圖： 女作家 Judith Warner。(Photo by: Jean-Louis Atlan)
JudithWarner's book, "PerfectMadness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety" (excerpt,NPR interview), a New York Times best-seller, was published inFebruary 2005. "Domestic Disturbances" appears every Friday.
這位女作家寫的“Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge ” , 在今天的紐約時報最受歡迎的文章中排第三名，有200 多評論，大多象是女性讀者。總的來說，是認為媒體對女性競選人不公平。文章中引的評論，從未見到過，不知是因為媒體真的沒有注意到呢，還是這些語言實在是太 HOT ，太 SEXY，風險太大，繞開為妙。真不知道她都是從哪裏收集來的，例：
Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge
Is it a coincidence that the bubbling idiocy of “Sex and the City,” themovie, exploded upon the cultural scene at the exact same time that HillaryClinton’s candidacy imploded?
Literally, of course, it is. Figuratively, I’m not so sure.
And before I set off an avalanche of e-mails explaining why Hillary deservedto lose, I want to make one point clear: I am talking here not about theoutcome of her candidacy – mistakes were made, and she faced a formidableopponent in Barack Obama – but rather about the climate in which her campaignwas conducted. The zeitgeist in which Hillary floundered and “Sex” isnow flourishing.
It’s a cultural moment that Andrew Stephen, writing with an outsider’s eyefor the British magazine the New Statesman last month, characterized as a time of “gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind.” Amoment in which things like the formation of a Hillary-bashing political actiongroup, “Citizens United Not Timid,” a “South Park” episode featuring a nuclearweapon hidden in Clinton’s vagina, and Internet sales of a Hillary Clintonnutcracker with shark-like teeth between her legs, passed largely withoutmainstream media notice, largely, perhaps, because some of the key gatekeepersof mainstream opinion were so busy coming up with various iterations of thenutcracker theme themselves. (Tucker Carlson on Hillary: “When she comes ontelevision, I involuntarily cross my legs.” For a good cry, watch this incredible montage from the Women’s
Stephen is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hatefulracial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itselfinside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstreamcommentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough,or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so.
But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. Withthat voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out thegarbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: Howto Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January).With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wifestanding outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator MikeBarnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reasonshe’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reasonshe may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an agewhen the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged,and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and lookstoo real — is still held to be a crime.
In a culture that’s reached such a level of ostensible enlightenment asours, calling a powerful woman “castrating” – however you choose to put it –ought to be seen as just as offensive as rubbing your fingers together toconvey a love of gold coinage when you talk about a Jew. It’s nothing otherthan an expression of woman-hate — and the degree to which such expressionshave flourished, in the mainstream media and in the loonier reaches ofcyberspace this year, has added up to be a real national shame.
Which brings me back to “Sex and the City.”
How antithetical Hillary’s earnest, electric blue pants-suited whole beingis to the frothy cheer of that film, which has women now turning out in droves,a song in their hearts, unified in popcorn-clutching sisterhood to a degree Ihaven’t seen since the ugly, angry days of Anita Hill and … the firstincarnation of Hillary Clinton. How times have changed. How yucky, how babyboomerish, how frowningly pre-Botox were the early 1990s. How brilliantly does“Sex” – however atrocious it may be – surf our current zeitgeist, sugar-coatingit all in Blahniks and Westwood, and yummy men and yummier real estate, andsqueakingly desperate girl cheer.
Take Miranda: a working mother archetype for an anti-woman age. She’s socallous now that she won’t let her nanny eat a decent meal, and so defiantlysexless that she’s let her pubic hair grow in. Take
Yes, a gut, girls, like yours and mine and that of virtually any real womanwho’s over 35, or has had children, or has something more important to do thanfull-time Pilates.
“Sex and the City” is the perfect movie for our allegedly ever-so-promisingpost-feminist era, when “angry” is out and Restalyne is in, and virtually allour country’s most powerful women look younger now than they did 20 years ago.
Oh, lighten up, I can hear you say. Don’t get your knickers in a twist.
Earnestness is so unattractive (in a woman).
221 comments so far...
· 9. June 6th, 2008 2:21 am
Actually, no one seems to have commented on the fact that the pressroutinely, as in this column, refer to Senator Clinton by her first name. Icannot remember any other presidential candidate, in any election cycle, whowas ever refered to by their first name only. In the primary Barack was alwaysObama or Senator Obama. The same for John McCain - the same for all the malecandidates.
While I personally find using Hillary rather endearing, because after all wehave had her around for a long time and perhaps feel we know her, isn’t it alsoa bit disrespectful and belittling?
— Posted by Paul Estabrook
· 12. June 6th, 2008 4:12 am
I can’t stand Hillary Clinton and I think she would have made a terriblepresident - but I agree that the tremendously gendered way in which she wasattacked by her detractors was shocking and shameful.
— Posted by margaret
· 13. June 6th, 2008 4:18 am
And I thought I had noticed all the bias and mean editorializing. lucky formy blood pressure I missed these.
— Posted by charles perry
· 15. June 6th, 2008 4:50 am
As an Obama supporter,I can only say HOORAY for your post.The acceptabilityof the inane anti-female comments disguised as comedy or political commentaryis what is troubling.It is so ingrained in our culture that it’s offensivenessis hardly noticed.We’ve got a lot f work to do.
— Posted by andrew b
· 17. June 6th, 2008 5:01 am
I must admit I am not clear what your point was, why you opened with “whyHillary deserved to lose.” I was not a fan of heres - to me she ran hercampaign like the political machine so popular and successful last century. Shewould say anything, even if not true, to drum up limbic brained emotions whenthe country is calling out for consciousness. She did not set a model forfeminism in my opinion, instead she acted like an old cigar-smoking pol fromthe 50’s. I found it utterly ungenuine to rage about the attacks on her - andreally, there were plenty of lowball slurs to Obama too. They were guised inthe Muslim thing not the black thing though, as people knew I suppose theycould away with that.
There will always be the bottom-feeders who slur and defame; it is a wasteof time to think otherwise, though of course these slime attacks are obsceneand cruel. They do in fact only reflect poorly on those who spread them; wegain a lot by ignoring them.
What disappoints me, as a woman, is how Hillary tried to use the worst ofboth feminism and feminism backlash to manipulate people into supporting her. Ican only hope she has simply suffered so much degradation in the past as awoman that she believed these were her only viable tactics.
Because in fact, she had so many people who wanted to support the persona ofa woman president. She had a nation sick of the abuses of hte Bushadministration. She had a nation of young women raised by feminist moms anddads, who don’t grok all the disadvantages HRC and I might have grown up with.Too bad she abused that trust by refusing to lead and take the high ground, andinstead gaming the system at every opportunity. The fuzzy math being one of thestupidest things.
She must now take responsibility for nourishing the bottom feeders whocomprise the “zeitgeist” to which you refer. The more we focus on the racistsand the sexists, the more power they gain. It is time to ignore them,completely, until they shrivel away having lost all relevance.
— Posted by rbd
