Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | What Star Wars Is »

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

One Thing that Makes Me a Little Nervous About an HRC Presidency…

posted by on June 13 at 12:23 PM

…the sexism will play out this way: Government will start to be viewed as “women’s work.”

We already live in an era when privatization is seen as macho and strong and good while public sector endeavors, oh like public schools, are being abandoned and not taken seriously, ie: they’re “Women’s Work.”

In a double reverse back flip, I’m sorta concerned that if a women takes over the Oval Office, the sexist backlash will find sick synergy with the pro-privatization zeitgeist and a lot of the public (women are guilty of this too) will lose an earnest engagement with the office.

On the bright side: When I ran this minor concern/theory by a friend last night, he responded with the obvious rejoinder: “But, umm, Hillary’s like, a dude.”

RSS icon Comments


This seems really far-fetched to me. I mean, the president is the most powerful person in the world. I hardly think one female president is going to give the office the stench of pink collar.

Posted by arduous | June 13, 2007 12:24 PM

Excellent parody Josh. Bravo.

Note that women vote more than men, so this democracy thing is kinda womany and should be abandoned. Republic, now that's a man's government.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 12:25 PM

hillary will be shot. obama will be shot. i think i've gone over this.

Posted by adrian! | June 13, 2007 12:29 PM

I've said it a thousand times before. That bitch is packing a penis.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 13, 2007 12:29 PM

If both are shot then we will have Nancy Pelosi as President!

it's like the Chappelle joke where he would have a mexican american vice president as insurance if he was president.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 12:35 PM

Yeah, Margaret Thatcher already proved that theory, right Josh?

Posted by COMTE | June 13, 2007 12:38 PM

Ah, that is the most pathetic political analysis I have read in years. Josh, time to go back to dealing with local news.

Yeah, packing the nuclear codes is "woman's" work.

Posted by Just Me | June 13, 2007 12:39 PM

I wouldn't mind if government was seen as the realm of women for a while. I mean, it's not like it's been bad for New Zealand.

Posted by Gitai | June 13, 2007 1:10 PM

Margaret Thatcher was British. I'm talking about USA.

Thanks. Btw: I don't think packing nuke codes is "woman's work." In fact, I don't think anything about govt. is "woman's work." I'm afraid dumb USA might.

Posted by Josh Feit | June 13, 2007 1:13 PM

You know what, fuck you people. You belittle this man for standing up against homophobic assholes, all the while enjoying the freedoms Stonewall brought you.

If a handful of queens can win freedoms by stand up to the New York police, I would gladly do the same to protect them. Just call yourselves the spineless cowards you are, and be done with it.

Posted by Griff | June 13, 2007 1:14 PM

My question and wonderment about Ms.Clinton or is that Hillary Clinton( no one seems to call her Ms. Clinton)
is that I heard this poltical analysis on the news about how how 56% of women are in support of her ambitions to be president and the other for Obama or other guys.
They are saying that the majority of women for Hillary are poor to middle class working women, who are concerned about health care, and social causes and all that hub bub that only the poor care about.
The other 36% going for Obama are above middle class to rich working class women(Oprah worshipping types,I'm guessing).
Whats up with that and what does it mean. Is it Poor women like Hillary because she's made it and could represent them? Or is it Rich women who don't trust her because she could somehow possibly be their enemy?
Just wondering. The source of this analysis was all on the news last weekend.

Posted by DreadLion | June 13, 2007 1:14 PM

I enjoy the Slog because it proves that not all Seattlites are wimpy go-alongers. But this post is just outrageous.

1. The only way for a woman to come anywhere close to the top is to "act like a man," which is code for having and defending her own opinions. Then when she does what she has to do, people like Josh's friend and Mr. Poe say she's got a penis or is a dude.

2. Those remarks are homophobic and ignorant, implying that a) strong women are lesbians, and b) lesbians want to be men. Bullshit. But I got some hard femme cock here for you if you wanna suck it to prove your point.

3. As far as the pink collaring of the presidency goes, I think it'd be great if sexist assholes like you guys stopped paying attention to all the countries you want to bomb with your giant toy rockets and started up another sandbox hobby. Like fishing. There's a nice "male" activity that is relatively innocuous. I'll buy you all some tackle, on me, if you'll agree to go jump in a lake.

Posted by bitch on heels | June 13, 2007 1:14 PM

black people shouldnt be accountants because it would negroize the accounting profession and people would start bartering.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 1:19 PM

@12: Right on. Seriously, WTF. A woman can either be "female" and be weak on all things male, or she can be "a dude" because she is tough, smart, and articulate? PLEASE.

Also, I hardly think that with the 12% of people in office being female (maybe its gone up...) versus the 48% of the population that is female that this will have any effect on "pink collar"ing anything.

Jesus tap-dancing christ....

Posted by Original Monique | June 13, 2007 1:28 PM

Why is Mr. Poe here and commenting on every Slog post? Wouldn't be more appropriate?

I think the premise of this post is wrong and, anyway, the benefits of an HRC presidency would vastly outweigh this consequence. Women can't be kept out of government forever just to avoid a possible backlash.

Posted by jamier | June 13, 2007 1:59 PM

We'll still have 90 plus percent of all CEOs being male though.

So it won't matter.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 13, 2007 2:02 PM

I've heard Josh's argument used for other jobs in which women predominate. Taking a job as a bank teller used to be a stepping stone to a higher job in the bank. Teachers used to be payed more.

The assumption is that when women entered those fields, those jobs suddenly became less valued and salaries started to plummet. It irritates me to no end that no one ever suggests the opposite -- bank tellers and teachers became less valued (for a variety of reasons) therefore banks and schools no longer minded hiring women to do those jobs.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 13, 2007 2:22 PM

Not that I agree with Josh's analysis, but that's the point Will. More power is being consolidated in private enterprise so public sector jobs, including being leader of the free world (not that that's an apt description anymore), doesn't have the weight behind it to have real power. Men will still control the world, but instead of being elected by the people, rich white men will hire their friends.

Posted by Enigma | June 13, 2007 2:37 PM

@12 & 14: preach, sisters.

There are a lot of flimsy excuses thrown around for why people don't like HRC. I don't want to hear about Bill-- she can obviously handle herself without him. If she acted as she does and had a penis, you'd call her take-charge, no-nonsense, etc. But because she's a woman, blonde, etc, she's a pushy broad, a bitch, and that's just the tip of what I've heard her called.

I just want to see everyone who comes up with excuses for why they won't vote for her (too moderate, voted to go to war, Bill, etc) justify their decision. If you can't justify that with actual facts and are using it as a smokescreen for your personal belief that a woman shouldn't be president, shut the fuck up and get out of her way.

Personally, I would be happy to see government become more representative of the people. 51% of Congress could be female? Gasp! Shock... wait, no. Awesome.

Posted by Jessica | June 13, 2007 2:40 PM

I'm all for more women holding office, but until Hilary is the only choice, I'll be hoping that someone less right-wing gets the nod.

Calling her 'moderate' is overstating it, other than a few key issues she might as well be a Republican.

As far as the war goes, I don't fault her so much for voting for it in the first place, but her inability to own up to it being a mistake, makes me uncomfortable, especially in the wake of having someone who won't admit mistakes running the country right now.

The fact that she didn't read all of the intelligence report is somewhat disturbing as well, but the fact that she says that "we are safer today" than before 9/11 is one of the things that really gets me. That shit is striaght out of the Republican playbook AND patently false.

I wish people would take off their blinders and see Hilary for her voting record, and her positions on things rather than her gender.

Posted by K X One | June 13, 2007 3:08 PM

K X One, you'd rather lose every election to someone you completely detest of, than vote for someone who holds some similar ideals but not others?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 3:19 PM

Ok, KX One, I'm calling you on this. Because it's bull.

Hillary Clinton is nowhere CLOSE to being a Republican.

Did you WATCH the latest round of debates? It was like watching the forces of good and evil.

She was prescient on health care- coming up with universal health care before anyone else.

She supports gays in the military.

She's pro-choice.

She would get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

She would support a pathway for citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country.

She is NOT pro-torture. She wouldn't SUSPEND habeus corpus. She is PRO-diplomacy.

And as for Iraq, she's said that if she knew what she knew now, she wouldn't have voted to authorize it. And the fact that she has qualms about us pulling out, is, in my mind, a good thing. Because, frankly, anyone who does not forsee a slaughter of Iraqis when we leave, is not thinking straight.

And, also, she knows how to stand up for herself. She knows how to fight.

It's utter crap to claim that she is almost a Republican.

Sorry for the rant, but statements like this really piss me off.

Posted by arduous | June 13, 2007 3:25 PM

Josh, That theorey is just whack!

Posted by funky butt | June 13, 2007 3:25 PM

KX One would rather lose elections and feel good about his vote that didn't change anything for the better. i think we should get over it.

he isnt relavent to political discussions.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 3:32 PM

Josh's friend from last night would like to take a moment to clarify the discussion. Perhaps it was the mango margarita or the vodka/orange juice/club soda concoction that scrambled his memory.

He ran his little theory passed me. I agree that the cowboy-shove-a-boot-in-your-ass swagger of many an American voter concerns me and Josh equally as we lead up to the Presidential election. The Rush Limbaughs, the Toby Keiths, the Ann Coulters love to use sexist (and racist and homophobic) language to make their points and make Democrats looks weak. During the last Presidential that bullshit moved voters in their direction. Swift boats, remember? Also, think back to the term "Politically Correct" of the early 90s when Clinton was in office. The list goes on and on.

So, do you think that having Hillary in office (or any woman president for that matter) gives those assclowns fodder for using sexist language (and homophobic and racist) to make their points? To make Democrats looks weak? They will sure as shit try.

I argued that Hillary is not completely subject to this claim because she's played herself very well. She's deftly maximized her skills while mimimizing her weaknesses. She (and many others before her) have played the game, disrupted the old boy's networks and showed they can be tough decision-makers. In essence, she undermines the sexism of politics by using it to her advantage. Remember her Senate race in 2000? When her Republican opponent moved a little too aggressively toward her at a public debate...she took just the ever so gentle step backward...creating the air of threat. BRILLIANT. Maybe unintentional, but brilliant nonetheless.

The claims of 'pussifying government' (Josh's language, not mine) don't work on Hillary because it's not believeable that she's a pussy (and I use that word with all the love that a gay man can have for one). "She's like a dude".

You can call it sexist. And I am sure Bitch on Heels will while she's wearing her pushup bras and drinking her Sex in the City cosmopolitans. But the fact of the matter is our country is still dealing with it's sexist, homophobic and racist tendencies. We either play the game, get inside it and create change from within (a tough woman president who acts 'dudelike' to undermine the claims of being soft from her opponents) or we stand on the sidelines and call everyone sexist.

Our conversation wasn't nearly as coherent given the alcohol and sodium overload from chips and salsa, but you get the point. Or don't.

Posted by Josh's Friend | June 13, 2007 3:58 PM


They don't. We're evil. Evil Patriarchs we are.

I'm still scratching my head @ 15. I'm here because I enjoy Slog. Duh. Why the fuck else would I be commenting on almost every post? Am I the only regular you spotted? Are you some kind of stupid, or all kinds of stupid?

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Josh, you are overthinking this. Time to elect a woman. After 220 years of wealthy white males it is time to roll the dice.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | June 13, 2007 4:07 PM

It'll be a happy, happy day for me when gender, sexual orientation, color of skin, and all that happy horseshit is as utterly irrelevant to electability as eye color. But we live in a society so fucking shallow that we can't elect a short man to office.

I mourn for democracy in a culture that pre-empts actual news for the latest breathless celebrity update.

Posted by Geni | June 13, 2007 4:20 PM

As a straight white male, you know what most often strikes me about the idea of a woman president? How much I just don't give a shit. Black president? Also don't give a shit. Fuck it, at this point I'd vote for a muppet president if it'd balance the budget and bring our troops home.

And the thing is, I'm pretty sure most Republicans feel exactly the same way. They don't call Colin Powell nigger because he supports their agenda. They don't give a fuck that Condoleeza Rice is a woman because she supports their agenda. So as far as that goes, it really doesn't matter who the Democrats run in 2008. They'll attack our candidate any way they can-- not because our candidate is African American or a woman or whatever, but because he or she will be our candidate.

Posted by Judah | June 13, 2007 4:23 PM

29 is right! which is why we should run a republican!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 4:34 PM

Yes, that's right, despite popular myths about feminists, my push up bra does not cut off the circulation to my brain. And you're one to talk about my frilly drink, Mr. Mango Margarita, but that's beside the point entirely.

Punctuation is important. "She's like a dude," is not the same as "She's, like, a dude." And I'm still not sure which you said. If by "like a dude" you mean making a good run at the presidency, then in that way she is like a dude, or like all people who have made a good run at the presidency before her: dudes. I still object to the idea that this activity makes her in any way male.

Women have been "wearing the pants" in many families for centuries, with or without political power. Claiming power is not inherently male, it's just traditionally so, in the political arena. I'm happy that Clinton is making some small strides to change that situation, whether or not I plan to vote for her personally.

I would challenge people who "love pussy," and the woman attached to it, to find ways in which her BRILLIANT political moves are feminine, feminist, and simultaneously tremendously powerful.

@ Mr. Poe:
No, I don't hate you. In fact, I think your myspace page is inspiringly named. I just hate your ideas on this topic, and I'm able to understand that distinction. Maybe we'll agree on another. Wanna talk viaduct? Strippers? Push up bras?

Posted by bitch on heels | June 13, 2007 4:35 PM

My ideas on this topic? All I said was Hillary is packing a fucking penis. Do you really think I'm standing on that comment with a straight face?

No, I do not want to talk about the viaduct, or strippers, or push up bras. Not unless the conversation will not be serious. I'm not in a serious mood today. I probably won't be in one tomorrow, either.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 13, 2007 5:04 PM

Bitch on Heels - not sure I understand the differences in punctuation you lay out, but I'll acquiesce. And I suspect we agree more on this than not. I'll blame Josh and his Mango-influenced delusions for muddling the matters (my 26 oz testosterone-packed Sangria with my uber-macho cherries and oranges kept me completely clear-minded).

We were focused solely on the question of whether having a woman candidate for president provides Republicans an opportunity to use sexist, loaded language to make Democrats and government look weak. They already have spent a great deal of time and energy weakening the perception of government - does this aid in that effort? It had nothing to do with the power, beauty and awe that is the vajayjay. Or the real ways women have power or are robbed of it because of sexism.

Posted by Josh's Friend | June 13, 2007 5:15 PM


Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 13, 2007 6:09 PM


I believe the difference in punctuation is:

"She's like a dude." Translation: Hillary acts like a dude.

"She's, like, a dude." Translation: Hillary is a dude.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 13, 2007 7:21 PM

Who said anything about losing elections?
I was/am talking about who I'd be willing to support up until the Democratic nomination is selected.
Of course, if it's Hilary, I'll vote for her over a Republican.

Okay, I overstated things saying she might as well be a Republican as much as the person who called her moderate. Point being, like most supposed 'liberals' she is only left wing in light of the fact that everything else is so far right as to give fascists a run for their money. Hilary is still a rich, pro-business (mega-corp), professional politician. I see little reason to be fucking ecstatic about that.

Posted by K X One | June 13, 2007 8:09 PM

Who said anything about losing elections?
I was/am talking about who I'd be willing to support up until the Democratic nomination is selected.
Of course, if it's Hilary, I'll vote for her over a Republican.

Okay, I overstated things saying she might as well be a Republican as much as the person who called her moderate. Point being, like most supposed 'liberals' she is only left wing in light of the fact that everything else is so far right as to give fascists a run for their money. Hilary is still a rich, pro-business (mega-corp), professional politician. I see little reason to be fucking ecstatic about that.

Posted by K X One | June 13, 2007 8:09 PM

Huh? what--wait... The problem with electing a female president is that it could invite a sexist backlash?

Bring on the backlash! Maybe the prospect of public service being deemed "women's work" sounds worse than a glass ceiling, but we don't have that problem yet. Solve the problem we have now, and then move on to the new problems that come up. That's how society progresses.

This is not an HRC endorsement--I'm rooting for Barack myself--just an endorsement of voting for the candidate you like, nevermind gender.

@29 is right. Sez Jeb Bartlett: "Screw it. It's game time. Let's go."

And Bitch on Heels, your posts kick ass.

Posted by lostboy | June 13, 2007 9:49 PM

@37 K X One:

Please give examples of how Hilary is pro-business (mega-corp).

Also: how does a lawyer, who graduated from a top tier university, become a "professional politician" after serving 1 term as a Senator and getting re-elected.

Please, help me on this one because MANY politicians have there start this way and are not considered "professional".

I am serious, I have heard this bullshit argument and its never come across as correct.

Posted by Original Monique | June 13, 2007 10:09 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).