MyDD :: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition

by louisprandtl, Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:47:40 AM EST

NOW is providing us the opportunity to check out the most outrageous moments of sexism from mainstream media's coverage of the 2008 elections, and rate them yourself on NOW's Misogyny Meter. You can also nominate these geniuses for NOW's Media Hall of Shame "2008 Election Edition".

During the 2008 presidential primaries, media misogyny reached an all-time high. Sen. Hillary Clinton -- who broke new ground for women with her inspiring campaign and came close to winning the Democratic nomination -- was the target of the most extraordinarily sexist attacks we've witnessed in a long time. NOW warned that Michelle Obama would be their next target, and we were right. The media seem intent on outdoing themselves by combining sexist and racist slurs against the potential first lady. From the national to the local level, any woman who serves or runs for political office (or is the spouse of someone who does) is subject to gender-based double standards and sexist attacks. These insults serve to demean and stereotype ALL women. Any question of whether we still need a feminist movement is being answered every day in the media, and the answer is a resounding Yes.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/about.html

Please check out each one of giants of mainstream media caught in action in video. The illustrious bunch for the Media Hall of Shame includes likes of:

Keith Olbermann insinuates violence against Clinton.
Glenn Beck complains Clinton sounds like his wife.
Ken Rudin says Clinton is Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction.
Marc Rudov says Hillary acts like a "B-word."
Maureen Dowd is a chronic offender who relies on gender stereotypes.
Charlotte Allen claims Clinton and all women are stupid.
Robin Givhan brings attention to Hillary's cleavage.
Mike Barnicle sees Hillary as the first wife outside court.
Tucker Carlson is scared of being castrated by Hillary?
Bill Kristol thinks white women are the problem.
Andrew Sullivan tries to turn feminist voters away from Hillary.
Chris Matthews attributes Hillary's success to Bill messing around.
David Shuster sees Chelsea as being pimped out.
Cameron Cardow thinks its noteworthy that Clinton wears pantsuits.
Cameron Cardow fits three insults into one cartoon.
Daryl Cagle draws violent imagery of Hillary Clinton as the slain beast.
Sandy Huffaker draws Hillary as a sleazeball slugger.
Michael Ramirez draws Clinton as the Wicked Witch.
Jack Cafferty imagines Obama wanting to run over Clinton with a truck.
Peggy Noonan says Hillary "needs space because she's a woman."
Rush Limbaugh doesn't want to see a woman age in the White House.
Randi Rhodes slurs Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
Glenn Beck calls Clinton a "stereotypical bitch."
Chief offenders: NBC and MSNBC
Fox News labels Michelle "Obama's baby mama."
Lars Larson thinks Michelle Obama got a free ride.
Gary Langer pits wife versus wife.
Cal Thomas declares all black women are angry.

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_ shame/index.html?open=1&page=1

Surely these media giants make us feel proud of them, don't they?
If somehow you don't approve of the actions of these great geniuses, please ACT. Act NOW!!

http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_ shame/sample_letter.html

Tags: misogyny, Mainstream Media Sexism, Hall of Shame, National Organization of Women, NOW (all tags)

Permalink :: 136 Comments :: Post a Comment

Now are you surprised by some of the names there? (2.00 / 8)

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:55:00 AM EST

Re: Now are you surprised by some of the names the (2.00 / 2)

Uh, no? Do people actually think this isn't a sexist country?

by Whash on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:00:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now are you surprised (2.00 / 1)

ghosh men bashing women in power... nooooo

honestly thou, last nights hell's kitchen sparked a comment from my wife , which was interesting. So we had 2 females and 1 man left in the final 3.

and both females or atlest one had won several previous rounds and were definately better in talent than the 1 guy left. but both voted to kick the other woman out but not the 1 man . My wife said " sometimes you wonder why we are our own worst enemy and yet we only call out the guys".

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now are you surprised (2.00 / 1)

Oh and rec and mojo to you btw

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What a joke (2.00 / 3)

And what a coincidence: not minutes after you stop posting, someone else signs on and seeks out all your still visible comments, and only your comments, to uprate.

When are the admins going to start taking some responsiblity here? This site has some great people, but it has too much of this bullshit going on.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:55:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a joke (2.00 / 5)

Oh my god.

Blogs, none.
Comments, none.
30 ratings, all +2s for Aliveandkicking, all within the past few minutes for comments going back weeks.

Everybody, let's give a big handclap to AK's newest sockpuppet, workitfool!

by MeganLocke on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL!!!! (1.66 / 3)

What is that?

aliveandkickin
rankles
srickki (imposter)
workitfool!

This troll should have his IP banned.

We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin

by spacemanspiff on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:17:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not that easy (2.00 / 1)

A dynamic IP could make that difficult. Even so, there are some sophisticated tech tools available for spotting socks. They may not block them, but they can identify them when they appear.

However, it would require a more active role by the admins than they apparently care to take.

The community is doing its job by dumping them into the garbage bin. It's up to admins to actually take out the garbage once in a while.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a joke (2.00 / 1)

so using your "logic", O.J. really didn't do it...

by zerosumgame on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HUGE mojo for this diary!!! Rec'd! (2.00 / 4)

The media's grossly sold out and simultaneously gone wild in this country. It's way past time to really kick the shit out of them, too. To a great extent, they've been asleep at the wheel and/or furthering their own agendas (both realities are just as bad as the other), all at the public's expense.

Many thanks for bringing this story to our attention.

by bobswern on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now are you surprised (2.00 / 2)

louis, thanks for this diary. It's important to keep this record. And this is the best compilation that I have seen, verbally anyway, of the bias she faced. rec'ced

by linfar on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now are you surprised by some of the name (2.00 / 1)

Not surprised by the names, but I'm kinda surprised that Keith Olbermann is at the top of the list. And no, I'm not trying to say that he shouldn't be on the list (because his comment was completely out of line), but I would put Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson closer to the top.

Stop the racism. Fight the smears.

by CrazyDrumGuy on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition (2.00 / 7)

Actually the most offensive statement I heard all through the primary season was Tucker Carlson's.

The castrated crap , it made me really livid.

However Carlson's statement symbolized and crystallized the crap NBC/MSNBC had become.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:00:42 AM EST

Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition (2.00 / 1)

I was rather fond of Rush's "Barack the Magic Negro" song myself.

by Whash on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:04:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is pretty sad to see that NBC/MSNBC had been (2.00 / 3)

nominated. I would have expected this from Fox News and Murdoch's News Media Corp. But Mr Jeffery Immelt: Sir what's happening to your Zucker's organization? Are you hearing not back from us?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Flame suit on. (2.00 / 2)

A lost of that stuff isnt sexist at all. Yes, clearly some of it is, there is no doubt, but much of it is not and you only take it as sexist because it was against a woman. I dont mind when people call out sexism, that is a good thing, but i think "just because its a woman" should not be a catch all for sexist remarks.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:05:55 AM EST

Great, please point out the ones where NOW (2.00 / 4)

went wrong?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

One easy example is Jack Cafferty (2.00 / 1)

He says, in what was clearly a non serious joke that "She says that she will debate him any place at any time, adding that it could even be done on the back of a flat-bed truck. He would probably prefer to run over her with a flat-bed truck at this point."

There is nothing sexist there, its dumb to say it, but not sexist. I fear that if it becomes what some people use it as, a catch all, it loses all meaning.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's put Mr Cafferty's statement in context of (2.00 / 5)

in a country where 1400 women die each year (4 women everyday) as a result of domestic violence, 572,000 women officially report battery/physical assaults et al. Suddenly Mr. Cafferty doesn't that innocuous anymore..

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats .html

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay (2.00 / 4)

Its still not sexist. Thats like listing the number of black people killed and saying anything said against black people is racist. Its wrong and BS.

I sympathize with the feelings of misogyny, but throwing the word sexist around this lightly cheapens what it means.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I don't think you understand the meaning (2.00 / 4)

of sexism...

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:24:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, I do. (2.00 / 3)

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

I dunno, maybe you have a different meaning then I do. I am saying there are things on that list that are not sexism, NOWs only reason for putting them there is because it was against Hillary.

If the list only included things that were actual sexism, like the guy talking about breasts in Congress, the list would be legit, as it stands, it hardly is.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, you and NOW are making the word (none / 0)

meaningless by needlessly trivializing it for political payback.

by Dumbo on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you and NOW are making the word (2.00 / 2)

political payback, why, whatever would give you that impression other than putting unabashed Obama-advocate Olbermann at the top of the list?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you and NOW are making the word (2.00 / 2)

because he was supposed to be on the side that decried BOTH sexism and racism yet then turned to sexist BS for ratings or partisan opportunism? maybe a bit of feeling betrayed went into it?

by zerosumgame on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you and NOW are making the word (2.00 / 2)

oh, baloney. He made one comment, which he then apologized for. Contrast this with so many of the other clowns on that list who made far more frequent and deliberately sexist remarks against Clinton and never looked back.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you and NOW are making the word (2.00 / 2)

Olbermann has a long and documented history of sexist and misogynist behavior on his broadcast show, and his sexism is hardly limited to Hillary Clinton. Here is a litany from a year and a half ago.

Olbermann has a nasty habit of making sexist, derogatory statements about female celebrities. The things he's said are shameful and should never have been uttered, let alone on television.

His sexist history extends back to his career as a sportscaster. So no, his comment about beating Hillary Clinton in a back room is not an isolated incident.

by souvarine on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For a male media person to call for a violence (2.00 / 6)

against a woman is misogynistic. Plain and simple. Good Sire, you're completely out of bounds here.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For a male media person to call for a violence (none / 0)

He didn't call for violence against her.

by Whash on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You say he didn't ...Only it was (2.00 / 3)

In a discussion about how Clinton should drop out of the Democratic race, Newsweek's Howard Fineman suggested that someone in the party needed to step in and "stop this thing," to which MSNBC's Keith Olbermann replied "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

And what is left unsaid?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ok (2.00 / 3)

That doesn't make it sexist.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More political payback. (2.00 / 2)

If Olbermann had said, for instance, about Bill Clinton:

"Right. Some guy who can take Bill into a room and only he comes out.""

A very rude thing to say, but it wouldn't be anti-male. Yet, because we are talking about a woman candidate, you are saying it is sexist.

It seems to me that the trip-wire is set too sensitive. There is real sexism in this country, but unless you are saying that Olbermann meant that Hillary should be physically beaten because she's a woman, then this accusation is far-fetched and only trivializes the meaning of the word sexist.

This is all just part of a payback gimmick against people that opposed Hillary for president. It does trivialize sexism.

(I can just cut and paste this boilerplate comment, this matter is so trivial.)

It especially angers me, in this case, though, because Olbermann is a fucking progressive hero.

by Dumbo on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:22:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More political payback. (2.00 / 1)

As I have stated before, this is why us progressives aren't allowed nice things. We overreact to something like the Olbermann comment and do major damage to the extremely slight progress we make getting a progressive voice in the media.

Just look at Olbermann. He's fighting the entire right wing media establishment. Now we have a bunch of Clinton deadenders going after him for a comment that in no way shape or form sexist. You can think it was a stupid comment, but it's not sexist. If you plug in anyone else's name it's still the same comment, gender is irrelevant to the comment.

by tqdmcgee on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For a male media person to call for a violence (2.00 / 4)

Wrong, that is crying wolf, nothing more.

Mysogeny-hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Please understand, I am against sexism, but I am also against false accusations.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look I've already checked out your other comments (2.00 / 3)

in other diaries..and I'm not impressed. Try something else.
And no you don't understand..Sorry..

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:32:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok (2.00 / 2)

By your standards? I am clearly the biggest sexist pig to walk the earth, my mother ans grandmother would be ashamed of me.

Now back in the real world, I am no sexist, because anything said not in a positive light about a female does not make said comment sexist. You do your cause a great disservice.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody called you anything..What you're (1.71 / 7)

doing is plain calling hijacking a diary..Good luck..my advise again.. try something else.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody called you anything..What you're (2.00 / 1)

He's not hijacking this diary. He is disputing the inclusion of certain people on a list of sexism offenders. That is hardly off-topic.

PS uprated for ratings abuse.

Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

by unspeakable on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (2.00 / 2)

Fir a male to call for violence against a female
is sexist? Really? Always?

No matter who the male and female are?
Or what the context is?

As a female I find this demeaning - I can stand
my own & don't need the "defence" of my gender.

by lolo08 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a reach (2.00 / 5)

It was a stupid and mean statement for the violence it inferred. Stupider even than the "throw under the bus" phrase that gets far too much play this season.

Yes, there is much violence directed at women in this country. Yes, Jack Cafferty made a comment that unwisely used a violent image in making an observation. Does that mean his comment was thus inherently sexist? No. That's a logical fallacy. It was just stupid and mean-spirited, but not sexist.

I suspect he might have said the same thing if the two candidates he was discussing were male. Or, had the circumstances been reversed, he might have switched their places.

There's a lot of ugliness on that list. This one's a reach, though.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:30:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am really fucking sick of Jack Cafferty (2.00 / 5)

he still has nothing nice to say about the Clintons, and puts them down every day of the week. There is no counter balance to him. Sadly, all the other networks are even worse.

by Lakrosse on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great, please point out the ones where NOW (2.00 / 6)

You can't win this with them, it's the Clinton standard. Joking about violence against a woman is sexist. Joking about violence against Barack Obama is racist (see: Huckabee, NRA, chair). Joking about violence against Hilary Clinton is not sexist because, apparently, she is not inherently a woman.

by souvarine on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm surprised..but then why am I not? (2.00 / 2)

I'm sorry to see this though...

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition (2.00 / 4)

I guess some people will disagree with me, but I don't think that Olbermann's remark was sexist, if it is the one that I'm thinking of. A corny analogy perhaps, but certainly not sexist.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:12:59 AM EST

Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition (2.00 / 4)

This is another obvious one. Deeper in when it refers to Olberman again in reference to Katie Couric is also BS. I watched that show, he called her worst person for being a bad journalist. Had nothing to do with sexism.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Corny? That's really the understand of the year... (2.00 / 1)

Good luck..

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:22:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the (2.00 / 4)

Well, maybe you can explain it to me then. If McCain and Romney were in an electoral stalemate with a few months to go, though it was clear that McCain would end the primaries with more delegates, and Olbermann had then said, "Maybe RNC officials should take Romney into the back - two people go, one person leaves" - would that be anti-Mormon? Anti-middle-aged guy?

It was a snarky Mafia allusion directed at Clinton, but not every snarky comment is sexist.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the (2.00 / 4)

Two men duking it out to work out differences between is one thing in our society. Hell in the movies, they sometimes even bond over such a thing. The image of a man and woman in an actually physical altercation brings an entirely different image to mind. As most women are still considered physically weaker than most women (although this may be changing, go Starbuck) the fact is that the thought of some guy taking Hillary into a back room and leaving her there... Is so horrifying and disgusting, it leaves me beyond speech.

If this image does not help you get it, put your girlfriend, mother, sister or any woman you care about into this image. if you don't get it by then... Well, perhaps you should ask your mother, sister, wife, or girlfriend and perhaps they will explain it better.

"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the (2.00 / 6)

Oh. I should have previewed that better. Darn you louisprandt for writing such an excellant diary and keeping me up so late ;-). No really it a wonderful diary, thank you!

Now one more time:

Two men duking it out to work out differences between them is one thing in our society. Hell, in the movies, the men sometimes even bond over such a thing. The image of a man and woman in an actual physical altercation brings an entirely different image to mind. As most women are still considered physically weaker than most men (although this may be changing, go Starbuck) the fact is that the thought of some guy taking Hillary into a back room and leaving her there... Is so horrifying and disgusting, it leaves me beyond speech.

If this image does not help you get it, put your girlfriend, mother, sister, or any woman you care about into this image. If you don't get it by then... Well, perhaps you should ask your mother, sister, wife, or girlfriend and perhaps they will explain it better.

"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Corny? That's really the understand of the (2.00 / 2)

That doesn't make it sexist unless she was attacked because she was a woman. Violence on its own is violence.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:08:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brandon (2.00 / 4)

everything is in the context of history.

Because of HISTORY, using the word "lynching" with African Americans is unacceptable and yes it is "racist". I grew up in a time when the words "lynch mob" had an acceptable connotation for whites and thus could be used: eg....a white boss in an all white workplace could say "if we don't get this done by such and such time, the higher ups we'll send a lynch mob after us..." Why? We heard that term associated with westerns all the time...
No one would blink....but if one said that about an African American employee...DIFFERENT. It just is.

Because of HISTORY, because beating women was acceptable, and often ignored by the authorities and in some place accepted as the "right of husbands and fathers and brothers", violence against women has a different history.
Taking a woman out to the back to punish her for some behavior unaccepted by the men of the society and her not coming back happened. And people/families were silent about it. In fact, in some parts of the world, it still happens. A woman can be taken out, beaten, shot, killed and nothing happens.

Women of a certain age and those who know the history of women and the current plight of many women in other parts of the world, are quite sensitive to remarks that perhaps some of you just don't see as a big deal. It is a big deal.

by Jjc2008 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:54:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your last statement is unfortunately has (2.00 / 1)

the timelessness, cutting across all geographical boundary aspect to it. Unfortunately folks like Olbermann or Cafferty or others still don't get it.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So according to you Keith Olbermann is being (2.00 / 2)

corny when he is insinuating violence against Clinton? Am I reading you correctly?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So according to you Keith Olbermann is being (none / 0)

See my comment above.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you cannot understand the allusion of violent (2.00 / 2)

imagery against women being misogynistic or sexist, there's little to discuss..

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you cannot understand the allusion of viole (2.00 / 3)

Violent imagery of women isn't sexist, violent imagery of women because they're women is sexist.

by Whash on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you cannot understand the allusion (2.00 / 2)

If you cannot understand that the comment works for anyone in Clinton's electoral circumstance at that point in time, then there is nothing to discuss. Is your position that the statement would be acceptable as applied to any candidate but Clinton?

A sexist comment is one directed at someone because of their gender. You're stating that the comment is sexist because it was directed at Clinton, who just happens to be female. That is a different situation.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I thinking you're suffering from Clinton (2.00 / 4)

fatigue. White males sitting around in mainstream media making up allusions of violence against the a woman running for Presidency..now that doesn't make it sexist? What does? Are you seriously kidding me?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:41:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton (2.00 / 3)

Look, don't put words in my mouth. I see a lot of comments on that list that are abhorrent. However, I do think it weakens the entire list when #1 seems to be nothing more than a snarky comment. Again, where is the gender-based animus? It was a statement directed at Sen. Clinton, who happens to be a woman, not a statement directed at Sen. Clinton because she is a woman.

As an analogy, Huckabee also made a joke at an NRA convention about someone shooting Obama. Was it in poor taste? Yes, I think so. Was it racist? No, probably not. I haven't seen any evidence that Huckabee made the joke because Obama was black.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would let you read Joan Walsh in her words.. (2.00 / 2)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/elect ion_2008/2008/04/25/olbermann_apologizes /

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton (2.00 / 2)

I'll give you credit for consistency, at the time you also tried to walk back Obama supporters outrage over Clinton's recollection of the RFK campaign.

by souvarine on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton (2.00 / 3)

That was Dumb with a capital D. The problem is that few people think rationally in the thick of battle.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

3 reasons I think you are wrong (2.00 / 3)

1. I was completely horrified when Huckabee made that statement about Obama and yeah I kinda think it was racist. And if it isn't, it certainly appeals to a certain type of person. Oh and I was mortified when Hillary made the RFK assassination comment (twice). That was really stupid.

2. Advocating violence against anyone is wrong. Advocating violence against a presidential candidate is wrong. I was born eight days after JFK was killed. I remember the shock and horror of the murders of RFK and MLK. We should never joke about such things.

3. I do not remember the MSM suggesting violent imagery in the context of other presidential candidates. I may be wrong here, but I would think I would remember something like that.

Oh hell, one more...

4. Jack Cafferty and most of the other names on the list a complete tools.

G'night everyone. Go to bed and maybe you won't be so crabby...

"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:06:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to agree with you.. (2.00 / 1)

1) The assassination comments are insane. At one point last year there was an underlying current of fear in the African American community that Obama would be assassinated if he is elected President. This was because of the historical nature of overt racism in this country and ongoing latent racism.
2-4) I would let your comments speak loudly for themselves..
yes it is time to go to sleep..

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to agree with you.. (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, my mother (68) and a lot of other people who lived through that time are really terrified that he is going to be harmed. Personally, I want a Star Trek type forcefield placed around him to protect him. I also say a prayer for him and put tobacco out whenever I worry.

"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thinking you're suffering from Clinton (2.00 / 3)

It's only sexist if it's being done because of her gender.

You can't let a general distaste for and rejection of violence (both real and metaphorical) get mixed up with a rejection of sexism and misogyny. Many of these phrases and images are perfectly common things used throughout politics and life. They're used when talking about people of both genders.

If you want to criticize the media (and our culture in general) for using these sorts of violent images, please do so. But to insist that they are or become sexist only once applied to a woman misses the mark.

by Whash on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:52:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty (2.00 / 2)

used the same analogy of violence against any male candidate?

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:00:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty (1.87 / 8)

Offhand, I'd say, yes, they probably have, and for years, since violent metaphors and images are part of the cultural lexicon. Our political language is strongly inflected with violence: consider the "war rooms" and "war chests" of the camps and the incessant "battle" imagery of a campaign. During the primary season, "heads rolled," people were "thrown under the bus" (and sometimes backed over repeatedly), candidates "took a beating," "weathered attacks," "returned fire," and so on.

So if Cafferty and/or Olbermann did make allusions to violence, they probably went unremarked upon because beyond being juvenile and dumb, nobody would actually believe there was actual violence being advocated or even alluded to.

Personally, I don't like any of it. It turns something as important as an election into a cross between Monday Night Football and the Military Channel, amplifying and exacerbating conflict instead of highlighting and celebrating the exchange of ideas.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty (2.00 / 4)

I'm sorry but I've faithfully watched Olbermann's Countdown over the years till his comments in April. I have never heard him using violent metaphors against any male candidate for Presidency. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope you read Hollede's comments above thread. There is a significant difference in our society when a man uses violent imagery to describe an interaction with woman than with a man. Given the repeated incidents of violence against women in our society, why such violent imagery against women are cited as sexism/miso especially when coming from male (white) mediapersons who actually dominate the industry.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty (2.00 / 5)

My point is that, even though you've watched him for years, you may simply have not noticed. Metaphors of violence are endemic in our political discourse, are used routinely to describe power dynamics, and are part of nearly every political conversation we have. Between male competitors, it's practically reflexive to talk about them "bloodying each other" and "throwing knockout punches," etc.

But as you apparently agree, it's significantly different when women are in the picture. Our ears prick up upon hearing an aggressive or violent metaphor used in reference to mixed gender competitions.

But should we? Or does that itself bespeak the kind of bias we want to eradicate? What if we just found another way to talk about competition, one that didn't amplify the aggression, and provided a less charged vocabulary in which to express differences?

I believe that too many commentators this cycle fell into their usual habit of using violent imagery to describe poltical developments in the campaign. But had there not been a woman in the race, I doubt anyone would have been decrying it, or even noticing it. Even so, only a few examples are being pulled out of a campaign season rife with the usual violent analogies.

On a slightly different topic, I wish NOW would do some research into local, state, and gubernatorial races, and find out the degree to which sexism was evident in the coverage of woman candidates at that level. If we're really interested in learning something here about gender relations, we should try to avoid using only Hillary Clinton examples, and examine the impact on women aspirants across the board.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok ..great...did Olbermann or Cafferty (2.00 / 3)

Your last point is a great one. It can't be the case that sexism only rears its head every four years. Moreover, if there is a media bias affecting state and local races, then fewer women will be able to reach the national stage and compete for the presidency in the first place.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:50:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you make good points..however it pricks our (2.00 / 4)

ears to use your analogy because of the history of violence against women in our society. I'm not sure what is your objection of HRC examples, although all I did was to highlight NOW's examples. Given the historical nature of HRC's candidacy and the fresh memory of it, you would more of her examples. When Shirley Chilsohm ran for Presidency in '72, she did make a point that she faced more sexism than racism. So did Pat Schroeder..et al.

About NOW, you have touched a nerve about one of my pet peeves. Hence your comments are rec'ed.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm uprating your comment because (2.00 / 5)

somebody troll rated your comment which is totally uncalled for. Somebody troll rated me above. It is getting very close to troll rating abuse.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm uprating your comment because (none / 0)

troll rating is abused here, I think its just something I am getting accustomed too.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I on principle don't troll rate anybody (2.00 / 1)

I'm a firm believer on self responsibility and restraint. I do call out folks in the threads if I feel they did something wrong, hoping they will understand and rectify their words.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

just to be clear..doesn't mean that I've (none / 0)

been always right or haven't written something that I didn't regret later..

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry..it should be the understatement of the year (2.00 / 1)

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:23:10 AM EST

Re: NOW's Media Hall of Shame 2008 Edition (none / 0)

Phew!

Glad I'm not on it!

by Bush Bites on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:52:48 AM EST

I do understand the urge of some to defend (2.00 / 2)

likes of Olbermann by minimizing what they did or said. Likes of Rachel Sklar and Joan Walsh called him out on this incident.

Rachel Sklar is my hero today for this blog post calling out Keith Olbermann for his vivid, seemingly violent comment about how to get Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic primary race on Wednesday night. (In case you missed it: Howard Fineman suggested that some unnamed super superdelegate was going to have to find a way to persuade her, and Olbermann answered: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out." Video here.)

Today, Olbermann apologized. "It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic 'he' gender could imply something untoward," Olbermann said, in a statement MSNBC spokesperson Alana Russo forwarded me a few minutes ago. "It should've been 'only the other comes out -- from a political point of view.'" Reading Sklar this morning I realized I pulled my punches (no pun intended) when I wrote about it that night. But it was tacked on to the end of a blog post that I had written carefully, to be fair to both sides of this split-almost-perfectly-down-the-middle Democratic race, and I didn't want to risk being shrill. I want to be one of the people who, at the end of this race, facilitates Democrats coming together. I like and admire both Clinton and Obama. I strive for balance in our coverage and in my personal blog posts.

But I admit I get pulled sharply off balance by the nauseating sexism that has pervaded Clinton's coverage, and it happened again Wednesday night. Even though I've gotten used to Olbermann's unfair coverage of Clinton, I winced at his remark. So I just wrote up a quick "note" about it and tacked it onto a post I'd just completed. Honestly, I would differ a bit with Sklar's headline: I don't think, as she put it, his idea for beating Hillary was "literally beating Hillary." Not literally. But the figurative Hillary bashing, and the creepy tone of violence, did cross a line, and I should have been stronger about it. A reader called me on it this morning, and s/he is right. I apologize for wimping out. I've been thinking a lot about why. Some of it is just being weary of the "Sexism is worse! No, racism is worse!" argument. Some of it is just me.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/elect ion_2008/2008/04/25/olbermann_apologizes /

When women media personnels and women organizations are calling something misogynistic or sexist, it is pretty ludicrous in my opinion to continue to defend the indefensible.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:55:37 AM EST

BS (2.00 / 2)

There is nothing sexist, and just because a self Identified Clinton supporter has the same warped view of sexism you do doesn't make it so. And the fact that she is a women adds no more credibility then if it were a man. If he said the remarks BECAUSE she was a women it would be sexist, he said it and she happens to be a women is not.

If your official stance is anything said that is not positive about a person that happens to be a woman is sexism, you have a warped vision of what sexism and misogyny is.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:02:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (2.00 / 5)

Brandon, I think you really need to tone it down. There is no need for insults on an already heated issue where there are a number of different viewpoints. Don't insult the diarist.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:13:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

The warped comment was over the line, and I apologize. The central theme of the post stands though, just because something is towards a woman doesn't make it sexist. If it was said because she was a women, I would agree.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please do not include personal attacks in (2.00 / 2)

your comments. Thank you.

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (2.00 / 1)

I think the big issue is that you can't really know if it was because she is a woman or because she is running against Olbermann's (and my) favored candidate. It could very easily not be sexist, but it certainly looks suspicious in the context of everything else that has gone on this cycle.

by ProgressiveDL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 5)

Since my friends here want to make a point. Let us revisit what happened. HuffingtonPost not really a Hillary friendly territory posted this commentary from Sklar:

There are two kinds of people in the world: People who think there's an ugly strain of misogyny running through Hillary Clinton's media coverage, and people who think she's just not very likable and deserves it for running such a mean campaign and is ruining the Democratic party and has an annoying laugh and should just shut up and get out of the race already. Regular readers of this column won't be surprised to learn that I fall into the former category, having cataloged a fair number of examples here, but I'd think that even if I agreed with the second part I'd still agree with the first, because her coverage is just that bad. I am not going to run through it now -- if you're interested, there are 83 specific examples documented here -- but I am going to offer up an unbelievable statement made by Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night's show as proof.

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take "some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this."

Said Olbermann: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

Watch it:

What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out. At minimum. We know this. We know this because we have all seen movies where people are invited into private places to have "discussions" and the unruly party is, um, dealt with accordingly. It's an unmistakably violent image.

Do I really think Olbermann thinks Hillary Clinton should really be violently beaten to the point of physical incapacitation, or worse? No, though some have taken that statement to its logical conclusion. But it is an unmistakably violent image -- and that point seems to be undisputed by those who have written about it so far (Google "Olbermann" and "take her into a room" and you'll see results like "Keith Olbermann Advocates Violence Against Hillary" "Olbermann: Misogyny 101" "Calls To End Race Turn Violent""Olbermann: How To Snuff Out Hillary Clinton"). Even Fineman seemed taken aback by the statement - there is a distinct pause after, and it's an eternity in TV time. He's not facing the camera but you can tell that the statement was jarring. (Even so he agreed, saying, "Yes, yes exactly.")

There really seems to be only one interpretation here, and the only point of debate is on whether it's okay or not. I'm going to cut that one short: It's not. To the fellow (male) journo I wrote to about this yesterday, who waved it off as just some colorful film-noir imagery, I say: can you IMAGINE if someone had said that about Obama? That he should be taken somewhere and dealt with, so that he wouldn't come back? Can you imagine if some right-winger had talked about getting Obama out of the race "the old-fashioned way?" If that last one makes you cringe, it should, because it evokes a history of violence against black people in this country that is raw and real. Well, frankly, the same goes for women -- many of whom have been taken somewhere private, and never returned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25 /keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:04:39 AM EST

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 2)

To be fair, in the Salon article you cited, Walsh disagrees with Sklar's literalist interpretation. But, this is counterproductive. I agree with the majority of the list and it's unfair to waste more space on this one point.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:12:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

I fully admitted there was Sexism in the coverage, nowhere did i deny that. I simply pointed out that some of the items listed as proof were in fact not sexism at all. We both agree there was an ugly amount of sexism, but i just believe they are using things that aren't sexist, while they might talk about metaphorical violence, that is in itself not sexist. If you could, supply me with your definition of sexism, if it differs from the one I know.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 3)

For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

That means that comments that are specifically meant to harm a woman's (Hillary's) chances of becoming President are very likely to fall under that category. It doesn't have to be oppressing her "because she is a woman" to still be oppressing her. Olbermann's opinion of Hillary is entirely based on personality, not policy positions. Now, that might mean he thinks she is too old, or he doesn't like the Clintons' habit of holding a grudge, or it could be that he just doesn't like her because she isn't Obama. But it could also be that (consciously or otherwise) he doesn't respect her because she's a woman.

by ProgressiveDL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 4)

you mean like this? (note the byline)

or this?

or how's about this?

it always blows my mind when 'progressives' stand up for a
guy that has a history of inappropriate comments about women.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

These would have been better examples, because they were actual sexism. That is the point of my contention, some of the examples given in the NOW list were not. These were not listed though, and that were listed were not sexist in the least. If these were the examples, I would not have had to speak up at all, but they were not.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 4)

i dont think you want to argue over each specific example with regards to what is or isnt sexist right? but someone upthread (maybe was it you?) said (and in fact people keep defending him) KO's remarks were not sexist.

sorry but i disagree. in context of his history, bringing up analogies where a woman and a man go somewhere out of sight and only HE comes out brings to mind horrific and violent imagery.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

Like I said somewhere else in this thread, by your usage of the word, it means nothing, because everything is sexism just because you say it is. I wish I had the audacity to use race like this, but my mother would be ashamed of me.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 3)

i have no idea what you mean.

but clearly you are as they say 'an immovable object.' and i think its a bit strange that when a group of women (and men) tell you that they perceive something as sexist - you keep arguing with them and telling them they are wrong (and have audacity?). strange indeed.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

I am done. I think I'll take my sister out somewhere today and find out if this outlandish victim mentality is affecting 15 year old girls as well. Good luck fighting sexism, whatever it now means.

"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"

by Brandon on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks! (2.00 / 4)

us progressives will.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (1.50 / 2)

For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

Women or woman?

Oppress or not elect?

I was at an Uno's last week. My girlfriend and I got a waitress who introduced herself as a Russian exchange student and that it was her first day. She couldn't understand our order and we saw the manager have to go to every table around us as the night went on. Sure enough, she was not able to do the job, not understanding the concept of appetizer (apparently thinking the two of us wanted to share mozzarella sticks for our main course), had to watch us point to what we wanted and write down each letter and making several errors on our bill including triple billing us for my girlfriend's main course.

Of course this was a point of conversation. Someone should have been shadowing the waitress we agreed.

Now, were those comments sexist? Was not shadowing the waitress sexist? What about when my girlfriend said the manager (a man) should come over and put the waitress "out of her misery"?

If the comments about an individual would be made regardless of gender, it can't be sexist by definition. There are thousands of examples of violent/combative imagery in politics and its used every time talking heads are on the air, and generally in blog posts as well. The same thing occurs in sports (Team A destroyed Team B), business (Company A had a killer quarter, Company B is getting choked by a supply problem) and entertainment (box office smash, a CD blowing up). Trying to portray half of what NOW is trying to portray as sexist, especially when a metaphor is used that involves violence is called sexist simply because one of the people is a woman, is crying wolf.

McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.

by PantsB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

I agree that not everything on the NOW list is specifically sexist, though it probably does hurt women in the long run. More to the point, your comments about your waitress may not have been based on the fact that she is a woman, but I doubt you would use the language "put them out of their misery" for a male waiter. It's just not the way we tend to talk about men. It's the way society is.

by ProgressiveDL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

but I doubt you would use the language "put them out of their misery" for a male waiter. It's just not the way we tend to talk about men. It's the way society is.

Bullshit.

A Google search for "put him out of his misery" results in 3x as many results as "put her out of her misery". For instance on the first page,
Barry Obama Urges Staff to Put Him Out of His Misery(Wonkette). Google search results can vary but a majority of the first page for the male pronoun use is the metaphorical use, while the opposite is true with the female pronoun use (relating to a very ill or wounded person or animal who was female).

If I go to Google News, the male pronouns result in the following usage - pets(5x), a literal meaning, "They need to waive first baseman Sexson, put him out of his misery", "Three successive Test ducks in Sri Lanka before Christmas were followed by a gruesome 23 in a one-dayer in Hamilton, at which point the selectors put him out of his misery."(cricket),
and "So buy the poor guy a GPS unit and put him out of his misery, right?". Female pronoun use was less prevalent but similar minus the pet use - 2x literal, 3x sports.

People do use that kind of language with men. When my girlfriend (a successful Ivy League educated professional) said it, it was not because of her gender, sexism or to advocate violence against women but because of the waitress's performance.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that makes people dismiss real cases of prejudice and discrimination. Crying Wolf by claiming sexism on any criticism of an individual female for attributes other than her gender trivializes actual sexism or misogyny. Half of the list in this diary is sexist/misogynist. Half of it is not. The non-sexism discredits the legitimate claims of sexism and makes those complaining (and therefore their complaints) appear unreasonable.

McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.

by PantsB on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (none / 0)

I agree that it is a problem calling something non-sexist sexist. And I will concede your point about the language of "putting them out of their misery." Maybe I just only notice it when it refers to women?

by ProgressiveDL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rachel Sklar on Olbermann incident.. (2.00 / 2)

'For me, anything that actively or passively works to oppress women (comments, descriptions, actions) is sexist.

That means that comments that are specifically meant to harm a woman's (Hillary's) chances of becoming President are very likely to fall under that category."

This seems to expand the definition of sexism to the point where it becomes meaningless. Do you really think that all of the other candidates in the primaries, simply by running against Hillary Clinton, are sexist? Do you really think that the majority of democratic voters, simply by voting for some other candidate, are sexist? Is Hillary Clinton a sexist because she made terrible mistakes in her campaign that lost her the nomination? The answer to all of these, fairly obviously, is "no". By "crying wolf" you're training people to discount claims of sexism, undermining the case of all women that are suffering real sexism.

There are clear examples of sexism related to Hillary Clinton - about half of the examples on the list are very clear and indefensible examples of sexism. I'd suggest that it's better for to use the charge of sexism as rarely as possible, so that it retains its power.

by laird on