Is this magazine cover misogynistic?
…of course not. I’m not sure how you can get “woman hating” out of something like this. Jill thinks it is.
There is a danger here. Much like the danger in every criticism of Obama being characterized as racist (some are, some aren’t). We risk diluting the term and numbing ourselves to real racism and misogyny. Hillary Clinton is a political figure. A polarizing one at that. Poking at her is fair game. All of the bubbles mention things that relate to her campaign:
“Caucuses are elitist!”
“You’ll take away this nomination from my cold dead hands!”
“If you exclude states that start with a vowel, Americans
abroad, and former members of the Confederacy, then multiply my results by pi…”
“How do you say “Judas” in Spanish?”
Now. If the bubbles had said things like “I belong barefoot and pregnant” or “Don’t mind me I’m on the rag”, THAT could be construed as misogyny. The above are all fair political barbs. Nothing more.
I know Jill takes the BlogHER approach and is sensitive to women’s issues. I think her characterization of this magazine cover does more harm than good to a cause she’d like to think she is working for. It’s like shouting fire in the feminist movie theater when there isn’t even smoke.
I’m left wondering. Is every lampooned image of a male candidate anti-male? Or just anti-candidate? Where is the line? And why hasn’t Jill been up in arms over images of Obama with Dumbo ears? Is there a pattern here?
No related stories.