home

NBC's Pattern Of Sexism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Jamison Foser writes a terrific post about what one of the real issues is with NBC's coverage:

Capus' statement is the best sign yet that NBC News is beginning to take seriously the lengthy pattern of inappropriate comments about women made by NBC and MSNBC reporters. (NBC News did not issue a statement about Matthews, allowing Matthews' overly narrow, on-air quasi-apology to stand as the closest thing to an official statement.)

But apologies and statements and even suspensions don't mean anything unless they are followed by an actual change in behavior. Things didn't change at NBC/MSNBC after the Matthews controversy; hopefully they will this time.

That is one of the big issues about this. We can not fall into the malign acceptance of sexism.

< Tonight's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in Virginia | Thousands of WA Mail-in Primary Ballots Tossed >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NBC's Pattern Of Sexism | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Excellent article by Jamison Foster. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    Thank you very much bringing it to our attention.  

    I really don't understand why TV media people aren't required to participate in sexual harassment training like those of who do not occupy such positions.  Doesn't NBC have a risk mgt. department?

    BTD, it interests me that you (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    and Jamison Foster, both male, write with such conviction about the sexist commentary on NBC/MSNBC.  Quite commendable but also quite unusual from what I read.  

    Did you read me during the Lawrence Summers Wars? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST


    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    I must admit that when you really get your hackles up on racism issues, I tune out; I will try not to in the future though.  

    Parent
    On racism issues? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    Well, I do and did have serious run ins at daily kos because I insisted that there is deep racism in our society and in our Democratic Party. I continue and will continue to speak my mind on that.

    Similarly the wars on Lawrence Summers at daily kos revealed a disgusting sexism and misogyny in so called "liberals."

    You see, unlike some candidate partisans who shall remain nameless, my ideals remain my ideals no matter what candidate I prefer.

     

    Parent

    I'm thinking of the huge dust up (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:08:35 PM EST
    at docudharma.  

    You do stick to your guns.  I was giving Bill Clinton a pass on the Jesse Jackson comment at first, but finally realized, with your assistance, Bill Clinton is way too smart and politically savvy to have just inadvertently tossed off that remark.  

    Parent

    Summers (none / 0) (#59)
    by rilkefan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    You're referring to the speech he made in which he said the main source of gender disparity in some fields was the 80-hour work week 52 week/year for untenured profs being inconsistent with pregnancy and societally-imposed inequity in childcare time?

    Parent
    Summers Apologized (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:49:58 PM EST
    And resigned. Case closed.

    Parent
    Russia (none / 0) (#63)
    by rilkefan on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:29:36 PM EST
    Case closed.

    Or, extending the campus.  Case closed.

    Parent

    Politico (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    has the email exchanges between the Clinton campaign and NBC about their dustup.  Sen Clinton was definitely not amused.  Here's a piece of what she wrote to Kapus after he called and apologized.

    "Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," Clinton wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus, who apparently had already called Clinton to personally apologize.

    "I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language," Clinton wrote. "There's a lot at stake for our country in this election. Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate." ... ..

    Wow! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton wrote that to them?  Good for her.  Man, this riles me up again.

    Parent
    As a man with daughters (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    I'm so pissed I could spit nails at how Hillary Clinton has been treated.  The pimped business was just one step too many.

    Parent
    Don't get riled up so much you (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    forget to admire her forthright approach to getting the job done.  

    Parent
    It's Taboo (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    Sexism is a Pandora's box.  There are just too many mixed signals about women (and men) in American culture that most don't want to discuss it at all--lest all the paradoxes and contradictions rear their ugly heads.

    And many (I'd even say most) women today don't want to join the outcry against sexism lest they be pigeonholed as a victim, a hag, or a shrew.  And of course their silence only reinforces mixed signals in our culture, which make men and women even more confused about their respective roles.

    So now, ironically enough, those women who dislike misogyny but also want to be well-liked find themselves in the passive, awkward role of onlooker while real men (like you, BTD, thank you!) condemn the sexism on their behalf.  Weird, anachronistic, and sad.

    Or worse yet (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    as feminists.  Being called a feminist is the kiss of death.

    Parent
    i no longer end look or think about the object (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    of the attack. i don't think less of them or judge them as the person making the statement might like. i look at the person making the attack. i wonder to myself if they are so unsure of themselves that they have to attack someone else. are they trying to be one of the cool kids like a 13 year old might do. often that is what i think of matthews. he wants to be one of the cool kids.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#31)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST


    Parent
    kangeroo (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    I agree and will go one step further: they run the risk of being labelled a "dyke" for supporting Hillary.  Let's be honest here.  Again and again, women who stand up for other women get labelled with this pejorative.

    Women who work in traditionally male-dominated fields (like punditry) either have to appear bubbly and feminine or, if they are smart, they have to be one of the boys and laugh at the sexism as if it does not matter.  Women who choose to do neither, and show that they are annoyed or angry about the open misogyny, are often called lesbians.

    This may tie into the fact that many, many women would switch to their own sex or abstain forever if their only available sexual partners were the likes of Tim Russert and Tweety.

    Yup again. (none / 0) (#32)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Now that was a stretch. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    Women who support HRC are called humorless and conservative.  Plus, as you have probably read, studies show older women w/o a partner prefer domestic pets to a live in partner!

    Parent
    well most pets are quieter :-) (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:36:08 PM EST


    Parent
    No comment, as I am neutral (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    on other people harboring domesticated animals, although I do not like cats.  

    Parent
    Oculus, maybe your own benign thinking... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    ...leads you to assume others just can't be that bad--which in turn prevents you from seeing how bad it really is.  Have you seen the comments on Digby's blog that she had to delete?

    Parent
    Yes; really atrocious. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    Digby is such a good thinker and writer;she seems quite fair to me; I'm wondering if these comments started after it became known she is female.  

    Parent
    Not sure. (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    But the comments were clearly female-specific.

    Parent
    Yes they were, so (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    that probably answers my question.  

    Parent
    Want to see sick (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:37:50 PM EST
    go to politico.com and check the comments on the Clinton/MSNBC kerfuffle.  Absolutely disgusting!  And lots of them from what I can only assume are self-hating women.

    Parent
    Yeah. (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    As a woman, I honestly don't know what to do about it; I don't know how to make women realize they're undermining themselves...  As a woman and advocate, I often feel trapped, because many of them are so hostile if (they know you're a woman and) you approach them with anything remotely resembling a "feminist" agenda.

    Parent
    I'm making new enemies daily (none / 0) (#58)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    by not "having a sense of humor" about the sexism and misogyny at the forum where I normally hang out.

    I'm supposed to shut up, sit down, and let someone else tell me what is offensive and what is not. I shouldn't make a big deal about it because there will be backlash! And even worse, if Hillary gets elected, mark their words, things will be WORSE for women! Damned uppity women anyway, they had it coming.

    Who needs friends like that?

    Parent

    Nope, I've heard it many a time (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    and have been called a lesbian (I'm not), publicly in print, and similar names as well as feminazi for supporting Hillary Clinton when she was attacked, even long ago.

    Just now, I'm in an email battle about the election with some of my brothers, all of them Obama backers (some were for Edwards), and they won't call me names in front of each other or me.  But I hear some interesting things from my sisters-in-law . . . not that they're willing to speak up about it to their spouses.  So what?  My nieces are watching me, too -- and they will get to pick which sort of woman to be.:-)

    Parent

    i am not going to state point blank what i think (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    when i hear something like that. let's just say that to me an attractive, mature, self assured member of the other sex doesn't find it necessary to use those type of words such as some of the men at msnbc have used. in fact i think the exact opposite of the speaker.

    i don't get personally offended for myself if it is aimed at me. i came up in a male dominated field and took some hits in the process. i was told it was my job to make a man feel like a man, etc. i got over it, but my estimate of the ones doing that never recovered.

    Parent

    I Don't Watch TV (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    Got bits and pieces of this issue via the web. Knew that MSMBC was indulging in juvenile, sexist behavior, but didn't realize the full extent of the problem until I read Jamison Foster's article.

    This pattern needs to stop and stop now.

    That's why the Foster (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    article is so valuable, as I don't watch TV either except for baseball and during the debates and on primary/caucus nights.  If more people didn't watch these news analysis shows, I expect the media moguls would notice and wonder why and how to regain the audience share.  

    Parent
    Sexism is NOT and never will (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    be part of the Democratic platform...If you disagree IN ANY WAY, and don't see Shuster's statement as sexist, then I submit you are not and never will be a true Democrat...

    I admire you idealism but (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    am rather sceptical of the reality.  

    Parent
    oh the reality I agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    is that Sexism pervades as does racism the Democratic party...However, those arent the liberal values that founded our party and never will be part of the party in my opinion...However, as long as we "put up with it" in our party, the longer it will be there...I am just saying that anyone that feels that way, really isn't a true Democrat....plus the fact that Obama did not speak out against it didnt help us either...didnt help him either maybe I add...

    Parent
    It exists everywhere (none / 0) (#66)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:15:39 AM EST
    [Sidenote: been trying to find something of a pro-Clinton blog and managed to find ONE! Now don't ban me :p]

    ...and will exist everywhere until women realize they're their own boss. A lot of the problems with feminism (and why the ERA never past) is because women internalized all the negatives about them, and they accept the stereotypes (be it with them personally, to even the clothes they wear -- with the labels it can offer them too).

    BTW, I'm not a Democrat, and ironically a conservative, but I'm a firm ERA supporter (just because one is a conservative doesn't mean they're the stereotypical Republican -- heck, I'm not even a Republican!). Supporting Clinton, because frankly, it's about time for a woman as president. No ERA yet, so this is the next best thing.

    Understand there will be crossovers in this race due to gender, because some of us want to support fellow sisters regardless of party.

    Just a heads up.

    P.S. -- when fighting the establishment, never back down and never let them see you sweat. The moment you appear weak, those that fight you will be like vultures and feed on you (sadly, even women). If they call you every name in the book flick it off -- most importantly -- don't internalize it (this is what makes women victims, it can stick). Eventually it doesn't even phase you. I'm going on 42, and it's been a tough ride, but if you hang in there in your quest for personhood, you will make it (and hopefully enlighten some brothers along the way).

    Peace!

    Parent

    comments (none / 0) (#5)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:16:15 PM EST
    You know, something that is wrong is that comments is several blogs and news sites are treating this in a political fashion. If you are for Obama then it seems that Clintons deserve it if not then it is media bias.

    My opinion is the democrats and for that matter the republicans should unite and say sexism and no place in politics just as racism has no place in politics.

    Imagine if Obama came out and condemned this type of behavior also. What a change that might make.

    It bothers me when sexist comments are made especially in the presence of women on the same show and they are to intimidated to say anything. Instead they either don't say anything or sort of giggle.

    Surely not THIS blog (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST


    Parent
    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    Not so much this blog, more like: TPM, HuffPo, MyDD, DKOS Politico, ABC comments some Open Left etc.  

    Parent
    The more I read this comment (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    the more it makes me laugh.

    Parent
    I assumed that Obama would condemn (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    this behavior immediately.  Now that you mention it, I haven't heard anything about it.  Wonder why?


    Parent
    Maybe he'll be questioned about (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    his reaction at the next debate.  

    Parent
    One of his advisors (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    said it was "unacceptable," but you are right: he would have gone a long way toward winning the women's vote if he had spoken out immediately.  I am not sure why he did not, because it was a perfect platform for him to appear to finally match his rhetoric with actions.  I suppose we can take his lack of action as one more "present" vote.

    Parent
    My female friends who (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    support Obama are not concerned about his "present" votes, which surprises and disappoints me a great deal.  

    Parent
    did you show them the letter (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    sent from the woman who was president of IL NOW during the present votes, where she stated without reservation that they WANTED Obama to vote for the bill and there was no reason whatsoever for him to vote present, considering he came from an ultra-liberal area where he would suffer no political penalties for voting?

    Parent
    No. They have already voted (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    so it wouldn't do any good.  

    Parent
    wind (none / 0) (#27)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    Maybe he is waiting to see which way the wind blows.

    I shouldn't be mean but he does seem to look at others before making decisions.

    Parent

    His spokesman did (none / 0) (#50)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    Imagine if Obama came out and condemned this type of behavior also. What a change that might make.

    Here for instance:

    Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, called Shuster's comments 'deplorable' and said they had no place in the political process.

    The media doesn't seem to have been too interested in picking it up though. Too decent to fit the "claws out" narrative they want for the Dem primary fight I guess.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#57)
    by echinopsia on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    A statement from a surrogate does not suffice in this case. Obama needs to go on record as finding it deplorable in his own words.

    It is not decent, it is cowardly for him to remain silent. And THAT is why the media is not picking it up.

    The same people who are such blind Obama disciples that they find nothing wrong with Shuster's or MSNBC's treatment of the Clintons will tell you their guy has no need to speak out against this sort  of thing. It's not his problem; he's above it all.

    Sexism and misogyny is not his problem or his issue as long as his ox is not being gored. This would go a long way towards explaining why many women do not like him.

    Parent

    Ridiculous comment (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    Statements from surrogates and spokespeople are good enough for people here to condemn when it suits your purposes. He really didn't have to issue any statement on it at all since he had nothing to do with it. But I'm glad he did issue one. The constant rationalizations, distortions, and special pleading from some blind Clinton disciples here are really quite laughable.

    Parent
    NBC'S PATTERN OF SEXISM (none / 0) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM EST
    *****************

    Thanks again BTD, for the ongoing critique of the sexism thing.

    So why is it that a charge of sexism doesn't get the same traction as racism?

    Seems to me that, in and of itself, as a term, "sexism" has never carried the gut-punch of "racism". In fact, it pales as a late-comer term that's kind of piggy-backing on racism. It always sounds weak next to "racism".

    That's why I prefer good old-fashioned "MISOGYNIST". It's a venerable term (17th century), yet it still sounds somehow fresh and forceful and it gets right to the heart of the matter doesn't it?

    Regarding a prospective FEMALE ANCHOR at MSNBC, I had been into RACHEL MADDOW. But, I've also noticed that SHE'S BECOME ONE OF THE CLINTON-BASHING BOYS.

    I agree with having JERALYN be our gal at MSNBC.

    A thought on so-called "LATE-DECIDERS" breaking for Hillary: for the most part, I don't believe they are "late-deciders" at all.

    In the current climate, it's decidedly uncool to openly declare oneself a Hillary-supporter.

    So, many of those self-professed 'late-deciders' may be Hillary supporters who've been effectively ridiculed/shamed/bullied/ intimidated into silencing their support - until they're in the voting booth.

    That may also help explain why Democratic POLLING has become so un-predictive, as in California, New Hampshire, etc.

    Forget the "Bradley Effect", whereby voters presumably profess support for a black candidate then vote for the white guy.

    I suspect there's an INVERSE HILLARY EFFECT: whereby many voters tell pollsters they're undecided but, in truth, they fully intend to vote for Hillary.

    Suck on that Zogby.

    P.S. KATHY and SKY thanks for the tips on the 'Fair-Shake For Hillary' blogs.

    *****************

     

    Missed "Fair Shake for Hillary Blogs" (none / 0) (#11)
    by ivs814 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    Can you pass it along?

    Parent
    Totally agree with this part of what you said: (none / 0) (#30)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:21:15 PM EST
    In the current climate, it's decidedly uncool to openly declare oneself a Hillary-supporter.

    So, many of those self-professed 'late-deciders' may be Hillary supporters who've been effectively ridiculed/shamed/bullied/ intimidated into silencing their support - until they're in the voting booth.

    Parent

    the future (none / 0) (#48)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:47:28 PM EST
    This may be seen in the future as the 'Hillary effect' (if pundits ever see it)

    Parent
    FAIR SHAKE FOR HILLARY BLOGS (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    *****************

    To ivs814:

    Regarding "FAIR SHAKE FOR HILLARY BLOGS": Kathy suggested TAYLOR MARSH and SKY said this: "I often visit Larry Johnson's blog at NO Quarter. He and another writer, Susan, give excellent posts that are pro-Hillary. Please check it out. I also visit Hillaryis44.com and politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com."

    Anybody have others to add? Meanwhile, thanks to all.

    *******************

    The all bold font is jarring and (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    not helpful.  

    Parent
    All Bold (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    *********************
    To Oculus et al:

    The "all bold" is an option that I'm not able to deactivate when I post here - it's a malfunction of some kind - everything comes out that way. It looks like I'm kidding (in bold, on purpose) but I'm not! I apologize for the problem. Please don't be testy.

    ******************

    Parent

    Oooh, "testy." (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:40:49 PM EST
    That's  a fighting word.

    Parent
    Say What Now? (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    OK Oculus, you're creeping me out with this second round of pesky oversight.

    Maybe there's something to the name - Oculus: from Latin, literally eye; omniscient, all-seeing and all-knowing; in architecture the apex opening in a dome, looking in and looking out; in archeology the watchful gaze of a god or goddess.

    Hope this isn't going to be a bad thing for a Foxhole Atheist like me.

    Looking (if you must) on the bright side, I've resolved the all-bold malfunction that problematized my earlier posts, so that won't be ticking you off in future.

    Peace out.



    Parent

    You may have missed the (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    discussion earlier about whether Bill Clinton, I think it was, qualified as "testy" in his remarks to a reports.  

    Of course I had already forgotten who was doing comments in all bold.  I don't expect to be bird dogging you in the future!

    Parent

    fair shake (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    by that you mean blatantly pro Hillary.  

    Parent
    Wow, you must be kidding me. (none / 0) (#52)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    Maybe you ought to do a little research before you say things like that.  Take a gander here, here, here, and here.  Then come back and try saying that again with a straight face.

    Parent
    what is (none / 0) (#23)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    What is sky.

    Kind of sad thare are so few! Considering she gets half the vote.

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#54)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    I agree with Oculus; the content is helpful but the bold font is pretty jarring.

    Parent
    just think everyone, the new democratic (none / 0) (#49)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    party will include as part of its platform, a sexist agenda and no room for the likes of NOW or any other pro womens liberation organization....I guess I never realized how far we have gone backwards as a society till now...I was very active as a rape counselor for many years and have seen the damage and sense of entitlement many of these sexists have....this is very dangerous indeed...I had hoped we had trancended this by 2008...

    NBC's Pattern Of Sexism | 66 comments (66 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment