The biggest problem with communication, I’ve decided, is words–those clunky building blocks that we rely on in our ongoing attempts to read one another’s minds. Yesterday, I attempted to communicate with an irate reader who was deeply offended by the beginning of John Hubbuch’s column this week in Viewpoints. The column was mostly about local politics, but John started off with a swipe at Hillary Clinton, calling her “the most famous cuckquean in American history.” The word “cuckquean,” Hubbuch briefly explained is the female version of “cuckold,” which is what set off the outrage. The caller said it was an obscene reference, demeaning and derogatory toward women, a direct reference to a sexual fetish.
That left me “blutterbunged,” an archaic term for flustered and flabbergasted. I tried to explain that “cuckold” was not an obscenity but an old English word for a husband whose wife has been unfaithful to him. My dictionary, in fact, defines it as just that, “the husband of an unfaithful wife.” The verb form means to “make a cuckold of (a husband).” Shakespeare and Moliere both used the term, which originally derives from the “cuckoo’s habit of laying its eggs in other birds’ nests.” “Cuckquean” is the female equivalent–the wife of an unfaithful husband–an obvious reference to the philandering ways of Bill Clinton. I had never heard the term “cuckquean,” but it’s only logical that there would be one for the female equivalent, and Hubbuch dug it up.
The caller wasn’t having any of my explanation and implied that I was either playing dumb or coy or being dishonest altogether. Afterward, a colleague who had overheard the conversation told me the word “cuckold” has acquired a new meaning in recent times. Cuckolding, apparently, now also refers to the kinky sexual practice of a man watching his wife make love to another man. Neither Hubbuch nor I were aware of this development, but at least it explained the miscommunication.
Regardless, Hubbuch’s point seemed to be that he isn’t buying the contention that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate because, as John put it, she’s “really smart and has dedicated her life to helping others” (which, he added, “fits about half the women in Oak Park”). He thinks her primary qualification is her notorious connection with her husband. Feel free to disagree, but I know John well enough to say that he’s no misogynist.
On the other hand, I don’t blame women in general and Hillary Clinton supporters (women as well as men) in particular for being sensitive to the issue of misogyny (which, for clarification purposes, I’m using based on its dictionary definition of “hatred, dislike or mistrust of women.” If it has since turned into some kind of kinky sexual practice, I am unaware of it). Hillary has aroused a lot more misogyny–among women as well as men, it should be noted–than I expected. It’s disturbing and wrong and men in particular need to really take a good, hard look at themselves.
But I don’t think it’s as rampant–or as hateful–as some contend. And I reject any suggestion that everyone who is critical of Hillary is also a misogynist.
A lot of people don’t like Hillary Clinton for a lot of reasons. Some are misogynists. Some have very valid criticisms of her as a person and/or candidate (and also have some issues with women that come out in the way they express that criticism). And some are critical of her without any personal animosity. I fall into the latter category. I think she doesn’t have the charisma or the personality to be an effective president. It doesn’t have anything to do with her gender or the way she looks, which is why I refuse to “go negative” on her. If she wins the nomination, I’ll be upset because of how strongly I feel about Obama and because I think Hillary will continue the “same old, same old” style of negative, divisive politics that has paralyzed us for almost 30 years. It has nothing to do with being a woman.
But the fact is, there has been plenty of ugliness directed her way (and to be fair, the Clinton campaign has directed its share of ugliness toward Obama). That needs to stop–whether she wins or loses. Americans, unfortunately, harbor plenty of racism and plenty of sexism. We’re walking through an emotional minefield this election season. If Obama loses, his supporters shouldn’t play the race card any more than Clinton supporters should play the sexism card if she loses. Race will be a factor if Obama loses, and sexism will be a factor if Clinton loses. But they will only be minor factors, and we shouldn’t overemphasize either one.
At the same time, I understand how Clinton supporters feel right now. The campaign isn’t going so well. That might change, but right now they’re probably pretty upset. When it looked like Obama might lose a month or so ago, I was very upset, and if he doesn’t win, I’ll be close to inconsolable. If Clinton loses, it has to be because she wasn’t the best candidate–not because voters couldn’t accept her gender. Men in particular need to be sensitive to the misogyny issue.
Does that mean I shouldn’t have run Hubbuch’s swipe at Hillary? That’s a tough call, and I don’t know if I made the right choice. But it’s forcing me to think about the issue a little more deeply, and that’s healthy.