gender, language, other topics, politics

Oof!

 

That is exactly how I am feeling – not so much because of the New Hampshire Democratic results themselves (which were what might have been expected), but because of the interesting responses to them from the media and other savants.

 

I feel as if I have been punched hard in the solar plexus, and I am not happy.

 

I feel that way because of many responses to both Clinton’s loss, Clinton herself, and a couple of remarks made by her female supporters and surrogates, responses that, in a rational universe, would make no sense at all. Actually, even in the universe we currently inhabit, they make no sense at all. Unless.

 

Unless what? Unless they are coping (none too well) with the threatened advent of powerful women. Continue reading

Standard
gender, language, politics

Feminist, Shmeminist

 

In a front-page article in the New York Times on January 21, Amy Chozick offers the thesis that “feminists” are becoming disaffected with Clinton because of her hostility to Bill’s women while she was first lady. Who exactly are these “feminists” Chozick quotes, and what exactly are they complaining about? And are the criticisms legitimate, or just another way to allow women, especially certain self-styled feminists, to justify not supporting HRC?

 

This is just one of three Clinton stories in the January 21 paper of record. The second, also a hit piece, is about the “disaffection” of Democratic voters in Iowa. And the third, in the “Thursday Styles” section, is a longish disquisition on how Clinton should dress more interestingly. (I can find no such pieces on the Donald or Sanders.) I am not sure how to think about all this attention.

 

On second thought, yes I am, especially in light of the first article.  Continue reading

Standard
gender, language, politics

Listening to Her

 

As the 2016 presidential campaign season begins in earnest, voters can confidently expect increasing amounts of attention from the pundits and other media inhabitants to candidates’ messages: how they introduce themselves personally to potential voters, and why they believe they should be victorious. This is just as it ought to be.

 

But there is one glaring exception to how it ought to be, a candidate who is listened to and understood not by what she is telling us – her positions and promises – but to how she is saying it. Continue reading

Standard