Yes, dear.
So Jill tells us all that this magazine cover is misogynistic. I agree with Eric.
There is a danger here. Much like the danger in every criticism of Obama being characterized as racist (some are, some aren’t). We risk diluting the term and numbing ourselves to real racism and misogyny. Hillary Clinton is a political figure. A polarizing one at that. Poking at her is fair game.
But more than that, there is a reality behind this cover that does veer toward misogyny, but is not. And the reality may be a stereotype, but in all stereotypes lie grains of truth. That’s why they stick.
The fact is, every one of us deals with women in our lives. Mothers, sisters, friends, wives, and girlfriends. And we all recognize, in the women around us, Hillary’s level of petulance and irrationality during this campaign, which the TNR cover so perfectly describes.
Kinda goes something like this…. I want to watch sports, honey…YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ME I WANT TO WATCH SEX IN THE CITY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHY CAN’T YOU JUST…o.k. honey.
Yes, dear.
Now, this conversation goes on every single day, between males and females, so much so that the “yes, dear” line is a fixture of our culture, one that every woman and man understands in its entirety. The dynamic of this primary is that Obama supporters aren’t saying, “yes dear” to Hillary and her supporters. And that drives them, and Hillary, nuts.
Jill manifests it quite perfectly herself when she’s called out for being a Hillary shill and blatant victimhood whiner. Jill doesn’t understand why you don’t understand….Jill didn’t say what she just said…..Here’s just a sampling of her comments since posting how misogynistic this cover is to her. In these two posts, here and here, (no permalinks on these comments, and THANK GOD FOR THAT I COULDN’T KEEP TRACK OF THEM ANYWAY) Jill does her…well…..thing.
First, she makes no commentary.
1. If you find this blog post - which has zero commentary from me to be whining, you have an inexplicably (to me) low threshold.
Then, she says she did.
It IS misogynistic and it DOES lack journalistic integrity.
Then there’s no excuse for it.
There is no excuse for that cover photo unless you are owned by Rupert Murdoch in which case, yes, it’s expected.
Then Jill wonders why people think she’s whining.
What’s it got to do with whining, slights or competition?
Then no one understands Jill, nor she them.
I’m actually not really sure what you mean with what you’ve written.
Then Jill tells us all not to label after her headline is ONE GIANT LABEL.
I strongly advise against such labeling and stereotyping - you know me well enough, Eric. I can only think you’re trying to give me wrinkles too!
Then Jill’s not really all that sensitive.
You think I’m overly sensitive? Whatever.
Then in the SAME COMMENT, the shit is serious.
This shit is serious to me and I’m happy to give analogies.
And finally, we’re back to not understanding Jill.
I am having a hard time understanding why you don’t get it
Then, the same day, Jill’s response to Jerid leaving BSB is to wonder why there are no female posters at BSB, which is factually incorrect. Called out on that in email, it led to a very long and equally disjointed email exchange, during which Jill asked to post our emails, I said she could post mine, but then Jill didn’t want mine, and that we couldn’t post hers.
Now, if this looks familiar to you, it’s because it happens all the time, every day. All the thought bubbles in the TNR cover could just as easily have been uttered by, oh, Jill on numerous blogs yesterday, or a wife whose husband asks her to pass the Doritoes, but instead delivers a blow to his head with her IKEA lamp.
The TNR cover uses this familiarity to point out that this level of IKEA-lamp-throw thought-bubbling happens to now be THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR HILLARY ASSUMING THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There is literally nothing separating her chances of being in the White House from those of Dennis Kucinich. Nothing. Yes, the convention can have a big pow wow, and maybe they’ll pick Dennis instead of her! But you see, we just don’t understand her.
And the reason that Jill’s whining has no conceivable relation to racism (let alone sexism) is that most people do not interact with black people as much as they do with women, and therefore there is no factual basis for tapping into a stereotype against blacks other than the stereotype itself. What everyone knows is PRECISELY a female psychodrama, which is what Hillary’s stupid campaign has become, could never be said in any way about the Obama campaign, particularly since Hillary’s female victimhood complex is becoming a talking point waved proudly by Hillary people like Jill, whereas Obama NEVER uses his race in this way. NEVER.
As all of us know, the best thing to do in this situation is just to say, “yes dear”, and move on, knowing that no level of rational thinking can overcome some wealthy, over-educated, female victim-wallowing, entitled IKEA-lamp-thrower’s own warped view of reality. Yes, dear. Just give me the fucking Doritoes and let’s watch Bridget Jones Fucking Diary for the 6,000th time. Oh, and yes, I’d just love to listen to Tori Amos afterward!
Yes, dear.
But dominion over the remote control isn’t at stake here. Our country is. And Obama supporters simply are not going to roll over and say “yes dear.” No matter how hard they wave their hands in hysterics.
In the meantime, maybe Jill can get her knickers in a twist over all the females in this SNL skit making fun of females. I’ll just watch it knowing it’s true.
Popularity: 30% [?]
Tags: barack obama, feminism gone wild, hillary clinton, misogyny
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Are you serious? From a blogger that routinely refers to a female candidate as bitch, regularly in this posts characterizes a female bloggers as whining, has a history of seeing race-baiting in every criticism of Obama and behind every negative development in the campaign, then you actually write:
“But more than that, there is a reality behind this cover that does veer toward misogyny, but is not. And the reality may be a stereotype, but in all stereotypes lie grains of truth. That’s why they stick.”
You would never be this dismissive on a racial issue involving Obama. And to cap this misogynst post even further, you characterize the entire episode as nothing different than a nagging wife is the coup de grace.
I seem to recall that when Obama was presented in an unflattering manner, you were quick to play the race card. Amazing how dismissive you are when it’s on the other foot.
Breathtaking amazing.
BTW, who are the female frontpagers at BSB?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
ah, modern. there you go with your weak drive to the hoop. allow me.
if you seek to compare race-baiting, which obama has never responded to, never engaged in, and routinely is subjected to, with whatever perceived misogyny this magazine cover may be, you need to point out to me the following….
when was the last time a boat load of white females was transported across the atlantic ocean in chains?
when was the last time a white woman was hanged from a tree for cooing at someone?
when was the last time a white woman was sold as property in America?
when was the last time a white woman was told to sit at the back of the bus because of the color of her skin?
when was the last time a white woman had to wait on a street for a taxi while everyone else got picked up ahead of them due to the color of her skin?
when was the last time a white woman was dragged down the road by a truck with a chain around her neck until her head popped off just because of the color of her skin?
there is no equivalence here. none. that’s the first point.
the second point is that you yourself have had this level of nonsense foisted upon you by whoever you are married to. don’t lie now!!! you see it as sure as i do, and i’m not even married.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Actually,
White slavery for sexual purposes is a terrible problem….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_human_beings
Women are kidnapped daily and transported not just over the Atlantic but all over the world.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:23 am
The only one doing the whining is you, Tim. But I can see how this post could be cathartic for you and maybe save someone from having to hear your diatribe in person.
Thanks for not posting the email contents from yesterday. You know why I declined to have them posted and your post better represents you without them.
You fear women big time, Tim. I don’t know why and I certainly don’t get the sense that you know why either.
BTW - I don’t own a thing from IKEA but let me know where I can find that lamp, would you?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:12 am
thanks for resting my case for me, jill
April 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Surprising post from an unmarried male bi-sexual. I think there is a point at which Tim and I diverge quite drastically here. I don’t find the cover misogynistic at all. This post, however, comes quite a bit closer. If not misogynistic, certainly sexist.
I think stereotypes suck and I’ll tell you why. They completely make you forfeit your ability to see people as they are. It’s very similar to my argument against organized religion and “beliefs”. Once you start believing you cease thinking. You just believe. There really is no value in critical thinking once you reach belief stage. Same with stereotypes. I don’t have to get to know that woman because I have a stereotype of how all women are. It’s lazy. Am I free from it as a matter of political discourse? Certainly not. Doesn’t mean overall that it doesn’t suck. Politics is a rough game played by rough players with rough methods. That’s another story entirely…
Stereotypes are also for stupid people in addition to the lazy. Those who can’t think for themselves and need a quick stereotype with which to form an opinion so as to fit in and feel good about themselves. You are neither lazy nor stupid. Especially not stupid.
I’m no Hillary fan, but most of my objections to her come not from being a woman but from being this particular woman at this particular time doing the particular things that her campaign has done. Fair game. Same for the cover.
What pisses me off most about this post and the core of the thinking that it rests upon is that it isn’t the first time I’ve been subjected to such male stereotyping of women - especially in the context of a married relationship. I’m actually bombarded with it. It’s as if I’m not a real man if I don’t call my wife “the wife” and talk about her like she’s a pet poodle. I get funny looks from other husbands who are trying to hide the fact that they are drinking beer and playing golf all while I’m on the phone talking to my wife telling her how good a time I’m having. We are both constantly baffled at assumptions people make on our roles as partners and parents, simply based on their stereotypical notions of what husbands and fathers do and what wives and husbands do.
Many men do have this “yes dear” take on their partners, but I don’t share it. I don’t think I’ve ever said that once to Holly. Luckily I was raised by a strong woman who was raised by a strong woman and I married a strong woman. If I want to watch basketball (which is all of February and March and sometimes all of January), she might complain about it. But you know what? I say “tough…it’s hoops season…you know me…deal with it”. You know what she says “I hate March”. No whining. No “yes dear pass the fucking Doritos so we can watch Thelma and Louise”. We have it out as partners and when it comes to hoops in March, I win!
Not that she doesn’t win sometimes. She does - after we have it out about something else. But we approach it from the standpoint of two people in a relationship. Two different people. Some of those differences are based on male/female tendencies. Many are not.
I think this post crosses the line of misogyny and tries to put us guys into one box and those gals into another. It’s simply not that simple. We do ourselves a great disservice - especially in the context of relationships - by thinking it is.
PS - I love Ikea, I write poetry for my kids, I cry as much or more as my wife, I dig Oprah, I iron my own shirts (better than Holly), I do laundry when needed, i can be irrational and generally very emotional, and I’m still a bad ass who drinks bourbon, spits on the sidewalk, and curses like a sailor and doesn’t take shit from anyone. Imagine that.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
^ wives and MOTHERS is what i meant of course!
April 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I doubt you take anon replies, but I have been calling her WHINES LIKE SHE TALKS for years now.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I love what Eric said about his relationship with Holly. It is a realistic description of what many young couples experienced in their relationships and I am envious because my husband used to say “Yes Dear” to me. He said it one too many times and I split.
I support Obama because of who he is and what he has done. I can’t say the same about Hillary. I was not sure at the beginning who would get my support. I did not hold a grudge like so many of my friends about Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill in spite of all the public womanizing. I thought that some benefits would have been offered to appease her and when she became Senator of NY, I felt that she got her opportunity to do good on her own merit.
Unfortunately she immediately put all her considerable experience and networking skills to build bridges with her old foes to engineered her run for the Presidency. She did not try to change things in Washington like Paul Wellstone tried, she went with the most expedient path to her personal agenda. Never putting herself at risk. That is why I can not support her. I don’t trust her vision, her values or commitments to middle class America.
I won’t support someone only because she is a woman, I would never vote for Condie, Mrs Speaker Pelosi or some Movie Star come lately to politics of either gender.
I would have supported Madeleine Allbright, Christine Gregoire, Diane Feisntein, Amy Klobuchar and probably Oprah and Ashley Judd. I think that with all the improprieties that we had to endure due to the Bush administration incompetence, anyone who tried to intercede on behalf of “ordinary citizens” or curbed their dogs, deserves to be consider.
Hillary is a remarkable person and she is bright and can be very engaging but to me her political integrity is questionable. I think she needs more experience in the real world before becoming President.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
annuale is pretty damned funny though, must admit.