NP Rank:
Trivialising women the world over... even the powerful
This was supposed to be the trip that would show exactly how Hillary Rodham Clinton would make good on her pledge, at her confirmation hearing for secretary of state, to make women’s issues “central” to U.S. foreign policy, not “adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser.” There could have been no more dramatic setting: Overruling the security fears of her aides, she traveled to eastern Congo, where hundreds of thousands of women have been raped over the past decade. She visited a refugee camp and met with one woman who was gang-raped while eight months pregnant; she heard of another who’d been sexually assaulted with a rifle. She was told of babies cut from their mothers’ bodies with razors. She spoke of “evil in its basest form.” She promised $17 million to fight sexual violence.
And back home, all anyone could talk about was Bill.
Oh this is so absolutely true. This has been the case for the most prominent women in America in the last year - Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin. And it's been particularly the case for Michelle Obama. Nine out of ten of the articles I read about Michelle Obama are about what she's wearing, who designed her clothes, how good she looks beside her husband. One out of ten is about the the great work that she does in her own right.
Women, even those who are in very powerful positions, are still trivialised the world over and are still forced into the shadows by men. When are we going to stop focusing on the minutiae and acknowledge that women can and do make huge differences in important matters? That's what Hilary Clinton is trying to do and all we can talk about is her husband Bill. We're cutting off our nose to spite our faces, here.
As she circles the globe in coming years, making the case for women’s empowerment, starting with their basic right to be taken seriously, Clinton really has her work cut out for her. And it isn’t just because the situation of women around the world is so dire, and the ocean of problems confronting them — maternal mortality, sex trafficking, domestic abuse, malnourishment, lack of education, lack of adequate medical care, just for starters — is so wide and so deep. And it isn’t just that her historic mandate — to equally empower the other half of the world’s population, to chip away at the forces “devaluing women,” in the words of Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s new ambassador at large for global women’s issues — is so huge and vague and seemingly overwhelming. It’s also because the tide of trivialization that washes over all things “Hillary” is just so powerful. That tide threatens to drown out anything of substance Clinton might attempt for a population whose problems have long been obscured in the androcentric world of diplomacy. And that’s a huge pity.
Is it that the world doesn't consider Clinton's pledges to be important enough? It could be. She's only trying to address the abuses of women, after all, and perhaps that cause is just not important enough in this world.
This could be a moment for America to redeem itself as far as the world’s women are concerned. Our recent track record, after all, is pretty dim. The Bush administration sent anti-feminists to Iraq to train that country’s women in participatory democracy. We pulled our financing from the United Nations Population Fund and imposed a global gag rule barring women’s health organizations that merely talked about abortion from receiving U.S. funds. We never ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a pretty base-level human rights treaty, because of worries by black helicopter types that American sovereignty would be compromised. Our lack of paid maternity leave made us something of a world joke.
Time for change. In both attitudes and practice. I'm happy for Clinton to take the lead in this, at least in the US. We in the UK need a lot of work too.
Recommendations (44)
-
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
Pythiian1
New York, New York, United States -
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada -
Babel-Fish
Negros Oriental, Philippines -
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (22)
at 02:06 on August 15th, 2009
Agreed. That question posed to her about her husband'sopinions was insulting, since the question did not even inquire about Secretary Clinton's opinions on the same matter.
at 02:16 on August 15th, 2009
Francis, thank you for the comment. That is a prime example of how she, the Secretary of State, is being rendered secondary to her husband. It's laughable, really!
at 04:43 on August 15th, 2009
The question I believe was lost in translation... The person asking it had intended to ask what the president's (Obama's) opinion was.
at 08:36 on August 15th, 2009
sara star, thank you for this clarification.
at 02:32 on August 15th, 2009
50% of the cause for that may very well be Woman them self.
I feel sorry for H. Clinton. Still the media wants to sale news and that news has to appeal to as many readers as possible.
The problem is not with the media but rather with the majority of the public it self.
at 04:12 on August 15th, 2009
I would agree to some women talking about anything else but 'clothes' or other trivial things seems to 'get their attention' and no wonder these magazines like to have a lot of this. Anything more 'serious' like rape or women's issues , etc doesn't seem to get discussed ' in every day women's topics'. It's far too 'serious' and their eyes glaze over.
There are some dynamic women in the world say, involved in charities, but some don't even get recognition but women who have been on Big Brother for five minutes, who haven't done anything, seem to be on the covers for months.No doubt these magazines will die out, people will get fed up with them eventually.
I feel sorry for Hilary Clinton too, but it just shows up the person who asked that stupid question:.
at 08:43 on August 15th, 2009
Beaulieu, I have been waiting a long time for our celebrity-obsession (see Victoria Beckham, for example, and, yes, any BB contestant) to die off but it seems to be increasing instead of dissipating.
And yes 'celebrity' culture does make it difficult for women, who really want to make a difference to this world, to be heard and acknowledged. It is so frustrating, as a woman, to see society falling over itself to talk about what Beckham was wearing to the shops while other women are trying to make a real difference and are ignored.
at 09:01 on August 15th, 2009
I love this one: A photo (front page photo of Kate Middleton) in a main strea paper today and it just talked about her clothes. There were no comments from her at all. It is as if she is a bimbo with no voice. I wonder if she has a voice. She is only in the front page.. because of her man. And in the middle ages, it's going on whether William will marry her.
Kate Middleton is doing us no favours because she doesn't speak for herself (and I don't even think she has done anything worth being on the front page). I just flicked through the paper, didn't buy it:-)
There are times when I want to escape this celebrity obsessed culture and live on another planet. I find that there are more photos in mags than text sometimes. More and more women are becoming lawyers etc but women's magazines want to dim us down.
The thing with celeb culture it is easy to get 'articles from their PR agencies' because they love articles about themselves, it's their business after all. Very frustrated. Celebrity mags make good kindling for the fire.
at 09:07 on August 15th, 2009
If I had an open fire, that is exactly what I'd use!
And you're right about Middleton being on the front page because of her relationship. But I think that the reason she doesn't speak for herself is because she's not allowed to. The 'royal family' is very good at silencing people in their inner circle.
at 09:02 on August 15th, 2009
I remember I met a photojournalist once on my cycling travels and he used to photo all these celebs and even he admitted that he was bored stiff of it, they had nothing to say.
at 08:39 on August 15th, 2009
Paschen, why should Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton be blamed for the media (and wider society) not being willing to give them due credit or take them seriously? They do fantastic work yet, because they are not men, it's not acknowledged. Yes, the press wants to make money but that has absolutely nothing to do with the women concerned.
at 17:35 on August 15th, 2009
I am not sure where you read that I blamed H. Clinton or M. Obama for the media. I seriously thing you may have trouble reading then.
You seem to read what ever you like to into a comment. Be well Decay!
at 23:30 on August 15th, 2009
This is getting personal now, Paschen. That's a pity (particularly from an editor).
You said:
So, women are 50% responsible for their trivialisation by the media? That is what that statement means? If that is not the 'cause' you mean, then please state clearly what it is that you meant.
If it is the cause you mean, then I ask again how Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama caused their trivialisation by the media?
at 00:39 on August 16th, 2009
You are the one making it personal GD, so do not cry wolf and read your first comment responding to mine again. :)
50% of the public reading the media are Woman there for half of the cause.
Beaulieu understood my comment rather well. You may want to read his coming after mine again as well.
Have a nice day Alice.
at 01:35 on August 16th, 2009
I apologise if you feel my initial comment was a personal attack - I was merely asking why you thought that women (these women in particular) could be blamed. I didn't say anything about you - Paschen - personally.
But thank you, you have clarified what you meant now. I agree that women reading the media often do not help the situation at all - as Beaulieu implied, celebrity obsession has a lot to answer for. I am so tired of celebrity obsession and try as I might I cannot avoid it - every time I leave the house, I see more of it. And another little part of my brain winces at it.
(Apologies for multiple comment notifications you are receiving, if you are receiving them - I am having trouble saving to NP this morning.)
at 01:39 on August 16th, 2009
Okay Alice, lets start this over.
The media that needs sales will print what ever is most likely to generate those sales. Keeping in mind that about half of the consumer that buy those papers are Woman, there for it has to cater to both, man and woman alike with out offending either. Or it will lose sales.
See the recent episode of the NY Post and the controversial cartoons that cause sales to fall into the basement. This due to the outrage of Man, Woman across all races to be offended.
In this case no one in the public at large seems to be offended, there for the public at large, either approves or does not care what so ever.
Half of that public are Woman, whom one would expect to jump onto this and cry out loud against it. However, they do not do so, or this would be all over CNN by now, wish it is not.
This is not due to a lack of education or due to suppression, or even oppression. Rather due to the will of the people and the way they perceive this. Meaning they rather hear about Bill and his opinion then about Hilary and her opinion. His word caries more weight not because he is a Man, but rather because the public a large feels it is so.
The reasons behind this may have little to do with gender and more with charisma or perceptions. The last sentence is of course is stipulation.
at 01:51 on August 16th, 2009
Yes, I agree. The media wants sales and they will print whatever is needed to maximise their profits. And, yes, women are responsible for this too because they are also the ones buying the media.
I just think that an unfortunate consequence of this - regardless of whose fault it is - is that the good work of a woman is being ignored and marginalised. I do, however, also think that there is gender effect and that a woman's work is more likely to be ignored (because what she's wearing is more important, for example) than a man's. This, too, is of course due to what people want in the media. So it's a complex vicious circle, really. But for me, the end result is the same.
When I first read your comment, I thought that you were saying that 50% of this problem is caused by the woman (i.e. Hilary Clinton) herself. And I couldn't understand that thinking. But I see now that you were referring the the population at large and its media desires. And I agree with that assertion.
at 05:25 on August 15th, 2009
Hmmm wonder what Maggie Thatcher would think of this article, trivializing women even powerful ones. That powerful hand up in front of any one that disputed her absolute power and that handbag full of rocks and sand to bash any opponent.
But now she has lost that seat of power, yes someone has tried to trivialize her but in fact it just makes her more powerful looking than she really was and is....
Source: uncyclopedia.wikia.com
However the complete trivialization of Hillary was disgusting....
Source: uncyclopedia.wikia.com
Some one got to sue these uncyclopedia.wikia.com for making me laugh to much.
I actual respect both ladies the one that's had absolute power and the other power over a power wilder.
at 08:35 on August 15th, 2009
Thatcher was trivialised in her time too, and had to adopt a rather more masculine behavioural pattern in order to be 'taken seriously'. I don't find those uncyclopedia.wikia.com quotes funny at all.
at 10:53 on August 15th, 2009
Agree with the article's viewpoint. I'd venture to add that there are many prominent women scientists, educators, judges, justices, CEOs, to name a few, in America who are being ignored by the media, even though they're well respected in their fields and a smaller circle of the public.
at 01:37 on August 16th, 2009
Pythiian1, thank you for your comment. And you are right. Even in my own field (academic sociology), women have to work harder than men to achieve.
at 11:09 on September 30th, 2009
You should see all the rubbish about Sarah Brown in the papers today and about her 'new dress sense' and how 'the men found her attractive'.
There was pages of this trivia. I would rather know what she actually does not what she wears.