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

[DonaldD]

A voice that sounds shrill is painful to the ears whether it is a woman or a man. You were stating a fact. I heard a lecture this spring given by a psychologist who never moved his mouth or lips. He never enunciated any consonants. What I could hear was interesting. The delivery and voice hilarious. We are getting way too politically correct.
Pat Buchanan telling a female pundit on the same panel to shut up. That's sexist.
What you said - spot on. Most of the people I know say much worse in reviewing women and men.
Maybe if Hillary had taken notes she could have went to a speech coach and improved her delivery. I'm a Feminist and I think she sounded shrill at times. No one accused me of being sexist, 'cause I'm not.

[abliss2379]

Can anybody name a man who has been described as "shrill?"

[CubMom]

Ed's voice was shrill.

OK.

[CubMom]

Oh, do tell me where I can get the book that details the location of all the red flags so I never make a mistake again. You must rest well at night knowing all the rules by heart; must be nice to be prrftedt

[DAKrolak]

Howard Dean, it's what lost him the race!! YEEEEEEEEHAW

[Johnnn]

It is fitting that the offending comment which earned you a spot on the dubious list was uttered on Chris Matthews. I have gone round and round with people, notably my mother, about why they don't like Hilllary, and often get "...she's such an angry woman." I feel we need to accept that women can be angry without becoming pariahs. To hell with the studies. We need to defy them and create a new reality for women. Men especially need to stop seeing their exwives everytime they see a female. I work with too many of these pathetic guys.

[bethinCary]

Just think If Pat Buchanan with his shrill, high-pitched scream were a woman---he'd have been gone a long time ago from the public scene...

People would have said he was too loud and emotional--thereby unstable..

Yet for some reason for men--it's construed diffferently--as a means to shut up women or anyone else who dissents..
It's used as a control mechanism..

[ben392]

I'll say it now. He's too unstable. Oh wait, now I'm agist. I'm sure "unstable" is somehow code for "senile". LOL. Give me a break people. Not all criticism equates to bigotry.

[caitmary]

Actually, Agism would be if you accused Mr., Buchanan of something stereotypically attributed to old people. Most elderly people aren't dismissed or shamed by being called shrill. Lots of sensible people can agree that Pat Buchanan is unstable, but the reason they say so is not because of his "shrill" voice, it's his politics. You see?

[SanityClaus]

You do realize, I hope, that Pat's sister Bay is a frequent conservative media commentator. She manages to be authoritative and command respect without stooping to the level of her more famous and fatuous brother.

Her most recent money quote, from Human Events:

"It’s finally over: the mother of all primaries has done her job reducing the field to two. But in reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose.

John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps. And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation."

[Think4myself]

Admitting we have a problem is the first step.

[NewsNag]

Yes, you.

You and the whole little boys backyard he-men's scared-of-girrlz (especially scare of letting Rachel Maddow talk without interruption) club.

The fact that you all had no idea you were being culturally misogynistic (or, worse, didn't care) gives evidence that some of you he-males are taking up valuable media space more properly belonging to intelligent women and smarter-than-you men, who wouldn't be having to explain and apologize after-the-fact, even if you do eventually come to knowledge and are sincere.

I hope you do a key-word search of MSNBC and sexism, Tucker, Hardball, etc., and give yourself an education in misogynistic puerile name-calling, offensive adjective projection, and 19th century gender mindset, so you can see more clearly what you need to abandon.

Other than that, good luck with your career. You deserve a second chance.

Love,

News Nag

[SanityClaus]

See my list of comments directed at Obama by Maureen Dowd below as part of your education.

[CubMom]

Oh, good gravytrain! If you only could have a glimpse into Mr. Neffinger's personality, you would feel foolish lumping him in with the "whole little boys backyard he-men's scared-of-girrlz" club. There are an unusual number of people here pigeon-holing Mr. Neffinger, while knowing very little of him except his villainous remark.

He needs no further education, for he is one of the most highly educated people (and not just his Harvard and Columbia Law Degrees), just more experience in front of the camera. He's savvy. He has street smarts; he's kind, gentle, and always polite. Give him a break, please. I could only wish my son to grow up to be the mensch he is.

[Fabienne]

I think we've all become overly-sensitive at this point in time. I might be more amenable to the charges of sexism regarding Senator Clinton if it did not seem that they are opportunistically employed to make it seem as if the nomination were in some way taken from her.

[Johnnn]

The media loves Obama and was baised against Hillary, especially last year. I can't tell you that this cost Hillary the nomination. I only know how annoying it was in the early days to hear Wolf Blitzer, and his jerky sidekick, Cafferty, first introduce a story about Obama, such as "what's new in the Obama campaign. You may be surprised to find out", and then a story on Hillary such as "Can Hillary overcome all her negatives. We'll talk to one of her critics in a moment."
This got tiresome awfully fast.
Now for all you Obama people who can't relate to this: don't say anything. It just makes me want to vote for McCain.

[SanityClaus]

You reserve for yourself the right to express opinions in the public square, but direct those with differing opinions to remain silent.

You have issues with the concept of liberty.

[caitmary]

Remember, being an Obama voter does not always equal an enemy of Hillary. An individual can campaign for and cast votes for one candidate while still being outraged at the treatment of another. It's not Obama people vs. Hillary people anymore. A vote for McCain, whose politics differ SO greatly from both Obama's and Clintons, is simply foolish. Getting back at Obama voters by voting for McCain will only hurt us all in the end. I've maintained all along that cooler heads would prevail with supporters of either Dem candidate because I still want have faith that we have a common goal. I'd like to believe that no thinking person in this country would cut off their nose to spite their face during this incredibly important election by voting McCain.

[RnR]

When your "profession" (and I use the term loosely) refers to McCains' speaking voice as sounding "addicted", his constant repetition of "my very dear friends" and variations thereof as "chanting his mantra" and his appearance as that of a vampire overdue for feeding, then feel free to attack the physical attributes of the females in your gun sights. I don't give a flying f what some study "shows". They're just like statistics - you get what whoever paid for it wanted.

When you have to attack the physical attributes of someone, no matter who, the only thing you do is prove beyond doubt that your position has absolutely no substantive basis other than you have not progressed beyond early puberty. Was there even 1 mention in this media profit generating b.s. primary election cycle of any of these: Obamas' ears, McCains' slurring, splashing speech? Did any of you look at your "fellows" and maybe comment on their physical attributes. Rhetorical question.

The media is corporate controlled. Corporate control implies (and guarantees) sexism. It's the only way to protect the power structure. You're at the tail end of the feeding chain of said power structure but alas, that makes you vulnerable.

Women --------> go get them.

[Johnnn]

Wow. A knockout punch if I ever read one.

[SanityClaus]

Allow me to answer your rhetorical question.

Review the collected works of the WOMAN Maureen Dowd on Obama. Who famously dubbed him Obambi. The following are quotes from her columns:

Obama is acting the diffident debutante.

Obama, on the other hand, may seem esoteric, and sometimes looks haughty or put-upon.

Obama grows more and more wan.

At the Wilbur chocolate shop in Lititz Monday, he spent most of his time skittering away from chocolate goodies, as though he were a starlet obsessing on a svelte waistline.

And whether we can take a flier on this skinny guy with the strange name and braided ancestry to help us get it back.

Obama — slender, chewing Nicorette and perfectly groomed in his crisp white shirt — came upon me.

Obama sounded whiny after his losses.

Obama tapped into his inner chick and turned the other cheek.

But Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate.

[CubMom]

i've got news for you: he is the successful, driven, thinking chick's magnet. He "gets" women very well. So, please stuff your unkind little sentiment where it rightfully belongs, which I believe is the place where photovoltaic cells are of no use, but perhaps the right wind turbine might prove useful.

[Jjc2006]

Here's a clue: regardless of the research and how eloquently you have explained it here, you made your comment on HARDBALL. Clue 2: Chris Matthews, host of Hardball is viewed by most women, the intelligent ones anyway, as a pig; a Hillary Hating PIG. He is sexist toward most women and he is particularly sexist toward Hillary. Whatever personal baggage he has, he does not set aside for his job.
So one just going on Hardball lowers my ability to respect them.

To be clear: MOST mature women get what you are saying. WE have lived it. We know our "ambitious" male counterparts are admired for their assertive rise to the top while we are called everything from b*tches to b*ll busting c*nts for being pushy (assertive and ambitious were rarely used).
We KNOW his angry voice gets respect; our anger gets us more negative labels.
Hillary showing her tough side was criticized as being too militaristic, too cold, too calculating. She shows her tears and emotions and she is "playing the gender card" or faking it.

We get it. If you got it, you would not have gone on the most sexist show on the tube.

[SanityClaus]

I'm a man and I think Chris Matthews is a smug a-hole with a fan club of one. His sexism is only one facet of his total a-holeness.

And attacking people for appearing on his program is silly.

Don't watch his show. Don't buy from his advertisers. Complain to MSNBC about him.

But until and unless his program is cancelled, it's perfectly valid for anyone of any political stripe or position on gender issues to appear on his program. As did representatives of several wonderful progressive women's organizations the other night for a panel discussion.

[ben392]

You've got some really anger issues there. Did you ever think that it may be you that has the problem, not Chris Matthews?

[caitmary]

Educate yourself, sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U

[Johnnn]

Then a lot of us have anger issues.

[Jjc2006]

Well, I never claimed to the world that anyone, politician or otherwise, only achieved success because their spouse cheated. I never told any man, let alone one young enough to be my son, to move closer so we (the viewers) can look at him....and see his assets.

Yes, I have anger, lots of it, toward men like Matthews and his cohorts who chuckle and giggle at their sexist mindset and get away with it. As well, I found Matthews to be an incompetent jerk who spread lies and mistruths about Al Gore as he worked to get his idol George W into office. NOW, Matthews acts all anti war. THEN, he called W "sunny and noble" when the lying potus stood on the battleship pretending to be a military man.

I can't stand sexist pigs . I can't stand lying phonies. Matthews is both.

[GLHorton]

At last! A reasonable and fair-minded evaluation that takes personal responsibility for what was going on in the media during the primary that has been so devastating for women who are sensitive to what used to be described in the days of feminist consciousness-raising as the "Ah-ha!" or "click" moment. The public discussion is conducted in such a way that the message is: women will never be voted into power in numbers or at a level that reaches near-equality. There is a double standard that favors the "typical" male responses, but also disapproves of those responses when they are expressed by a female. Either way, she loses. No particular woman's loss is determinant, but the double bind means that more often than not, women lose. With a series of such losses a whole range of issues important to humanity as a whole but traditionally seen as "women's issues" drop to the bottom of the national agenda.
A single commentator like Neffinger noticing this, expressing regret in public, and resolving to refrain from reinforcing it in the future, is a ray of hope. Thank you! Maybe if I live to be a hundred, I WILL see women in at least, say, 33% of leadership roles-- and children's welfare a serious concern.