Hillary? Pissed? Maybe Not, But We Are
This morning, the New York Post (okay, so we’re used to infuriating and sexist covers from them), printed a front page photo of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shaking her fists in a fit of rage (or so they’d like it to seem). While the photo is bad enough, they just had to make the point with the title, “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid.” The subtitle is even more ridiculous with its hyperbole of Hillary’s testimony: “Hillary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing."
Great. So not only are they calling the Secretary of State frigid and angry, they needed to take it just one step further by implying that she is ball-busting and bossy—so much so that her husband obviously doesn’t want to be near her.
But it wasn’t just the New York Post giving a sexist interpretation of Hillary’s testimony. Fox News’s The Five and the Washington Post also had some juicy sexist nuggets!
See The Five’s amazing and thoroughly insightful analysis of Hillary’s testimony below:
If we can all agree on one thing, it’s that Hillary Clinton is the furthest thing from stupid. The woman graduated from Wellesley College with honors and attended Yale Law School, not to mention her lengthy and indefatigable career in politics. The idea that the issues presented in the Benghazi hearing were above her head and “too confusing” for one of the brightest individuals in politics today is utterly ridiculous and incredibly sexist.
But it wouldn’t be a real critique of sexist media if we didn’t talk fashion. In an otherwise great article defending yesterday’s testimony in the Washington Post, Suzi Parker just could not resist describing Hillary’s outfit and physical appearance, noting the Secretary of State’s “emerald green jacket and geek girl glasses.” Why, oh, why Suzi Parker? Is it too much to ask that for just once we could focus on what female politicians are saying about the important issues at hand rather than their clothing and appearance?
It’s one thing to constructively criticize Hillary’s testimony on the attacks in Benghazi. It’s another thing for one news source to imply that she is shrill, cold, and full of rage, another to imply that she is stupid, shallow, and unprofessional, and yet another altogether to be incapable of NOT talking about her clothes. Have you ever seen the media do this to a man? I didn’t think so.
The New York Post cover, the Fox News critique, and the brief Washington Post fashion reference sought to undermine the Secretary of State not by her merits, but (surprise, surprise!) by her femininity. It’s a tale as old as time (or her 2008 presidential election bid).Published by Carly Quaglio on 01/24/2013