Journalists Want a Male President So They Block Women Candidates

My theory is that the main reason the press was unfair to Hillary Clinton's and McPalin's presidential bid was because they feared woman leadership would emasculate men. Although there are individual journalists who support women's equality, the press is very male-dominated so they promote a male-centric worldview. Also because the press is overwhelmingly male-dominated, women journalists are under tremendous pressure to conform to the male-domination world view. And unfortunately, some of them have been persuaded that male dominance is the best thing to happen because for years they have been constantly barraged by the male supremacy in their workplace and this has convinced them that they are inferior to men.

An example of the press's adoration of machismo is their support of George W. Bush. Bush had set himself up as a man's man and the press strongly supported him against Gore who was not seen as macho. The male-dominated press strongly supported Bush's military strategies partly because they saw him as representing men and they wanted to support a man doing "manly" things like going to war. Paul Krugman of the NY Times, whose columns supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries, said he spoke to a lot of people who supported Bush's military policies because they admired his machismo:

Remember how the Iraq war was sold. The stuff about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds was just window dressing. The main political argument was, "They attacked us, and we're going to strike back" -- and anyone who tried to point out that Saddam and Osama weren't the same person was an effete [infertile] snob...

Let's also not forget that for years President Bush was the center of a cult of personality that lionized him...

Bear in mind that members of the political and media elites were more pro-war than the public at large in the fall of 2002, even though the flimsiness of the case for invading Iraq should have been even more obvious to those paying close attention to the issue than it was to the average voter.

Why were the elite so hawkish? Well, I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly -- that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy ( n/08krugman.html?em).

I don't agree with everything Krugman says, but he deftly shows that the press supported Bush's military strategy primarily because it was macho. They supported machismo. When Bush was revealed as not being able to lead armies successfully (at least during the short-term), this was a huge blow to the male-dominated press. Partly because they had so strongly supported him. But I think a large part of their disappointment was that Bush represented manliness and so his failure made men look bad. So then when a woman (HRC) arrived on the scene to fix the problem that made insecure men feel more emasculated. If a woman won the presidency and fixed the nation's problems created by the Bush machismo, then there would be even less admiration for macho presidency.

That could be a clue to why the media became fervent supporters of Obama, destroying their journalistic integrity to do anything possible to help him win. My theory: the media sought a different kind of man to replace the macho Bush. Since machismo had failed, they now sought a sort of father figure/preacher type of man represented by Obama. They lauded him for his preaching (a very male-dominated profession). They saw him as salvaging the masculine image and this is one of the reasons why it was so important to them that he beat a woman, any woman, who dared to imply that a woman could lead better than a man. Having seen a macho man fail at war, they then turned to a different type of man to resurrect the ideal of male dominance. Again, this is a main reason why they hate Palin so much because she is promoting female leadership which is a threat to the insecure men's fragile egos.

I believe sexism is at the root of the extreme media prejudice we have witnessed this election season. Both men and women protect men's egos. I believe some journalist women were complicit in protecting the image of male dominance perhaps because they feared their own power or felt sorry for men's embarrassment.

I found out that the men's magazine Esquire is promoting Obama. I briefly read their editorial which it's not worth my time to post here because they say a lot of false things about McCain and Palin. It's the first time this male-centric magazine has endorsed a candidate which supports my theory that the male-centric media is going to extreme measures this year to puff up their egos, trying desperately to prevent women from achieving political power because it would harm their fragile egos. I believe the male-dominated media is very threatened by a ticket with a woman hence why they viciously attacked the HRC and McCain/Palin campaigns.

I also believe that the essence of our nation's current problems is attachment to male-dominance. Hundreds of years of male dominance of government has created a bad vibe. This problem can only be solved be female power at the top. That's why the most exciting people during this election were women candidates, from my observation, because HRC and Palin provided something that was lacking and people were excited that there was going to be a big change ushering a new era of women's leadership.

However, the DNC blocked Senator Clinton from getting the nomination even though she got the most votes. So a lot of people were frustrated that they did not get the chance to vote for a woman presidential candidate in order to break down the patriarchy. And McPalin was a lot more McCain than Palin because McCain ultimately would make the vast majority of decisions as president. So, although people were excited about Gov. Palin the leader, they were not so interested in Gov. Palin the follower because they didn't think that a woman would create great feminist transformation as a follower.

Alas, we wait and wait and wait for the female leadership that will finally end the horrors of patriarchy. Until then we must fill government with more women at all levels till we achieve the 50% mark. And the next presidential election is just around the corner.

Tags: feminism journalism sexism (all tags)



Re: Whatever

Didn't read a word of it.

by QTG 2008-11-05 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever

I can't blame you - it is a little wordy, but I'll just give you the most important part:

a 2150 dadlf shg;  dag;lh 0 l2kalg hshdf!2 dhga0 !.a s0gla  as;lgdkh;n
8eincnca;e eihg;liw hgkks;a


by Jess81 2008-11-05 02:00PM | 0 recs
Another way to combine random numbers and letters:


by Dumbo 2008-11-05 03:06PM | 0 recs
Journalists didn't decide my vote

I did.

you insult every voter, when you assume we can't make up our own minds, but you can.

by TruthMatters 2008-11-05 08:54AM | 0 recs

How DARE you use the names Hillary Clinton and Sarah "hate stoking, America hating, right-wing nutjob" Palin in equvalency terms?  Shame on you.  

The reason Palin was rejected is not that she is a woman, but that she is an extreme right-winger.  Conservatism is dead in America outside of some pockets of the country, notibably the state from which Russia can be seen from people's rooftops.  Maybe someone should have sent you that memo:  CONSERVATISM IS DEAD in AMERICA.  Thus, Palin does not work for the country.  PERIOD.  

by devilrays 2008-11-05 08:54AM | 0 recs
Sigh ... n/t

by jsfox 2008-11-05 08:58AM | 0 recs

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill

Hey Nancy I asked you yesterday to educate us on a fine governor Kathleen Sebellius but I guess since you are not a real feminist you don't know anything about her

well I want to see a diary  on senator McCaskill from you ...that is your homework assignment Missy  and it due by the end of the day  

by wellinformed 2008-11-05 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Journalists Want a Male President So They Bloc

Hey, Nancy's back with more whining.

Let me guess.  

Blah blah blah


blah blah blah

Clinton won and they stole it for the MAn

blah blah blah


by ihaveSTILLseenenough 2008-11-05 09:17AM | 0 recs

My theory is that the main reason the press was unfair to Hillary Clinton's and McPalin's presidential bid was because they feared woman leadership would emasculate men.

My theory is that you've spent the last five days grinding up Halloween candy and snorting it.

Mine is more sound than yours.

by fogiv 2008-11-05 09:29AM | 0 recs

Just wow.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-05 09:33AM | 0 recs
Nancy is Right!

I'm making a few assumptions here since I didn't actually read the whole thing.  (It used to be fun but the Nancy Novelty just wore off in recent days.)  However I feel that I can posit an appropriate response without actually studying Nancy's typed-up words.  In fact, there's a pretty good chance that my response will be even more appropriate this way.

Yes Nancy, last night was nothing more than the final step to mock, belittle, and be all sexist toward Sarah Pain, GWP.  It is time to admit what you've known all along; that the bloggers (all of us on salary to the Obama campaign,) conspired with the MSM media elites and all male members of the DNC + Donna Brazille (who secretly does, as you surely suspect, have a penis of her own,) in order to bring about this corrupt piece of publicly staged misogyny.  For two years we have planned and plotted for this very night in order to show women what we really think.  The lights, the cameras, the crowds - they were all in on the plot.

There are now thousands of stories running throughout the MSM media elite and through the tubes of the blogs,  All those stories slamming Sarah (GWP) by simply noting the offensive gender of Barack Obama.  Millions of people around the world are soaking up the bile that we male people created, and those millions, as much as they talk about the election, and the candidate, never realize the only reason he was chosen to win in the first place: he's got balls!

by January 20 2008-11-05 09:36AM | 0 recs
Oh yeah, Donna Brazile.

I forgot to put her name in my list above of strong Democratic women who they hate.  

by Dumbo 2008-11-05 03:14PM | 0 recs
question Nancy

when are you gonna come to grips and join the party? are you gonna post stupid diaries whining about the Hillary lost in the primaries  for PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA's first term ?

I guess this is some form of therapy for you
well whenever you wake up we will be here waiting for you with Open arms

by wellinformed 2008-11-05 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's why

I don't agree with the tone of this diary, but the press is NOT dominated by women reporters and anchors.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-05 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I worked in the media

I did too. Women don't dominate that business. There are plenty of them for sure, but there's a ton of sexim in media, particularly broadcast media. Can you imagine a woman pushing 70, as Dan Rather was, still being a major network anchor? And we've got one woman (Maddow) with a fledging politcal talk show as to how many hosted by men?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-11-05 12:17PM | 0 recs
Oh, but they hate Maddow, too.

She's part of the same media that Nancy is complaining about.  Rachel Maddow is EVIL.  She used to be a regular on Keith Olbermann.

And they hate Oprah.  Oprah had to close down her blog for a while after she endorsed Obama because of the comments, some of them violent and rather racist.

So it's not anti-male, nor pro-woman.  It's just anti-anti-Hillary.  They'll be doing this for decades.  Fuck 'em.

by Dumbo 2008-11-05 03:11PM | 0 recs
Serious question

You use different words for all your posts, but the plot is always exactly the same.  Is there a class I can take somewhere to learn how to do this so quickly, like those classes on writing romance novels?

by username 2008-11-05 09:54AM | 0 recs
It's just a program.

N.A.N.C.Y is an AI program that can spin random yarns on any combination of input themes. Developed by a couple of geeks at MIT over an idle weekend, it now proliferates the blogosphere with repetitive rehashing of the same themes woven together with supportive text cut and pasted from other sites.

Most indicative of its identity is its inability to respond coherently or adapt to any response or to themes outside its programmed space. More recently, it has been observed to be incapable of responding at all.

Its creators believe that its potency is slowly fading with each occurrence, like bad xerox copies, and that it will eventually self-corrupt. Until then, the public is advised to ignore its recurrences.

by Sumo Vita 2008-11-05 07:41PM | 0 recs
Sorry to double-post, but...
This stuff's just too funny:
Alas, we wait and wait and wait for the female leadership that will finally end the horrors of patriarchy. Until then we must fill government with more women at all levels till we achieve the 50% mark. And the next presidential election is just around the corner.

You should write for the Onion or something.
by username 2008-11-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry to double-post, but...

One more question:  Is that 50% by weight, by volume, or by count?

One more:  Can the President disband media organizations?  If so, could we do that to Fox soonish?

Okay, I'll stop now...

by username 2008-11-05 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Journalists Want a Male President So

Your theories are really bad.

by rfahey22 2008-11-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Cutty-Pasty Game

Since you're so darned keen on the cutty-pastey posts, here's one for you.  Taken from Katherine Marsh's post in The New Republic.  I certainly recommend the whole post here: /default.aspx

Sarah Palin, who was clearly out of her depth and shamelessly allowed herself to be used as a token, may have singlehandedly reversed Clinton's feminist gains.

While we wait, we can take heart in the many ways in which an Obama administration will likely help women--from stopping the pro-life progression of the Supreme Court to reforming a health care system in which, as the NY Times recently reported, women are routinely charged higher premiums than men (despite the fact that they make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man). Obama, it's also worth noting, was raised and shaped largely by women--namely, his unconventional, highflying mother (I highly recommend David Maraniss's excellent profile of her and his resolute, grounded grandmother, who up until her death the day before this election seemed to serve as the candidate's emotional bedrock.  Despite his memoir's focus on his absent father, it's really women who made Obama who he is today.

But after this political season of big dreams and soaring possibilities for women, to be left with the old adage that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world doesn't quite feel like enough. The sense of sadness I feel over women's fortunes doesn't temper my enthusiasm for Obama, whom I've long supported on his merits. But it does make me hope that the women's movement can reinvent itself--balancing acknowledgment of the very real sexism that exists with standards and support systems that encourage women's achievement and confidence as people and not just their victimhood. And just as various generations of the civil rights movement have learned to find common cause despite their different conceptions of progress (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Sr. vs. Jesse Jackson, Jr.), the various waves of feminism need to stop sniping at each other and do the same. Obama has given a valuable blueprint for "others" of every stripe: You need to acknowledge what makes you different, but then run on the person you are. Only then, I think, will the hand that rocks the cradle also rock the vote--and rule the world.

Or you can just dump a whole bunch of crazy into teh internets.

by January 20 2008-11-05 12:16PM | 0 recs

You really are bat shit crazy aren't you?

Hillary Clinton will be the next Senate Majority Leader.

by Hollede 2008-11-05 12:24PM | 0 recs
Nancy can't stop whining.
You want to know what the difference is between you and a real feminist, Nancy?
A real feminist doesn't whine about prejudice and sexism (something many women deal with every day of their lives), they don't whine about how "The Man" is keeping them down, they figure out what they can do to fix it and move on to the next challenge.
You want to talk about leaders in this country?
Let's talk about Kathleen Sebelius (Democratic governor of Kansas),Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen Donna Brazille, Hillary Clinton. These women are all winners, they all support women's rights and human rights.
Palin can't hold a candle to any one of them, and never will.
by skohayes 2008-11-05 12:32PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads