with

Our Daughters Are Paying Attention

Categories: Mad as Hell & We're Not Going to Take it Anymore, PunditMom Ponders

8 comments

Stern. Witchy. The ‘b’ word that rhymes with witchy. Shrill. Scolding.

I suspect that few of us would allow our husbands to use those words to describe us (even if they are thinking them on occasion) when they are in front of our children, especially not in the presence of our daughters.

Yet, innumerable journalists, especially men, have found it perfectly OK to describe Hillary Clinton in those words as she runs for president, plus many others that get used to describe powerful and assertive women. Hateful and prejudicial phrases that convey an underlying meanness and insecurity about females who challenge traditional stereotypes about women in our society.

If these men, many of whom undoubtedly have daughters, paid the tiniest bit of attention to what their children are focused on, they might rethink the vocabulary they are using to pillory Hillary.

Because believe it or not, our kids are paying attention. Even our youngest children.

Exhibit A? I volunteered for lunch table duty at my daughter’s school this week and I was shocked that the conversation topic of choice at two tables full of first- and second-graders was the presidential election.

Kids were polling each other about whether they wanted to vote for Barack or Hillary (sorry, I did not hear any child say they were for John McCain, but I think that’s just the neighborhood we live in!). I didn’t catch the reason that the boys wanted Obama to be president but the girls were clear — Hillary should be be president because it’s time for a girl to have a turn. Eight-year-old logic at its finest.

But if  seven-and eight-year-olds are choosing to talk about this on their own — really, I swear, I did NOT plant that seed at the lunch table! — then you know they’re also paying attention to what words we and news commentators use to describe the candidates.

In a recent article, Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz wrote, “We bruise our daughters when we bash Hillary Clinton.” She was generally talking about girls a bit older than the ones I sat with this week who were scarfing down chicken nuggets and jelly sandwiches, but the point is the same — our daughters are focused and invested in this presidential race because “a girl” — someone like them — wants to be in charge and make decisions. Girl power is a very big thing for elementary school girls.

Since that’s the case, we all need to be careful how we describe Hillary because you can be sure that whatever we call Senator Clinton, our daughters are going to find a way to internalize that. My second-grade daughter, like so many, thinks she can make good decisions and could possibly be president one day. But if we allow journalists, men or women, to continue to bash Hillary and her historic effort, we may as well tell our girls there’s no point to having that dream, or any dream, because they’ll only be mocked and ridiculed just the way Hillary Clinton has been.

Subscribe to blog via RSS
Share this on:

Your Comment

Will be shown publicly

NOTE: All fields marked * are required.

8 comments so far...

  • When people say that we are past looking at gender in the election, I look at our daughters. They are, for the most part, free from our learned feminist histories. All they know is what is in front of them. For them to notice that A GIRL is running for president and that it’s a big deal, I say it’s a big deal. That gender matters.

    Veronica  |  February 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  • Oh, please. The “journalists” you refer to are bloggers, no? I’m not hearing those kinds of references to Hillary being made by any legitimate news sources. If your second grader is reading political blogs you have bigger problems to deal with.

    Not Buying It  |  February 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

  • To “Not Buying It,” those are all references from the main stream media — MSNBC, NY Times,Washington Post (they called her “screechy”), and others.

    Glad you’re concerned about my daughter’s reading material, though.

    PunditMom  |  February 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

  • So are we to just let her get elected just because she IS female so we don’t bruise our daughters? Should we not equally be able to call Hillary the same bad names we call any male candidate? Or are we supposed to give her a head start because she is a female? I think people need to loosen up. I have a daughter of my own. I don’t want her thinking that just because Hillary is a girl that she is a good person or that because of that she deserves to be talked about any better than any other lying politician. Nope, sorry. She is equally corrupt. And she will get the same respect as any male that takes money from corporations and lies through their teeth.

    There is a difference in equality and preferential treatment. I don’t think most people actually want TRUE equality…

    Concerned Parent  |  February 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  • Concerned Parent, I’m not saying that. But what similar “bad names” are news outlets calling Obama? Or McCain??

    I haven’t heard anyone calling them the male equivalent of b*tch, scold, witch, etc. My point is this — it’s NOT OK for journalists to be able to describe a woman candidate in such sexist, derogatory terms. We don’t do it to the men. Why can’t we criticize them with a vocabulary that’s a bit more civil that doesn’t send the message to girls that if you’re a strong woman, you’re a b*tch?

    PunditMom  |  February 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  • That could be, in part, because there really is no mainstream male equivalent to b*itch, scold, witch, etc. Males tend to get flak for exhibiting traditionally female characteristics, and those males rarely run for President.

    As for Hillary’s historic effort… it’s not, really. Neither is Obama’s. Other women and other African-Americans have run for president, though none of them has gotten as far as these two have. It’ll be historic if she wins the nomination. Then again, it’ll be historic if Obama does, too. So that’s pretty much a wash.

    Blaming journalists isn’t the answer, though. And I’m not just saying that because I am one. Maureen Down put it well when she wrote recently: “It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

    Lylah  |  February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

  • Lylah, one thing. What would the MSM be saying about Obama if her shoe was on his foot?? I don’t think they’d be counting him out yet either.

    PunditMom  |  March 4th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  • Hi, PunditMom — sorry, it took me much too long to check back. I think you’re right, they wouldn’t be counting him out, either. My point was that blaming the press for the success or failure of either candidate isn’t necessarily the way to go…

    Lylah  |  March 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Have a question?

Check out our popular Q&A area to ask questions and search for answers.

Quick recipes

Check out our favorite quick and easy recipes, perfect for busy moms.

Affordable Luxuries Blog

Check out our daily picks for affordable luxuries for you and your family.