Academic

Peggy Orenstein on Gender and Power

By Kathy Stanchi

This past Sunday, Peggy Orenstein published a column in the New York Times magazine about what the many personal, gender-based attacks on Hillary Clinton say about how American society views powerful women. Orenstein laments the double-edged message that Hillary?s candidacy gives to young women, stating that Hillary?s ?bid for the White House has embodied both the possibilities we never imagined for our daughters?and the vitriol that attaining them can provoke. Both are real; so Godspeed, girls.?

There was also a recent post on this topic on the feminist law profs blog that recounted some of the uglier attacks on Clinton, which included everything from comparing Clinton to the Fatal Attraction bunny-killer to merchandising her as a stainless steel nutcracker to an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C.U.N.T.

Like Orenstein, I?m not a Hillary supporter. And, like her, I agree (certainly) that these attacks are misogynist and should be condemned by thinking people everywhere. And I understand that it is difficult to explain the venom of them to young girls. But I like to view this kind of ridiculous ad hominem (feminem?) garbage as the last, gasping death rattle of a worldview that simply couldn?t hold its own in rational discourse.  I mean, C.U.N.T? Are these people kidding? That isn?t political punditry, it?s Beavis and Butthead, only less intelligent. As we say in South Jersey, is that all you got? I try never to forget that, at least in reasoned argument, the ad hominem is usually the best, most telling sign that the other side has simply run out of ammunition (or intellect). It?s what gets trotted out by the losing side when the real argument is over. And I hope that?s what Peggy Orenstein tells her daughter, when her daughter is old enough to get it.

On the other hand, I do wish that some of the commentary would focus on the more insidious ways in which gender -- and race ? infiltrated this election. Much more worrisome, and less easily ridiculed, are those comments that don?t have the overt, obvious stench of racism or misogyny (an obviousness that I think makes them ultimately unpersuasive), but are, not-so-far below the surface, really about a fear of powerful women and African Americans.  More so than the Hillary nutcracker, which I can?t believe changed many minds (at least not against Hillary), I worry about how many otherwise thoughtful people?s attitudes changed as a result of coverage like this.

Kathy S.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on May 20, 2008 (boomark / email).