More

Giving the "Daughter Test" to Mainstream Media


Back in the 1980's, I was on the NYC Human Rights Commission that held hearings on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in the construction sector. The most moving story I heard during that period came from a male construction worker. He talked about what a typical day looked like, including the standard lunch breaks on the curb with his male co-workers, and the usual rounds of catcalling out to women as they walked by.

He never questioned any of it -- not until the day came when the face that looked back at him was his daughter's.

The young women those construction workers called out to were not being raped, physically threatened, or grabbed at. Catcalling is a relatively light offense compared to what happened to the women working in construction zones in those days -- the heavy objects "accidentally" falling nearby, the lewd pictures, feces and threatening objects women found in their lockers every day.

Yet what each young woman received was an early lesson about their bodies and their place in the world. While boy's bodies were growing into a source of strength and power, respect and pride, theirs were growing into a source of shame, vulnerability and possible danger. Lessons no decent father ever wants his daughter to have to learn.

But our daughters are still learning these degrading and discouraging lessons -- most recently through the media coverage of the 2008 election. No one -- not even Clinton herself -- is saying that she lost the race for president because of sexism in cable news or the blogosphere, and the degree to which sexist coverage played a part is debatable. Yet we lost something for our nation's daughters who were sent a strong message about fairness during the primary season -- you can play, but it won't be a fair fight.

Like the construction worker's catcalls, pundits barraged the airwaves with offensive chatter -- but with little to no accountability. On-air comments that created a hostile climate (the basis for sexual harassment suits) for millions of women were acknowledged by executives as "a few quickly corrected mistakes" in otherwise "fair networks."

Sexual harassment laws protect women within the newsroom from being demeaned -- but what about the women who listen to the messages? Where does the responsibility lie in news organizations and the media to ensure that the sexual harassment of women doesn't stream into living rooms across America?

To be clear, I don't believe there is a media conspiracy against women, or that the media was out to get Clinton, as some claimed in a recent New York Times article. Nor do I believe that Clinton and her supporters called the media out to cover a losing campaign.

Instead, I think that the media creates and reflects public perceptions, and needs to do a better job of it. Tomorrow, a group of nationally recognized panelists in media and politics will come together in New York for "From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election", to discuss how this election cycle has played out in the media, and how we can institute the changes that we want to see. It's a conversation that is long overdue in this country.

Women -- and their male supporters -- are angry about the continued sexism that pervades American culture. They are angry for what women have had to go through, what they continue to confront, and what may happen to their daughters if this doesn't change. Nor do they like what their sons hear being modeled for them.

Just as the harassment that female construction workers received was intended to intimidate and scare them off their jobs, this climate, whether purposefully or accidentally, certainly will make some women think twice about the costs of public life and seeking public office.

Apparently accountability is hard to come by -- but daughters are a widespread phenomenon. So let's start asking our network executives and our political pundits -- do you want your daughter to hear this? Would you want these words used about your daughter? Would you defend your company if your daughter were described publicly in the way Hillary Clinton was described?

If not, let's stop the too-familiar titles of "she-devil" and "witch" to our describe woman leaders. Let's elevate the standard that we set for ourselves and for each other. Our daughters are listening.

Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp

Back in the 1980's, I was on the NYC Human Rights Commission that held hearings on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in the construction sector. The most moving story I heard during that per...
Back in the 1980's, I was on the NYC Human Rights Commission that held hearings on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in the construction sector. The most moving story I heard during that per...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 135
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
04:18 PM on 06/17/2008
Can you please cite a single instance in the primaries where a reporter or editor of the MSM (not some wacko blogger or turkey-necked fundamentalist preacher) called Hillary Clinton or any of her supporters a "witch" or "she-devil".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WarriorLemming
Willard Romney, "runs-with-scissors".
01:03 AM on 06/20/2008
Marie Wilson Quote:
"Would you defend your company if your daughter were described publicly in the way Hillary Clinton was described?"

Ms. Wilson, my daughter doesn't act like Hillary Clinton, telling snipper fire lies four times as though it were truth, acting tough and voting for war so that she "looked Presidential", agreeing to not count MI & FL but when she loses she changes the rules, pandering to get votes AND if my daughter did do these things she'd deserve everything she got. But I shall use Clinton as a good example for my daughter of how NOT to act!
02:10 PM on 06/17/2008
Here's my daughter test:

I would not want my daughter to see a woman (or a man) win or succeed through serial lying; (Bosnia, NFTA, Ireland peace process, etc).

I wouldn't want my daughter to see as a role model someone who sacrificed core values for mere political ends (voting for Iraq without even reading the NIE report; Iran vote; flag-burning amendment, etc.).

I wouldn't want my daughter to see someone prosper after jumping in the gutter and running a race-baiting, Karl Rove-like campaign. (hard working white voters)

I wouldn't want my daughter to see as successful someone who ran a mismanaged, unstrategic, and internally divisive campaign.

And I would not want my daughter to think she could escape her failures behind charges of sexism designed to hide the real source of her problems. Failure can be a teacher, but only if we acknowledge it's lessons. And let's be clear -- there were isolated sexist comments, but they were not what sunk Hillary -- her own abysmal strategy did that.

Finally, I would want my daughter to conduct herself in a way that her actions and deeds transcended mere sexist words rendering them moot, rather than becoming a victim of them and giving them power over her.

In the end, we will eliminate "isms" by the lives we lead and the successes we have, not by railing against them when we ourselves fail.
01:11 PM on 06/17/2008
Cut the C..P. Hillary sure set a great example for your daughter!

Lie, Smear, Lie. If you don't win, WHINE.

This is why so many women in America are unhappy today. Life is a bloody soap opera, with no reality.

She did everything she could, including identifying herself with the other side, to hurt Obama. He won, she lost. Instead of accepting defeat, you are now training your daughter to be sore loser - and a cheat.

Great lessons!
12:24 PM on 06/17/2008
As an Hispanic woman me and many of my black female friends wish I had the luxury of just worrying about gender discrimination.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Denni
11:40 AM on 06/17/2008
Why is it always a matter of fighting for women at the top to make a difference for the rest of womankind. It's the feminist version of 'trickle down' theory. I've had enough with class-conscious feminists who try to tell us that they're fighting for 'all' women. If they were, they'd question the women at the top who play the old boys' game and then cry foul when theyr'e treated like one of the guys.

If only they'd ask why women at the top accept campaign funds from firms like IPA where women were harassed, grabbed, threatened and maltreated. What was the response for keeping the money? Those were only 'allegations'. There are even feminists who stay silent when the powerful men they support are accused of bad behavior.

Quit protecting the women at the top (who protect the men at the top, who use and abuse less powerful women). It damages your case that you believe that 'lesser women' matter. They're only your excuses (your tickets) to enlarger the 'power players club' for some women, not all.

Too bad that press conference isn't about the women who are largely absent in the public discussion about sexism and it's painful consequences (the women who are victims of sexual and physical abuse, and aren't running for office somewhere). Nope, back to the same old - the media cares whether it offends the rich and powerful.
09:58 AM on 06/17/2008
I will agree that the MSM needs to have more strong, female pundits (like Rachel Maddow, I absolutely LOVE her!) and fewer submissive women just hanging out to contrast the 'hard-hitting' male talking heads. Women with brains and opinions that can take on the men in a debate is a terrific lesson for daughters to learn.

What I will NOT agree with is the notion that the media was somehow sexist because Hillary didn't win the nomination. If she had won, would this even be an issue? I'm completely over deconstructing the Clinton campaign's failure. It's pretty simple - she lost because she was unprepared and because she completely underestimated her opponent. She did NOT lose because of media sexism, Mark Penn, Bill, solar storm ion waves that made it to earth, or any other half-baked reason.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truthskr
03:16 PM on 06/17/2008
I'm with you and your entire post, but particularly with regards to your reference to Rachel Maddow. She has been one of the very few voices of reason this campaign season.
09:46 AM on 06/17/2008
Sexism? Were Hillary supporters crying sexism back in mid to late 2007 when the press all but inaugurated her? Every single pundit, every single news program, announced that Hillary was a shoe in and that no one else need bother to run -- that she would be our next Democratic nominnee, nobody had a chance to come close to beating her.

It was a honeymoon up until she began to lose to Obama and turned her campaign nasty.

She got barbed by the media (that's the media we are talking about, not the makers of those nasty Hillary nutcrackers; not the loonie who showed up at one rally with an iron-my-shirt sign) -- she got barbed by the media the same way any other candidate who fought dirty and got caught lying and lost a lot of contests would have.

She lost.

She and her supporters should be women enough, just plain human enough, to just accept that and get over themselves.
10:46 AM on 06/17/2008
How did those guys get through security with the "Iron My Shirt" sign? They were ALLOWED through.
03:20 PM on 06/17/2008
Allowed by Clinton secret service or campaign officials? I don't think the media has anything to do with who is 'allowed' through.
09:18 AM on 06/17/2008
Let's not make this about Hillary losing the nomination.. That is not the argument.. Can people actually sit back and say that the media showed no sexism? Think about your daughters and the things that were said. Would that be OK?

I use to love Keith and Chris, I look at them as men not journalists anymore. They showed their true colors when it comes to women..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:47 AM on 06/17/2008
I'm a father of daughters. Frankly, I was sickened by the fact that a candidate who had little chance of winning for months, was deeply in debt, running a race baiting campaign and caught lying was allowed to continue as if their campaign were in a head to head horse-race with the candidate who had won eleven contests in a row-just because of their last name. The media's failure to step up sent a disturbing message that skill, planning, and playing by the rules you agreed to did not matter-just your husband's last job.
03:37 PM on 06/17/2008
I am a 45 year old woman with a 28 year old daughter and I did not see a lot of sexism by main stream media. There may have been a few cases, but for the most part the media treated Hillary as they would any candidate in her position, male of female. She did afterall run a poor campaign in the beginning and was caught in lies. Her campaign improved in the final months, but by then it was too late and most people knew that. I will say she is definitely a fighter.
08:10 AM on 06/17/2008
A form of the "Daughter Test" was tried on Cheney when it turned out that his daughter was a lesbian. Voila! Lesbians were OK after all.
06:37 AM on 06/17/2008
Sen Clinton did NOT lose de to sexism, stop making excuses....And if you realy want to fight sexism in the MSM, start defending Michelle Obama......I do have a young daughter and by Sen Obama winning the nominationa nd hopefully going on to win the President of the United States, SHE DID WIN. I want my daughter to learn to be HONEST and win fair and square and if you don't win , don't make excuses, move !
05:25 AM on 06/17/2008
If you just found out that political campaigning isn't fair you've lived in a cave. The media is not your friend, male or female and the gaffe will be relentlessly played and analysed. If the Hillary campaign taught your daughter anything it should be that a woman can run a stinking campaign and lose. You want excuses, sorry. I like the lesson you seem to want to teach your daughter, that incompetence is trumped by excuses if you're female, that losing isn't losing if you're a woman it must be cheating.

You claim the right to come out and play in a rough game and then don't like the fact that it is rough? It is a rough game and you'd better bring nerves of steel and a strong game face to play with. If you want to stake out territory on issues like experience you'd better be able to back it, if you want to claim judgement your record better reflect it. Whining is damned unattractive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amblush617
03:26 AM on 06/17/2008
I agree !! No, Clnton DID NOT LOSE because of sexism, though it DID run rampted all through the news ... She lost because of the "ALL BOY'S CLUB" .. do you really think the move of DNC to Chicago was just NOW decided??? hmmm NOT .. it take awhile to merge 2 offices , I know for a fact since I was involved with 2 of them in the '80's ....
noooo the FIX has been in place for quite awhile now ... and we women heard their message loud & clear ... no women in the WH for '08 .. of course, this gives them another 4 years to figure how to do it smoother ... like Bush did in '04 ... our votes don't really matter .. haven't for a very long time ...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Grissom1001
01:53 AM on 06/17/2008
IF your daughter learned about UNFAIR during this past Primary? Then she learned it mainly from Hillary Clinton who kept trying to move the goal posts and who thought it was fair to take the votes from faulty elections in FL and MI.
Unfair to Clinton? SHE was unfair while Obama played by the rules and won.
12:00 AM on 06/17/2008
OMG - I need to tell you just how sick I am of reading about the media and Hillary!!! I would very much like it if you would go to the following website and scroll through all of the women in the world - both current and previous heads of State/government/Prime Ministers/Presidents!!!
Do you think ALL of these women.....the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Bhutto didn't have to deal with the media? How the hell do you think they made it? I remember an article over at the Atlantic talking about how Margaret Thatcher would have thought it was WAY beneath her to whine like Hillary and the rest of you and the media are doing.
GROW UP and find a candidate who will run a better campaign next time. You are all taking the credit AWAY from the many women in this country in the Congress or who are CEO's, leaders in their small towns and Mothers!!!
And for WHAT? Because the first woman to run for President ran an extremely poor campaign and you're all having a difficult time getting over it? So Sick Of This!! Please go to this site and rethink all of your persistent whining. http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/Lobby/4642/#section1
10:54 PM on 06/16/2008
And by the way, why is it that MS white feminists are falling apart over the supposed abuse Hillary Clinton has been exposed to - but I have yet to read a single piece by any white feminist on the endless and trivial and deeply personal attacks on Michelle Obama?
05:23 PM on 06/17/2008
Amen. Michelle is a strong capable intelligent woman. SHE is the one feminists should be rallying around as she maintains her dignity and elegance in the face of some terrible treatment from the press rather than Hillary who was constantly whining and playing the victim.