As Ariel mentioned in her post, yesterday when Secretary of State Clinton was in the Congo to discuss the issue of death and rape, a student asked her (not verbatim) "what does your husband think about this, through you, his wife?" There is some speculation that the question was translated wrong, but I think it is worth looking at the video, which has been characterized as Clinton "losing her head, " and being "outraged."
I think she handled it pretty well, but this video has garnered sexist news headlines everywhere describing Hillary as losing her cool.
But that is not really the point and speaks to the larger issue, that this is being used as a distraction from what we are planning on doing in the Congo to change the current situation. While the answer to this question and speculating over Clinton's lack of self control, gives the media another opportunity to fixate on Clinton's "attitude" problem, the systematic violence towards the people of Congo and the use of rape as a weapon of war, is what needs our attention. According to the NYTimes, Clinton unveiled today her plan to allocate $17 million dollars to the Congo specifically towards the issue of sexual violence.
Speaking during an unprecedented visit by an American secretary of state to Goma, in the epicenter of Congo's war-torn east, she said the American government would help train gynecologists, supply rape victims with video cameras to document violence and dispatch military engineers to help train Congolese police officers to crack down on rapists."This problem is too big for one country to solve alone," she said at a round table meeting here with doctors and human rights advocates.
"I'm not here to leave a business card, but I can't wave a magic wand either," she told the human rights workers who pressed her for concrete assistance.
Tami, Dana and Jessica_arant on the community site have more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What is Clinton Actually Proposing To Do in the Congo?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15442
Strangely, the way she acts in that clip reminds me of the attitude Bush had when handling certain questions. I think she could have handled the situation better, but I don't think she handled it inappropriately either.
Clinton made the statement that worldwide "women's issues" were going to be part and parcel of US foreign policy on her watch. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/hillary-clinton-on-women-in-foreign-policy/)
Here she is supporting that statement. She refused to condone a question that appeared to undermine her authority. The question of intent is valid. The question is worse if it really does convey the belief that Clinton should have spoken for her husband. If not, it was merely unintentionally offensive.
I think that any time a woman with power acts blatantly and unapologetically as if she had power, she does the rest of us a superb service.
I think she was fucking righteous in the clip.
How is it sexist to say she lost her cool ? How is that discrimination based on gender ? It seems like everything is sexist.
And no, she did not handle the situation pretty good, she did lose her cool and she was outraged. Not an Italian parlament fists flying lost her cool, where delegates show how good olive oil keeps you in shape, but she did lose her cool.
Do you think anything qualifies as sexist? Seriously. Every thread is you telling us why something we think is sexist actually isn't. Seriously, sincerely curious about this.
No, proudfeminist thinks we're full of shit.
I think I'd get really, really tired really, really fast if I went on a right-wing blog and spent days refuting everything people said. Shit man, some days I don't have enough time to talk in all the places I enjoy talking online, much less places that are opposed to what I think.
Haha Arvilla! I asked that EXACT SAME QUESTION of proudfeminist on the last post about Clinton today! I truly believe the answer is no.
It is sexist because she did have a reason to be angered by the situation, but everyone is simply talking about how she's loosing it.
I'm just waiting for the comments going something like, "she was probably in that time of the month!" Or even better, "she's going through menopause!" Because let's face it, we women have nothing to be angered about.
I think she definitely could've handled the situation better, but we all have that time when we just can't, man or woman, and I think she's held it in for quite a long time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2hh97iJ-EU
I first heard about this on the BBC world service. They described it as something like "striking a blow for feminism". Their coverage was wholly supportive of her. My first thought was that whatever I think of her actions, that's not how the US media will cover it.
I agree that she lost her cool. I also say that Clinton losing her cool here isn't unexpected or unwarranted. That's not an appropriate question to ask her.
"striking a blow for feminism" yes, because all we feminists can do is stomp our little feet and get into peoples face. I find that actually counterproductive.
If you cannot manage to write one useful or productive comment, you will be banned. Also, "stomp our little feet" just reeks of troll to me.
why are folks that you disagree with threatened to be banned? it's one thing to use offensive language, personal attacks or the like. but banned because you don't deem the comment useful of productive. maybe you want a site where everyone simply agrees with each other and everyone pats themselves on the back for being so smart and feminist. i imagine it's better when people can disagree in a civil manner.
ekpe, proudfeminist has taken over and posts on nearly every post multiple times arguing against everything being sexist - and then people end up spending more time addressing the boneheaded comments rather than actually addressing what the OP is about.
It wouldn't be so problematic if proudfeminist's posts weren't derailing every single thread here. Luckily I think most people are just rolling their eyes at him or her now instead of taking the questions seriously.
Thanks for explaining this for me, Alixana! Yes, proudfeminist is on multiple threads, derailing and spouting off lots of antifeminism. This comment is being considered in conjunction with many, many others.
Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC attributed Hillary's reaction to a "bad hair day."
Bad hair day? Please. She was probably suffering from crazy PMS symptoms if she still has periods in her dried up, undesirable old womb. In fact, I bet a good, slow screw would wipe that unbecoming scowl right off her face.
(sigh)
Can you get any more original?
Don't you have better things to do?
I think ikkin was being obviously sarcastic there.
Thanks. I was being sarcastic, but I understand if that is lost upon the Internets.
Yeah, I understand why Lynne C. could assume otherwise, because I've definitely heard that come from people's mouths before and they were dead serious. But I know your posts and knew you were definitely NOT serious.
Oops. Please accept my apologies. I've spent some time on Youtube, and many of the comments there are of this very nature. I usually pick up on sarcasm but I failed miserably in this instant. (slaps forehead)
I think I lose my cool too when that happens. "Oh what does your boyfriend think?" He'll tell you when you're talking to him!
The question was, "What does Mr. Clinton, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton . . . think of this situation." I have no idea why anyone who has the rare opportunity to ask a question to the Secretary of State of the United States would ask what their spouse thinks of foreign policy. I also don't know when people of the Congo learn English. The person asking the question seemed to know what they were talking about; they just couldn't find the right words. Either way, I think Secretary Clinton was rightfully indignant at the question and reacted in a way that one would expect. She didn't lose her cool. She was pretty bad ass.
Nothing pisses me off more than being asked some variation of the "what does your husband think of that" question.
EXAMPLES:
"Hey Tabby, What does your husband think of you going back to work--or working weekends--or keeping your own last name--or being a feminist...???"
It's a way for a person to discount you (as a woman and wife)and see if your husband agrees with you and grants his permission. Sort of like asking a kid if her parents knows where she is.
Yes, this is complicated by her husband being a former president and a current important political figure. But really!!
My pat response is "You'll have to ask him..."
Jesus Christ that would piss me off. If that's someone "losing their cool", my reaction would be a fucking nuclear meltdown.
The fact that it was a sexist remark, in addition to the fact that her response is being portrayed terribly by the media, is not an excuse for her to handle the situation like that.
I agree that she had a reason to be upset. I have experienced a lot of similar situations under public pressure in competitive philosophy classes. And I am not criticizing her because I know I could handle it more smoothly -- I don't think I could.
However, what I do know, is that strategically speaking she could have handled the situation better and more diplomatically. They way she responds makes it easy for people to play into stereotypes like those of the "hysterical woman" or of a man being "pussy-whipped." Of course, being publicly humiliated by being told she threw a 'temper tantrum' in response to a sexist remark is not going to inspire her to keep her cool in the future. But the fact that the hysterical woman trope still has such a stranglehold on how Hillary Clinton is portrayed in the media means that we have to work twice as hard to thwart those stereotypes. It's possible to have a healthy emotional life and to disagree respectfully without giving them any fodder whatsoever.
Yes, we'll have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously as a man does, but unfortunately I think that tactically speaking we're just going to have to work twice as hard. Whether it's right or wrong that we do is a totally different issue.
Well the thing is just that you never really do get to be taken seriously. Not even if you're Secretary of State.
Um... I think that's a bit of an overstatement, but I agree, the trivialization of women is a huge problem. What I am saying is simply that we can't give up on ourselves because the trivialization is too much to handle. To give up means letting the other side win.
Um... I think that's a bit of an overstatement, but I agree, the trivialization of women is a huge problem. What I am saying is simply that we can't give up on ourselves because the trivialization is too much to handle. To give up means letting the other side win.
Okay, so after a long day at work I was finally able to actually HEAR watch Clinton said.
After reading all these comments and hearing all the discussion surrounding this comment of hers I was really expecting to hear her yell or scream or really lose her temper at this question-asker...but she did none of that.
She raised her eyebrows and her eyes got a tad wide. Also her voice was a little stern. Oh me oh my!
People are completely blowing this whole thing out of proportion (and the people I'm referring to are the ones that are saying she lost her temper or cool or what have you). She reacted perfectly acceptably. She was rational and calm and a bit annoyed. Understandably so. I'd be waaay more pissed if I was her.
I loved her response, thats the Hilary I like. Hilary is tough, smart and a little bit mean and I LOVE that about her. Thats willingness to take a swing is what the left seriously is devoid of. Yea Hill!!
Just a nitpicky thing that someone might be able to correct me on. I'm pretty sure "The Congo" refers to the Republic of the Congo. Secretary Clinton was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
That was hilarious. Totally made my day. Sad that the media will only convince people even more that she's a crazy bitch. I love her!! Also, I wonder how many times can she possibly be asked that questions without getting pissed? She'd finally had it. Good for her.
Considering she's also been treated to "OMG, should I be seen shaking your hand (as I would any other diplomat's) when you're a WOMAN and that might tick off my Islamist* population...." this week, I find her reaction to yet another "Little woman, tell us what the men are thinking" situation to be spot-on.
* Since language gets picked apart on this board, I mean Islamist to mean those who want a strict Sharia-style government and society, in which women have few rights and fewer roles in leadership. I do not mean it as a synonym for Muslim.
G/d.
*That* is the f**king "temper" people have been complaining about?
It's a public forum.
She is being insulted.
yes, her response is pointed, but it looks like it's a relatively informal venue, which is very different from a formal reception.
And yes, her response was appropriate and restrained.
She said "if you want *my* opinion as Secy of State I'll be glad to anser." Rather than the "f**k off you sexist ass" that was called for.
Of course, the sexist crap seems to be ingrained in a lot of cultures, all over the world, including, yes, the United States.
Amen. I see nothing wrong with a frustrated, unagressive, snarky response to a rude and offensive question. Well-handled, Hillary.
Hmm...
I agree that her response was well within reasonable measures given the question. However, I couldn't help but wonder if possibly something was lost in translation there.
I have trouble saying that it's a sexist question when the man is clearly having great difficulty expressing himself in English.
Eh, probably not. Admittedly, the odds are stacked in favor of the sexist interpretation.
I'm slightly annoyed that no one is commenting on the more important issue here, about the money that Clinton is allocating for rape victims in Congo (as Samhita said, "But that is not really the point and speaks to the larger issue, that this is being used as a distraction")
This morning on NPR (Diane Rehm show) , I heard someone critisizing Clinton's efforts, saying that sexual violence is just a side effect of the "more important" political issues in Congo, so Clinton should have focused her attention on ending these political disputes instead of addressing the "side effect". The Congolese are preoccupied with the politics and Americans are preoccupied with Clinton's insignificant remarks; does anyone care about the thousands of rape victims?