home

The Misogynist Media Still At It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
From Time's Jay Newton-Small (I never heard of her either):
An interesting endorsement for Obama today. Pelosi's BFF George Miller. . . . [W]hen her top advisor [Top advisor? So that is what George Miller has been reduced to now?] who also happens to be a famous champion of women politicians endorses Obama, does it send the signal: is there room in Washington for both a Speaker Pelosi and a President Hillary?
Okaay. Can't have TOO many women with power in Washington now can we? Sheesh.

< Guantanamo Turns Six, Please Wear Orange on Friday | Find Your Candidate: VoteMatch >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Misogynist Media Still At It | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Re "Misogynist Media": (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    Isn't Swampland limited to on-line?  

    P.S.  Does it matter the commenter has a name usually associated with males, i.e. "Jay"?  

    The problem (none / 0) (#2)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    Let's be honest: Part of the allure of the Sen. Clinton campaign is the fact that she is a woman. Some of her support is directly due to the fact that she is a woman. (Same thing for Sen. Obama and the African American nature of his campaign.)

    We've had a woman Spearker of the House for a year now and most people (except those who love the fact that the Speaker is a woman and not a man) probably couldn't care less.

    I think that is true (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    But I also think people misunderstand something - Barack Obama and hillary Clinton are who they are, in substantial part, because they are, in Obama's case, A-A, and in Clinton's case, a woman.

    You can separate that from who they are.

    I am always amazed by the discussion that "idf Barack Obama was not black" he would nto be a major factor -- if he were not black, he would not be Barack Obama.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    I hate when you agree with me. Now I have to rethink my original post...

    Parent
    can NOT (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    separate that from who they are.

    Parent
    The Clinton campaign must be ecstatic. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    In one paragraph we get another reason to be outraged on Hillary's behalf AND it manages to minimize Miller's endorsement of Obama.  

    And every time it gets replayed in print (whether in outrage or not) that helps Hillary.  

    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    I can only tell you it infuriates me.

    I found the post shocking. Not kidding you on that.

    Parent

    I'm sure you did (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    because it is infuriating.  

    Parent
    Female Pundits (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    The even more depressing thing is that this cat-talk fight is coming from a woman.  Look, I expect entitled, over-stuffed white boys who are threatened by anyone who undermines their ability to rule the world - guys like Chris Matthews - to spew sexist bile.  But what is with the female reporters and pundits?  Are they so desperate for the male establishment's approval that they don't care how what they write and say plays into hundreds of years of negative stereotypes that hurt women?  Forget about Clinton, these stereotypes hurt us all.

    Also, not to sound all non-cynical, but I suspect that Clinton herself finds all of this fairly appalling.  She actually does care about the status of women.  She may think it has the capacity of helping her politically, she may even think that her candidacy exposing this kind of bile is good in the long run, but I don't know how anyone who has done as much work for women's rights as Hillary Rodham Clinton can read this stuff and not want to weep.  Generations of work, women at the head of Congress and corporations, and we still have to deal with this crap.

    One of the late undecided women who broke for Clinton said that years ago her teen-aged daughter had told her that she wasn't going to grow up to be a feminist.  The mother replied that that was "ungrateful."  The mother was right and whether any of these women vote for Clinton or not, whether they agree with her or not, all of the younger women reporters owe a huge debt to Hillary Clinton (and Nancy Pelosi and others like them).  Without that generation, I'd be at home raising babies, a job that I have the utmost respect for, but that I am incredibly ill-suited to actually do and would not only make me miserable but waste the talents that I actually have.  

    Such gratitude for the work done by others on women's behalf doesn't mean you owe Clinton your vote, but at least don't spew the sexist bile that she and many, many others have fought against for decades, largely for the benefit of other women.  Geesh.

    Parent

    All good points (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    except that I think Clinton is thrilled.  NH en