It's amazing that even with crossover voters (Reps voting as Dems) she STILL has trouble winning a primary yet continues on as if the Democrats truly want her. If she's this ignorant and deluded now I wonder what would happen if she gained some power?

Posted by: llDayo | May 9, 2008 9:55 AM

From one of the comments at the link, so I don't have to say it myself:

Is it not sexist because it's mysogynistic instead?

Is it not sexist because it's funny?

Is it not sexist because it's a metaphor that speaks to you?

So. Those were all questions. Here is a statement:

"Dude. You don't get to decide what's sexist."

Here's a reason to think that it MIGHT be sexist. You can g'an and point and laugh, but I'll take this seriously for a second just to see where it goes:

The metaphor evokes a trope in sexual politics, that of the irrational girl who cannot accept that a relationship is over. Labeling, categorizing, pigeon-holing someone in this way "he's a geek, she's a slut, he's a pig, she's cow" is at once appealing to a fragment of truth, and also making the target controllable.

If they are controllable, they are marginalizable. And they can be dismissed. The problem with controlling and dismissing Hillary using a trope from sexual politics is that it moves her from the realm of discourse and debate into the realm of sex (as in "getting it on"). And labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized, but her sexuality can be controlled.

And that's the heart and soul of sexism.

But I can understand if you didn't really want to engage anyone on this. It is a funny piece, and sometimes maybe we want to hang on to the things we like even though someone else might think they're inappropriate.

Like insisting that Michael Jackson is innocent because "Thriller" was an awesome album.

There. I talked about Hillary, sex, and Michael Jackson in the same comment. I might just frame this one.

Hillary is crazy, in a "politician who can't accept that the country doesn't want her leading it" kind of way. Not in a "girl who can't believe no one wants to screw her". Funny as the comparison is, if someone thinks it's sexist I'm not sure they'd be wrong.

Posted by: Backpacking Dad | May 07, 2008 at 04:04 PM

Also from the original post at the link:

I have never been so excited or inspired by a candidate -- or, really, any leader -- in my life, and I view this election as an historical opportunity -- maybe even a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity -- to not only save my country from the disaster wrought by Bush and Cheney, but fundamentally change how my government interacts with the rest of the world, and how it works for me and my fellow Americans.

Oh my gawd, Obama is Jebus!

Posted by: student_b | May 9, 2008 10:13 AM

student_b

It's ok. It's not paranoia if the really are out to get you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 9, 2008 10:30 AM

"Psycho ex-girlfriend" is funny because in most cases it is only stupid and ridiculous behavior, and usually humiliating for the woman involved. "Psycho ex-boyfriend" is not funny because far too often someone ends up in the emergency room or a battered women's shelter.

All joking aside, Hillary adopted a scorched-earth policy back in February and has not let up. It is not psycho, it is well-crafted and intentional: If she is not allowed to win, she will make sure no democrat can win this cycle. When that happens, she cruises to the Presidency in 2012 at the head of cult of personality.

In a Machiavellian sense, Clinton should not want to win this cycle anyway. The new President will face a severe recession as the housing bubble bursts, out of control inflation because of the twin deficits, and an intractable war situation in two countries halfway around the world. Unless s/he can do a credible FDR imitation it's going to be a one-term gig.

Posted by: kehrsam | May 9, 2008 10:46 AM

I laughed at the piece and liked it quite a bit; thought about putting up a link on my own blog; but, then didn't, out of sexism/misogyny concerns.

I say this as someone who supports Obama and thinks the allegations of sexism/misogyny are made too quickly and with too little provocation. Thinking about it further, what raises a red flag for me on this one is not concern for Clinton or a feeling that her continued campaigning is rational, but, rather, my feeling that "psycho ex" is used too often in everyday situations. All too often, complaints about a "psycho ex" are made by guys who have been acting badly themselves. And I say *this* as a guy who is not ashamed of his beer-swilling, frat boy past.

Posted by: Doug | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM

"Psycho ex-girlfriend" is funny because in most cases it is only stupid and ridiculous behavior, and usually humiliating for the woman involved. "Psycho ex-boyfriend" is not funny because far too often someone ends up in the emergency room or a battered women's shelter.

Posted by: Taz | May 9, 2008 11:07 AM

I think it's kind of interesting that some people are assuming only women behave in this way. At least, that's the only reason I can think of for all the "sexist" comments. I have known several guys who have not been able to accept when relationships are over and have pulled this same kind of crap. I really don't think I'm the only one.

Posted by: jba | May 9, 2008 11:20 AM

Bee:
I don't "feel threatened", I just find it... Maybe I used the wrong word when I said "scare", but it's more a general feeling of unease.

I'm not immune to Obama's inspirational ability myself. I've gone from being very ambivalent about all three candidates (including McCain) to being slightly in favor of Obama -- I think I actually want him to win just because he's different. But then I turn around and try to figure out why I think he's different, or why I like him more now than I did before, and I don't have a good reason. That does worry me -- I don't like having feelings I can't explain. It's just something I've been introspective about.

And, yes, I know the difference between fanatical and inspired, and while most of Obama's supporters are merely inspired, I've met some crazy ones. But even the normal ones I think are in for disappointment when Obama turns out to be just another politician. Maybe I'm wrong and he won't be. I'm curious to find out -- which might be why I'm semi-hoping for him to win. As I said, I'm very conflicted about this.

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 9, 2008 11:33 AM

I agree that the "psycho ex" behavior is not limited to women, and this could have been funny either way. Simmer down, people. I like Tim Kreider's take on it. It's a humorous commentary on the Lisa Nowak incident and how the cartoonist sympathizes and identifies. From the artist's statement:

A few weeks ago I almost drove twenty hours for similar reasons--not to abduct anyone, of course, just to make a desperate last-ditch appeal. What prevented me was not sanity or reason, any awareness that this might be delusional or alarming behavior, but the concern that it might backfire, and only drive the person in question farther away from me. (You never question your fierce loyalty to the Acme brand name, much less ask yourself whether it's really worth all this personal injury to try to catch one roadrunner; you're only unsure whether to go with the rocket skates or the earthquake pills.) There's a fine line between the Bold Romantic Gesture and creepy stalking, and it's not always clear how to distinguish one from the other. The tricky crux of the matter is that it depends entirely on how it's going to be received, which unfortunately the impetuous suitor/creepy stalker has lost the ability to gauge.

The whole essay is funny and insightful in pointing out that if you can't identify, you're probably in the minority. I think that most of us have been there to a greater or lesser degree, and anybody who has seen something that they want very much slip through their fingers can attest that rational thought and reasonable behavior become serious achievements if you can pull them off.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | May 9, 2008 12:09 PM

Ed -

The only way this is a reasonable response is if you take the position that it is sexist to think that any behavior demonstrated by any woman in any situation may be criticized.

Posted by: taz | May 9, 2008 12:58 PM

The psycho ex-girlfriend is an established stereotype that has been used in the past to denigrate women. As with many stereotypes it sometimes happens to be true. But doesn't change anything. Comparing Hillary to a psycho ex-girlfriend is like comparing Obama's campaign to a black man asking for more fried chicken and watermelon. It doesn't mater if the analogy stands up. The very premise can be seen as insulting.

That said, I have no problem with the occasional bit of stereotype humor. I thought it was funny.

Posted by: Abby Normal | May 9, 2008 1:40 PM

I found the post funny as well, and I pretty much 100% agree with Wheaton's analysis. That said, I do think that charges of sexism about the metaphor of a psycho ex-girlfriend (not necessarily of an in-your-face variety of sexism, but perhaps veiled, subconscious sexist assumptions) are not too unreasonable. I just can't imagine that, were Hilary male, a similar metaphor would be employed.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 9, 2008 1:50 PM

. . . I still haven't decided who I'm going to vote for . . .

You need to decide? Tell us more.

Posted by: noncarborundum | May 9, 2008 2:48 PM

"I found the post funny as well, and I pretty much 100% agree with Wheaton's analysis. That said, I do think that charges of sexism about the metaphor of a psycho ex-girlfriend (not necessarily of an in-your-face variety of sexism, but perhaps veiled, subconscious sexist assumptions) are not too unreasonable. I just can't imagine that, were Hilary male, a similar metaphor would be employed."

Exactly. We've done a 180 from the hypersensitive 80's and 90's--now prejudice has to bludgeon one over the head to be noticed.

Posted by: Hari Narayan | May 9, 2008 4:53 PM

"Hell hath no furry like a woman scorned" would be my first example. It's part of the generic stereotype of women as emotional and vindictive.

I seem to recall a scene in My Super Ex-girlfriend where main character is being given breakup advice and he's told to avoid a particular method because it will turn her into a psycho stalker. I have the impression that this is fairly common. Though I can't think of another example off the top of my head. Still, I bet cashy money that I could find something like it in Maxim.

Would you agree that a stereotype of women as emotional and irrational exists? If so, do you see how "psycho ex-girlfriend" could be viewed as just another incarnation of, or corollary to, that stereotype?

When I see descriptions of psycho ex-boyfriend behavior I don't take that as denigrating men, nor do I think anyone else does.

Not that I think you do. I'm sure you really are only thinking of "a small subset of women." But not all people are as clear thinking as you. Which brings to mind another question, would you feel the same about the article if it had been written by Vox Day?

but screaming sexism does not defeat the substance of that argument or the validity of the analogy at all.

Here we agree. The sexism angle has no bearing on the validity of the analogy. Though I took it to be humor, not a serious analysis of Hilary's campaign. So I must admit I haven't given to much thought to whether or not it actually is valid.

Posted by: Abby Normal | May 9, 2008 5:31 PM

Even if the derision of Ed's analogy is gender specific, I see little in the way of a problem with that. I also have no problem with the constant insinuations on progressive (predominantly feminist-centric) blogs that much of the conservative zeitgeist is rooted in anxious masculinity and penis-envy. Gender specific derision, no doubt, but also fucking hilarious.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 9, 2008 7:29 PM

Abby Normal -

Men don't have that stereotype of emotional and irrational that women do.

Posted by: Taz | May 9, 2008 10:54 PM

"I would keep in mind, though, that men have generally never been marginalized or denigrated in this society to even a fraction of the degree that women have."

Not to speak for Taz, but I certainly don't dispute this. What I would say is that Ed's mildly derogatory comment simply doesn't rise to a level where he deserves to be implicated in such marginalization and denigration.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 10, 2008 1:30 AM

What I would say is that Ed's mildly derogatory comment simply doesn't rise to a level where he deserves to be implicated in such marginalization and denigration.

Marginalization happens by baby steps.

We live in a sexist culture. No honest person denies this. It would be nothing short of a miracle if Ed, myself, or anyone here was not influenced by that sexism, in subtle ways that few of us notice in ourselves. The implications of this are distressing, though: by going about our usual business without critical introspection, we perpetuate the sexism we have ingrained.

None of us have to be "bad people" to participate in this cycle. So when called out on subtle sexism, it can be an effective approach to remind oneself that this needn't be taken personally. And if you don't have to take it personally, then you don't have to jump to self-defense and denial.

Instead of immediately retorting, one can ask oneself, "could that be right? Could there be a sexist undertone to what I just said?" Abby Normal makes a pretty good case here. Now, I don't think any regular readers are assuming that Ed deliberately set out to hurt anyone. But he might do well to ask himself whether he's said something that was hurtful to his female readers. He might do even better to ask his female readers.

Or, yeah, he can just deny the possibility that he might ever say anything sexist. That'll do nobody a lick of good. But it's one option on the table.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 10, 2008 3:11 AM

I just recently started reading your blog, and....now I'll stop reading. Thanks for demonstrating, yet again, that sexism and misogyny are alive and well in the hallowed halls of liberalism. Great. Enjoy yourself laughing at those psycho women. They're all so crazy.

Did anyone doubt that we had our share of histrionic narcissists?

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 10, 2008 5:51 AM

Obama is cannot be what he seems, considering the 20 years he spent supporting Wright's hate.

And yet I can't support McCain either; Hillary is all that's left, and we pretty much know what there is to know about her.

I am worried that the Republicans will present some October suprise on Obama and get elected again with some variation of "swift boating".

Posted by: Julie Farr | May 10, 2008 7:14 AM

It isn't your prerogative to decide that Carol should have a higher threshold for sexism.

Change this to:

It isn't your prerogative to decide that x should have a higher threshold for y.

...and substitute the name of any given commenter for x and any given topic for y.

Say, Collin and evolution?

Essentially, the whole argument is that some are suggesting that Wil Wheaton (and by extension Ed) are committing a Type II error by not seeing sexism, whereas others are claiming that the critics are committing a Type I error by seeing sexism where none is present.

I see this as a valuable discussion that is not aided by stating that one POV is beyond criticism.

Posted by: NJ | May 10, 2008 8:10 AM

Holy crap Moses. No one is saying she doesn't have the "right" to run for President, and no one is trying to stop her from doing so. Only pointing out that her motives are less than pure.

Criticism of someone's position does not infringe on someone's right to hold that position.

Gah. You're just like those morons like Sally Kern who claim they are being oppressed when people criticize them.

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 10, 2008 8:36 AM

When is the virtual undeniable reality that she has the fucking right to run for President, no matter what you want, going to sink in people's heads? Seriously, she has the right of fighting the lost cause down to the end.

If you could point out who said otherwise, we'd be much obliged.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 10, 2008 9:04 AM

Abby normal wrote:

Would you agree that a stereotype of women as emotional and irrational exists? If so, do you see how "psycho ex-girlfriend" could be viewed as just another incarnation of, or corollary to, that stereotype?

I'm not really bothered by the remark. I know it was humor. But still, the little bit of nagging "ick" factor I have about it has less to with what you mention here, and more more to do with the comparison of a serious presidential contender as the disgruntled sexual partner of the other candidate. Is Hillary the first candidate to stay in the race too long? I doubt it. yet I don't remember "stalker" or "disgruntled ex lover with mental problems" being a common criticism for people who don't know when to step down.

The analogy was used because she's a woman, not because it was the best one available. The joke was made specifically because of her gender, over an issue for which gender is not relevant. Which is pretty typical of sexist remarks in general. Even more damning, it wasn't that great of an analogy (and hence joke). Moses' "bad rash" remark is both suitably gross and more accurate. And more tasteful, particularly because the use of the word "ex-girlfriend" brings to mind images too unspeakably horrible to contemplate. But also because she hasn't done anything sinister or frightening (that I know of), like boil Obama's pet rabbit. She's simply refused to accept defeat. Big deal. If she were a man, I doubt anyone would have thought up a "psycho" analogy for such a minor infraction.

Posted by: Leni | May 10, 2008 10:19 AM

Ed, consider this angle. We have here a woman who is the choice of nearly half the Democratic Party, a competent lawyer with decades of experience, and a United States Senator with a mandate from the people of New York. There are many reasons to criticize her (I'm an Obama man; ask me for a list). That criticism could easily take a form that is appropriate to a woman of her stature.

Instead she is portrayed as a lovesick teenager, immature and half-mad, driven by hormonal swings. Not a Senator, not even a woman, but a mere child.

Imagine someone calling Obama a "boy," for the racist parallel.

There's more than a hint of "she should know her place" here.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 10, 2008 11:33 AM

Ok people FOCUS.
a) Has Hillary Clinton has used "dirty tricks" to try and undermine her opponent. (I'm not saying Barak Obama hasn't, but at least he was subtle).
b) Hillary Clinton's campaign has consisted (mostly) of shouting "Look at me" at the top of her voice without really articulating much of a vision or a plan (kinda Mayor McCheese but lite).
c) Hillary Clinton has done everything (even appearing on lame late night "talk" shows) to nail in her biggest (apparent) policy plank: "I'm Hillary Clinton and I'm gonna run the Whitehouse".
d) She continued to waste time (and gave the Republicans a nice free kick) to the detriment of her own party, and herself. To continue the metaphor "Own goal".
And she STILL couldn't manage to get a majority.
Hmm.. sounds pretty psyco (again in the informal sense) to me, and, unless she got a sex change without anyone knowing, she is a women.
Hence pysco ex-girlfriend.
If she had shown sense, psyco would not be appropriate, if she had a sex change, girlfriend would not be appropraite, if both conditions were true it would not be appropriate.
That is the way I read it.
You infered something that the autor didn't imply. Got it? -DJ
It's Ok carry on, I've got it out of my system now.

Posted by: DingoJack | May 10, 2008 12:10 PM

Gram: No, I think I got the point.

The discussion is over whether some people are not seeing something that is present, or others are seeing something that is not present.

And I don't see that AZ's comment qualified as 'an outrageous attack', because Carol's statement isn't simply 'a contrary opinion', but a clear over-generalization ("They're all so crazy") with attendant hyperventilation ("and...now I'll stop reading"). I find nothing gender specific about it.

Leni:

If she were a man, I doubt anyone would have thought up a "psycho" analogy

I disagree - which is the whole crux of the argument. Let us hypothesize about (FSM forbid!) Mike Huckabee being in Obama's position and John McCain in Clinton's. It is easy in this case for me to envision someone drawing an analogy of McCain being a "psycho ex-boyfriend."

Moses:

Adjust your meds, dude.

Posted by: NJ | May 10, 2008 12:34 PM

Grammar - Clearly I can't see through your eyes (or you mine) but:
a) Is Hillary female?
b) Is her behaviour counter productive to her, and her party's aims?
if both are yes, then the tag is appropriate. You seem to be infering the worse possible meaning not implied by the author.
I'm sorry if I got a little emotional, but it really steams me up when someone doesn't get what they want and they cry "That's not fair, that's ____ism", tip the board over, and stomp off to sulk. Of course I agree that both women and blacks (amongst others) have been unfairly treated, but really, you eventually have to realise not everything will work out the way you would like it to. - respectfully DJ
PS Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot. Obama probably would have dropped out gracefully long before and supported Senator Clinton, for the good of the party.

Posted by: DingoJack | May 10, 2008 1:04 PM

Look, Grammar RWA, Moses' comments were more histrionic than Carol's, and our response to him was slightly more severe than the response to Carol. I don't understand why sex even enters the equation here -- saying that Carol was histrionic and narcissitic had zero to do with her gender and was an appropriate (for the internet at least) retort.

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 10, 2008 1:29 PM

Braxton, your point doesn't even make sense. So you criticized Moses for words you find more excessive than Carol's? That does not explain attacking Carol for a lesser offense.

If you had jumped on Moses for something less excessive, then you might have an inkling of a valid point there.

Anyway, this characterization of Carol's words is complete hogwash. As I pointed out earlier, she found something distasteful, told Ed what and why, and left. All perfectly sane and respectful behavior, well within anyone's prerogative, and nothing deserving of these continued attacks. Just one rhetorical flourish, with "they're all so crazy."

I'm sure you've never used one instance of heightened rhetoric in your life, and there's no rank hypocrisy here whatsoever.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 10, 2008 1:43 PM

Grammar RWA:
"Braxton, your point doesn't even make sense. So you criticized Moses for words you find more excessive than Carol's? That does not explain attacking Carol for a lesser offense"

Er... What I said was:

"Moses' comments were more histrionic than Carol's, and our response to him was slightly more severe than the response to Carol."

Note the usage of "more" and "more" in both clauses of the sentence. My point was that the response in both cases was irrelevant of gender. In fact, if you want to make use of a stereotype, it's likely that Carol is a man. After all, it's the internet. Where the men are men, the women are men, and the girls are FBI agents. Oh noes! I'm sexist.

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 10, 2008 2:32 PM

Oh noes! I'm sexist.

Yes, you have unconsciously absorbed the sexism of your surrounding culture. Again, I remind you, don't take this personally; everyone does it until they learn to counteract it.

You might start at http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/purpose/

I wish you an enlightening evening.

Posted by: Grammar RWA | May 10, 2008 2:44 PM

Google hits for "psycho ex-girlfriend": 30,200
for "psycho ex-boyfriend": 5,830

Posted by: Lisa | May 10, 2008 4:43 PM

DJ- are you confused about the rash thing? The saying is "hanging around like a bad rash".

It seems pretty self-evident. Don't they have rashes down under? It's an unpleasant skin condition characterized by itchiness, redness, swelling, peeling or even blistering. Usually you want them to go away as soon as possible. =P

NJ wrote:

I disagree - which is the whole crux of the argument. Let us hypothesize about (FSM forbid!) Mike Huckabee being in Obama's position and John McCain in Clinton's. It is easy in this case for me to envision someone drawing an analogy of McCain being a "psycho ex-boyfriend."

Well, ok. I guess you could make that joke. But it would probably suck and still require some explanation. Which is generally not a good thing for a joke.

Look, I'm all for rude jokes. I don't really have that big of a problem with it and my own sense of humor often tends toward the rude and abrasive. But the whole "crazy bitch girlfriend" thing is way too (as Moses said) "frat boy" for my sense of humor. And slightly creepy in this case. I gave the reasons why I didn't think it was maybe the best call, and why I thought it was more of a cut on her for being female. I don't think I need to repeat it. *shrug*

Posted by: Leni | May 10, 2008 5:23 PM

Holy crap.

I completely forgot about Nader. Has anyone ever called Nader a psycho ex boyfriend? Anybody? Are we chuckling along at the mere thought of such a hysterically (pun intended) funny joke?

No. No we aren't, NJ. I feel pretty comfortable speaking for all people with a sense of humor when I say that.

Posted by: Leni | May 10, 2008 10:41 PM

You haven't decided whom to vote for between any Democrat and John McCain?

I like John McCain, but have you been fooling around with that home lobotomy kit?

Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 10, 2008 11:04 PM