Decent people have decried anything that hints of racial overtones in the Clinton/Obama campaign. Anything that plays into racist stereotypes must be eschewed, and we need to be careful because we have a racist society with a history of inscribing various, negative attributes to African Americans.
That said, we have just as long a history of sexism, and sexism is just as deeply written into our culture and more deeply written into our language.
Obama’s recent statement, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," smacked of sexist stereotyping. While I voted for Obama last month and will support the nominee regardless, if he continues in that vein, I will not volunteer for him (and I’ve done everything from Precinct Captain for countless campaigns to regional coordinator for MoveOn in Manhattan, to VIP coordinator for YearlyKos).
Women have to have thick skin. We can’t get upset every time someone refers to a woman as ‘hysterical’ or a work as ‘seminal,’ or a meeting as a ‘seminar,’ even though our language is continually repeating that to have a womb makes one unstable and to produce semen is the real act of creation (semen, seminal and seminar are all from the same root).
But Obama’s recent statement was far more egregious. For millennium, menstruation has been a major reason justification for excluding women from power and society. "Period" is the most common term currently used for menstruation in this country. So to argue that Clinton "Periodically" gets emotional, insecure, maybe even hysterical?, is to argue that women get emotional, unstable and shouldn’t have power. Would you want a woman to have access to power if she might "launch attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal?" I mean at least Clinton is old enough to not get her period any more, but really, it is rather dangerous to consider allowing any woman access to power.
We live in a society that society really hasn’t changed in terms of what kind of behavior we reward, and those expectations were set when women had no access to power. As a very analytical, out-going, precise and relatively certain woman, I’m loathe to imply that women cannot succeed in this society as it is. But the society is based far more on male values than female values. And regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, she is an analytical powerhouse able to navigate this society as it is. In fact, many of her high negatives are attributed to her competence assuming typically masculine aptitudes
I would like to see a society that could honor a little more vulnerability, and didn’t so single-mindedly destroy political figures who admit to vulnerability. A society that could look at how politics affects people’s lives and not just a cost-benefit analysis. To a great extent—that’s why I’m a Democrat.
For Barak Obama to play with this stereotype, which is probably as old as human history, is very dangerous. It implies that women, because of their bodies, are unstable and unfit for government. But women make up 52.4% of the population. If our values, our ways of viewing the world are really too unstable for the current form of government, then maybe we need to change the government enough so that we have 52.4% of the power. I am not going to volunteer for a man that thinks that women, periodically when we’re feeling down, launch attacks as a way of trying to boost our appeal. I urge Obama to apologize for his statement and avoid any further sexist attacks.
To clarify: It isn't the word "periodically." He didn't say "she periodically triangulates, supporting horrible legislation to look strong" or "she periodically takes way too much money for big business and then does their bidding" or "she periodically tries to make Democrats look like light-Republicans." It is playing into the image of women as emotional, irrational and attacking based on hormones. "periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." This is very much in line with a history of women "PMSing," and "on the rag" when they are just too emotional to be trusted. It isn't this one comment--it is the culture history on which he draws.