC did NOT misunderstand the question–if the question was mistranslated or misstated, that’s regrettable, but she cannot read minds. I think its disingenuous of you to accuse her of “waiting to have an outburst.”

  35. Sheelzebub:
    did not say she was waiting to have an outburst, based on the way the story was reported and the way she responded, I said that was how she came across. I did not say her response was bad, only that given the way it played out it could defiantly make her look bad. As I said before, the only reports I saw and read reported that it was a misunderstanding and seeing as how those stories are being expanded on and refuted, I do believe the question was about B. Clinton and the student was trying to cover their behind. However, I did not say she should be able or expected to read minds. Just because I suggest someone has misunderstood something or received a mistranslation, which in this instance I retract, it does not mean that I am saying the remedy is for them to develop mind-reading capabilities. I never said she should have automatically known who the question was really about, only that (at the time I thought) it appeared to be a legit one and that would explain the reactions to it. As a matter of fact, I did not even suggest she should have asked for clarification given that it would be rather ludicrous for someone constantly dealing with people who speak English as a non-first language or speak through a translator to get in the habit of asking for a lot of questions to be repeated/clarified. That is because I realize that even if it was a question on the current POTUS’s views, she responded to the question she heard/received and should not be faulted for it. I never even said the response was inappropriate, only that it was the wrong one to the question I thought was being asked or was supposed to have been asked. As a matter of fact, I went on to say (even given my beliefs about what the question had been) that the entire thing was blown out of proportion, especially given the comments of male officials which included f bombs during the conduct of official business and wishing for the ability to duel, that it was being blown out of proportion and entirely sexist. Before that I explicitly said she has every right to be ticked off as being seen as no more than her husband’s shadow.
    The only thing I did was suggest that b/c the question was supposedly about Obama, maybe there was some reasoning to the media’s characterization of the incident and even then I said the conversations about the incident are defiantly steeped in sexism. It is not often that I defend the media, but in this instance I really did believe there were reasons, and sound ones, for why the media was making it seem she had inappropriately responded to a question.There are accusations that I said she should be able to read minds and that women should not display anger. Where are those coming from? The most I said was that she came across as having an outburst and that given it was a legit question(which I now retract) the reactions make some sense (which I now believe they do not and are deliberately misleading in some, if not all, cases). The reports I saw had it characterized as a misunderstanding and I defended that classification while explicitly stating that the post linked to in the OP which called it a “meltdown” was complete BS. And if you are drawing from my second post you will notice that the reading minds was in response to Charity’s post which seems to suggest that I expect women to never display anger and be capable of reading minds. I do not.

  36. And to expand, even if it had been an actual misunderstanding or mistranslation, I do not believe an apology would have been in order because the mistake would still not have been hers. I figure I will make it clear that I do not think women should be constantly apologizing in addition to not believing they should be able to read minds or avoid displays of anger.

  37. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Link Farm and Open Thread, Factory Wall edition

Comments are currently closed.