What Boys Clubs?

In the debate the other night, Campbell Brown seemed to not know what Hillary Clinton was referring to when she referred to "a boys club". Maybe thsde reactions from her male Media colleagues might help Mrs. Dan Senor understand what Hillary is talking about.

Roger Simon:

Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon began his November 16 column by asserting, "The (rhymes with rich) is back."

Mike Allen:

ALLEN: All right. But what Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that? And what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor, and if he had folded or buckled under that question, that would have looked ridiculous...But Kiran, this was just a funny moment on the campaign trail. CHETRY: Well, it's only funny unless you're offended by somebody calling a woman the b-word.

Dana Milbank:

The other night, talking with my man Olbermann, greasily hiding behind what was the living definition of a s**t-eating grin, Milbank explained his take on the "How do we beat the bitch?" controversy currently plaguing John McCain, who is not, Milbank was quick to point out, running for "knighthood in some order of chivalry." He further explained that McCain was smart enough to realize that it would "be suicide to quarrel with this phraseology." So now it is not only politically permissible -- but the very essence of shrewd politics -- to go along with calling Senator Hillary Clinton almost anything. Why stop here? Why not just call her a "c**t"? . . .

And this is the "sophisticated" part of the Beltway. You can just imagine how overt misogynists like Tweet Matthews and Tucker Carlson, not to mention Faux News, reacted. Maybe Campbell gets it a little more now. Probably not.

< Taser Death Sparks Uproar in Canada | Dyslexic Execution MD Worked for Feds, Not Just Missouri >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, it was a great question (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    from Hillary's point of view because she hit that one out of the park.  If she'd answered it with facts and examples, she would have struck out.  

    But instead of even responding to that non-debatable question Hillary said, in that special tone of disappointment reserved for people who know better, "Oh, Campbell".  And then she took the rest of her time and used it to better effect.

    You think it was a debatable question?

    Oh, Armando.

    In reading this thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 09:07:07 PM EST
    there isn't any real discussion about the actual boys club.  Just the usual talk that seems to go on in every profession about when and if it's OK to call a woman a b*tch.  Of course, that's what your post was about too - not really about the actual boys club.  

    It's why I think arguing with anyone about whether or not a boys club exists (even when the facts are on your side) is at best a waste of time and at worst a distraction from making actual change.  Breaking into a club that happens to be made up only of boys isn't about stopping people from calling you names - it's about getting the job or making the money or having the power.  What they call you really isn't the issue. And the fact that they call you a b*tch doesn't, in and of itself, stop you from getting into the club.


    I'll happily play the gender card one day in '08 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ellie on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    Should my ideal candidatge for the WH not emerge before then.

    Yes, I will knowingly, joyfully and thoroughly play the gender card on election day. I will snort on up to the poll and be a sexist pig that day just to revel in watching the boys' club's heads explode the other 364 days that they do it and GD KNOW FULL WELL THAT THEY DO IT. Only this time, I'm exacting the price up front.

    Yeah, revenge is so mean when payment is extracted up front.

    In closing, the standing "blow me" counterargument will follow "talk to the hand" rebuttal and yo'mama (knows what I'm talking about) responses to appeals.

    the B word (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by diogenes on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    JK Rowling had a female character go after Bellatrix Lestrange by calling her the B word; people didn't call for banning the book for having naughty words.
    If Hillary isn't one (think about Angela Merkel), then the talk won't stick.  If she is one, then it's a valid charge-do you really want such a person to run the country?  It's similar to what this site says about Giuliani's character.

    I'm still waiting, however... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    ...for the male equivalent of that word.  There isn't one, because our society still has a strong prejudice that equates weakness and inferiority with women and not men.  

    Well, this isn't entirely true, since calling a man a f*g sort of accomplishes the same thing, but slurring gay people is not as acceptable in the MSM as slurring women.


    What? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    You must not get it.  The b word is used to say that a woman is being to masculine or strong.  John E was called a f*g and they obsessed about his 400 dollar hair cut.  When have Tweety or Tucker ever used the B word or the F*G word.  The insult male democrats all the time for being to weak.  It is the same thing.

    No, b*tch is used almost always... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:17:51 PM EST
    ...to simply slur a woman who is acting in manner someone else doesn't like, whether that is too masculine or not.  You must not get it if you think b*tch is tossed around in some uniform manner.  Hillary is being called a b*tch because she is perceived as WEAK ultimately -- that is, her strength is not strength but the weakness of impersonating some other.  Women are called b*tches in an attempt to disempower them, not to affirm they are acting too masculine.  While sometimes b*tch is used to describe women for being too manly or whatever masculine quality you choose, far more often than not, as with Hillary, it is simply used to denegrate a woman as less than.  

    And my point stands, there is still no male equivalent of b*tch that carries anything near its weight.  F*g carries a lot of weight, but is not thrown around at men like b*tch is and is not its equivalent.  


    Since you're a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    s%%t-for-brains, then it's perfectly valid for me to point that out, s%%t-for-brains.

    gosh, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    here i thought harry potter was a fictional character, imagine my embarassment to find out otherwise! of course, st. john of mccain is a fictional character, made up by his fawning media cohorts, so i guess it balances out.


    And this is the "sophisticated" part of the Beltway.

    i suppose that depends on your definition of "sophisiticated". does the word "sophomoric" ring a bell? oddly enough, i live in the DC area, and these people have always come across as affected putzes to me.

    The Problem (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    I'm not going to argue that Clinton doesn't get sexist comments all the time, but male democratic candidates get it too, if they don't fit in to tweety or any body else's stereotype of how tough a man should be.
    People call the democrats the mommy party, but we have nothing but male candidates, how is this not a sexist insult.
    I think the complaint about Hillary is that she brings it up, like it doesn't happen to the males.  Of course she is right the media is sexist, society is sexist, but her male candidates have to deal with it too.
    So why does her constant playing the gender card not helpful with men.  Two reasons some men are actually sexist, and other men see that they too are victums of the same media sex biaises.
    On top of all this she plays both sides of the issue.  Read MoDo(who you apparently cant understand) and she will give all sorts of examples of Hillary trying to capitalize off gender stereotypes when it benefits her, and denouncing it, not when it is unfair, but when she thinks she can score political points by doing so.

    MoDo? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kewalo on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    You actually get your understanding of the election from MoDo? Honest?

    I'm stunned.

    If you really want to understand what's going on you should read Digby.


    If Obama or Bill Clinton were women... (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    No one would use the B word because it wouldn't stick.  Once again, the question boils down to whether Hillary or Giuliani are some sort or overly aggressive, arrogant sorts described by the B word.

    has someone called rudy a b*tch lately, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    and i missed it? oh, wait, he's bernie's b*tch!