In Kinshasa, Congo yesterday, a Congolese student asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton her husband's opinion on an international economic issue.
"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied.
Since Pres. Bill Clinton's productive visit to North Korea, Secretary Clinton has faced this line of questioning, which endangers American foreign policy efforts.
On the day that Pres. Clinton went to North Korea, I predicted there would be a media backlash about her absence. Now we see U.S. media, including not only Fox but also Huffington Post, perpetuate the idea that Bill Clinton succeeded where Hillary failed. Why send a woman to do a man's job? Clinton had obviously lost credibility with the North Koreans, but U.S.-North Korea relations had soured during the Bush administration, long before she arrived.
Fox News may have started it with the declaration that Hillary was excluded from negotiations, because she had to "eat crow" after calling North Korea an "unruly child", and couldn't "show her face" in the country. But Huffington Post continued the insult with their front-page headline, which dangerously falsifies an imagined rivalry between Bill and Hillary.
Why not Hillary?
Of course, Kim Jong-Il specifically asked to see President Clinton in exchange for a pardon for Lee and Ling. During his presidency, Bill Clinton oversaw strong relations with Kim Jong-Il's father, then-leader Kim Il-Sung. Rumor has it that the good rapport between President Clinton and Kim Il-Sung launched Kim Jong-Il's enthusiasm for the American leader.
Furthermore, the mission was a private one, undertaken not at the urging of the White House but at the urging of Al Gore.
In July, when Secretary Clinton attended the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Forum, she compared North Korea to an unruly child. She did so to warn against a possible nuclear arms race with an attention-seeking state actor, which is certainly a threat in the region. Moreover, she said it in the context of her understanding of attention-seeking behavior as a mother.
Secretary Clinton was right. Kim Jong-Il acts not only like an unruly child, but an unruly fanboy. N.K.'s "Dear Leader," who has kidnapped movie stars whose films he enjoys, was indulging his own desire to meet President Clinton by making the offer.
But Sec. Clinton enjoyed a verbal lashing from the North Korean-controlled news agency, KCNA (now on Twitter!). KCNA's report called her "by no means intelligent," continuing:
"We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community.Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.
Anyone making misstatements has to pay for them."
Familiar messages appear: Aged women are irrelevant. Women who stand up and disagree violate etiquette and should speak only when spoken to. Women are crazy. Women who are vulgar are ugly.
These are very Victorian insults. Attacking her clothes, KCNA degrades Secretary Clinton as both a naive girl and a senile elderly woman. The undertones of asylums in the phrasing of "funny lady" imply insanity. If Clinton were living in the 1900 House, these accusations would have context. No news.
Bill Richardson, who traveled to N.K. in the 90's to negotiate for the release of downed American pilots, noted that "the Obama administration could not send a sitting official to Pyongyang because North Korea does not want to talk to members of the administration."
There was never a point where the White House needed to decide between sending the President or Secretary Clinton, and thus there was no rivalry for this particular job.
The only genuinely unfabricated competition between the Clintons was the competition for the news cycle-- Secretary Clinton's trip to Africa received less front page coverage because of the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Yet President Clinton was widely called the "Comeback Kid" evoking a scene where Bill Clinton battles his wife for media attention.
The idea of a power struggle within the Clintons' marriage is not only sexist in its portrayal of Hillary as incompetent, but also dangerous to American interests abroad.
The message that Bill Clinton's trip should send is not that our State Department failed, but rather that America boasts innumerable non-state actors with tremendous power for peacemaking, who can supplement and improve the efforts of officially sanctioned diplomacy.
I think the Clintons are encountering the question America encounters on an international scale: is a power increase necessarily a power shift? When China gains influence in Asia, does the United States lose influence? When Bill Clinton and HIllary Clinton share a stage, as Maureen Dowd coined it, does Hillary necessarily lose power?
Of course not! But the American media says it must be so, and as a result, she is put on the defensive to prove her authority in question-and-answer sessions with the African youth she meets.
Eliminating this farce will better serve American diplomatic efforts - the world stage is big enough for both of them.
The Feminist Majority Foundation's Campus blog also touched on this.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Never send a woman to do a man's job: North Korea edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15393
The irony is that when Bill Clinton was President everyone attacked her for being the 'real power' behind the President - as if he were just her puppet and she was running the show.
Now people are accusing her of being his puppet.
I wish they'd make up their minds. It's making me dizzy.
Exactly. Isn't this what Bill Clinton has been saying all along, that they are "two for the price of one"?
In 92 my mom had a shirt: Vote For Hillary's Husband.
I heard (in mainstream media, however) that the translator at the event where the student asked Secretary Clinton a question actually mistranslated the question; supposedly the student was actually asking about Obama's policy. Just a small fact that could very well not be true (thanks, ABC Nightly News....)
All the same. I thought it was really interesting that Clinton's trip to North Korea seemed to underscore Secretary Clinton's trip to various African nations. I guess I've always thought of the two as two entirely separate entities when it comes to actual politics (which is all that really matters to me when it comes to the Clintons--I don't spend much time pondering their personal lives).
To be fair, I bet if Hillary went to N Korea and Bill went to Africa, we'd still be paying more attention to N Korea. The situation in N Korea was tense and involved American journalists plus a nuclear power, whereas interest in Africa in the news media is generally pretty low (even when Obama goes there!).
I agree with Ronia. I think the real problem here is that in order to make sense of man/women relationships (or same sex ones, too I guess), people feel a need to figure out who "wears the pants"...as if 1950s style heterosexuality is the only possible archetype for a marriage. God forbid two smart people can have a shared personal life but also two separate professional lives.
As much as the question to Sec. Clinton was rather offensive (if the questioner indeed was asking Mr. Clinton's opinion, I guess that wasn't actually the question after all), I think her response was a little over-the-top rude. It was almost so nasty as to announce that she was indeed insecure about her power/position relative to her husband. I think she should have glossed over it something like "I don't know what my husband thinks, but as Sec. of State I think..." I'm not advocating she be a nice decorus lady all the time, but somehow this viceral reaction struck me funny.
She faces this crap all. the. time. I don't blame her for a second for using the wrong tone. "You're too angry" is frequently a silencing technique when women (and in the context of feminist discussions often POC and trans people) assert their rights and ideas in ways that are not meant to be ignored or glossed over.
She's probably glossed over similar questions dozens of times. It's not insecurity - Sec'y Clinton is a very highly accomplished and confident woman - it's anger at continued exposure to ignorance and sexism. If she would rather get people to pay attention to the fact that she gets asked these questions all the time and they're simply not valid, good for her.
Bill did not get where he is by asserting his rights and ideas in ways that are not meant to be ignored or glossed over, but rather by charming the pants off of people (figuratively and literally).
People compare her oftentimes to him and running around with a face full of scowl did not get the results Bill gets, with his charming ways.
Would she have been the wife of Rumsfeld, she would not have had that problem.
That is true for all people, bein too assertive oftentimes leads to people especially men, feeling challenged stalling and denying you for the sake of denying. Diplomacy on all levels isnt a rather delicate issue, where you need to know how to dance.
Bursting on the scene and behaving in an assertive and confrontational way in ways that are not meant to be ignored or glossed over gets you on the $hitlist of people, not on their good side.
Diplomacy is a dance, but one that requires force as often as delicacy. She's been asked the same or similar rude questions many times.
Look what happened to Madeleine Albright when she chose to hold her tongue and "follow etiquette" when she visited North Korea in 2000:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200610100007
If Sec. Clinton didn't take a hard-line stance on North Korea, she'd be perceived as weak. Taking the administration's stance now, she's perceived as too angry.
Well you should watch a session of the house of parliament on tee vee and you will understand that there is an attitude problem in english politics, but it is not gender related.
Actually that is not sexist at all. In many countries, mine and I am sure yours (America, right ?) a male politician would never speak that way about a woman, because she is a woman. From a feminist point of view it is actually a good thing.
Do you actually think anything is sexist? I mean really? Anything?
Seriously. Why are you here again?
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you mean that it's a good thing when women are treated more kindly by their male colleagues because they are women, whereas the other male colleagues would be treated at the norm, even if that "norm" is abrasive or rude...no, that's not a good thing for feminism.
I prefer not to have other people's conduct towards me dictated by the shape of my sex organs.
I totally see your point here and personally have been the victim of that attitude so I do understand it...but somehow I just feel that precisely because of her accomplishments, she should be above having to bicker with people about the fact that SHE is the sec'y of state, and just should not engage with people suggesting she's not. Its a tough issue though and I do see both sides.
I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree.this isn't her first time ever being asked that god awful question. I'm pretty sure Hilary has ignored it and not even bothered to answer on several occasions. However, everyone has a breaking point, and she may have just had enough of the idiocy. Sometimes you just have to check people. Also, and this isn't directed at you. Why the hell should she always play nice? She is a highly successful, accomplished, capable woman. Why is her authority still being questioned?
First off, I really doubt there was a diplomatic reason to send Bill instead of Hillary. Would Bill have been part of the administration, he would have been sent regardless.
But can somebody explain why Bill upstages Hillary ? Wouldnt it have been the job of the minister of foreign affairs to go to N. Korea ?
Is sending the secretary of state the closest thing to sending the president, without actually sending the president ?
We don't have a minister of foreign affairs, but yes, the Secretary of State is the highest ranking diplomat below President.
And were Bill part of the administration, Pyongyang has repeatedly said they refuse to negotiate with the administration. He would not have been sent. Additionally, the administration needed to send a non-government individual. Sending a federal government official would affirm the current North Korean government.
You've seen all the photos with Bill and Kim Jong-Il- North Korean media reported that Bill Clinton apologized on behalf of America for our foul actions (ha!). Because of media spin like that, America couldn't have sent a sitting official, because we would have lost face. And this is my point: Bill did not upstage Hillary. His purpose was different from hers. Apples and oranges; he is a non-state actor and she is a state actor.
That's the point, though, is that he was sent precisely because he wasn't part of the administration... sending the Secretary of State would make it an "official" visit rather than an ostensibly private one. Technically, they sent Bill instead of Hillary because she outranks him... she's the Secretary of State, part of the government, and he's Private Citizen Bill C.
And given that we don't officially have diplomatic ties with North Korea (and with good reason), sending the nation's chief diplomat would contradict that policy. Sending the SoS is the closest thing to sending the President - which is exactly why they didn't send her. They don't want to reward Kim by letting him kidnap journalists to reopen official diplomacy with the U.S.
Exactly this. Bill Clinton was the PERFECT person to go, because due to his life circumstances/resume, he was the one person who could be on a private trip for those who needed this to be "merely" a private trip, and yet a state visitor for those who needed that level of prestige in the visitor.
Plus Kim Jong Il asked for him specifically.
Not related to this particular post, but it's similarly annoying to hear all the various criticism of the Obama administration for supposedly "not being on top of the issue" or "not sending Obama" or "not sending Hillary Clinton" or whatever it is. The negotiations to send Bill Clinton, asked for by name, came down through the current US administration. They asked him, he didn't just up and volunteer.
Yet he was sent officially as a private citizen. Yes, these things are delicate and headspinning and involve careful considerations of "face" for all involved.
Actually, I linked to an article showing that this administration did not ask him. Ling and Lee's families talked to Al Gore, who asked him. In fact, this was the first time Gore and Clinton had spoken in months. I imagine that after he decided he could go, he consulted the State department aka asked his wife.
Its a little bit of Kabuki theater actually. According to Hillary herself, the "Who asked Bill?" question is pretty complex. Apparently there were a number of overtures made, initially by Gore to Bill, and then by the family to Bill, and then by the family to Hillary and BO, and then finally BO to Bill. If you're a poltico this detail is interesting because it demonstrates the immense sensitivities between Hill, Bill, and BO, even 7 months after his swearing in.
Good call! I also found it fascinating that there were commentaries about how they considered sending Bill Richardson, but didn't, because he snubbed the Clintons in his late primary endorsement of BO.
Laurenms, I heard the same thing on MSNBC. The question was about Obama's policy, not Bill Clintons - so the student asking the question isn't at fault and didn't mean to offend. But still, there had been chatter elsewhere about the Clintons.
Don't people know that this was a PRIVATE mission? He wasn't sent by the government at all. More importantly - wouldn't people be going absolutely crazy if we had sent the Secretary of State to meet with such a crazy dictator??? Like James said I guess. You know the conservative media types would have been all over that.
The Huffington Post is sexist and always has these ridiculous, body-shaming, mysogynistic posts which are, unfortunately, tagged "Most Popular Posts."
I would have expected better from a news website that was founded by a woman. Disappointing, really.
After yesterday's Anti-Feminist Mailbag, reading in the news that someone got to ask Hillary Fucking Clinton a question and all that they wanted to know was what her husband thought had me smacking my head against the desk several times. Thunk thunk thunk.
Sorry to go slightly off topic, but did anyone else see Andrea Mitchell attribute HRC's response to a "bad hair day" on the Today Show?
Oh. My. God.
i saw that. i thought the same thing.
Head/Desk
According to the Associated Press: "Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Barack Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official told ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. There was no word on how Clinton, who is in the middle of an 11-day African tour, responded."
In this case it appears that a language barrier rather than sexism fuelled this question. Clinton's response is completely understandable though.
From what I had read yesterday about Clinton's response once she heard it was a misunderstanding, she told the student not to worry about it, or something of that nature.
While perhaps it isn't NECESSARILY sexism, it's important to note that the student still wasn't asking for Hillary Clinton's opinion---the student was asking about Obama's policy. Like alixana pointed out, given the opportunity to ask Secretary Clinton a question, I would NOT be asking a question about Obama's policy.
How is it sexist in any regard to ask what POTUS thought of Bill's NK trip???
I see your point Laurenms, but as Secretary of State isn't Hilary Clinton a representative of Obama and his views?
What would your question have been, and why should the student have asked it instead of wanting to know about the US President's policy?
Pres. Clinton was the perfect choice to travel to N. Korea -- he was specifically requested, he is a global "rock star," he has ties to Al Gore (who was the employer of the kidnapped women), and, perhaps most importantly, the U.S. does not wish to entertain official diplomacy with N.Korea, especially on this question. The imprisoned women were not ransom for N.Korea's nuclear strivings.
Madam Secretary Clinton was making an official visit to the Congo. Her trip to that area dealt specifically with the horrendous maltreatment of women there. Regardless of whether the translator erred, what she heard was an insulting question about what her husband thought regarding a matter specifically within her purview, and outside his. I hope to high heaven that the administration does not force an apology out of her.
Women and girls are constantly told to smile, be sweet, be charming. The Secretary of State for the United States should not have to respond to an insulting question by smiling and simpering beguilingly. Not just because she's a woman.
To add insult to injury, on the Today show, one of the anchors suggested that she gave the comment because she was "having a bad hair day". Wow. Didn't they get the hint that H. Clinton is tired of sexism? To give a sexist remark about a story centered AROUND SEXISM... is idiotic.
I wrote a letter of support to secretary Clinton for her handling of this question.
I hope that her strength and no nonsense attitude is held up as a model for young women so they can learn how not to be pushed around by men. I do not agree with many of her policies, or some of the ways she conducts politics, but I think it is so important to have strong female role models.
I would think that a question about the president's policy would be extremely pertinent. If the student was asking that question, it is absurd to even imply that it was sexist.
Of course, had he made understood that a man should have been sent instead of a woman, or that it would not have happened if a woman would have been sent, or if he thinks that a man doing the exact same thing she did would have been okay, that is sexism.
Sexism is the discrimination based on gender. I do not see how he discriminated her based on gender.
But some people seem to think anything somebody says or does he does not approve of or that does not make her feel good is sexism.
probably most of you find this sexist too
"We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community.
Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping."
It is offensive, yes, it mentions girl, because hillary wouldnt be a school boy, but it is not sexist, because it is personal and not based on her gender.
And I must say, on this very site not only by the commentators, but by the authors as well, I observer the mindset, that everything that does not make me feel good, or that I disagree with, is sexism.
Then there are those events where sexism is constructed. The issue at hand was never about sending a man or a woman, but about sending Bill instead of Hillary. Nobody talked about gender, untill feministing.com headlined this article "do not send a woman to do a mans job", when the issue at hand was Hillary, not as a woman, but as the persona she is in this story and Bill, not as a man, but again as the persona he is.
Hillary reminds me a lot of Carter and he wasnt exactly the most popular politician of all times either. His weenie did not help him.
If the article wasnt sexist, feministing made it so, sad really when the press does the right thing for once and then feministing walzes in, making it a gender issue when the press did not.
Bill didn't upstage Hillary in this case. This was a job for a celebrity, not a diplomat, because the DL is a loony-toon. If Elvis or Michael Jackson were alive they could have done it too.
That said, Bill did dominate Hillary's presidential campaign with disastrous results for her.
As many posters above have stated, Bill Clinton was the right person to the job, having just enough connection to both the US government (without technically having any) and to the two journalist's employer, and just being Bill Clinton, that he could go in as a private citizen (read: technically he has no power) and retrieve the political hostages. And remember, WE HAVE NO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH NORTH KOREA. HILLARY COULD. NOT. HAVE. GONE. Because she is part of the US government.
As to the above poster, feministing did not "make" the issue about sexism, and clearly the question itself (which was intended to be about Obama, a superstar particularly in Africa if I understand) was not about sexism but simply heirarchy: if you have the VP of a company, might you ask them what the president thinks? Yeah, methinks you might. And that's just... how the election came out.
What IS about sexism is the media coverage of Hillary Clinton's "outburst" or whatever people call it, the popular perception that somehow women aren't allowed to vociferously defend themselves in debate. Admitedly diplomats should be... diplomatic and all that, but also critical to diplomacy is having the other parties take you seriously, and Hillary absolutely needs to defend herself in that respect.
She is the Secretary of State of a major country, she has a right to take pride in her office and demand that the power and position she holds be respected. And the issue of sexism here is, would that be in question if Hillary were not a woman?
I agree with what you said, but I think it's important to distinguish between the translated question about what Hillary's husband thinks and the intended question about what Hillary's boss thinks. If the translator had never made the error then I doubt we'd be having this conversation (except perhaps the media would still be obsessed with why Bill went to NK instead of Hillary).
Speaking of which, who was this translator? Someone who worked with the Dept of State? I'd be a little worried having someone make translation mistakes that cause that sort of tension in a higher-stakes setting!
I would guess a translator from the U.S. Embassy in DRCongo.
The interesting question really is, would Hillary react similarly in a higher stakes meeting? Granted her's is a legitimate response to what the translator said, but you can pretty much guarantee that where the gov't is concerned mistakes will be made. How about the next time something is lost in translation? Or a different error comes along? Temperament does matter in crisis situations...The Cuban Missile Crisis comes to mind among others...It was Hillary Clinton who said in reference to her support for the Iraq War, "9/11 changed everything."
The US has no diplomatic relations with N Korea, Hill couldn't go hence they used back channels. If Bill can be an asset, great, defining that as her "failure" is absurd.