Bitch is the New Black!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by newyorkinparis
This aired on SNL this past weekend but I’ve been to busy to blog about it. Dibs told me about this and I love it. Rock on, Tina Fey!
Politics is such an emotional subject, especially when it comes to a presidential election. I had watched the Texas debate with Peter, who’s an Obama supporter. Me? I’m for Hillary, despite not being an “old, white woman,” as the media describes her main supporters. (And really, what is up with the ass-licking that mainstream media is doing over Barack?)
Anyway, as I was watching the debate, I was looking at Hillary and realized how deeply entrenched our ideas of men and women are. Especially with Peter beside me going, “Oh look at her, she’s just so unattractive.” What does that have to do with political ability?
Men are leaders, strong, capable, unemotional while women can be strong, but must also be soft, pretty and know what their “place” is. And don’t forget, when women get their periods, they’re emotional basket cases. Women are allowed to be capable at things that are considered appropriate for women. This is why there still aren’t many female CEOs, congress members and nope, no female American president yet. And if you do happen to be a woman who’s made it to the top of the heap, you are generally considered a hard-ass bitch.
How do I know this? Because I’ve had to operate in the very sexist music industry for years now and everything from dealing with soundguys to leading an all-male band has required plenty of (what’s perceived to be) bitch behavior. I worked with one drummer who really didn’t enjoy “taking orders” from a girl, despite that *girl* being the one who wrote the songs, produced them, booked the gigs, put the band together, did all the marketing, negotiated money, so on and so forth. I’ve had people come up to my guitarist, Bryan, after a gig and compliment him on the great songs he wrote. Bry writes great songs, but when he’s playing with me—and clearly, the name is Maggie Kim—they’re songs I’ve written. Duh.
The point is, it’s beyond most people’s imagination to believe that a mere woman can do things that have previously fallen in the male domain. And why are they even in the male domain? Because due to physical differences, women have historically been subjugated to male domination. Obviously, we now live in a world that mostly doesn’t operate on brute force, but I think those long-held attitudes are going to take a long time to change. And I don’t think that’s the change that Barack Obama is calling for.
I’m also well aware that no woman with the small amount of experience that Barack has would be allowed to run for the presidency. (And what does that say about how far we women have come along?) Only a woman as well-qualified as Hillary Clinton had a chance in hell of even trying for the nomination. And now all her experience is being used against her.
The main refrain I hear from (mostly male) Barack fans? “Well, I just don’t trust Hillary.” What does that even mean? Is there any politician out there who you really should and do trust? And don’t give me an “I trust Barack” slogan. Trust him based on what? The fact that his political record is so brief that there’s not much to go on or the fact that he has a 26-year-old speechwriter who knows what the people, especially the young people, want to hear? I will say that Barack knows how to give good speech.
Think about this one, all you conspiracy theorists out there: Isn’t it possible that this overwhelming support of Barack to win the Democratic nomination (by all the mainstream media) is because his lack of political experience will be his huge Achilles heel in the general election and inexorably lead to the 71-year-old John McCain becoming the next President of the United States? Just saying… (And if that happens, I’m so glad I’m living in France!)
A woman really does have to work so much harder to be taken truly seriously. Unfortunately, when she does, she’s usually called a “bitch” or a “ballbreaker.” So be it. Like Tina Fey and Hillary Clinton, I’m a bitch and proud of it. Because as anyone can tell you, I do get things done. And I believe that Hillary does (and will), too.
Bitch is the new black! Word.
Honestly, Mags, the timing of this seems a little odd, coming as it does right after two blogs’ worth of indicting another woman.
I know plenty of female Barack fans, and I haven’t really heard “I don’t trust Hillary”. There are plenty of legitimate policy issues to disagree with her on (notably the war in Iraq), and perhaps the biggest irony of the whole situation is that the Obama campaign is running more or less the same kind of campaign that Bill got elected with in the first place: the charasmatic outsider promising hope and change to a country tired of the same old thing. Furthermore, ever since Kennedy, the candidate who looks better on camera will have a distinct advantage, and Hillary’s never been particularly good on film.
I, and a number of other male types I know, will happily vote for her if she secures the party nomination. But please don’t label us sexist or anti-feminist if we vote for someone with whom we agree. You’re also ignoring the equally noteworthy race issue, which is something that you’ve been equally passionate about; if it were an asian man versus a white woman, who would you vote for? Hopefully, you’d vote for the one whose agenda you believed was right for the country.
My blog wasn’t “indicting” another woman for being a woman. It was indicting her for being a bad friend. If it had been a man who had behaved as poorly as she did, I’d have written the same blog. You’ve known me a long time—you know that’s definitely true. But if you read it as me woman-bashing, well that’s your bag, not mine. (And I could insert a pointed comment here about how all men view women arguing as a catfight. Meow.)
As for not hearing the “I don’t trust Hillary” statement, listen around. I just heard it last week from our mutual drummer friend. I’m not singling him out for it, just saying that this is something I’ve been hearing a lot.
If you can tell me the real difference between Barack and Hillary’s stand on issues, please enlighten me. Because, as politics tends to do, the only difference on the actual issues (healthcare, the environment, international relations) seems to be in the semantics. The main difference between the candidates appears to be in how their campaigns are being directed… and subsequently spun.
You know, I just read last week’s Newsweek. I’ve never seen such non-biased journalism in my life. Hillary was cited for appealing mainly to “women, Latinos and lower-class Dems”—and wearing a pantsuit with a bright pink blouse. Nice one. Barack? “He’s a millennial (you know, a young forward-thinker) who appeals to all young people and wealthy, white voters.” Which campaign sounds more appealing to the aspirational American, you think? Btw, the so-called journalist? A 25-year-old dude.
I never said every Barack supporter is sexist or anti-feminist. Where did I say that? My point was that I didn’t (and don’t) believe that Hillary is getting as fair a shake as Barack and yes, I do believe that it’s because she is a woman. Because comments like “I don’t trust her” and “She’s unattractive” and “I just can’t stand her” have nothing to do with the issues, do they? Unless somehow they do, and I’m missing something here in your whole “voting for the right agenda” thing.
Can you honestly say that you believe a woman as politically green as Barack would have had a chance in running for, much lessing winning, the Presidential nomination? Honestly.
My other point was that politics is highly emotionally charged. And so are the issues of sexism and racism. So no, you can’t separate the woman from the candidate, nor can you separate the black man from the candidate. And to pretend that you (and everyone else) have taken those entrenched conditionings out of consideration when it comes to this political race is not just naive and rather unintelligent, it’s self-delusional.
I was very forthcoming in why I support Hillary. I’m a woman. I’ve had to deal with a lot of sexist (and racist, too, that’s for sure) bullshit in whatever leadership roles I’ve had—especially in my dealings with men. So I empathize with Hillary. I also believe she is very capable and experienced and I believe that a woman deserves a shot at the Presidency, if she’s qualified (which Hillary undeniably is). To me, Barack objectively does not equal Hillary nor John McCain’s experience.
I would hope that everyone voted solely based on the issues, but your comment about how the better “on-camera” face usually has the advantage certainly shows that it’s far more about a popularity contest than most so-called intellectuals would like to admit. And Barack is without question the Captain of the football team and Prom King right now. (As for Hillary not being good on film? Well, that’s rather subjective, isn’t it? I’ve seen her be great on-camera. And it was generally agreed that she trounced Barack in the first debates.)
Just don’t try to tell me that sexism doesn’t play a role in our society still and in this political race. Because that is a very short-sighted view of where we unfortunately are in this world. And not to pull this one, Bryan, but you ARE a white male. You really have no comprehension of what it means to grow up as a girl in this world.
P.S. Bill Clinton may have run a similar campaign of being a fresh outsider but he had also had a longer political career than Barack going into the race. Can we agree on that?
I know you’re not ‘”indicting” another woman for being a woman’; I never said you were. But you were accusing her of being a bad friend immediately after mentioning how many great guy friends you have. Whether intentionally or not, it’s presented immediately as a gender issue. Which is why it seemed odd to me. (For the record, I didn’t say “catfight” or say you were woman bashing at all).
We got a lot of mutual drummer friends. You’ll have to be more specific (RV? EH?).
As for differences in their issues, Hillary voted for the war. Barack against it. You might split hairs on some of the domestic agenda, issues, although the voting record indicates that Barack has been more in favor of alternate fuel programs such as ethanol. Barack also has issued statements on tech issues (such as net neutrality), whereas the Clinton campaign as been fairly quiet (which is noticeable to the nerdy types like myself).
Of course there’s spin. There’s always spin. And of course it’s a popularity contest. TV’s made it worse since the Kennedy/Nixon debates. We’ve had 8 years of televised popularity contest running this country down the tubes because the Democrats twice nominated someone somehow less charismatic than the president. Based on qualifications and intelligence alone, Gore should have been president easily. But Bill squandered a lot of political capital and both Al and Hillary were made to pay the price.
And, again, you’re implying that I denied that Hillary was capable or experienced or qualified which I DID NOT DO. I said I’d vote for Hillary and I would, given the choice between her and McCain. I would have easily voted for her against any of the other Democratic challengers.
Honestly, I don’t know if a less qualified woman would have a shot. We haven’t seen many people gain the political capital that Obama has in such a short time (the last one, again, was probably Bill). And the fact that they’re men, yes, that’s probably because of sexism. Do I believe it’s impossible? Not in the slightest.
Again, I never said that sexism doesn’t play a role in our society or in this race. But what you’re implying in your blog is that sexism is the ONLY reason to prefer Obama over Clinton, based on her qualifications and their arguably negligible platform differences. Sexism, racism, and religious intolerance (see Mitt Romney) have all been factors in this election. There are plenty of people who would vote against any of the candidates on those grounds alone. What I am trying to do is outline reasons that people might support Obama over Clinton in the primaries that hopefully do not make me a sexist. You use me as an example of how people make sexist assumptions in the music industry without mentioning that I have corrected them every single time.
The press did the same thing on the Clinton campaign in 1992. The more momentum he built, the less good press the other campaigners were. I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t play a factor in her getting a lot less coverage now than at the start of the race (when she was clearly the frontrunner for the nomination), but it’s far from the first time the press has boosted a candidate. Clinton had more political experience going into the race, but he was the governor of Arkansas. Not exactly a proving ground for foreign policy. He could have been governor another 10 years, and he would have still been considered inexperienced. And rightly so. Was he a bad president? I don’t think so.
You implied that I was woman-bashing by saying it was “odd timing” for my blogs—one being apparently anti-woman or sexist (from your original comment) and the other staunchly feminist. And if we’re going to be specific, I said I had great girlfriends, just that they’re scattered all over the world.
Anyway, to get to the heart of the matter, I didn’t *imply* that sexism was the ONLY reason people choose Barack over Hillary. I *stated* that sexism is a big reason people (a majority being men) DON’T LIKE Hillary and wouldn’t support her—and for ARBITRARY reasons like “I just don’t like/trust her” or “She’s so unattractive.”
What I find interesting is that I didn’t imply or say that YOU were sexist for supporting Barack over Hillary. I talked about the people who gave random, ridiculous reasons like the ones above. Or journalists who comment on her wardrobe decisions. However, you’ve taken it is an indictment on you and your choice. (Only you can answer why you took it so personally.)
I have no problems with people making their choices based on informed reasons, but you can’t go around defending people who are far from informed—and those were the people I was castigating in my blog. Never once did I say that all Barack supporters=sexist bastards.
Btw, I didn’t use you as an example of sexism-in-action—as if you were the offending party. I think that’s pretty clear in the example I used. But the point is: Have you ever played a gig with your band and had someone ask who wrote your songs b/c you couldn’t possibly have written them yourself? No, I don’t think so. And not to put too fine a point on this, but I’m an award-winning songwriter, no less, having won several national contests—and yet, I can still not be taken as seriously simply because I have a vagina.
I stand by my belief that politics, much like everything in life, can not be separated from our emotions, our conditionings, our prejudices and so on. Once again, I don’t buy the argument that your choice, my choice, everyone’s choice when it comes to who we want to see as President is based solely on “the issues.” I think I was pretty clear that Hillary gets my support b/c she’s a woman and I’m a woman. (Someone can certainly spin that to be that I’m being reverse-sexist.) So please don’t insist that this race is coming down to what it is based on just the “issues.” I think it’s pretty clear to everyone that it’s not about that.
And if you want to split hairs further about the Iraq war, which you say is your main reason for choosing Barack over Hillary, it took him 11 months after coming to the Senate to speak out against the war. Where was his decisive leadership position then? If you’re going to run a campaign on the “right” decisions you make in times of crises, I would think you should make your decision and stand up for it at that time—not nearly a year after the fact (and when it was abundantly clear to even the Republicans that this “Mission Accomplished” was far from over.)
As for Al Gore… in my book he WAS elected President. It’s just unfortunate that the men in power in Washington wielded enough power to bring George W. Bush into the White House—and we the people were complacent enough to swallow that.
But karma’s a bitch (too). Al is an Oscar winner and a Nobel Prize winner—and he doesn’t have to deal with the political bullshit of Washington. Eat that, Bush.
Why I’m up at this ungodly hour posting a reply is beyond ridiculous! I just got back from my weekly salsa party that I host on Wednesdays…and from a heated debate about On1 vs. On2 salsa with some flashy ballroom dancer/teacher (Cuban MAN) who was extremely upset about the fact that I (Asian WOMAN leading the Westchester Salsa Scene) pointed out to him that he didn’t know how to dance On2. OK, maybe I shouldn’t have pointed it out. But he asked me to dance and he told me he was so good that he would dance “my style”…On2. How arrogant is that? So when he wasn’t dancing on2 and I told him…well…heated debate ensued…ya, i know, whatever and who cares? It’s a losing battle to argue with ignorance.
There is a point here, I think…so let’s get back to Bitch is the New Black. I was a Barack supporter for a week or so. OK maybe two. He did almost inspire me to register to vote! He’s handsome, he’s fresh…yadayada. I’m 37 and have NEVER EVER VOTED. Why? Because it’s all the same crap. Different suit.
It was quite synchronistic (is that a word?) that Mags brought up the whole Tina Fey thing b/c I found myself asking why I don’t like Hillary. After watching the TX debate and learning that there really is NOT much difference in their political platforms and that there is no question about Hillary’s political experience outranking Barack’s, I thought, “Wow, i’m so being duped by his good looks, deep voice and ethnicity.”
There really is NO reason (aside from my own deep conditioning manipulated by men) for me to believe that Hillary is bitchy, or that I don’t really trust her or that she just seems like a crusty ole white lady that wouldn’t be able to fill the “role” of president.
Which is what, btw? Seems like these days it’s more about photogenic talents than anything else.
What I do know is that women were granted suffrage in the US less than 100 years ago. (1920 to be exact) Women doing the same jobs as men still earn less in the workplace. Women are over the hill past 30. For God’s sakes…Bill was getting blowjobs in the Oval Office while she was prolly making policy decisions. Honestly, as a woman, I can’t even imagine the private, let alone, public! humiliation. And she didn’t tear his balls off in public! Cool, calm, collected. Must-have qualities for a commander in chief. Wow. I would’ve been a raving lunatic for sure. So why didn’t she leave the cheating bastard, I wonder? Either she’s stupid or politics is such a passion of hers that she’s willing to endure a horrible marriage. Women tend to be good at that. Sacrifice and the ability to see the larger picture, which allows us to take actions that are for the greater good, whether it be for country or family.
Mags hits on what I really believe is happening. Many analysts have pointed out that Barack and camp are underestimating the Republican attack machine. Media ass-licking? Who do you think owns the media. It’s just a small price to pay for a big setup to get McCain in! Ugh…imagine, McCain as president! I just can’t stomach it…I’ll pack up and move to Paris!
Bryan brings up a couple of campaign issues. Here are my responses:
MANY people are aware that there is a lot of controversy about corn ethanol’s efficacy as an alternative fuel source. Experts say that in the long run, corn ethanol production will do more damage to the environment than it will do good. It is also very expensive to produce, so it’s not even cost efficient! So Barack backing things like ethanol production actually lead me to believe that either he’s really unaware about environmental issues or that he really is just another puppet.
Now, how about health care? Neither Barack nor Hillary or anyone else in positions of political power have a CLUE about what HEALTH care really is….please don’t let me get on my “alternative” HEALTH soapbox!
Tech issues? well, i’m nerdy but not in that kinda way so I can’t respond to that one.
We need a bitch in office. Women, what have we got to lose? None of these men are really offering any true change…and quite probably, Hillary won’t either, but I just think we need to have at least ONE female puppet in the HOUSE! Let’s do something radical here…vote for the bitch!
I had one more thing to add. Denouncing Hillary for being a bitch or untrustworthy or just unattractive/unphotogenic is rather a kids’ game, isn’t it?
If you can’t knock her for the reasons that matter (i.e. her platform, her intelligence, her experience), well let’s go below the belt and just call her an old, ugly bitch, then. It’s the lowest common form of trying to bring someone down, if you have nothing else to bring them down for.
Hillary for President!!
Here’s an interesting quote by a hero of mine, Shirley Chisholm (she ran for the dem nomination in ‘72):
“Of my two ‘handicaps’ being female put more obstacles in my path than being black.”
I think that the USA is sexist now and is more sexist then 30 years ago. I think the religious right in the USA is sexist and has a bad influence on people.
Here is some pro Hillary :
1 Hillary = the November 2008 winner.
She is the November 2008 winner, because she is the key-states winner now.
2 In the November 2008 elections there are no caucuses with wild Obama fans screaming Obama Obama as main political argument.
3 In November 2008 the Democrats MUST WIN the KEY states not the RED states. That is Hillary.
4 Rep. Joyhn Murtha (Murthquake) and Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State) are supporting Hillary. These heavy weights the media do not mention this important support.
5 Mc Cain : 1 trillion USD madness. Hillary has the strength to stop the war madness of MC Cain : One scientist wrote in 2003, that the war in Iraq would cost 300 billion USD. At that time the Republicans would have put him jail if they could, saying that this was an outspoken lie. Now, 2008, the cost of the war in Iraq is wide over 300 billion USD, with the future costs (Mc Cain war plans) added to the already made costs we go with no doubt in the direction of 1 trillion USD. In the future, given the war plans of Mc Cain, the 1 trillion USD war cost, will create the possibility of bankruptcy of the federal governement of the USA. A possibility, not certain, but no longer a fiction.
Remember : 1 500 years ago the Roman Empire collapsed because the economy could no longer support the financial burden of the military expenses.