SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON FACES TYPICAL DOUBLE STANDARD IN SOUTH KOREA QUESTIONS

Deciding that matters of state are less important than Hillary Clinton’s views on love, the South Korean press corps perpetuated the alive-and-well attitude that women just don’t deserve the same respect as men when it comes to their roles in high government positions.

Clinton has been traveling abroad this past week, and, of course, has faced the requisite press corps’ questioning rituals.  But, hold the phone, stop the presses, among the questions asked of the Secretary of State during press coverage in South Korea was a completely-less-than-serious question about her thoughts on the “nature of love.” You’ve got to be kidding!  The question came from a “giggly” college student, but drew a tremendous amount of press attention.

In the history of our country, we have had 67 secretaries of state – 3 of whom have been women.  Does anyone honestly believe that this type of question would have been asked of the likes of Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, or any of the other 60 male secretaries of state?  Of course not!

And, Hillary, ever gracious, gave her thoughts on the world-shattering issue of the “nature of love” by discussing her relationship with her husband, former President Bill Clinton – which, frankly I suspect was the underlying reason for the question in the first place.  Nary a day passes without some smart-ass comment, cartoon, or slam about his “sexual proclivities” even though the scandals have long passed.

Clinton joked at the start of her response that “I feel like more of an advice columnist than a Secretary of State today.”  Come on people, shame on you, and, if it was a woman reporter who carried the news forward – double shame on you for trivializing the position that Hillary Clinton holds.  It’s time to get serious when women hold positions of power.

Photo Credit: CBS News – Political Hotsheet

__________________________________________________________________________

The shifting of the issues from a focus on our global economic mess and the deteriorating state of foreign affairs to a flippant and intrusive question about the nature of love is downright demeaning.  Clinton is an excellent secretary of state who is knowledgeable, intelligent, and energetic when it comes to foreign relations.   To twirl off into the ethereal world of the nature of love has nothing to do with foreign affairs, but it sure has everything to do with the double standard applied to women in positions of authority.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Government, Hillary Clinton, Women in Politics, Women's Interests and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON FACES TYPICAL DOUBLE STANDARD IN SOUTH KOREA QUESTIONS

  1. Andy says:

    It is a shame SOS Clinton has to deal with such irrelevant and off-topic questions. For her to travel half way around the world and be asked about the “nature of love” is insulting to her profession and intelligence.

    To take this a step further, I was thinking last night of how many women throughout the world are viewed/treated as less than their male counterparts. Sexism is still alive and well, and often times doesn’t get the attention and coverage it deserves.

    It wasn’t too long ago I was watching TV and saw the famous 1970‘s “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. This guy was such an arrogant a**, and I was so happy Billie Jean King put him in his place.

    The stereotypes that women still face and have to deal with every day is enormous. Women consistently earn much less than a man to do the same work. And as in the recent case which occurred in Buffalo, NY, some cultures actually view it acceptable to murder their wives/daughters/sisters in some insane act known as an honor killing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

    http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/581540.html

    When I hear/read about stories of the accepted practices of abusing, beating, disfiguring, mutilation of female genitalia, denial of receiving an education, refusal to grant a divorce and so many other abuses which occur today against women it makes me sick.

    When SOS Clinton talked about busting through the “glass ceiling” women have often encountered throughout history, I feel a sense of hope that one day human beings will be accepted and be treated equally regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation AND gender.

  2. Ardo says:

    First, to the commenter preceding me and the original poster, I think you should lighten up a bit. Asking about the nature of love is a strange question, but there is no reason to equate it with genital mutilation or sexism!!!! Did she receive the question because she was a woman? Probably, yes, but it’s not a bad thing. I come to my mother with particular issues, and I am glad that I can. It would be nice if people felt as comfortable coming to men with such questions, even if it was a bizarre setting.

    Second, you need to get off of the genital mutilation thing unless you’re going to recognize what’s happening to boys, which is by far the more prevalent form of genital mutilation in the world.

    Worry about the circumcisions that the men in your family have likely been subjected to as infants or, at the least, minors.

    A male foreskin circumcision is equivalent to the clitoral hood removal which you would call genital mutilation. The male foreskin circumcision, first of all, involves removing the second most dense concentration of pleasurable nerves in the penis, the foreskin, which, by the way, is also a very large region of those nerves.

    Second, it removes the protection for the glans (i.e. the head). The head goes from being smooth and unharmed to being “keratinized”. Look up “keratin” on wikipedia. The glans is the same material as an eyeball — being rubbed and exposed to air, etc., all day without the protection of the foreskin would certainly harm your eyeball — it does the same to a men’s glans.

    Remember: the glans is the equivalent of the clitoris. Without the foreskin, we are in a situation that is equivalent to your clitoris being rubbed against your underwear all day and exposed to the air until it develops a rough, keratinized surface, keratin being “a family of fibrous structural proteins; tough and insoluble, they form the hard but nonmineralized structures found in reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals. They are rivaled as biological materials in toughness only by chitin.”

    How would you like it if your clit become a “hard but nonmineralized structure…rivaled…in toughness only by chitin”?

    Finally, speaking of abuse, remember that in Western countries, abuse of women is matched to a very significant degree by abuse of men. Women in relationships in the West are frequently abusive towards husbands and boyfriend (and male children), physically and emotionally. Because men are FAR less apt to call the police over relatively minor incidents of abuse, and women are not as likely to be arrested for relatively “minor” incidents (which often lend men in jail with significant bail required to be released), the statistics are drastically skewed.

    The emotional abuse women engage in cannot be underestimated, either. Girls in middle schools, e.g., have a reputation for being far more vicious emotionally than male bullies are physically. This dichotomy does not end in adolescence.

    Consider the fact that studies — with large enough samples to draw highly statistically significant conclusions about the population — in Western countries have concluded that 1 out of 4 children are not fathered by the man who believes the child to be his.

    THAT is a truly disgusting statistic, and one that women should be ashamed of.

    Honor killings are bad, but deceiving a man (and a child) for the duration of their lives is not much different. A killing steals a life; a lie such as this steals a huge portion of a life, compelling him to waste his time, love, and money on a child which is not his and a woman who is not faithful and, moreover, is outright dishonest about her infidelity to this most absurd degree. Could you even imagine it? Well, 25% is the number you have to reconcile your thoroughgoing “woman-as-victim / man-as-monster” ideology with.

    In conclusion, women are not always the victim, and being a humanist of value while being a feminist is just as bad as being sexist. Take up the banner and fight for good treatment of both men and women. In the case of our Secretary of State, do not find a crime where none exists — a question about love is not insulting, and the fact that it is less likely to be asked of a man does not make it insulting, either. The fact that Hillary is perceived as being a suitable person to ask such a question (despite the strangeness of the venue) speaks to her perceived humanity, which is a positive asset, not a negative one.

  3. Ardo:

    And you want us to lighten up? I did not equate the question with genital mutilation. The question does show sexism and you know it as well as I do. No male secretary of state would have been asked that question, and I don’t imagine anyone would even have thought to ask it of a male counterpart.

    The fact that you had to qualify the question several times with your statements:

    1. Did she receive it because she was a woman – probably yes.
    2. Wouldn’t it be nice…..even if it was a bizarre setting
    3. The fact that Hillary….despite the strangeness of the situation.

    You prove my point by qualifying your statements about just how strange and bizarre you thought it was.

    Sexual harassment used to be something that was dismissed as just “the boys playing around” and finally the law started taking it seriously. I would almost guarantee you that if the issue hadn’t been pursued by women who stood up and said they wouldn’t take harassment, we would still be back in the days when smacks on the butt, you do this for me and I’ll do that for you, would be the norm instead of against the law.

    Good Lord – how did you ever get off into blaming Western women re: abuse? I never said women didn’t abuse men.

    My entire post was about the inappropriate and sexist asking of the question. You supported that – whether you want to admit it or not – by qualifying your comments.

    You can try to justify the nature of what happened with platitudes about “wouldn’t it be great if”, “I used to go to my mother”, etc., but the fact remains it wouldn’t have occurred if it had been a male secretary of state. That was the observation I made, and I stand by it.

    By the way, are you really serious about arguing that supporting a child that isn’t your own is just as bad as killing a woman because of some sexist idea that she is “your possession” to do with as you please? Please tell me you jest. I worked as an attorney in child support enforcement for a number of years and dealt with the issues you raised.

    If a male decides to climb into bed with a female, he takes the chance he may become a father. With paternity testing and with a rebuttable presumption as to who might be the biological father when a divorce occurs, there should be no reason in today’s world that paternity can’t be determined to prevent the situation to which you allude.

  4. Andy says:

    Ardo:

    “Honor killings are bad, but deceiving a man (and a child) for the duration of their lives is not much different.”

    You can’t be serious.

  5. This is quite a hot information. I’ll share it on Facebook.

  6. Iceironman says:

    I get it now, Andy is a woman. The name fooled me for awhile.

Comments are closed.