Hillary could have won the election with a 5 second knockout blow.
Instead, she lost it. She wimped out.
She let herself get pushed around by Donald Trump. She endured bullying rather than confront it. She was demonstrating to the world that she didn't know what to do in a fight.
Her book reported that she thought "This is not OK." Her book reported that her skin crawled.
Hillary was being pressured by an opponent. Had she turned to him and said, firmly, "Back off, Buster," or faced him directly and taken a step forward and said, "Get the hell out of my space, Donald" she would have communicated strength.
Instead, with in the face of Trump's unmistakable body language, she showed with her own unmistakable body language that Trump could invade/assault her and that her response was to endure and ignore it.
It was not Commander in Chief behavior. It fed the meme that she was weak.
 |
| Trump was a jerk. Hillary was weak. |
Her book reported that she thought "This is not OK." Her book reported that her skin crawled.
Hillary was being pressured by an opponent. Had she turned to him and said, firmly, "Back off, Buster," or faced him directly and taken a step forward and said, "Get the hell out of my space, Donald" she would have communicated strength.
Instead, with in the face of Trump's unmistakable body language, she showed with her own unmistakable body language that Trump could invade/assault her and that her response was to endure and ignore it.
It was not Commander in Chief behavior. It fed the meme that she was weak.
The MeToo movement has been a mixed bag for women. Women have been coming forward and detailing how, in some encounter with a man some time ago, they endured some kind of affront. Or pressure. Or sexual groping. Or sexual display. Or sex. They did not like it. They were silent or helpless or confused or conflicted because that man had power or money or prestige or at least self confidence about what he wanted. They were silent.
Now, in alliance with other woman, they are speaking out and getting revenge.
The MeToo movement has been called empowering for women. I consider it to have been just the opposite. It showed women as passive victims.
This week women are starting to notice that.
There is a premise built into the after-the-fact MeToo reports. The premise is that the woman was powerless. The man had agency; the woman was the object. In some cases there is a clear power differential. The notion of a producer dangling a acting role in front of a starlet, to be discussed on a casting couch in a private room, is a cliche. The woman in that circumstance faces duress. Sometimes this is, in fact, a workplace power issue. But sometimes the reports are simply unwelcome advances. Trial balloons that went flat. Clumsy gropes. Cloddishness.
The man looks stupid or gross. How could Al Frankin possibly think he would be kissable by a woman as beautiful as his on-stage star, a Playboy model? She said his kiss was "slimy." Yuck! Foolish Franken, and years later he resigns from the Senate.
A turning of the tide. A feminist magazine ran an article from an anonymous woman, "Grace", saying she had a bad date with actor comedian Aziz Ansari. "The worst night of my life," was the title.
They met, flirted, exchanged numbers, had a fancy dinner, she went to his apartment. She wrote that he failed to notice her non-verbal signals. He served white wine and didn't even ask if she preferred red. They kissed. They got naked. She felt rushed. They got dressed and watched TV together.
The next day Ansari contacts her saying it was a great evening, let's meet again. She says it was awful, didn't you realize? Oh.
Now, in alliance with other woman, they are speaking out and getting revenge.
The MeToo movement has been called empowering for women. I consider it to have been just the opposite. It showed women as passive victims.
This week women are starting to notice that.
There is a premise built into the after-the-fact MeToo reports. The premise is that the woman was powerless. The man had agency; the woman was the object. In some cases there is a clear power differential. The notion of a producer dangling a acting role in front of a starlet, to be discussed on a casting couch in a private room, is a cliche. The woman in that circumstance faces duress. Sometimes this is, in fact, a workplace power issue. But sometimes the reports are simply unwelcome advances. Trial balloons that went flat. Clumsy gropes. Cloddishness.
 |
| Click Here. Babe Magazine |
The man looks stupid or gross. How could Al Frankin possibly think he would be kissable by a woman as beautiful as his on-stage star, a Playboy model? She said his kiss was "slimy." Yuck! Foolish Franken, and years later he resigns from the Senate.
A turning of the tide. A feminist magazine ran an article from an anonymous woman, "Grace", saying she had a bad date with actor comedian Aziz Ansari. "The worst night of my life," was the title.
They met, flirted, exchanged numbers, had a fancy dinner, she went to his apartment. She wrote that he failed to notice her non-verbal signals. He served white wine and didn't even ask if she preferred red. They kissed. They got naked. She felt rushed. They got dressed and watched TV together.
The next day Ansari contacts her saying it was a great evening, let's meet again. She says it was awful, didn't you realize? Oh.
A feminist writer speaks up and pushes back.
 |
| Click Here: New York Times. |
And, worse for women, she wrote: the premise of "Grace's" account is that women are helpless. Apparently Ansari failed to notice "Grace's" reservations and her non-verbal cues. Didn't Ansari notice that I was reluctant and not fully into it? Weiss said, the supposed expose' "transforms what ought to be a movement for women's empowerment into an emblem for female helplessness." "Grace" went along. She didn't speak up. She didn't get up. She didn't put her clothes back on. She kept hoping Ansari would intuit her reluctance.
Bari Weiss notes that women are not helpless. Women have agency.
I agree. A feminism that has its power in complaining after the fact, is a feminism that pushes women backwards.
We do not know what happened that evening at Ansar's apartment, but we do know what happened at the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Trump made a boorish, thuggish assault into Hillary's space. Hillary was bothered by it, pretended to ignore it, and carried on. Then later complained about it in her book.
That was "MeToo" feminism. It is bad feminism, weak feminism, and disastrous presidential politics.
Yesterday's article in the NY Times may be the beginning of a counter-trend in the MeToo movement. It takes a woman to say it: women need not be victims who complain later. They can be warriors who stand their ground.
Indeed, they must be warriors in spirit and demeanor, to be credible as candidates facing self confident men..
2 comments:
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...
Here's what she should have done. Stopped talking. Just stand there silent until the moderator intervened. Then she could have raised the issue without giving Trump any power by direct confrontation, which could have backfired. Demonstrate to all that his behavior was unacceptable to everyone, and used the power of community to expose Trump's uncivil behavior.
Confronting Trump would have cost her some dignity, lowered herself to his level, which is exactly what Trump wanted. One of the problems we are facing is the lowering of discourse, with Trump attempting to bring everyone down into the mud with him. A one on one cage fight is a spectacle, a show. Hillary perhaps intuited that a confrontation would have dominated the news and wanted to avoid that also.
As it went I think ignoring it was the dignified thing to do.
Many legal arguments are lost by the party with the burden of proof. If you have the burden and you don’t carry it by definition you lose. #MeToo in some ways seeks to shift the burden of proof from her having to prove she did not consent to him having to prove that she did consent. The Aziz accusation shows the difficulty of the proposed new order — she can say nothing, experience an awkward and unfulfilling first date and years later claim that he “should have known” and therefore must forfeit his career. Seems a bit unfair. As long as the rules are clear, what is the best social policy? If I had sons, I would counsel them to get it in writing or recorded: “we are going to have sex and use contraception, our safe word is Zebra7, etc.”. Sounds unromantic, but marriage has survived prenuptials. Otherwise, the risk may be unacceptable.
As for HRC, I agree that if she said “back off, Donald!” it would have been a game changer. NO one has been able to put DJT in his place. On the other hand, how will you continue to re-litigate the last Prez election? Maybe you should consider the serenity prayer...
Post a Comment