Watch the following youtube video titled, “Can You Survive Four Minutes of Hillary?” How does the video relate to Carlson’s analysis in “Misogynistic Hate Speech and Its Chilling Effect on Women’s Free Expression during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign”?
6 thoughts on “Week 11 Day 2 Discussion Question 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In Caitlin Carlson’s writing she examines misogynistic hate speech around the 2016 presidential election and the impact it has on the political expression of women. Carlson states that the usage of such hate speech throughout the 2016 election, “worked to silence women’s free expression by creating a chilling effect, which impeded women’s ability to fully participate in the process of Democratic self-governance” (Carlson 97). The “Can You Survive Four Minutes of Hillary?” Youtube video, is a prime example of the hate speech and demeaning propaganda that Carlson refers to in her writing. The video stitches together clips of Hillary speaking (that are completely unrelated and span over multiple decades) in an effort to frame her: as a liar, as siding with terrorism, etc. The sole objective of the video is to make Hillary look as incompetent as possible.
I think this video emphasizes the ways in which alt-right media seeks to demonize women by using their own words against them. Rather than presenting valid criticisms of Clinton’s views (which is certainly possible), this video manipulates Clinton’s words to depict her as irrational and dishonest. By interspersing clips of 9/11 news coverage within Clinton’s speech about “understanding and empathizing” with one’s enemies, the video suggests that Clinton is a terrorist sympthatizer— an implication that is both ridiculous and offensive. I also find it ridiculous that alt-right media was continuously dredging up clips from the 2000s and using them as justification for their disapproval of Clinton, especially considering the amount of incredibly offensive recordings of Trump that exist from that time. Naturally, videos like these are prone to make female celebrities and public figures less likely to speak on important issues, and we can hardly blame them. As explained by Carlson, “misogynistic hate speech will continue to limit the public contributions of women and people of color by creating an environment that dissuades them from speaking out” (105).
I think “Can You Survive Four Minutes of Hilary” is a perfect example of the type of online misogyny that Carlson refers to in his piece on the 2016 Presidential Campaign. This video is a compilation of different clips and excerpts from different Hillary speeches. The clips are put together in a way that makes her look untrustworthy and like she constantly contradicts herself. In reality, many of these clips are probably out of context and are not actually as hypocritical as the video’s creator makes them seem. This video is an example of online misogyny that women in positions of power face today. The creator of the video does not display his name or face but remains anonymous. The ability for anonymity on the internet is one of the main reasons why online misogyny is such a big problem. The video does not say anything about Hilary’s policies or campaign but only shows clips that are meant to show her in a negative light. Online misogyny will continue to be a huge problem as long as people like the creator of this video can remain anonymous and not face any real repercussions for their actions.
Carlson argues that misogyny against women in politics and journalism takes the form of disrespectful slurs and belittling attempts in order to invalidate their intelligence. In the video, we see Hillary’s speeches closely cut edited together whenever she makes a point about a matter such as terrorism to highlight inconsistencies in her stances. This is done to show her hypocrisy and paint her as a shifty politician that changes her mind based on whether or not she believes it will increase her chances of winning. However, the hashtag #SurviveHillary is one that is loaded with misogynistic undertones because it perpetuates the stereotype that she is unable to govern based on her history for backtracking arguments, being wrong shown through the author’s cherry picked evidence. The medium to expose Hillary is also a Youtube video, which Carlson explains is the new era for misogyny which has “moved largely online, where a unique form of cyber gender harassment has emerged. The anonymity of the online environment emboldens these commenters and posters (Carlson 102). Hillary was called gendered slurs and the comment section of this video, proves Carlson’s theory of the female candidate being reduced down to her gender, and hated on for being a woman, rather than her policies.
After watching “Can you survive four minutes of Hillary,” we can see that the dislike of Hillary running for the presidency in 2016 was not simply about political affiliations, but rather American society’s “contempt for women in positions of power,” as stated by Caitlin Carlson. The video mocks Hillary’s public speeches through repetition and uses her words out of context. While Hillary may have made controversial statements such as the need to empathize with one’s enemies, it does not condone the misogynistic hate speech direct toward her, especially as her opponent had made far worse statements. After all, what politician has not stated lies or twisted the truth to win over the public? The video made it seem like Hillary was just another “nagging” old woman who didn’t have the power necessary to lead the United States. Instead of acknowledging her previous position as Secretary of State, the video sets out to null her expertise and paints her as an incompetent woman simply because “women candidates were seen as ambitious, it evoked moral out-
rage on the part of voters’ (Carlson 100).
“Can You Survive Four Minutes of Hillary?” relates to Carlson’s analysis in “Misogynistic Hate Speech and Its Chilling Effect on Women’s Free Expression during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Campaign”? by having several video clips of Hillary appearing unqualified for the presidential role. The video clips either had Hillary going back on her word, saying unpopular statements such as, “empathize with our enemy, see where they are coming from,” or pure hypocrisy on Hillary’s behalf that was highlighted in the video clips. The act of putting together these video clips to sabotage Hillary and have people see Hillary in this poor lighting is exactly what “hate speech” Carlson is talking about. Hillary was exposed, ridiculed and portrayed in an unqualified manner.