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.

Comments

[kellygrrrl]

while I do fully understand the anger many women feel,
I do very much hope that they pause to reflect on the "real" reasons that Hillary's campaign did not succeed.
If we took race and gender out of the equation entirely, and looked at 2 campaigns, there is a lot to be learned there.

[Docbcs]

Your thoughtful piece is deeply appreciated. Sexism is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it is often invisible, and one can play into misogynistic stereotypes without even being aware of doing so. Often, when a woman brings up an incident of sexism, she is shamed into feeling "silly" about it, which plays further into the stereotype. Awareness is a first step towards eliminating any kind of discrimination. Thanks for your honesty.

[Docbcs]

I really appreciate your thoughtful piece. It is the awareness of playing into discriminatory stereotypes that is the beginning of ending them. You're quite correct in commenting that sexism is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it is almost invisible. Having someone stop and look is an important first step in eliminating it.

[DeadDogDemocrat]

You're big mistake was using the word "shrill", which was red-flagged by feminists some time ago, and how is it that you didn't know that? It's totally obvious that many of Clinton's supporters are now looking at this subject through the lens of their favorite candidate's recent loss, however, and aren't in any mood to explore ambiguities. Would similar comments about McCain's temper have been out of place? (of course not). If a candidate like John Edwards had shed tears in New Hampshire would that have evoked sympathy or been regarded as potentially disqualifying (as happened in Muskie).

It also won't get far until people begin to acknowledge that Clinton wasn't simply a candidate but had earned pop-icon status long before this race started, is beloved by perhaps 20% of the population, but is also deeply disliked by another 30%, most of whom aren't Democrats, and this created circumstances different from those faced by most other candidates. Do a google search and you'll find websites selling the George Bush voodoo doll, Dick Cheney toilet paper, Bush and Clinton toilet brushes, and enough similar items to fill a store at a mall.

This election raised genuine problems which need to be explored and addressed. That's probably not going to happen in any serious way, though, until tempers cool. The issues of "why wasn't she treated fairly" are just too deeply comingled at this point with "why didn't you love her as much as I did".

[NightAdder]

So what? Reverend Wright sounded shrill and angry, and look where it got him. It is not sexist to say something that could be equally and just as negatively applied to other social demographics. Women have got to stop playing victims and stop caring about what society thinks if they want negative perseptions about them to change.

[caitmary]

You're missing the point. Reverend Wright is a man, yes, but he's also religious (strike one) and a person of color (strike two). Whether people respect an "angry black man" more than an "angry white man" is a study I've yet to see, but I'm willing to put my money that the "angry white man" comes out on top every time.

[shades3]

I would characterize Rev. Wright's preaching style as bombastic, overly dramatic and loud.
His regular speaking voice is well-modulated, even gentle.
Having said that, shrillness is not limited to women.
Pat Buchanan's voice is so shrill that in it's high registers only dogs can hear him.
Is it also sexist to describe a man's voice as shrill??

[NABNYC]

Good for you. Thoughtful civilized response. I do think there are some words that are code sexist terms, like shrill, strident, hysterical. I sometimes send letters to men saying they are being hysterical -- and they flip out, they don't exactly know why, but they know that's a terrible thing to say about a man.

I don't have any reason to think the author intended to be sexist. The fact is that the make-up of the panel discussing this probably is more important than the exact term chosen. Give me equal women on the panels, on the news, in the government (50 senators -- why not?) in the judgeships, the tenured university positions, CEOs of businesses, head of manufacturing -- give me the jobs for women and we can all see shrinks or study linguistics on our own time.

Sexism is a serious, sometimes deadly issue. Women are routinely beaten, sometimes murdered, by men who think they were "out of line." If women do not act like slaves, obsequieous, (burka-clad), soft voice, sweet voice, giggle, act child-like and stupid, with the body of a small boy with balloons inserted into the chest cavity -- if they don't fit that ideal, they are demeaned, excluded, ridiculed.

But I can't see Hillary held up as the role model for victims, since it seems to me she is a role model for white men everywhere, and has never had a tough day in her life.

[joeyhegele]

Well, it is ironic that you defend your comments by saying you were only reporting what is true since Senator Clinton endured so many attacks in the media for just saying what was true. The top three were:

President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts -- Clinton was attacked for being racist and besmirching the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Senator Obama has had trouble winning the votes of the white middle-class in the primary season -- Clinton was again attacked for being racist even though she was only repeating what every major news outlet including The Huffington Post was reporting.

Robert Kennedy continued his campaign to win the Democratic Primary well into June until he was killed -- Clinton was accused of saying Obama was in danger of being harmed even though she was not even talking about him

So, John, now you know what it is like to be attacked for reporting the truth.

[Rrhain]

You will note the difference in response, though. Clinton didn't seem to understand what the problem was. While it's true all the activists in the world can't change the law (only Congress and the President can) it takes the activists to get it through the heads of Congress and the Presidency to do it. It would've been better for her to say that as President, she would be like Johnson, listen to the power of people like King and use the power of the Presidency to accomplish what needs to be done. It's the exact same basic point, but it includes more context.

As for "white middle-class voters," there's so much disingenuousness in that statement, it's hard to know where to begin.

And as for RFK, the situation isn't anywhere close to comparable. Where RFK was with respect to the other candidates was not akin to where Clinton was with respect to Obama. And if her point was RFK was still campaigning at that time, why on earth bring up his assassination at all? It's completely irrelevant.

That she couldn't see that her underlying points were being obscured by lack of context, leading people to wonder what she was talking about, lends credence to the idea she was, indeed, diminishing the work of King, courting the racists, and contemplating Obama might get assassinated (no, that is not an accusation that she was hoping for it.)

Neffinger, at least, has the dignity to admit that he wasn't speaking well.

[dawningonyou]

"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?"


Your comments on Hardball were not calling attention to a sexist dynamic. They were a part of the dynamic. It sounded like you were making a judgement call of your own, not talking about a study about women's raised voices. You were not talking about sexism - you were talking about Hillary Clinton.

Maybe that is not what you meant to say, but that is certianly the way it came across. People can tell a conversation about sexism when they hear one.

[InternationalObserver]

Good post. But it won't be long before those who *were* being deliberately provocative with their sexist comments co-opt you 'it's-a-sc­ientific-f­act' argument. And BTW: does this study have anything to do with why Americans prefer male news anchors?

[nevergiveup]

"Research shows"--this is the new phrase that removes any notions of morality from the equation. When someone says "research shows," yo can pretty much assume that "right or wrong"--the issue of morality–does not enter the picture.

This absence of morality—which the Bush Administration exemplifies—is wrecking havoc on democracy. It is ruining my country. It is screwing up health care, the economy, our food and everything else.

When I hear or read "research shows"--I tune that person O-U-T.

[Gracehoper]

You sound like the Republicans shouting down scientists who point out that the earth climate is changing. DON'T GIVE ME NO FACTS, EGGHEAD.

[CubMom]

For nearly two decades, I've been fortunate enough to know this blogger (Is that the correct term? No offense, John.). He has always put considerable effort into treating everyone, and I mean every human he encounters, with courtesy, kindness, and respect, from the dirtiest, toothless soul on the street to the haughtiest (he would never think of people being haughty; that's my job) of the hoi polloi. To him, every human being deserves to be treated with courtesy, deference, and an open mind.

Now then, if John didn't explain the finer nuances of his "sexist" statement, I can think of a few reasons. Perchance he overestimated the intelligence of the audience, thinking the systematic, punitive "female vocal allowance" [my term] was all but too well known. Conceivably, he saw need for an explanation, but had no time. Consider a third option, even: John was not a seasoned TV pundit, but a nervous young gentleman stating the facts, with no intent to offend, doing the best he could to hold his own on a popular show. In any case, if I've guessed correctly or not, John Neffinger is no sexist, bigot, or racist. He is the truest example of unprejudiced acceptance of all people from all walks of life. Rather than vilified, he should be held up as an example for all to follow, for he is an exceptional person in every way.

[MrJoyboy]

"hoi polloi" means the opposite of what you think it means.

[CubMom]

Yes, technically, you are correct, but as of late, people tend to use the phrase to mean the rich and spoiled, rather than the great masses. I don't know when that changed. Also, if you couldn't tell, I don't think much of that group of people, so, there is a pinch of sarcasm in there. But, golly, thanks so much for setting me straight; you've improved my life ever so much for the better -- otherwise, I might be continuing on my blighted path of ignorance.

[CubMom]

For nearly two decades, I've been fortunate enough to know this blogger (Is that the correct term? No offense, John.). He has always put considerable effort into treating everyone, and I mean every human he encounters, with courtesy, kindness, and respect, from the dirtiest, toothless soul on the street to the haughtiest (he would never think of people being haughty; that's my job) of the hoi polloi. To him, every human being deserves to be treated with courtesy, deference, and an open mind.

Now then, if John didn't explain the finer nuances of his "sexist" statement, I can think of a few reasons. Perchance he overestimated the intelligence of the audience, thinking the systematic, punitive "female vocal allowance" [my term] was all but too well known. Conceivably, he saw need for an explanation, but had no time. Consider a third option, even: John was not a seasoned TV pundit, but a nervous young gentleman stating the facts, with no intent to offend, doing the best he could to hold his own on a popular show. In any case, if I've guessed correctly or not, John Neffinger is no sexist, bigot, or racist. He is the truest example of unprejudiced acceptance of all people from all walks of life. Rather than vilified, he should be held up as an example for all to follow, for he is an exceptional person in every way.

And, no, nobody paid me to write this.

[CalexenderJ]

I think the problem is that while charges of sexism have be thrown around, accusing various members of the media. What hasn't really been done is an honest assessment of what our attitudes are as a country.

As to your particular quote, I think you possibly could have phrased it better, but I appreciate your clarification.

[JoePomp]

Well... I was thinking that this sexism in the media thing was a little overblown, but then I noticed that the "Hardball" silhouette of the mystery potential VPs is clearly the image of a man.

This suggests that any potential VP would have to be a man. How can that be, when surely they recognize that at least one woman is a potential VP.

That is sexism. Plain and simple.

Joe P.

[SanityClaus]

I guess they should post a picture of Pat from SNL?

[Chachi]

That you went this far out of your way to explain a very normal, appropriate and not at all sexist comment makes me think much less of you.

Ever since Hillary and her supporters have started complaining about sexism in the last few months all the politicians, pundits and journalists have been treating her - and womens' issues - with kid gloves. It's become a pathetic spectacle. Let's not razzle the emotional women. Let's placate them to calm them down.

Read Camille Paglia's latest article. At least she gives me hope that not all women in the media are incapable of handling intelligent discussions of gender without needing to be patronized.

[SanityClaus]

Articulate, logical, and clear.

Prepare to be called names by people who are none of the above.