"Does talking about sexism without explicitly condemning it make me sexist?" It makes you complicit. What do you think the reaction would be if you were parroting socially prevalent norms about racism and then explained it away with a footnote?
Please read Katah Pollitt"s June 32rd "Iron My Skirt" article in "The Nation" for a better understanding, of the rampant sexism Senator Clinton"s campaign endured (from a woman and an Obama supporter"s point of view). The article explicitly states Senator Clinton did NOT lose solely due to sexism AND that sexism has been running rampant throughout the campaign.
Sexism deniers remind me of climate change deniers. Please resist allowing personal distain for any particular candidate (i.e., Hillary) to blind you to this reality. The recent faux news assault against Michelle Obama shows that media sponsored sexism is running full speed ahead.
I would like to see progressives, especially those with media presence, consistently call out these words and images for what they are. We will have plenty of opportunities to challenge sexist and racist hate mongering in the next few months.
I applaud your critical self-reflection and hope you will follow up on the intention to "take the time to make it clear where I stand." It is helpful to put observations in context and back such statements with data.
Who, Me, Sexist? Confessions of a Cable-News Commentator
How is your day going? I woke up today to find myself at the top of the New York Times' list of people making sexist comments about Hillary Clinton in the media. So I've been better.
The relevant comment was this: "Whenever she raises her voice, there's a danger that she starts to sound a little bit shrill," something I said as a guest on Hardball in discussing Senator Clinton's performance in one of last year's primary debates.
There is an interesting issue about the larger role of the media here, but let's begin with the facts of what I said. Though I expressed myself colloquially, there is solid research on this point. Consider:
"Victoria Brescoll, a researcher at Yale, made headlines this August with her findings that while men gain stature and clout by expressing anger, women who express it are seen as being out of control, and lose stature. Study participants were shown videos of a job interview, after which they were asked to rate the applicant and choose their salary. The videos were identical but for two variables -- in some the applicants were male and others female, and the applicant expressed either anger or sadness about having lost an account after a colleague arrived late to an important meeting. The participants were most impressed with the angry man, followed by the sad woman, then the sad man, and finally, at the bottom of the list, the angry woman. The average salary assigned to the angry man was nearly $38,000 while the angry woman received an average of only $23,000."
That passage comes from an article in the very same New York Times about two weeks prior to my on-air comment, though tellingly it appeared in the "Fashion & Style" section, as opposed to the "U.S. Politics" section where I was pilloried this morning.
Just because there is science backing me up, though, doesn't necessarily mean my comment was harmless. After all, the science basically found that society's perceptions are sexist. In calling attention to that dynamic, without further explanation, did I imply that that sexism was OK by me? Does talking about sexism without explicitly condemning it make me sexist?
From a political strategy point of view, it is fine to point out that Senator Clinton would be wise to be careful not to run afoul of those prejudices by raising her voice and displaying anger. But if I am describing those prejudices on air, maybe I should have taken the time to say explicitly that research shows that there are strong social norms that condemn women for expressing anger in ways that seem appropriate for men. That would at least suggest that any perceptions of Senator Clinton's anger display as negative or aberrant originate with us, the prejudiced beholders, not with her, the "hysterical" female, and that in a more perfect world we would allow her the full range of expression we allow male leaders.
I'd like to think that people who know me are confident not only that I know what I'm talking about, but that I believe that everyone's feelings should be shown due respect, regardless of gender. But since the research shows that as a society we still share some strong culturally-enforced biases in how we perceive men and women, maybe next time I will take the time to make it clear where I stand.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sexism is most definitely an ingrained trait in American society (and many others) and Hillary did experience it from the media during this campaign. And while sexism isn't really responsible for Hillary losing (it did rally women to her side) it is nonetheless heinous. The media is an old boys club, specifically a white old boys club.
I guess I would like to see Hillary supporters acknowledge the racism lobbed at Obama (and his wife) by the very same media. There is a great post at a female feminist's blog called The Curvature where she recounts a lengthy list of Chris Matthews' racism on MSNBC:
http://thecurvature.com/2008/06/06/chris-matthews-racism-watch/
They went after Obama's relationship with his preacher yet ignored McCain's with Hagee and Parsely. Radical far rightists with sermons more inflammatory than anything Wright said. They went after Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin at the debates while the other candidate on the stage with him, Hillary, wasn't wearing one. Just the other day Pat Buchanan called Obama "exotic"...the new GOP code word for black. You can't tell me this stuff isn't damaging.
Democrats should be equally pissed off at the racism and sexism the media and surrogates used this election season. Women and minorities should be on the same side instead of letting a group of rich white men divide them so they can conquer yet again.
Recognizing sexism does not mean that racism does not exist or is somehow acceptable. Racism is deplorable and is not in any way, shape or form acceptable.
Pitting one oppressed group against another is an old Republican trick " for example, the Republican attack machine often sets Jews against African Americans as if they are in competition for the "most oppressed" award. See this for what it is -- a divide and conquer Republican tactic. Don"t fall for it.
I couldn't agree more that we will see a lot more of both in this election. Karl Rove is working for McBush. They'll be pushing wedge issues (gays-choice-guns), playing on racism, and
Then all here tell B.O and company don't whine for him or Michelle, it's just politic's, not racism. Surely if it's good Hillary it has to be good for them too.
I guess I'm subconsciously sexist too even though I am a woman. Because the more she acted like a man, the less I liked her. Maybe a hard drinking, oblierating leader is who she is. But then that raises questions about other steretoypes of her that emphasized masculine traits. Was there some truth in those?
for me, it had nothing to do with gender
the more Sen C acted like a "say-anything" lying Politician, the more turned off I got
It goes beyond perceiving the angry shrill woman. Just a couple of quick examples shows unuasual coverage for Hilary. What man losing Iowa and then winning New Hampshire would fail to get the comeback/bounce story. We actually have a real time example this year. Mcain lost Iowa and won New Hampshire. Even though he was favored to win New Hampshire it was a comeback win that revived his campaign. Hilary was projected to lose New Hampshire. The press was so sure that she would lose, that Johnathon Alter said on air that she should get out of the race before embarrassing herself. She won. The only storyline coming out of New Hampshire was the question of "The Bradley effect" of lying about voting for a black person and then actually voting for the white candidate. Innate racism was the pitch. No comeback story or bounce. This is concrete. Not historical but a piece of the coverage this year. The shrill, shrew, "looks like my ex-wife in front of probate"(mike Barnacle) comments are easily visible tags or flags that demonstrate the prejudice, but the actual tone and content of what is reporting is the true shame.
I had a strong impression at the time that New Hampshire was touted as a comeback for her in the media. Even though she wasn't my candidate, I remember being angry at the media for subjecting us to this roller coaster in the first place, that she was down after Iowa and flying high after New Hampshire, when there were so many states to go. I wanted them to stop making everything a make or break deal.
I remember when Hillary won NH the media was praising her and bashing Obama. THe Brady effect was a minor story.
Gore was bashed for acting odd, by trying to take control and dominate at the debate with Bush. He was also called cold and stiff. Dean was attacked for his scream. It showed he was a bit unbalanced. Dukakis was attacked because he also was too cold and not macho enough. Effete. The press is dying to see McCain blow up to expose his out of control temper. (I disagree with the argument that men being angry is seen as ok in the context of politics-they cant show their temper either or they will be called "out of control.") All these were attacks by the media on the candidate's personality. The problem with a lot of these sexism arguments is that just about ANY criticism of a woman is being described as "sexist.." It would mean that Hillary or any other woman would be off limits for attacks on their personalities. I think the above examples show clearly that men are routinely severely and often unfairly attacked for personality traits or character. The media often defines them that way. So unless that is going to stop altogether, which actually would be better, then woman also have to put up with it. This is not to say that some comments were not sexist, but most of them were just attacks on her personality, her traits or character.
All criticism is not sexism. Sometimes it is simply mean, or harsh, or tacky.
Male politicians have suffered brutal criticism and insults from the beginning of time. Have people already forgotten what they said about Senator Kerry? That is the kind of heat she any savvy candidate should have expected in the political kitchen.
When Hill gets the same treatment men did, she calls it sexism. In truth she got handled much more gently than Senator Kerry did. She did not, however, spare her opponent from her thinly veiled racism and attacks the GOP is now quoting her on.
It's disingenuous of her. Apparently she expected not just gentler treatment but a complete free pass.
I read the NY article .However I inserted racism everyplace they used sexism. It then becomes a very enlightened article on racism.Going so far as to claim that "racism" was sometime used .Not accidentally, but actually used effectively. If the NYT had written such an article there would have been uproar in the media.When I returned again to read "sexism" I was shocked at how casually they addressed it.It seems that in the male world sexism is alive and flourishing.
Research 100 years ago could've easily found that the sight of women's ankles was too distracting to men doing serious work, in many American circles. It would've been scientifically valid but it would not reflect a hardwired genetic fact of humanity but merely the transient habits and expectations of one population at one period of time.
Sometimes expectations are the result of prejudicial conditions of society that a democratic Enlightenment society such as (ideally) ours needs to outgrow.
I'm a musician so sound is of some serious daily importance in my life.
Many women's voices often sound shrill in the media. But I recall technical discussions a generation and more ago that the overwhelming dominance of men in early years biased the development of the equipment to showcase men's voices better than women's. So at least in the past there has been a mechanical component exacerbating what might be sexist prejudices.
We have very little common experience with women in public authority. Probably over the coming generation women competing for authority will adopt some new strategies for using their voices, but I expect we'll also see society adapting to types of sounds in public it's been relatively uncomfortable with in the past.
Our grandchildren are going to be completely oblivious to this. We however are going to have to force it quite a bit against our gut instincts because the core values of our society demand that we open up.
Perhaps Barack Obama is very slow to anger.
I remember a number of times watching him react to something where I thought anger would have been appropriate and he was very even tempered. I wondered, is he really that unflappable, or does he just realize that if he got angry, it would be seen differently than a white candidate getting angry. He would be seen as an angry black man, and that would hurt his election chances.
I'm sure Barack Obama doesn't like having to meet a different standard, but he understands it as a reality and he acts accordingly. He doesn't complain that he has an extra hurdle to jump, and something tells me that he wouldn't have complained even if he had lost.
Where Hillary's hurdles higher? I don't know. But I do know that the day you start complaining about them is the day you start to look like the loser.
Does a she-wolf have a shrill growl? Or is she only being mean?
Please let me understand what you are saying Mr. Neffinger. You merely wanted to point out that because anthropological studies have determined our society is sexist, Hillary was at a disadvantage when she raised her voice during the political campaign because, unlike a man, it would be deemed inappropriate for her gender.
It's been shown when a man raises his voice it signals power and strength such as in the animal world where the male of the species defends his territory against other male intruders. The female of the species, on the other hand, signals this power and strength by raising her voice only when she is defending her young (or doesn't want to have sex). We've all seen those nature films.
It's good though to see a little soul searching here (Does talking about sexism without explicitly condemning it make me sexist?). That you "maybe" next time will take a stand I'm sure is heartening to all those out there who have suffered because of this prejudice. But I personally like the idea that when Hillary growls she would be shown to be mean instead of shrill. By "mean" comes to mind this definition from an old logger friend.
"I'm as mean as a gut-shot bitch wolf crawling up a mountainside dragging a number nine chain and nine suckling pups with a mouth full of porcupine quills!"
That shows respect.
Saying that all women are shrill just because they're women? Sexist.
Noticing that when Senator Clinton starts to get loud her voice tends to become shrill? Merely minimally observant.
The voice that she used when the woman asked her how she kept going and you could hear the emotion and exhaustion? The voice that could have gone a long way towards reducing her negatives, and maybe even winning her the nomination and the election.
How do we rate male voices please?
Saying that all women are shrill just because they're women? Sexist.
Noticing that when Senator Clinton starts to get loud her voice tends to become shrill? Merely minimally observant.
The voice that she used when the woman asked her how she kept going and you could hear the emotion and exhaustion? The voice that could have gone a long way towards reducing her negatives, and maybe even winning her the nomination and the election.
Apologies for the unintentional double post.
Try speaking and writing in gender neutral terms. Women are generally portrayed in a very negative light when employing the same stragegies as their male counterparts. Women are often as sexist as men and over more items than one can imagine. For any male new exec to say their is no sexism in the newsroom or elsewhere is to deny the experience of 51% of the world's population. AND, these stupid [grossly overpaid] men just don't get it and they wonder why they have a dwindling share of the audience!
You should have said "People won't vote for her because there's too much sexism in this country." Right or wrong, it would have engendered more sympathy from your audience.
That would still have been an oversimplification, but it wouldn't have made you look like the bad guy.
Until we can completely neuterize ourselves gender roles will enter into the discussion. Whether that constitutes sexism is in the eye of the beholder.
To many of Hilllary's most stubborn supporters the best I can parse their positions is that it had to be sexism because how else could she have possibly lost? And based on the presumption that only sexism could have possibly been the cause they are now seeing virtually everything as sexism.
And in all honesty if Obama had lost there would be no shortage of people who would be presuming that it had to be racism and would be on a hunt to find every peice of racism to use as an example (and having no trouble finding it).
So for example I did a radio piece in which is examined the difference in male and female support for Hillary and attributed it to how they interpreted her experience claim. Since few people have a window into the Clinton's relationship they use the lens of their own. Most women think they have a good idea of how to do their husband's/boyfriend's job and many secretly think they could do it better. Meanwhile most men think that their wives/girlfriends don't understand their work. That gender difference colors their value of Hillary's experience as First Lady. Sexist? At least one person thought so. But was the alternative to completely ignore any metion of gender?
That's a really interesting question, and I think the answer is no. There was no way that this historic primary could have gone by without anyone mentioning WHY it was historical. It benefited both Clinton and Obama to be historical candidates. Hillary Clinton is a woman, that's obvious. However it's simply inappropriate and irresponsible for the media to compare her to a nagging wife, make nutcrackers in her likeness, objectify her by constantly commenting on her looks and style of dress, claim she was elected to the senate because of Bill's cheating, etc- those are sexist statements. Those sexist statements have come from both women and men. They were made about her specifically (and, in terms of jokes, were only "funny") because she is a woman, having nothing to do with her politics, opinions, etc.
Obviously, not all women in leadership positions have shrill voices, nag, hate men, and are "nutcrackers"- those are overused sexist stereotypes that our allegedly fair and balanced news media should know better that to resort to. Their insistence that they do so only reinforces those stereotypes for another generation; that's where the outrage (for me, at least) stems from here.
Whether Obama received the same treatment due to his race is irrelevant in this particular discussion. One experience does not negate the other. I have been an Obama supporter from the beginning and continue to be so, but this article has nothing to do specifically with Obama's campaign.
It is indeed true that there are certain jokes that used to be funny but now are just considered tasteless. I think of some of the racial, gender, and ethnic jokes that used to be a hit (Pollack jokes anybody? Jose Jimenez on the Ed Sullivan Show?) and cringe now.
And certainly there will people going for the neanderthaal voter who will try for the shock value of making borderline jokes. Yes, talk show hosts will try for the shock value. But are they the broad media? And should the broad media be painted with the brush of a talk show targeting male republicans? And did those tastelss folks make much of a difference in the broad coverage?
I sit back and look at the coverage in the broad scope and I think that in general the coverage was fair. In fact in some respects it was more than fair, continuing to give Hillary legimacy well past the time that her chances of winning should have caused her to drop off the radar.
Caitmary, the "media" did not "make nutcrackers in her likeness," some individual who saw an opportunity to make a novelty product that would make money did. And apparently has.
At my favorite pet store, Best In Show in SF, one can purchase squeaky toys in the likenesses of everyone from H & O to Gov. Schwarzenegger, Bush, etc., for the fun of watching your dog chase, chew and shake them.
Are these products offensive? Or does humor and mockery have a long and colorful heritage in American culture and politics? Have you read much Mark Twain? Or enjoyed the words of Will Rogers?
You make valid arguments but at times you miss the mark. As do all of us.
You persist in lecturing other commenters to this article that their comments about O relative to Mr. Neffinger's post are not relevant. I suggest that you are attempting to narrow the form of acceptable discourse, which is itself an anti-democratic instinct. And more to the point, you are objecting to comments which seek to EXPAND the discourse beyond the narrow confines of Mr. Neffinger's treatise in order to make the point that H was not alone in victimization by the media, and that in addition to sexism, there are other influences that are also valid to recognize. I ask that you contemplate why it is important to you to shut down that kind of wider perspective.
Why exactly is it "sexist" to say that a woman's voice shirll? Women are different from men, in physical characteristics, some better, some worse. Today, John McCain was described as having a comb-over, a feature that commonly turns women off. I do not understand why it is sexist to describe a person as having a feature that is common only to their sex.
Many men have relatively high pitched voices. There are some that I have worked with that the pitch goes higher when they are angry. No says that they are shrill. They say that they are angry. The trait is not common to their sex, the description is.
You have stated the problem with gender bias in this society perfectly by illustrating how easily and without any second thought you made a sexist comment. While it would have been great for you to have understood what you had done without someone having to make a point of it, it's great nonetheless that you finally understand how ingrained this bias is in our country. Hopefully, you will be more aware of what you say in the future so that you can stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.
Please take the time to scroll down to the next page to read my post listing a few of the sexist and inappropriate remarks written by Maureen Dowd about Obama during the primary season and get back to me about who needs to do what about sexism.
How exactly do Maureen Dowd's comments excuse all people from pausing responsibly to consider their words before they speak? If anything, she's a perfect example of how deep[ly ingrained sexist ideas are in our media.
Posted June 13, 2008 | 01:12 PM (EST)