Breaking news: Hillary has a vagina, media not sure what to make of it
I don’t intend vote for Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary, but because the media has focused so much on Clinton’s sex, I find myself compelled to speak out in her defense. Particularly when so-called journalists like the WaPo’s Robin Givhan offer utterly embarrassing opinions of Clinton. I realize that Givhan picks on other public figures’ styles—it’s not just Hillary’s fashion choices she frets over. She recently wasted additional ink lamenting Mitt Romney’s hair, for instance. But I find Givhan’s remarks about Clinton truly damaging not only to female politicians, but to women in general. So I rant.
Givhan first riled me up with her obnoxious analysis of the momentary appearance that Clinton’s cleavage made in Congress one day. Givhan, being the classy gal that she is, acknowledges that showing a little décolletage “doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified.” Well, if Hillary didn’t make that request, then I guess her boobs themselves must have placed a personal phone call to the writer, begging for her to give them a voice, because Givhan sure thinks they have a lot to say.
As if that weren’t bad enough, Sunday’s Post included an equally nauseating essay from Givhan about what message Clinton’s pantsuits are trying to send to voters. There’s really no need to read the entire thing. Givhan’s piece is basically a pretentiously worded version of the following:
“Men wear pants. Hillary wears pants, too! And I don’t mean just sometimes. I mean, like, always. Sooo I guess I’m at least glad that Hil got some suits in pink and other pretty colors, so people remember can be kind of cute and stuff. Because she’s like, in the lead, so she is getting tons of attention. Love that coral outfit, Hil! Rock on! Girlpower! Can’t wait to see what she puts on for Super Tuesday.”
Although this type of commentary infuriates me, I am not at all surprised that it's out there. Regardless of whether Clinton wins the presidency or even earns a spot on the Democratic ticket, her candidacy is historically significant because it is creating a generation of future women who will not remember a time when women did not compete for (and perhaps, occupy) the White House. Some call her stern or cold, and I don’t disagree. But with cheap shots like those from Givhan and other sexist pundits, I’m grateful that our formidable female candidate is so resilient.