Is it sexist not to give Hillary Clinton credit for eviscerating Trump?

[Seriati]

What D.W. said, though I only "went there" because the first part was literally "I am woman".  Following that will a call of endorsement of good men is hard to ignore.  Good people is of course a better formulation. 

I understand that the juxtaposition of "woman" and "man" in the same thought brought itself out as a contrast to you, but did you really think it was meaningful within the context?

I actually thought it was intentional on your part.  You were talking about strategy, specifically about her ability to use the I am woman card, and then segued into the strategy of "with good men" like on our side.  People did use to use exactly that strategy, but now it's considered anti-feminist to do so.  It didn't occur to me that you didn't intend that until later.  If you were really going for the "classic usage" it sounds to me like you may not be aware of the baggage that goes with it.

So while I can understand an eyebrow raised as you see "woman" followed by "man" and wonder to yourself if there's a deeper meaning there (e.g. "Is Fenring trying to say something about how Clinton needs good males in her campaign") it should have been clear to you that none of what I was saying carried this content. And since I've, to whit, never made sexist comments here before you might have chosen instead to surmise that the incidental juxtapose was just that - incidental and irrelevant. The fact that it occurred in a thread about sexism doesn't somehow increase the likelihood that a given phrase is sexist.

Well, I never thought for an instance that you were expressing personal sexism.

I did think you were recommending that formulation (ie that good men support us in our feminist ideals - as opposed to the bad men on the other side) as a good strategy.  Which is why I pointed out the baggage inherent in that formulation.

[Fenring]

I did think you were recommending that formulation (ie that good men support us in our feminist ideals - as opposed to the bad men on the other side) as a good strategy.  Which is why I pointed out the baggage inherent in that formulation.

I guess the disconnect here for me is that I never for an instant considered "I am woman" to be a feminist statement in the first place, since I don't actually think Hillary is a feminist in any meaningful sense. Her appeal to voters as a 'female candidate' seems to be more about exactly that than about some issues that may be approached better because she's a woman. Since I don't take the term "woman" as she uses it to be a platform statement but really just a blatant statement of gender, I guess I wasn't think of the following sentence in terms of context to feminism either. But I see your point. Thanks for bringing it up, I guess.

[Wayward Son]

OK, this is it.  The latest, non-sexist scandal that is sure to end Hillarys' campaign, this time.  There is no explanation that is going to make this one go away.  It's right there, in front of you, every time you see her.  No way to hide this one, folks (unlike e-mails).

Hillary needs pillows to prop her up when she sits.

She's going down... 

[Seriati]

Interesting follow-on to this thread.  The current Trump attacks at Hillary's health seem to me to be deliberately designed to force her to be more active (ie to expose herself to attack) on the campaign trail.  Honestly, I can't imagine health concerns causing any voter - at this point - to switch candidates there's way too much polarity.  But responding to them would force Hillary to make public appearances and expose herself to more rigorous press events. 

I'd suspect that her response will be to respond to them as a joke and to try and avoid getting put back into the public focus, but if she can't control her ego (particularly if any of the digs start demeaning her in a way she feels), it's entirely possible she'll bite and expose herself to more effective attacks.

Any thoughts on the naked Trump statues?  Personally I think they're kind of funny, but I can't imagine the level of outrage there would have been if naked Hillary statues had been used in the same way (less now of course as a response, but can you imagine what the media would have said if the first statues were of Hillary!).

[rightleft22]

The emperor has no cloths doesn’t work as well for Hillary as it does for Trump.
Might not like Hillary but she is pretty much who she is, the status quo establishment.  Who is Trump? What does he really believe? How will he do the things he said he will do. He’s already backing down on his immigration stance which as far as I can see is the main reason he became the republican candidate.

Trump flip flops more than underpants in a tumble dryer and who’s sincerity open to question.
He said himself that he is multiple people, different at home then he is as a businessman and non-politician politician.

Are you asking if the public would be more offended seeing breasts and a vagina then they would be seeing a penis or that making fun of a female’s body is less acceptable then making fun of a male’s body?
The above would imply that sexism is playing a role in the election but that it does not necessarily have anything to do with Trump or Clinton themselves? We just haven’t grown up.

[TheDeamon]

A quick Google to find out about the statues brings up that they were nude, very obese, and lacked a scrotum. It seems that one of the involved groups had special emphasis on "Trump has no balls" rather than no clothes.

[Seriati]

Rightleft22, I think in an election where the Trump campaign has been painted as anti-woman (which is a standard attack pattern against any Republican candidate, which is particularly effective when its not credible claim), the idea that naked woman statues depicting Hillary would be seen as anything but the worst form of sexism is incredibly unlikely.  So yes, I do think we run a double standard here, we are constantly on the look-out for buzz words and lines of attack against Hillary that can be broadened to be attacks on ALL women (regardless of validity of that broadening), and we down play similar anti-male attacks.

I think you also may have a point that many locations would see a nude female statue and react differently than with a nude male statue.

[Wayward Son]

FiveThirtyEight just posted a discussion about whether Hillary is good or lucky to be ahead in the polls right now.  And sexism is one of the possibilities they discuss.

So, come on, fess up.  Which one of you works for FiveThirtyEight?

[AI Wessex]

Any thoughts on the naked Trump statues?  Personally I think they're kind of funny, but I can't imagine the level of outrage there would have been if naked Hillary statues had been used in the same way (less now of course as a response, but can you imagine what the media would have said if the first statues were of Hillary!).

I was on the road last week and missed the one in Union Square, SF by about an hour.  I think they were in keeping with Trump's let-it-all-hang-out campaign style.  If you missed it, the one in NYC's Union Square was removed and the Parks Dept. spokesman released the following statement: ""NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small." If someone tried to do something equivalent for Hillary, it would be someone completely covered up, maybe wearing a Dior burqa.

So, come on, fess up.  Which one of you works for FiveThirtyEight?

I'm the contributor Nate refers to as "Anonymous" .

[AI Wessex]

Trump now claims that Hillary set up her email server with premedication.  I watched her open a jar of pickles with her hands last night. Can he even do that with his tiny hands? Time to move on to the next phony scandal.

[Greg Davidson]

I think in an election where the Trump campaign has been painted as anti-woman (which is a standard attack pattern against any Republican candidate, which is particularly effective when its not credible claim), the idea that naked woman statues depicting Hillary would be seen as anything but the worst form of sexism is incredibly unlikely.  So yes, I do think we run a double standard here

Seriati is right.

I agree that the naked statues of Trump was a horrifically wrong act, and that if instead naked statues of Hillary had been put up, that would have be construed as sexist by many. And if I was one who construed it as sexist (instead of coming out of the weird, freakish motivation that led to the Trump statues), I would have been wrong.

This doesn't mean that there is no sexism in some people's minds with respect to Hillary Clinton, but it does demonstrate that people could also be wrong sometimes when they attribute behavior to sexism.

[Fenring]

This doesn't mean that there is no sexism in some people's minds with respect to Hillary Clinton, but it does demonstrate that people could also be wrong sometimes when they attribute behavior to sexism.

Wait, so you don't think it's inherently sexist to create a statue for the express purpose of making fun of a man for his body? Would they have made such a statue for a very picturesque candidate running the same campaign Trump is running? Note that the statues aren't incidentally of him nude; they are deliberately meant to mock his nudity. I literally can't see how that is anything but sexist by the textbook definitions of feminism. Personally I'd prefer to call it "anti-human" than sexist since that term carries less political baggage, but I'm actually curious what explanation you can see for effectively conducting body-shaming of a man where it's his manliness that is directly being mocked. Do you want to avoid using the term for reasons Pyrtolin has previously specified - that it's punching up therefore cannot by definition be sexist?

[Greg Davidson]

An interesting question. I am already feeling off guard by my full agreement earlier with Seriati. 

I believe that sexism is not merely a reference to a particular physical characteristic. For example, I would not view sexism or racism as being the same as a hypothetical bigotry of "tall-ism" (an irrational set of prejudices against people who are unusually tall). I am just speculating about my thoughts, but I feel that bigotry is more than an irrational set of prejudices. I could have a weird aversion to people named Seymour, but that just means that I am weird, not that I am a Seymour bigot. I guess I believe that for irrational aversion to be properly characterized as bigotry, it requires at least some social context. My irrational aversion has to be in part a social construct that is shared by some fraction of the community in order for it to be considered bigotry.

I think that the naked Trump images might be more bigotry about old people (or overweight people) than it reflects bigotry about men. It's not exactly parallel because social associations are not exactly parallel. But at the same time, social associations are not always agreed-to, so I could see valid differences in opinion over what constitutes bigotry.

[Fenring]

I guess I believe that for irrational aversion to be properly characterized as bigotry, it requires at least some social context. My irrational aversion has to be in part a social construct that is shared by some fraction of the community in order for it to be considered bigotry.

I can see your point here, so let's provide some social context to constructing naked effigies of a man designed to ridicule him. It is surely widely known that it's been common practice historically to go after a man by going after his image as a man. In some ways this is parallel with sexist terms used to denigrate women, since especially in the case of men so mocked there is always the sense that they are being cast as inferiors due to their weak nature (as women were). This kind of mockery includes sexual ridicule about orientation, such as calling him a homosexual. It includes potency ridicule, regarding virility, sexual ability/capability, and so forth. It includes the good old penis-size ridicule. And it includes the general insinuation that women would never want such a person. And the list goes on. It bears mentioning that although 'man culture' has tended to mean such ridicule comes from other men, it is by no means limited to men, as even in our day and age I've heard women levying such epithets against men who've earned their ire for one reason or another.

There is a long, rich history of going after a man's manliness to unman him. To be honest I haven't seen the Trump statues in great detail but...come on, they're probably not very generous to him, are they? It's almost preposterous to suggest that these statues are meant to make fun of his age or the mere fact that he's overweight. Maybe the weight part is sort of in the mix, but it strikes me as not the real point. It's a sexual attack, plain and simple.

So there's your social context. The main difference I see between this and between the kinds of rhetoric that has been levied against women historically (slut shaming, body-image shaming, etc) is the relative power between the sexes in society. But I'm not even sure I'd be confident in the premise that there has been more anti-woman rhetoric in culture historically than anti-man. The actual conditions for women were, in a sense, punishment enough for them, but in terms of which sex has endured more plain-old ridicule? I'd say it's a tough call at the very least, especially if you think about frat culture, public school culture in places like England (both of which are notorious for intense hazing and shaming), or even theocratic cultures, I feel like the systemic mockery of certain men (not the popular/powerful ones, of course) has almost been an historical institution. So this is why I asked you whether the real issue was punching up/down, because aside from that I can't see how shaming a man's manliness is anything other than a throwback to this very well-known procedure.

[Seriati]

An interesting question. I am already feeling off guard by my full agreement earlier with Seriati. 

That's of course the downside of a forum, people often think you're less reasonable than you really are.  The upside of course, is the ability to actually put out complete thoughts and arguments for response in a fairly civilized manner.

While I did highlight that this is an attack that, in my view, would be obviously sexist and labeled immediately as the worst kind of sexism if the genders were reversed, in the spirit of the day, I should also point out that even though its demeaning and low regardless of the gender involved there's good historical reason it would be seen so much worse in the other direction.  That said, it does seem relevant to a topic claiming that Clinton isn't getting parallel credit because she's a woman to point out that Trump isn't receiving parallel protection because he's a man.

[Wayward Son]

While I agree that the Trump statue is a sexual attack, I don't think it rises to the level of sexism.

Let me explain with a hypothetical.  Although I haven't seen the Trump statue (and don't intend to), let's say that it was not demeaning.  Let's say that it showed a strong, super-hero-type body that was well-endowed in the, ahem, interesting bits.   Let's say it showed him, arms akimbo, legs spread out.  What would the reaction be?  Would people think they were making fun of him being a man?  Or that they were showing him to be a strong, powerful, virile leader?

Now imagine a similar statue of Hillary.  With a super-hero-type body, arms akimbo, legs spread out.  Would people think that it was showing her to be a strong, powerful leader?  Or as a whore?

Admittedly, this will depend on the person viewing the statue.  Some will see it one way, some the other.  But I bet the general consensus would be that Trump's super hero statue would be seen as complementary, and Hillary's would be seen as demeaning.

Because the only thing that a nude statue of Trump could show is that he isn't manly enough.  But I can't imagine a nude statue of Hillary that would show she was both womanly enough and a strong leader.  Culturally, I don't believe we're at that point where someone can be womanly and leaderly at the same time.  And that's where the sexism comes in.

[D.W.]

It's a brave new world in politics when this is the type of discussion we have leading up to an election.   

[Fenring]

Admittedly, this will depend on the person viewing the statue.  Some will see it one way, some the other.  But I bet the general consensus would be that Trump's super hero statue would be seen as complementary, and Hillary's would be seen as demeaning.

Actually I bet you if the super-hero statue was of Obama it would be seen as a compliment, and if it was of Trump it would be seen as ridiculous satire. Just think back to the Obama superman shirts and posters during his first campaign and then you'll see that people were literally doing that for Obama. That's where your real comparison lies. A superhero statue of Hillary...I'm not so sure. That one is mired in the fact that Hillary is hated, more so than the fact that she's a woman. If she was the same type of candidate with the same age and body, but beloved, I wouldn't expect people to see a superhero statue of her as being an attack against her, but as it stands I agree it might be seen as ridiculing her in some way. But again, that's only because "here she comes to save the day" is already a ludicrous notion.

Culturally, I don't believe we're at that point where someone can be womanly and leaderly at the same time.  And that's where the sexism comes in.

This is equivalent to saying that the nude woman statue would be punching down and therefore is sexist. Your assessment of the statue in and of itself involves bringing in the relative power-status between men and women in culture. I understand this position, even though I disagree with it. I think it requires using a patriarchal definition of "womanly" in its very premise, which is ironic. There are plenty of "womanly" traits in nature that should teach us that femininity can be as much an aspect of the hunter as of the nurturer. I might even suggest it's sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't already acting womanly.

[Wayward Son]

Actually I bet you if the super-hero statue was of Obama it would be seen as a compliment, and if it was of Trump it would be seen as ridiculous satire. Just think back to the Obama superman shirts and posters during his first campaign and then you'll see that people were literally doing that for Obama. That's where your real comparison lies. A superhero statue of Hillary...I'm not so sure. That one is mired in the fact that Hillary is hated, more so than the fact that she's a woman. If she was the same type of candidate with the same age and body, but beloved, I wouldn't expect people to see a superhero statue of her as being an attack against her, but as it stands I agree it might be seen as ridiculing her in some way. But again, that's only because "here she comes to save the day" is already a ludicrous notion.

I may not have been clear enough about this, but the statues I "envisioned" (although not literally, thank god!  ) would be naked.  Nude statues of Trump and Hillary, but with the body of Andonis and Venus, rather than more, ahem, realistic versions. 

So they don't quite correspond to the Superman Obama T-shirt of old, or the Ironman Trump T-shirts of today.

This is equivalent to saying that the nude woman statue would be punching down and therefore is sexist. Your assessment of the statue in and of itself involves bringing in the relative power-status between men and women in culture. I understand this position, even though I disagree with it. I think it requires using a patriarchal definition of "womanly" in its very premise, which is ironic. There are plenty of "womanly" traits in nature that should teach us that femininity can be as much an aspect of the hunter as of the nurturer. I might even suggest it's sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't already acting womanly.

The patriarchal definition of "womanly" is part of our culture (although people are trying to change it), so your individual thoughts on the subject are immaterial.  Sure, there is a hunter aspect of women, but if many, or most, people don't recognize it, it won't be considered.  You may recognize it, but how about most people?

Yes, it is sexist to suggest that acting leaderly isn't acting womanly.  That's the idea--it's sexist.  Not just a sexual insult, like one made against a man.

A naked man with a great body, standing with spread legs, would be considered "manly."  A naked woman with a great body, standing with spread legs, would be considered a whore.  It's not right, and it demonstrates that the two situations are not equivalent.  Men are attacked for not being manly enough.  Women are attacked for not being manly at all.

So a nude statue of Hillary would be worse, and more sexist, than one of Trump.  It has to do with the cultural context.

[Greg Davidson]

My feelings are that the worst, most visceral aspects the Trump statue was the utilization of societal views towards those who are old and overweight - the presence of male vs. female genitalia was not as shocking to me. But I would bet that it is the exact opposite for many others.