Hostile environments

I spent a year getting out of debt by doing corporate training -- lots of three-day weekends in hotel meeting rooms with our account managers talking about sexual harassment and not creating a hostile workplace environment.

If I were still working in that capacity, I would have to advise our managers not to hang this recent Pat Oliphant cartoon in their office. It's exactly the sort of misogynist garbage that would get the company sued. And we would lose the lawsuit. And we would deserve to lose the lawsuit.

Creating a hostile workplace environment is stupid. It's not about being "politically correct," it's about good business. Not only does creating such an environment expose a company to lawsuits, it restricts whole categories of employees from feeling free to contribute their experience and opinions -- thus making the company dumber than it needs to be. It coarsens the atmosphere, lowering morale and leading to higher turnover, both of which lead to poorer service and increased training costs. And for every employee it offends or alienates, it does the same to two potential customers who will likely choose not to deal with a bunch of neanderthals whose parents seem to have failed to teach them common decency.

Yet this cartoon ran in The Washington Post and was syndicated, running in many other papers around the country, including the one where I work. The pages of all those newspapers thus became hostile environments for their readers -- not just for every woman reading them, but also for every male reader who doesn't share Oliphant's bilious anxieties.

If you didn't click on the above link, let me describe the cartoon. It's a drawing of Hillary Clinton sobbing uncontrollably as she sits across the table from a rogues gallery of male menaces including Osama bin Laden, Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il and Pervez "It was Bhutto's fault she got killed" Musharraf. They're making comments about pant-suits and buying her flowers. The whimpering Clinton, referred to as "Madam President," says "You guys are mean!" In the corner of the cartoon is a tiny Bill Clinton, saying "This is when PMS goes nuclear."

So the cartoon isn't about Hillary Clinton, it's about women. All women. It's about how all women are weak and emotional and unable to fend for themselves and unstable due to "PMS" and otherwise generally incapable of "wearing the pants."

And The Washington Post and my paper and dozens of other papers were fine with that. If you're not fine with that, it would be good to let the Post and those other papers know. If they hear from enough readers, they might think twice about running this trite nastiness in the future. (Or, at least, they might think once -- since they don't seem to have even started thinking yet.)

From where (and when) I sit at my paper, I can't even see the offices where the decision to run this cartoon was made. My complaint was addressed with the explanation that the selection of Oliphant's cartoon was a matter of "free expression." And so it is. But that still doesn't explain why, of all the things one might choose to freely express, one would choose to freely express this. I do admire the chutzpah it takes to claim that running such a cartoon is some kind of brave exercise in free speech. As though afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable were a newspaper's job. As though speaking lies to the powerless was just as admirable as speaking truth to power.

Mithras put his hipwaders on to compile a whole series of Pat Oliphant's creepily Freudian diatribes against Hillary Clinton as Everywoman. Feministe points out that Oliphant seems confused about human anatomy. Ampersand chimes in with a Tom Toles cartoon about Clinton that's really more about Pat Oliphant and the men who like his perspective. And Echidne of the Snakes offers both a timely quote from Germaine Greer and, helpfully, the e-mail address of the ombudsman at The Washington Post: ombudsman@washpost.com.

One last thing needs to be said about the collection of Oliphant cartoons Mithras has assembled: They're simply not funny. Not ha-ha funny. Not witty, wry, sardonic, amusing, thought-provoking, diverting, sarcastic, satiric, whimsical, playful, imaginitive, creative or otherwise in any way humorous. Funny isn't the entirety of Pat Oliphant's job as a political cartoonist, but it's a big part of his job, and the guy ain't funny.

Comments

[Boze]

These are exactly the sort of conceptions of Hillary Clinton (and of women) that the Onion has been heckling for years now with its "What do you think?" feature.

Question: "Hillary Clinton has indicated an interest in running for president in 2008. What do you think?"

"But what if she menstruates on some important piece of legislation?"
- Richard Harridan, South Carolina auto manufacturer

[Technomad]

Personally, I'm not against Hillary because she's a woman. I'm against her because she's an authoritarian, arguably crooked (if mere mortals, such as you and I, had pulled the shenanigans she had with, forex, the Rose Law Firm files, we'd be caged up like Hannibal Lecter) ill-qualified for the office she holds, an enabler to her husband's worst habits, a carpetbagger who was more-or-less given the Democratic nomination for senator despite having very little real connection with New York, and puts me in mind of Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter books.

That said, considering how much nastily anti-male stuff I've seen tacked up in women's cubicles, I'm highly unsympathetic to their howls about "hostile work environment." If I were, say, British, do you think I'd get any sympathy if the guy a few cubicles down was a rabid pro-IRA type with a bunch of stuff up about the Provos' exploits in bombing Britain? Would I buggery!

Contrary to some people's notions, the world of business (and government service) does not exist primarily to provide women with career-track jobs. Or any other kind. Personally, were I in a position to hire, I'd avoid members of any "group with grievances" like the plague, and if hauled into court, I'd blandly tell the court "I'm sorry, m'lud, but the voices in my head were unanimous that she's one of my many unseen enemies." It is not against the law, in and of itself, to be insane, and they'd have to prove that I wasn't. (Best of British to them :} )

I'm not anti-women. I'm anti-hypocrite. For years, women begged to be let into the job market, swearing up and down on stacks of Bibles that they could hack it, they needed no special accomodations. They got their wish...and about five minutes later, they were howling to the courts about how the whole place didn't meet their very special needs.

[thirstygirl]

Wow. I am gobsmacked with how Not Funny that is. It's the political cartoonist equivalent of accusing Clinton of having cooties.

[cjmr's husband]

Good flamebait, Technotroll. You do realize that everyone's been warming up for the Thursday Flamewar thread all day, don't you?

*unpacks marshmallows and hot dogs*

[Toby]

My complaint was addressed with the explanation that the selection of Oliphant's cartoon was a matter of "free expression."

Well, the political right to free expression explains why you shouldn't be punished by the government for running the cartoon. But it doesn't do much to counter the fact that running the cartoon makes you an ass.

[Geds]

Good flamebait, Technotroll. You do realize that everyone's been warming up for the Thursday Flamewar thread all day, don't you?

But, but, it's nearly bedtime. How are we going to have a Flamewar when it's all late and stuff?

[cjmr's husband]

I admit it's a problem. Someone will have to call Jesurgislac and wake her up...

[Mnemosyne]

A couple of us came up with a subversive reading that I don't think Oliphant intended. After all, Hillary's tears seem to have managed to get every bad guy around into her office, anxious to do anything she wants to get her to stop crying. Even guys that Bush can't seem to find are hovering around her right in the Oval Office.

And I say, if Hillary crying is what it takes to get Osama bin Laden to turn himself in, turn on the waterworks!

[hapax]

I'm not anti-women. I'm anti-hypocrite. For years, women begged to be let into the job market, swearing up and down on stacks of Bibles that they could hack it, they needed no special accomodations. They got their wish...and about five minutes later, they were howling to the courts about how the whole place didn't meet their very special needs.

And, dammit, they NEVER put out, even when I ask nicely!

[nekouken]

"Funny isn't the entirety of Pat Oliphant's job as a political cartoonist, but it's a big part of his job, and the guy ain't funny."

I have to disagree. Political cartoons are rarely, if ever, funny. At best they're smug about how clever they are with their ability to come up with a lame metaphor every day, at worst they're snide on top of that. Actually, no; at worst, they're racist, misogynist, xenophobic and/or some other kind of asinine bigotry that gets far more respect than it deserves, plus smug and snide.

But rarely, if ever, funny.

Oh, and Technomad, being treated as an equal is not a "special accomodation." It's basic human decency and, as Fred points out, good business sense. You may have a point about the women with anti-male screeds hanging from their cubicle walls, and as a co-worker, you are entitled to make a complaint just like a woman would if you hung Oliphant's idiot cartoon from your wall.

[SMGT]

Yeah, God know women are all weak and stupid. Oh no, I checked, and we're actually just as smart if not smarter of the idiots afraid of someone with two X chromosomes. I mean, God knows I spend most of my time crying because someone didn't like my clothes, but it seems to me the amount of ass I kick on a daily basis would make up for that.

[SwissCelt]

I can't help but think Clinton brought this on herself in this instance. With the exception of her husband's comments in the corner-- which I missed until Fred brought it to my attention-- this is akin to the kind of satire and political criticism that followed Ed Muskie after he was driven to tears by the Nixon ratfuckers. And in fact, when news of Clinton's tears hit the media, I thought to myself that she should know better, having worked on McGovern's campaign that same year. She should have known that such a political ploy would backfire.

That she happens also to be a woman really shouldn't matter to the satire. Of course, the fact that it apparently does just shows what kind of talentless hack Pat Oliphant is, but then one need not be a misogynist to recognize some legitimate political satire underlying this cartoon.

[damnedyankee]

I've seen this cartoon covered elsewhere, and it was pointed out hat not only is it sexist, but it's also racist. Note that the rogues' gallery on the other side of the table consists entirely of Scary Brown People (no room for Putin?).

I'm not anti-women. I'm anti-hypocrite. For years, women begged to be let into the job market, swearing up and down on stacks of Bibles that they could hack it, they needed no special accomodations. They got their wish...and about five minutes later, they were howling to the courts about how the whole place didn't meet their very special needs.

Special needs... you mean those crazy demands that their male co-workers stop acting like knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and treat their female compatriots as equals? Is "technomad" the British equivalent for the term "asshat" the way "dustbin" is for "trashcan"?

[hapax]

She should have known that such a political ploy would backfire.

Political ploy? You mean, actually giving a rat's ass about what she's doing and what it all means is a political ploy? SwissCelt, did you actually see the "tears" video in question? (Note: nowhere did Clinton shed any tears, or do anything more "hysterical" than allow passion to warm her voice.)

Lord knows I'm no big fan of either Clinton, but the sort of mean-spirited misogyny this has inspired among people I previously considered intelligent and tolerant has almost determined that I will vote for her.

[SMGT]

What tears? You mean when her voice a broke a little? Dude, give it a rest. Woman's been through hell for a long time, and you want to give her trouble when her voice isn't so strong?

Romney, he's cried plenty. So has the entire Duke basketball team. Why do attack Hildawg for it? Because of the two XX's she's carrying around.

[SMGT]

Why do they* attack Hildawg for it?

Sorry about that, angry with the politics.

[SwissCelt]

I saw the tears, Hapax. Question is, did you see Muskie's? And he had a hell of a lot more reason to cry than she did.

Welcome to the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. Not just every word, but every non-verbal nuance is scripted and controlled when a political candidate appears before a camera.

"Lord knows I'm no big fan of either Clinton, but the sort of mean-spirited misogyny this has inspired among people I previously considered intelligent and tolerant has almost determined that I will vote for her."

And you don't think she KNOWS this? You don't think she would ever try to use that fact for political advantage? Keep dreaming, pal. That's EXACTLY why this is deserving of satire. It was a political ploy, plain and simple. That we should be talking about it as anything BUT a political ploy is itself evidence of sexism.

[Brandi]

And, dammit, they NEVER put out, even when I ask nicely!

You noticed that odor of "Nice Guy" too, eh?

[damnedyankee]

Here's the thing I was referring to earlier.

I saw the tears, Hapax. Question is, did you see Muskie's? And he had a hell of a lot more reason to cry than she did.

No, you didn't. There WERE NO TEARS. I saw the same damn clip (a LOT!).

Welcome to the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. Not just every word, but every non-verbal nuance is scripted and controlled when a political candidate appears before a camera.

Sorry, still not buying that Senator Clinton is that good of an actor.

[hapax]

Not just every word, but every non-verbal nuance is scripted and controlled when a political candidate appears before a camera.

I am so very sorry, SwissCelt, that you live on a planet like that, where nobody in public service is ever sincere and authentic and they never ever are caught off guard and actually say what they mean. It must be a very dangerous and confusing place.

But you might have missed what I said earlier in t'other thread, where I commented that I also believed that Huckabee was sincere and authentic and said what he meant -- and that's why I found what he said so very very frightening (as opposed to, say, Romney, for whom I feel I can safely discount everything that comes out of his mouth.)

So while you might legitimately accuse me of naivete, I'm hardpressed to conclude how that makes me sexist, exactly.

[damnedyankee]

But, but, it's nearly bedtime. How are we going to have a Flamewar when it's all late and stuff?

If nothing else, it'll be something to do while waiting for LB Friday to go up. And technically we started on Thursday...

[SwissCelt]

Ah, I get it... They were snowflakes, right? *eyeroll*

"Sorry, still not buying that Senator Clinton is that good of an actor."

Pshaw. EVERY candidate for President, if they enjoy any success at all, is a good actor. Every candidate uses emotion to their own ends. And, as a number of people have pointed out here and elsewhere, Clinton isn't the only candidate or sitting President who has shown some emotion since Muskie.

The difference is, the emotional display in this case was scripted. It was a political ploy. And Clinton thought she could get away with it precisely because she is a woman, and she knew she could count on a fair amount of latent sexism in our society that would make this more an issue than it really is. It is, as several pundits pointed out, a "Muskie moment"... only Ed Muskie had the misfortune of showing genuine emotion in an age where image wasn't yet everything. (I mean, come on... the eventual winner of that election was Richard Nixon, the least photogenic President we've had since the beginning of television.)

And if you believe Clinton's emotions were real and above reproach, then you're buying in to that same sexism that made the ploy attractive to the Clinton camp in the first place. It doesn't matter what your political persuasion is.

[Bugmaster]

I think it's important to recall that not every attack on Hillary automatically counts as an attack on all women everywhere. It's quite possible to insult her personally, because -- oddly enough -- not all women are the same. Similarly, not every attack on George W Bush is automatically an assault on all men, or on all Americans, or even on all white male American politicians. They're not all the same.

Now, granted, some attacks on Hillary are, in fact, attacks on all women everywhere. I'm not claiming that sexism doesn't exist. I'm merely claiming that "equal rights" means that you, personally, will'll be picked on some of the time, just like everyone else -- regardless of your gender or color or whatever. Life sucks that way.

[Bugmaster]

"will'll" ? Really ? Contraction overload !

[hapax]

I repeat, how does it make it sexism when I also argue that Huckabee's passions are real and above reproach (that he has them, I mean; I think their targets are misguided, but that's a separate issue.)

And I'm sorry, SwissCelt, I've seen both videos. There were no tears on Clinton's face. Muskie, it's less clear, but I don't care about that either (if there were tears, they were certainly called for).

If you want to think Clinton's response was "scripted" I can't stop you. /shrugs/ If you want to convince anybody else who doesn't already agree with you, you might want to come up with a better argument than "Of COURSE it was scripted, EVERYthing EVERYbody says is scripted, ALL the time. It's all a LIE, you fools, can't you handle the TRUTH?"

I mean, if you don't want to sound all paranoid and stuff. Up to you, really.

But I'm still puzzled what you think Clinton was "getting away with because she was a woman." Caring? Taking her campaign seriously? Being passionate? These are BAD things now, that we can only excuse in a woman?

[hapax]

Quite true, Bugmaster. I criticize Clinton all the time. I think her vote authorizing the Iraq war was ill-judged, and her refusal to admit it was a mistake is shameful. I think she has a political tin ear. I think her healthcare policies are too timid and her economic policies are too tilted towards appeasing corporate overlords. (Note, of course, that all of her policies are vastly preferable to any Republican currently in the race.)

But Oliphant's cartoon -- "ooh, look at the WHINY GIRL!" -- and Technomad's rant "damn GIRLS, they're all alike, let 'em into the clubhouse and next thing you know they'll want you to put the toilet seat down" --- and even SwissCelt's entire line of attack -- "Oh, Clinton didn't really cry, she just knows you stupid GIRLS will like it if she acts all GIRLY and stuff" -- yeah. That's not attacking Clinton. That's attacking women.

[SwissCelt]

"Oh, Clinton didn't really cry, she just knows you stupid GIRLS will like it if she acts all GIRLY and stuff" -- yeah. That's not attacking Clinton. That's attacking women.

That's a blatant lie, and a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. Why don't you try READING, instead of putting words in my mouth?

Or maybe you're a Clinton campaign staffer? Seems to be becoming a pattern from that camp...

SwissCelt: It was a political ploy. And Clinton thought she could get away with it precisely because she is a woman, and she knew she could count on a fair amount of latent sexism in our society that would make this more an issue than it really is. ... And if you believe Clinton's emotions were real and above reproach, then you're buying in to that same sexism that made the ploy attractive to the Clinton camp in the first place.

hapax's shorter version: Oh, Clinton didn't really cry, she just knows you stupid GIRLS will like it if she acts all GIRLY and stuff.

Mmm. Nope. I think I read you just fine.

But then, I'm a Clinton staffer, and every word, every non-verbal nuance that rolls off my keyboard is a calculated, scripted political ploy.

[hapax]

Including forgetting to sign my name to my 11.51 post above.

[SwissCelt]

Au contraire, Hapax. You give me too much credit: I think the bulk of the American electorate (at least 50%) is stupid, male and female alike. That's why Bush thinks people will believe it when he says he wasn't behind the infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign.

You can't fool all the people all the time. You only have to fool 51% of them, in a key number of states.

[Bugmaster]

@hapax:
Mmm, no, I would go even further. I'd say that some women are, indeed, whiny crybabies. Some men are also whiny crybabies. I thought that Tom DeLay (I think it was him) certainly acted as a whiny crybaby when he was on his way to jail, though, in his case, the performance was most likely scripted.

Just because some women are crybabies, doesn't mean all women are. It's possible to call someone a crybaby, or any other number of insulting names, without insulting her or his (or its, even) entire gender. Some parts of Fred's post made me think that Fred would disagree, but I could be wrong.

[SwissCelt]

And with that, I'm going back to LiveJournal. Have fun, y'all... might see you again on LB Friday.

[Anna]

Hopping in...

At this point, it doesn't matter whether or not she actually cried about anything. What does matter is that whether she did or not, people took the opportunity to take blatantly misogynistic swipes at not just her, but every female who's worked her way up to a position of respect.

Over and over, people have commented that the one positive thing about Hillary and Obama both running in this election is that it's made clear exactly how deeply our biases ru as a nation. Race-baiting, anti-woman hate ("Who'll do the ironing now??"), religious slurs with racial overtones (the 'Obama is a muslim!' meme among the wingers), etc.

Complaining that it was scripted as a calculated plea for sympathy (or that it was an example of women whining when they don't get what they want) misses the forest for the trees: it's not about Hillary. It's not about Hillary's motivations, or cynicism, or lack thereof. It's about the way people have reacted to Hillary, with a sort of vitriol and sexism that shouldn't be acceptable as a response to a simple emotional outburst.

[Jesurgislac]

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I have a general resolution not to get involved in arguments about the candidates running for the Presidential nomination.

I will, however, provide hot chocolate and vegetarian hotdogs to toast over the flames.

[treeandleaf]

I never thought I'd say this but: there was one good thing about Thatcher, she pretty much put paid to the 'women aren't tough enough for the top political job' in a British context.

[Andrew]

I dunno. I've been reading Oliphant for about 25 years now, and he's pretty much equal opportunity - he'll go after Reagan, Bush 41 and 43, Cheney, both Clintons, and so on, with the same glee. He's a political cartoonist, and good political cartooning ain't beanbag.

I don't know if he's "settled" on a Hillary Clinton archetype yet - for years she was the shrewish wife of a doltish Arkansan "God dam you, Billy Clinton. Now I'll NEVER get to be President!" (After the Marc Rich pardon). The "sweet little girl" (who's secretly mean) may have legs, or not.

Early in Bush 43's presidency, he characterized W as a small figure next to "Uncle Dick." After 9/11, Oliphant seemed to see this as being unpatriotic, and drew 43 at normal stature, but as time has gone on, he's become smaller and smaller (and more childlike), while Cheney has become a figure from the Dark Side. Condoleeza Rice is sketched as a parrot, buttering up her boss.

Oliphant's style is like the late 18th/early 19th century British satirical cartoonists. There are few heroic figures in Oliphant's universe, and none among our rulers, or would-be rulers.

[not_scottbot]

'Contrary to some people's notions, the world of business (and government service) does not exist primarily to provide women with career-track jobs.
....
I'm not anti-women. I'm anti-hypocrite. For years, women begged to be let into the job market, swearing up and down on stacks of Bibles that they could hack it, they needed no special accomodations. They got their wish...and about five minutes later, they were howling to the courts about how the whole place didn't meet their very special needs.'

And I'm anti-male because men in general (a group you seem to think includes yourself) are determined to retain a system that isn't contrary to your notion that the world of business (and government service) does exist to provide men with career-track jobs.

It seems likely that a certain Iron Lady was a source for much of your trauma - since she demonstrated conclusively that only a woman was competent at breaking the power of British unionism (unions run exclusively by men, I might add, representing work that men could consider manly without fear that such manly admiration was based on anything but manliness) and winning a war against an opponent an ocean away, an opponent who dared to invade land belonging to the Queen. Oh wait, another woman. Maybe you have worse problems than I thought.

[bad Jim]

I used to be one of the owners of a business. We went from three guys to a hundred people, of whom substantial numbers were Asian, Latino and women. If you like the people you work with and listen to them, or even if you only want to keep them, you learn pretty quickly how not to piss them off. With a little more effort you find out how to keep at least some of them happy, or if not happy at least not angry.

We had one go with a bunch of lawyers counselling us on sexual harrassment, the head guy admitting that he would no longer take a chance on complimenting a woman on her dress. As bad as consultants can be, that was a singular waste of time. Noticing hairstyles is a discipline I instilled in myself after years of working with women. They expect and demand such attention (not that guys don't, even slobs like me).

If you care about people, if you pay attention to people, this sort of thing isn't hard. And, I'm proud to proclaim, it mostly went well with us. On the second round of awareness training, after we sold the company to a larger competitor, the laughter in the conference room was so loud that people nearby complained. And some of the touchiest people in the company were in the room, laughing. Sex is, among other things, funny.

[Praline]

Any crack about PMS is a general hit at her gender, not a specific hit at her personality about politics. That was an asshole cartoon. It was also a cartoon that made the artist look far stupider than the target, because it wasn't funny, wasn't observant, and was just wildly wide of the mark.

I'd like to say, on the anti-hypocrite front, that I'm pissed off at that cartoon, and I'd be equally pissed off at a cartoon that attacked a political candidate just because he was a man. Those are rarer, because most sexists that get published seem to see male as the default state and female as the deviation. However, I don't like it when women slag off men. Feminism, when it works properly, is anti-sexism as a whole. It just got called 'feminism' because when it started out, most of the sexism was going in one direction.

This looks like it's going to be a dirty fight, so I'm going to wander off and think happy thoughts. I'm getting a new kitten, so today you cannot upset me.

[Lee Ratner]

Pat Oliphant is just part of a crowd that we have to deal with in America, the proudly un-PC crowd. Everybody has met such people. They are boorish people
who insist on taking delight in sexist and/or racist jokes because they think it makes them rebels for resisting the ideology and standards of political correctness. This behavior is especially prominent in libertarians and the more secular conservatives.

[Steve]

Sorry, but for once I believe that you're wrong. This is not about women in general. It is simply drawing attention to the fact that we should choose a presidential candidate with moxie.

[Jesurgislac]

A President with carbonated beverage? How big do the balls, er, bubbles, have to be?

[Freshwater]

Second time in rapid succession that Fred's here to tell us what's Not Funny™

Not Funny™ has the same problem as Not Art™ in that you're always going to be confusing your opinion with some sort of objective fact. British tabloids wait in anticipation every year for the Turner Prize short list so that they can write feeble articles about how in their opinion "this isn't art" and that therefore, obviously it's not only not worthy of their praise (for which they weren't asked) or the prize money (which isn't theirs to give) or of mass media attention (which it wouldn't get, if not for their articles) but also not worthy to be put on display for other people to make up their own minds.

As a result of course, no-one of any importance pays attention to those tabloid articles, and I'd advise them not to pay any attention to Fred's rant either.

Sadly though, despite the fact that no-one of importance reads the articles, the unimportant people who do read them are loud and have votes. So although they're unlikely to actually visit an art gallery, they do influence funding and sponsorship. A local gallery thinking of running an exhibition of new British art might find it's just impossible to get any money unless they restrict it to "proper art" ie. paintings. In the same way, badgering your newspaper's advertisers will influence their editorial decisions. This is something Fred has expressed dismay about in the past. Maybe he's forgotten that already. Or maybe he thinks the cartoons (whether blaspheming against Islam, ridiculing important foreign allies, or just recycling PMS jokes from donkeys years ago) shouldn't be subject to the same independence as the bits he writes...

So to be absolutely clear: I didn't think this particular cartoon was funny. But Garfield isn't funny either. And for much the same reason, this joke was stale a long time ago and it's time he got some new material. If you haven't protested the continued presence of Garfield in the funny pages, why go after this?

[Matt McIrvin]

Wow. I'm not really a Hillary Clinton fan, but this cartoon has so little to do with Hillary Clinton either as a person or as a public figure (except for an extremely tenuous connection to the pre-NH "Tears" incident) that I can't help but see it as pure sexism.

As editorial cartoonists go, Pat Oliphant is one of the better ones--I've admired his work for a long time; he's technically brilliant and has produced some great work. But he has antique racial and sexual attitudes.

[Dorothy]

OK, I haven't even got past the first few comments.

Technomad: Hostile work environment? Hostile work environment? *voice rising by several octaves* Don't. Get. Me. Started.
cjmr's husband: thanks for bringing the marshmallows.

-----------------------------------------------------

During Bill's administration, I remember watching a political call-in show. A female caller launched into a venomous attack of Janet Reno and Madileine Albright, but made no mention of anything other than their physical appearance. She said in effect that any woman who was not physically attractive should crawl under a rock so people would not have to look at them. The host let her go on for a for a good long while, just for fun.

[Jesurgislac]

As Pam Spaulding said: no one should be allowed to make racism, sexism, or homophobia part of their political campaign - not against Obama, not against Clinton, and not against any candidate even if you have to make crap up to do it.

(It is ironic but telling that homophobia has been used to slur Edwards - from as blatant as Coulter saying he's a faggot to amused conservative approval, to the consistent meme that he's too well-groomed, or pays too much for a haircut: and that just as homophobia is a more acceptable prejudice to express publicly than sexism, and sexism than racism, so the media seems to have decided to love Obama more than Clinton, and Clinton more than Edwards.)

Bugmaster: I think it's important to recall that not every attack on Hillary automatically counts as an attack on all women everywhere.

Not automatically, but in this case. Because the underlying assumption is "crying and PMS make a person unsuitable for office", and as crying is considered a female trait and men can't get PMS (if they get something with the same symptoms, it still wouldn't have the same name), it says that old women are less suited for office than men, and young women less than old women.

[rob]

I tend to doubt the whole scene was "scripted," but I do think that Hillary was responding to media criticism that she was stony and chill. Every candidate who really wants the job runs their campaign at or near their breaking point, so I have no doubt that the emotion was real, I just suspect she would have been more careful to disguise those emotions six months ago.

I had a long talk about the scene the day after with two female coworkers, neither of whom pays much attention to politics, and both felt the event was highly calculated and very effective at courting the "female vote." As I see it, a singular event like this shouldn't count for or against the woman. Did she know she would be opening herself up to these kinds of attacks? Of course she did. But polls suggested she show more emotion, so she showed more emotion. That really shouldn't be much of a problem for you unless you are either sexist or anti-emotion, and in either case Hillary probably wasn't going to get your vote no matter what she did.

Also, I think the "special need" that Technomad was talking about is maternity leave, which may have been a "special need" at one time, but has since been rolled into extended medical leave by most employers. Either way, it's a fairly reasonable special need to accommodate to anybody who supports 1. a woman's right to work and 2. a generation of people raised by women who work. My mother worked my entire childhood, so I take swipes like these as a personal insult to me and my mother -- like a thinly veiled "Yo momma" joke. I could be wrong, though. He may have been talking about tampon dispensers in the ladies toilet.

Also, this cartoon is sexist, disgusting, and unfunny. So it's about par for the course as political cartoons go.

[Froborr]

not_scottbot: I'm anti-male because men in general (a group you seem to think includes yourself) are determined to retain a system that isn't contrary to your notion that the world of business (and government service) does exist to provide men with career-track jobs.

Wow. Just... wow. There's not really any way to respond to that little nugget of hate, is there?

Praline: most sexists that get published seem to see male as the default state and female as the deviation.

I've always found this particularly amusing, because biologically, it's the other way around.

Tim Krieder, the one political cartoonist I actually find funny, has argued that Obama will easily beat Clinton because America is now more misogynistic than it is racist. This is his explanation for why the nutjob right has singled out the hawkish, pro-business, authoritarian, female Democratic candidate as their favorite target, while the almost-but-not-quite-actually-a-liberal black candidate is only target #2. I'd tend to agree with him to a limited extent -- making racist comments is not acceptable in "good company" or in public fora (witness Don Imus), while sexist comments are still allowed (witness Oliphant).

I don't know that this necessarily means people's attitudes have changed, or just social standards. Iowa gives me some hope that there's been a real attitude change. On the other hand, I've definitely seen some possibly racist attitudes toward my black coworker in the way that she tends to get assigned more tedious tasks while I get the thinkier ones, even though she has more experience -- or is that because she's a woman? I don't know. It's infuriating either way.

[mike timonin]

Jesu - is it possible to toast veggie-dogs over a fire? I know they don't grill right on my grill. The only way I've found to cook them properly is in the microwave. Mmmmm, radioactive tofu.