[Cross-posted from Feministing]
“For 15 years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine. And I’ve come out stronger. If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl.”
Wait, what? Forget the part about how Clinton says that she stands up to right-wing machine when she actually has a history of caving in (*cough* Iraq War). “I’m your girl?” She’s 59-years-old!
I bring up her age not to make her sound “old”– I’m 23, and I bristle at being called a “girl” as much as any 23-year-old man bristles at being called a “boy.” I resent the cultural phenomenon of infantalizing women, as well as the social practice for men to be called men the moment they turn 18, while women have to wait at least until they’re 30 to be regularly called a woman, and even then are encouraged to put off the change as long as possible.
Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but as someone with an English degree, I think that language is important. Particularly in politics, words are chosen very carefully. And I’m not the only one who noticed. So what the hell is going on, here? How did we go from a Hillary Clinton eager to push her credentials of toughness to a Hillary Clinton referring to herself as a “girl?” Is it an attempt to reverse the perception that she is too masculine? An attempt to appeal to women as “one of them,” like with her self-deprecating remarks about her weight? Or, since it was a labor union forum, maybe she was trying to appear populist, as opposed to the liberal that she is so often (incorrectly) portrayed as?
And what on earth are we to think of it? Of course, she gets to call herself whatever she wants, but we’re also entitled to our opinions. As feminists, we have worked long and hard to see a woman with a real shot at the presidency. I know that a lot of us already have personal reservations about her and her policies. So how are we to feel about having a legitimate female presidential candidate– the Democratic candidate who would probably win if the primaries were held today– referring to herself as a girl? And, particularly for those who find the phrase inconsequential, why don’t we have the same reaction to Clinton saying “I’m your girl” as we would if Giuliani said “I’m the boy for the job?”
{ 9 comments }
The Firewall keeps me from commenting at Feministing, but thanks for pointing this out.
It’s so interesting how certain phrases work better in our language than others. Like “I’m your man,” sounds perfectly fine, but “I’m your woman,” sounds creepy. As if it would be denoting possession rather than accountability. So what was Hillary to do? I guess avoid this phrase altogether. Because “I’m your girl,” sounds terrible. I agree with you that girls should cease to be “girls” at the same time that boys stop being boys, and not a day later.
Haha, finally someone who agrees with me! ;)
Uh-oh! Were the commenters on Feministing not quite so receptive?
I don’t think you’re making a mountain out of mole hill by bringing this up. It’s not as if this incident is going to break Hillary.
I’m sure Hilary and her PR staff thought long and hard about whether or not to add that last sentence but I don’t like she is having to pander to a certain audience that likes to see her being a bit self-depricating.
I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more comparison about the racial implication of Obama calling himself ‘your boy’.
I’m not comparing the significance of Hillary calling herself ‘girl’ compared to Obama using ‘boy’, however the negating aspect of ‘girl’ and it’s sexist undertones seems to be easily shrugged off, where as the racist implications of ‘boy’ probably wouldn’t have been taken so lightly.
As someone in the over forty demographic, and a confirmed feminist, I think this is more of a generational thing. While, if I were still in my 20′s I would take umbrage at being referred to as a “girl” at this stage of the game it is really sort of a tongue in cheek reference if you will. I am well beyond my “girlhood” so am not so easily offended by it and see it as adding levity to her remarks. It can’t be all grim all the time, and in some ways, it is a pandering comment to those of a certain sex and generation who would respond to it-but those folks are a large part of the voting public!
Yeah, Tracey, but I was half-expecting it. The opinion is mixed, but leaning towards the view that I’m over-reacting. It’s okay . . . I’m learning to grow a thicker skin, and that’s a good thing.
And also, I still think that I’m right :)
In response to Betsy, I suppose that makes sense. I know that Cara and I are in are early-mid twenties, and I think its safe to say that either one of us would be horribly offended if someone tried to brush us off by calling us “girls”, and that the term is something we never use to refer to ourselves, but at the same time, I can imagine my mom being flattered by the term, or using it as a toungue-in-cheek way to be laid back and casual. The only thing that really bothers me about it is how it doesn’t work the same way for both sexes. It’s frustrating that “boy” would have a completely different reaction and connotation.
I am in my 50′s. I would be offended if someone were to refer to me as a “girl”. In my 20′s I would also have been offended. I have been chastised and ridiculed by women and men for reminding them that I am not a child. And yes, I am offended by being called a girl.
According to Encarta the definition of a girl is “young child” a human female from birth until the age at which she is considered an adult. Just something to think about.
amen, sista.
Comments on this entry are closed.