eyes on the U.S.

Deconstructing The Sexist American Animus Toward Hillary Clinton

A Polish commentator notes that despite Clinton's fitness for the job, many see her presidential ambitions through a bigoted lens. She's not just a woman, but one who doesn't know her place.

Hillary looking
Hillary looking
Katarzyna Wężyk*


WARSAW â€" This question has been asked regularly since 1992, when as a presidential candidate's wife, Hillary Clinton announced on TV that she preferred to pursue her career to baking cookies at home. After that, she was a first lady, a U.S. senator and a secretary of state, not to mention a presidential candidate two times over. Today, another generation of talking heads is analyzing the question again: Why is the most admired woman in the United States also the most hated one?

The answers repeat themselves: She is cold, distant, cut off from ordinary people, personifies the establishment. Too ambitious and arrogant, she thinks that the Clintons are more privileged, and she lacks her husband's charisma. She can't be trusted.

But if you analyze the hate aimed at Hillary Clinton more closely â€" and for a quarter-century, there has been quite a lot of analysis â€" the answer seems much simpler. No, not just because she is a woman. America can't stand Hillary Clinton because she is a woman who doesn't know her place. And such a woman in the U.S., the motherland of political correctness, apparently is still two steps behind a man.

Of course, she has some flaws, politely speaking. In the 1990s she was connected to certain scandals such as Whitewater, which nearly ended her husband's presidential career. It's hard to blame Hillary for Bill's zippergate scandal, but some feminists hold it against her for not kicking that unfaithful one in his ass.

The former first lady is also charged with having connections to Wall Street â€" she earned $3 million making speeches to bankers, and another $17 million has gone to support her campaign â€" which makes her independence and plans for financial reform look doubtful. Republicans keep reminding us that she used her private email account while serving as secretary of state. Lastly, she is accused of changing her mind according to poll results â€" on issues such as as gun control, gay marriage and the war in Iraq â€" because her only aim is to become the first female president. At any cost.

Double standard

Except that similar sins and peccadillos â€" lack of transparency, dodgy donors â€" have bound other politicians too. Except perhaps for Bernie Sanders, but everyone agrees that the ""socialist"" senator from Vermont is unelectable.

There are many good reasons not to like Hillary Clinton just as there are plenty of good reasons not to like other politicians. But only in her case, the reason for hating her is for the most part ordinary, barely concealed sexism.

Much of Clinton's difficulty in this campaign stems from a single, unalterable fact, according to Dana Milbank of The Washington Post: She is a woman. It's a direct consequence of the imperative that she must demonstrate her toughness. Men can be tough and warm at the same time â€" think Ronald Reagan â€" but for women, it's a trade-off.

Toughness is a stereotypically male attribute; it is men who need to be aggressive and pertinacious, it's their job to protect a woman, the family and the country. If a woman wants to be successful in politics, she needs to prove that she is tougher than her male competitors, that she will not let others push her around and that she will not serve sandwiches. But if she is tough and hard-boiled, she stops being womanlike: She becomes a Tartar, a butch or an ordinary bitch. A man who defends his opinions is assertive; a woman â€" aggressive. And indeed nobody likes an aggressive woman. On the other hand, nobody wants weak leaders. So either way is no good.

One would think that there is no such thing as excessive ambition when you want to govern the free world, but not everyone does. The Democratic presidential candidate apparently is ""pathologically"" and ""obsessively"" ambitious. She already spent eight years in the White House and four as the secretary of state so what more does she want? Plus she is egotistic and ruthless in reaching the top.

On the White House lawn in 1993 â€" Photo: White House

""Irrational ambition is Hillary Clinton's flaw,"" journalist Anne Applebaum affirmed eight years ago, adding, ""Hillary Clinton wants so badly to win that she will try anything.""

This from Leon Wieseltier from the liberal magazineThe New Republic: ""She's like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won't stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone."

Womanly ambition as unacceptable

A woman, as opposed to a man, apparently, cannot achieve something herself. She needs to ""beg for it"" from the masters of creation, who will in the end, for some peace of mind, act favorably and give it to her. Ambition â€" especially open ambition, and not caring if you offend men's feelings, acting because you would like to achieve success, but lacking talent, diligence and determination â€" is also not womanlike.

Intellect and logic are also man's domain, and emotions a woman's. Except that showing emotion is proof of weakness. Eight years ago, when she lost in New Hampshire and her voice broke and her eyes misted over, commentators said that she made a spectacle of herself, that she showed weakness, ""that she used her feminine side."" If one failure made her cry, how would she ever talk to Vladimir Putin.

Laughter isn't much better. Clinton doesn't laugh like a normal person (read: a man) does. She either ""cackles" or ""squawks," or her laughter is ""bad."" Bad as in old, ugly, like a mean witch who frightens small kids. And when she smiles, it's a ""manic"" or ""artificial"" smile.

She also shouldn't raise her voice. Bernie Sanders, when gesturing expressively and screaming into the microphone, shows that he is ""full of passion"" and ""authentic."" Hillary is ""vociferous'" and unnecessarily ""sharp,"" and her tone sounds ""unpleasantly shrill."" Rightist commentator Pat Buchanan said that when Hillary raises her voice, "it reaches a point ... that every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another."

Buchanan himself admitted that this was a sexist comment, but added ""it's true."") And his colleague Tucker Carlson from Fox News summed up by saying, ""Could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice?"

The question about how to survive another eight years looking at Donald Trump"s comb-over doesn't seem to occur to anyone.

But it's even worse not to show emotions. It's not womanlike. Therefore, when she actually isn't a weakling who is falling apart or a squawking witch, Clinton is a "cold"" and ""calculating"" cyborg.

Whatever she does, she gets a minus.

The can't-win candidate

Double standards are also visible when it comes to age. ""Grandma Hillary wants to become one of the oldest world leaders in history," reports the right-leaning website, Freebeacon.com.

She is 68 years old, six years younger than Bernie Sanders, four years younger than John McCain when he ran for president in 2008, and two years younger than Ronald Reagan, when he became president. But it's Clinton who is too old. Conservative blogger and journalist Michelle Malkin shared her opinion with viewers that ""Hillary is looking like 92 years old,"" and that ""it's going to scare away a lot of those independent voters that are on the fence.""

Right-leaning radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh asked whether a country obsessed with youth and beauty wants ""to stare at an aging woman?"" An aging man, he added, is another story, since age confers authority, seriousness and achievement. Limbaugh, meanwhile is fat and bald with a his face reminiscent of an angry hamster. He is 65 years old.

Rush Limbaugh and his mouth â€" Source: Donkey Hotey

On the other hand, when Clinton tries to be more youthful, opening social media accounts or talking about Beyoncé (failing to say her name correctly), she is ""desperate"" and in general ""pathetic."" Either way, not good.

Hillary’s attitude toward her husband's unfaithfulness? Bill humiliated her twice. First he betrayed her, and second he lied to her. For weeks the entire country discussed every detail of the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky, including the famous stained dress and cigar. She survived it all. Was it thanks to Christian mercy, faith in the sacrament of marriage and her child's well-being â€" or maybe because of political ambition? Common opinion indicates the latter. There are those who blame Hillary for Bill's betrayals. On the Internet where the haters don't have to control themselves, one wrote: “If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

Wrote another, "How can this dumb bitty sic even think she can be president?? She couldn't even be the first lady and take care of Bill."

Her most serious opponent isn't much better. ""She's not a victim, she was an enabler," Donald Trump has said. "Some of these women have been destroyed, and Hillary worked with him."

Her political agenda also causes Hillary trouble. For the right, she is the warring feminist and a Marxist, ""Lady Macbeth from Arkansas,"" who murders unborn children and wants to take away Americans' firearms. For the left, she is a centrist opportunist equally responsible for her husband's ""third way,"" the neoliberal “compromise"" which was another nail in the coffin for the welfare society. Clinton's mantra that she is a ""progressive who likes to get things done"" does not convince the idealists.

If she wants to win the primaries, she should move to the left toward the socialist Sanders who dazzles the crowds. But to defeat Trump, she needs to gain the trust of more moderate voters. All candidates face this dilemma: In the primaries, one needs to take care of the base. In the general election, one has to seduce the independents. But in her case, it is one of many expectations that are impossible to fulfill.

""How long would you make it if people treated you the way you treat Hillary Clinton?" Sady Doyle asked on the Slate website. "Would you not just be furious, by now? Would you not have reached ... despair? The fact that she's been dealing with it for decades, and keeps voluntarily subjecting herself to it, and, knowing exactly how bad it will get, and exactly what we'll do to her, is running for president again, and (here's the part I love, the part that I find hard to even wrap my head around) actually winning? To me, that is awe-inspiring."

Eight years ago, when she was asked about how she was coping, she replied with a trembling voice: ""It is not easy. But I have so many ideas for this country. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future."

We can imagine similar statements by Claire Underwood from the drama House of Cards," who at the same time is deciding whom to stab in the back. And perhaps Clinton in fact reads Machiavelli before going to sleep, and she plans all her human responses. But I am going to cite Tina Fey and Amy Poehler from a sketch on Saturday Night Live: ""People say that Hillary is a bitch. Let me say something about that: Yeah, she is. And so am I and so is this one. Know what? Bitches get stuff done."

*This article was translated from Polish by Marta Danon. A longer version originally appeared on Watching America.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

7 Ways The Pandemic May Change The Airline Industry For Good

Will flying be greener? More comfortable? Less frequent? As the world eyes a post-COVID reality, we look at ways the airline industry has been changing through a pandemic that has devastated air travel.

Ready for (a different kind of) takeoff?

Carl-Johan Karlsson

It's hard to overstate the damage the pandemic has had on the airline industry, with global revenues dropping by 40% in 2020 and dozens of airlines around the world filing for bankruptcy. One moment last year when the gravity became particularly apparent was when Asian carriers (in countries with low COVID-19 rates) began offering "flights to nowhere" — starting and ending at the same airport as a way to earn some cash from would-be travelers who missed the in-flight experience.

More than a year later today, experts believe that air traffic won't return to normal levels until 2024.

But beyond the financial woes, the unprecedented slowdown in air travel may bring some silver linings as key aspects of the industry are bound to change once back in full spin, with some longer-term effects on aviation already emerging. Here are some major transformations to expect in the coming years:

Cleaner aviation fuel

The U.S. administration of President Joe Biden and the airline industry recently agreed to the ambitious goal of replacing all jet fuel with sustainable alternatives by 2050. Already in a decade, the U.S. aims to produce three billion gallons of sustainable fuel — about one-tenth of current total use — from waste, plants and other organic matter.

While greening the world's road transport has long been at the top of the climate agenda, aviation is not even included under the Paris Agreement. But with air travel responsible for roughly 12% of all CO2 emissions from transport, and stricter international regulation on the horizon, the industry is increasingly seeking sustainable alternatives to petroleum-based fuel.

Fees imposed on the airline industry should be funneled into a climate fund.

In Germany, state broadcaster Deutsche Welle reports that the world's first factory producing CO2-neutral kerosene recently started operations in the town of Wertle, in Lower Saxony. The plant, for which Lufthansa is set to become the pilot customer, will produce CO2-neutral kerosene through a circular production cycle incorporating sustainable and green energy sources and raw materials. Energy is supplied through wind turbines from the surrounding area, while the fuel's main ingredients are water and waste-generated CO2 coming from a nearby biogas plant.

Farther north, Norwegian Air Shuttle has recently submitted a recommendation to the government that fees imposed on the airline industry should be funneled into a climate fund aimed at developing cleaner aviation fuel, according to Norwegian news site E24. The airline also suggested that the government significantly reduce the tax burden on the industry over a longer period to allow airlines to recover from the pandemic.

Black-and-white photo of an ariplane shot from below flying across the sky and leaving condensation trails

High-flying ambitions for the sector

Joel & Jasmin Førestbird

Hydrogen and electrification

Some airline manufacturers are betting on hydrogen, with research suggesting that the abundant resource has the potential to match the flight distances and payload of a current fossil-fuel aircraft. If derived from renewable resources like sun and wind power, hydrogen — with an energy-density almost three times that of gasoline or diesel — could work as a fully sustainable aviation fuel that emits only water.

One example comes out of California, where fuel-cell specialist HyPoint has entered a partnership with Pennsylvania-based Piasecki Aircraft Corporation to manufacture 650-kilowatt hydrogen fuel cell systems for aircrafts. According to HyPoint, the system — scheduled for commercial availability product by 2025 — will have four times the energy density of existing lithium-ion batteries and double the specific power of existing hydrogen fuel-cell systems.

Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce is looking to smash the speed record of electrical flights with a newly designed 23-foot-long model. Christened the Spirit of Innovation, the small plane took off for the first time earlier this month and successfully managed a 15-minute long test flight. However, the company has announced plans to fly the machine faster than 300 mph (480 km/h) before the year is out, and also to sell similar propulsion systems to companies developing electrical air taxis or small commuter planes.

New aircraft designs

Airlines are also upgrading aircraft design to become more eco-friendly. Air France just received its first upgrade of a single-aisle, medium-haul aircraft in 33 years. Fleet director Nicolas Bertrand told French daily Les Echos that the new A220 — that will replace the old A320 model — will reduce operating costs by 10%, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 20% and noise footprint by 34%.

International first class will be very nearly a thing of the past.

The pandemic has also ushered in a new era of consumer demand where privacy and personal space is put above luxury. The retirement of older aircraft caused by COVID-19 means that international first class — already in steady decline over the last decades — will be very nearly a thing of the past. Instead, airplane manufacturers around the world (including Delta, China Eastern, JetBlue, British Airways and Shanghai Airlines) are betting on a new generation of super-business minisuites where passengers have a privacy door. The idea, which was introduced by Qatar Airways in 2017, is to offer more personal space than in regular business class but without the lavishness of first class.

Aerial view of Rome's Fiumicino airport

Aerial view of Rome's Fiumicino airport


Hygiene rankings  

Rome's Fiumicino Airport has become the first in the world to earn "the COVID-19 5-Star Airport Rating" from Skytrax, an international airline and airport review and ranking site, Italian daily La Repubblica reports. Skytrax, which publishes a yearly annual ranking of the world's best airports and issues the World Airport Awards, this year created a second list to specifically call out airports with the best health and hygiene standards.

Smoother check-in

​The pandemic has also accelerated the shift towards contactless traveling, with more airports harnessing the power of biometrics — such as facial recognition or fever screening — to reduce touchpoints and human contact. Similar technology can also be used to more efficiently scan physical objects, such as explosive detection. Ultimately, passengers will be able to "check-in" and go through a security screening anywhere at the airports, removing queues and bottlenecks.

Data privacy issues

​However, as pointed out in Canadian publication The Lawyer's Daily, increased use of AI and biometrics also means increased privacy concerns. For example, health and hygiene measures like digital vaccine passports also mean that airports can collect data on who has been vaccinated and the type of vaccine used.

Photo of planes at Auckland airport, New Zealand

Auckland Airport, New Zealand

Douglas Bagg

The billion-dollar question: Will we fly less?

At the end of the day, even with all these (mostly positive) changes that we've seen take shape over the past 18 months, the industry faces major uncertainty about whether air travel will ever return to the pre-COVID levels. Not only are people wary about being in crowded and closed airplanes, but the worth of long-distance business travel in particular is being questioned as many have seen that meetings can function remotely, via Zoom and other online apps.

Trying to forecast the future, experts point to the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks as at least a partial blueprint for what a recovery might look like in the years ahead. Twenty years ago, as passenger enthusiasm for flying waned amid security fears following the attacks, airlines were forced to cancel flights and put planes into storage.

40% of Swedes intend to travel less

According to McKinsey, leisure trips and visits to family and friends rebounded faster than business flights, which took four years to return to pre-crisis levels in the UK. This time too, business travel is expected to lag, with the consulting firm estimating only 80% recovery of pre-pandemic levels by 2024.

But the COVID-19 crisis also came at a time when passengers were already rethinking their travel habits due to climate concerns, while worldwide lockdowns have ushered in a new era of remote working. In Sweden, a survey by the country's largest research company shows that 40% of the population intend to travel less even after the pandemic ends. Similarly in the UK, nearly 60% of adults said during the spring they intended to fly less after being vaccinated against COVID-19 — with climate change cited as a top reason for people wanting to reduce their number of flights, according to research by the University of Bristol.

At the same time, major companies are increasingly forced to face the music of the environmental movement, with several corporations rolling out climate targets over the last few years. Today, five of the 10 biggest buyers of corporate air travel in the US are technology companies: Amazon, IBM, Google, Apple and Microsoft, according to Taipei Times, all of which have set individual targets for environmental stewardship. As such, the era of flying across the Atlantic for a two-hour executive meeting is likely in its dying days.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!