home

More Sexism At NBC

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The victims this time were Rachel Maddow AND Hillary Clinton. The context was Obama's "inartful" use of the word "refine" regarding his Iraq policy. TChris covered that controversy. Maddow was arguing the Obama argument and Joe Scarborough was not happy about Maddow's laughing as a reaction to Joe's commentary. The result was yet another episode of sexism at NBC:

Yet more guffaws from Maddow.

MADDOW: You're so wrong, I can't even hold it together. You're so wrong.

SCARBOROUGH: You might support Obama but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of ya.

(Emphasis supplied.) Maddow has been silent and cowardly on the issue of sexism and misogyny at NBC and in general, so you might be tempted to feel some schadenfreude. Resist it. Sexism is wrong whenever it occurs and whomever it is directed at. NBC should suspend Scarborough for this blatant bout of sexism.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: America | The Declaration Of Independence >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    More Sexism At NBC | 196 comments (196 topical)
    thou shalt not laugh (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    at a man, lowly woman.

    the egos on these guys are ridiculous, and when they get threatened they lash out. repulsive.

    Maddow, IMHO (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    was being totally obnoxious, on and on and on and on with gales of forced laughter, non-stop, at pretty much every sentence somebody else said, man or woman.  If I'd been Joe Scarborough, I would have said a lot worse to her a lot earlier, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something a lot worse to her once they were off air.


    [ Parent ]
    Off air is the key (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    Sometimes I really wonder at these so-called professionals.

    [ Parent ]
    Look, the video is here. (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    That is, if you have stomach for more than 10 minutes of obnoxiousness by one person.  She is really annoying.

    I know Joe really admires Hillary (and I do too.) So, I think cackle may have not been as much of a put down as people think.

    Frankly I was offended that he compared Rachel to Hillary. I had a yuck reaction to that.    

    What do you think of a woman who keeps laughing (for 10 minutes) when the subject is Iraq War? I think she is stupid, insensitive, and a jerk.  

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't matter how obnoxious she is (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    It doesn't even really matter whether he called her on it on or off the air.  It's how he called her on it.

    That is the fundamental point that all the MSM and bloggerkidz don't get (and I think purposely don't get) in the sexism discussion.

    It's not objecting to Clinton that's sexist.  It's using sexist language and talking points to object (ok, demonize) Clinton that is the problem.

    The words you use reveal your thinking.  Using sexist language just shines a big ol' light on how you see the world.

    [ Parent ]

    Then tell her OFF THE AIR. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    It's what a professional would do.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree that is the best way but i (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    am willing to bet he may already have tried that with maddow.

    [ Parent ]
    THIS is what i am referring to below (none / 0) (#131)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    if this comment just doesn't scream "she deserved it because she's such a jerk" i don't know what does.

    i can understand not feeling sympathetic toward her, but honestly, i think you are blaming the victim here.

    maddow can be BOTH an awful commentator and the subject of a sexist remark.

    [ Parent ]

    you misinterpret my thoughts. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    i have no sympathy for maddox that is true. i deplore any sexist comments. i reviewd the whole segment. i saw him a number of times trying to get maddow to tone down her behavior. she was using her laugh in a very demeaning, put down manner. he responded and should have stayed with another method to do so for sure. am i going to jump up and down in maddow's defense? NO!

    [ Parent ]
    just have to interject what an earlier blogger is (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    trying to say about men and being laughed at.  All people, just not men, will see Maddow's laugher as a far worse offesne. We're brought up to see it that way.

    Berkely study 1980's.  Respondents are male and female college students answering questionaire.  One question stands out for me -

    When asked what they fear most about the opposite sex might do to them the men nearly always responded that they feared women would reidicule them.  Women said they feared that men would kill them.

    So, you see, how we view women ridiculing men is considered a very, very big social no-no.  Doing so in public is even more of an egregious wrong that may always be responded to with some form of verbal or physical escalation.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW, (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    feel free to spend your time discussing 'cackle' in the context of someone who thinks the Iraq War, and Obama's turnaround on it is all part of a joke.  

    I know BTD wrote about sexism during the primary.  But for others, who now like to join the bandwagon and get us to defend the likes of Rachel Maddow, sorry, that ship has sailed.  

    You know, I don't give anyone the satisfaction of pretending NOW that they are sensitive to sexism, after all that went on, and they were quiet.  Now that they have been the beneficiary of that sexism, they want to be cute.  They get to pretend they care AND get us to fight THEIR battles for them.  Sorry, won't do. If Rachel wants to object to the term, she can be my guest.

    Come to think of it, that was a stroke of genius by Joe S. If Rachel objects to it, questions naturally arise as why she didn't lift a finger when it was going on against Hillary.  She either has to take it or admit she was a hypocrite.

    Let her try.

    [ Parent ]

    And she blatantly laughed at him and everyone else (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by andrys on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:08:32 AM EST
    She was 100% wrong on this.

    I watched Obama at rally after rally, when carried live on tv and then televised later also, tell people outright that he would have the troops out of Iraq BY the end of 2009.
    He oversimplified INTENTIONALLY, and without shame.

      Samantha Power lost her volunteer position as his foreign policy advisor when, in addition to calling Clinton a 'monster' during an interview, she did a TELEVISED interview with the BBC saying that Obama's 16-month promise was actually only a best-case scenario and not that likely to be kept.

    From barackobama.com:

    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat
    brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
     Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

    Now he can't even promise that the combat brigades will be out by 2013.

    Maddow was acting like a complete idiot, and she tends to excuse EVERY conflicting statement Obama ever makes.  She used to be a bit less partisan about it, but now she not only does that but does that forced, abusive laugh AT others who don't think as she does, which is wholesale belittling of them as thinking humans.  Why she feels she is the sole hold of Truth is beyond me.

    Hillary does have a strong laugh, which can at times also be forced (coming out as a cackle) when she used it as a tactic against the usual accusations.  It often worked.  And the people against whom she used it were attackers.

    Maddow used it against people who don't excuse Obama's every evasion or 'change.'  She was being super-obnoxious.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, I've got it!! (none / 0) (#192)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    I didn't see it as sexist in the context, and I guess we can agree to disagree.  I just cringed that he was comparing Maddow to Hillary (and Joe admires Hillary).  I think Joe didn't see the sexist implications.

    I just re-read the post. I guess BTD refers to Obama's 'inartful' use of the word 'refining' his Iraq polity.

    Joe can be annoying and has lots of faults. But hey, can he just say that his use of the word cackle was inartful? Surely, if it can be applied to Obama's Iraq policy and promises, a little comment by Joe Scarborough should be a very small fish in comparison!

    What's a few 'inartful' comments among friends?  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, I heard that too (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    I don't condone the sexist language Scarborough used, but I understand why he wanted to fight back. She came off as completely contemptuous and arrogant, just laughing mockingly at every opinion that she didn't agree with. She sure isn't what I thought she was when I first noticed her.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Great Opossum Nest! Love it. (I DO love possums, though - cool marsupial reproducers....)

    I feel the same way about Maddow. Such a disappointment. She is definitely very smart but, alas, smart does not equal wise nor decent. I now kind of think she's just all about the money.

    [ Parent ]

    I only blame him for bringing Hillary into it. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by derridog on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    This woman deserves what she gets otherwise. I'm not going to hypocritically pretend to be sorry when what goes around comes around.

    [ Parent ]
    this attitude is very disturbing (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    some women deserve to be treated in a sexist manner, is that right?

    ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Women who attack other women in a sexist (3.00 / 2) (#161)
    by derridog on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    way do not deserve to be defended when the same thing happens to them.

    [ Parent ]
    this is childish (none / 0) (#181)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    sexism, no matter its target, demeans all women.

    [ Parent ]
    Same refrain used against (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    Clinton... some would argue that making fun of her laugh was not sexist, that nothing said of Clinton was sexist.. it was just 'her', and if anything said was sexist, it was deserved.

    I am not saying Scarborough should have said nothing, I think it appropriate he address her behavior on air if he wanted... if he didn't like her deflecting with laughter, he should have said so.  If he felt she shouldn't have been laughing at the subject matter, say so.  It was sexist because it was it was relating Maddow to a typical sexist attack made on Clinton.

    I wonder if Maddow was more insulting at the sexist snipe or being likened to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought Rachel 'suddenly' realized what (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:21:39 AM EST
    ...what the 'cackle' descriptions for Hillary actually did mean much of the time.

       She's a typical young inheritor of the work done by older women who pooh-poohs (which is her #1 activity toward people not in agreement with her) any idea whatsoever that Clinton was the recipient of a lot of overtly sexist treatment, without end.

       I'm sure she felt whatever was done was deserved, and I saw a brief glimpse of realization come over her as he equated her laughter with Hillary's "cackle" ...

       Hillary was never that obnoxious though.  It was an embarrassment to watch Maddow carry on like that.

    [ Parent ]

    And Joe likes Clinton, actually (4.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    so may not like Maddow trying so hard to be one of the boyz throughout the campaign.

    That said, even Joe had to be one of the boyz with the "cackle" crap.  Joe, dontcha know that dozens of nice things said can be wiped out with one crack like that?  

    Yes, we keep score.  You betcha we do -- we sadder but wiser grrrlz learn to do so to survive.

    [ Parent ]

    my 2 cents (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    Joe tried very hard to find something gentle to chide Rachel with.  He said on Morning Joe (IIRC) that he loves Hillary's laugh.  They were doing a segment on Hillary moments after she withdrew.  

    Joe has joked since March that he is in love with Hillary.  So, no, I don't think he was making a witch reference.  

    The only reason I wasn't pleased was that Rachel is not worthy for Hillary to spit on her, let alone for her to be compared to Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    sexism is sexism (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    whether it is directed at a woman you like or a woman you dislike, sexism harms all women.

    And of COURSE he's making a witch reference. That is his entire purpose.

    [ Parent ]

    sexism is wrong certainly in any (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    regard but many of us can't jump up and down for maddow without first referencing her pathetic performance toward hillary. i won't let it pass. maddow deserved to be taken to task. her behavior is not acceptable. and joe was totally wrong to reference hillary in his comment. i will also say that joe defended hillary over and over and over during the primaries while maddow was just awful. women who bash women are disgusting.


    [ Parent ]
    women who bash women are disgusting (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    i will let the irony sink in for just a little longer.

    [ Parent ]
    irony that i take women to task for (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    bashing women? history is full of this. nothing new! and women who try and join the ole boy's club over the women who worked hard to get them there? then these women who make it show distain for other women? no sympathy for maddow from me but sympathy for women and hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    i take it you are a man, then (none / 0) (#86)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    of course it's nothing new, but you feel very comfortable bashing women for someone who claims it is out of bounds.

    [ Parent ]
    please! i am a woman and have worked (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    for women's rights. furhtermore i worked for hillary and don't appreciate the bashing of women especially from women like maddow who owe a lot of their success to the hard work many of us have done in the past.

    [ Parent ]
    it's not like we disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    I just think your dislike of Maddow is overriding a basic principle here - that sexism against one woman hurts all women. Scarborough is in the wrong, and as awful a commentator Maddow has been, as timid and unwilling to recognize and call out sexism on her own network as she has been, she does not deserve to be dismissed with a sexist remark.

    If Maddow deserves criticism (and I think she does), then make it. Don't excuse sexist slurs against her, and don't say that women should never bash women and then turn around and bash a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    if you read my comments, i think you will (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    see that i agree the "hillary cackle" comment is unworthy to use at anytime. it is wrong. however i take to task maddow who has enabled over and over the worse bashing of a woman publicly since the so called A was given to hester pryne(fiction i know). so excuse me if i don't have much sympathy for one of the original condemners. karma is a bxxx.

    [ Parent ]
    The topic is sexism by Scarborough (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM EST
    not how Maddow treated Hillary.

    I don't think Maddow, or we, deserve a sexist remark from Scarborough.  It's not karma or payback, it's petty and wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    so was maddow's behavior in the (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM EST
    primaries. i see you ignoring that. how convenient!

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I asked before. (none / 0) (#143)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    Was Maddow sexist in her comments about Hillary?  If so, I didn't hear it.  Did TL cover this.  I would have a completely different opinion of Maddow if she herself was sexist.  As far as not standing up against sexism at work or by colleagues, I don't think she should have to risk her job by calling them sexist.

    [ Parent ]
    she sat silent and actually laughed (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    when hillary was demeaned. perhaps in your world demeaning is ok for the so called greater good but not in mine. when one woman sits there while another woman is unfairly attacked, demeaned, flamed, heckled, scorned then IT IS NOT OK. but hey you soldier on with that attitude.

    [ Parent ]
    Laughing while someone is unfairly attacked is (none / 0) (#158)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    not OK in my book.  What I've seen so far from Maddow is good work, but I'll gladly look at or listen to any clips that prove otherwise.  

    [ Parent ]
    furthermore the subject is (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    sexism and it relates to maddow's past behavior during the primaries. that has been the subject and not obama's current positioning on iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    i have (none / 0) (#108)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    read your comments, and i think you are a very good commenter. i guess maybe i just view your opinions of maddow as slightly OT (but who am i to judge?) as they are beside the point of Scarborough's sexism. Otherwise, the suggestion would be (which I understand you aren't making) that some women deserve sexism.

    i appreciate the back and forth on this.

    [ Parent ]

    no neither women or men deserve (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    sexism. i condemn joe's remark and have several times on here. i think you misinterpret that maddow deserved to be bashed with sexism. well, no but i have no sympathy for her. and karma does have a way of nailing us with our own mistakes. that is karma.

    [ Parent ]
    Watch the video. (none / 0) (#77)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    I put a link upthread (and downthread).

    [ Parent ]
    i watched it. maddow was definitely (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    out of line on there. sad to say she is starting to remind me of some of the commentators from the far right i used to yell at on the screen. of course she represents the liberals and we have needed more spirited and informed commentators for sure. i feel clark is better representative of what we need. clark informs and maddow for all her so called intelligence irritates.

    [ Parent ]
    How was Maddow out of line? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    Her laugh or her opinion that Obama didn't flip?

    [ Parent ]
    sigh! for some i guess it is like porn. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    when you see it or hear it, you know it. maddow was trying too hard to defend something that can't be defended. what a shame she didn't defend the mistreatment of women with as much vigor. but the subject's of obama's swing to the center is the subject for another diary.

    [ Parent ]
    Since I agree with Maddow's position (3.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    that Obama isn't flipping, I don't see her as being out of line as she tried to defend it.  Obama was asked point blank by Charlie Gibson:
    So you give the same rock hard pledge [as David Plouffe], that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home.
    He replied:
    Because the commander in chief sets the mission Charlie.  That's not the role of the Generals.  Now I will always listen to the commanders on the ground with respect to tactics.  Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq.  

    Our candidate brilliantly answered Gibson's direct question without giving the GOP a soundbite that would let them make him look silly or inexperienced.  
    Maddow is right.  Obama did not say "Yes, I pledge to get them out of Iraq in 16 months."  The other talking heads are wrong when they say he did pledge it.


    [ Parent ]
    like i said, that is the subject (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    for another diary.

    [ Parent ]
    I still don't get why you say (3.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    she was out of line for making a point that his position on Iraq is consistent.

    Isn't that her (and our) job?  

    [ Parent ]

    i'll leave your deliberate ignoring (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    of the topic of this diary to btd. please address your remarks to our diary blogger.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that while it's a putdown (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by shannon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    I don't think there was a "witch" reference" knowing how much Joe respects Hillary. It would have been more appropriate to deal with it off the air, but I don't think there was sexist intent.

    [ Parent ]
    He Loves Hillary's Laugh (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    I wonder what he thinks of McCain's, or Obama's or Huckabee's or Edwards'...

    [ Parent ]
    you know what Joe said? (none / 0) (#184)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    After Hillary withdrew?

    I chose the wrong time to fall in love!



    [ Parent ]
    If That's how He Treats The Ones He Loves...n/t (none / 0) (#188)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:51:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    intent is not the issue (none / 0) (#198)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    Joe was pissed and he lashed back.  His unfiltered views showed through.  For all his "looove" for Hillary, he also, obviously doesn't think highly of her as a woman or he would never have even unconsciously reached for the "cackle" metaphor, let alone used it.

    Joe and Maddow are just doing what they are paid to do - entertain us to unthinking, unreflecting sleep lulled by distraction after distraction while tweaking us with a little hostility every now and again to get our attention and force an emotional response - in this case - our anger displaced towards them rather than towards the real issues.

    There is very little unscripted live TV.  It's like Pro-wrestling - the basic moves and throws and who wins is decided before the cameras roll.

    [ Parent ]

    '...something a lot worse..." (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    Wow,

    'the Hillary cackle' is pretty loathsome enough in my opinion.

    It's an example of the creepy schoolyard mentality insults Clinton endured simply because she was female. I haven't witnessed anything similar generated by the MSM against either Obama or McCain that matches it for pure ugly irrelevance. Why comment at all about her laugh, her clothes etc.? Because she's a woman.

    I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a woman and I noticed every time some smirky put down was leveled at her and her alone.

    NOW, here's evidence this particular one is getting implanted in the media meme as a 'clever' putdown of other women (and, by extension, Clinton herself AGAIN) every time one of them annoys some media boy.

    Maddow cleaned Scarborough's clock a couple months ago--so much so he walked off the show early. I hope she or some other female does the same to him or anyone else who indulges in this petty childishness next time.

    Complaints to the network etc and ongoing serious debates are one thing: A good rejoinder, or better yet a string of them on air in real time, humiliating the offender would help make these things disappear faster--and be so much fun to witness.

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly don't see (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    what some lefties see in Maddow.  She constantly parrots talking points very fast.

    No thanks.  I like Joe S. a lot better, b/c he is honest, and he gives opinions based on experience (they could be wrong, but at least he has convictions).  Another person that I usually respect is Harold Ford.  

    On the other hand, Maddow is full of hot air, and always plays a shouting match.  She is in the same club as Keith O. and is annoying as hell.

    I have no patience for that kind of television.  

    [ Parent ]

    To Each His/Her Own (none / 0) (#187)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    If Scarborough had 'just' referred to Maddow's laugh as "A" cackle, I wouldn't feel so angry.

    It's dragging Clinton into it, continuing some odd media obsession with her mannerisms and clothes etc. and applying it to a colleague who is also a woman who was apparently annoying him that really ticks me off and needs to be repudiated.

    It disrespects both of them. Maybe you feel Maddow had it coming. Clinton wasn't even there.

    I wonder if Harold Forde ever laughed at him if he would tell HIM he had that Clinton cackle down?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't excuse Joe, but just perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    he knew that the worst insult in Maddow's mind was to tell her she sounds just like Clinton. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I will resist...I will resist... (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:57:13 AM EST
    Wait, it's working...nope. Lost it.  Ok, I will try again.  

    But one line comes to mind:  "Ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light?"

    What's that from? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Batman (none / 0) (#189)
    by CHDmom on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    The Joker, I believe when he was talking to Batman's parents before he killed them, that part could be wrong, but it was Jack as the Joker.


    [ Parent ]
    No schadenfreude (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    I'll just wait and see who leads the charge besides the reliable few.

    In a way, it's a great litmus test.  Which women are worth defending?  All women or just a select few?

    Tangentially ... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:30:58 AM EST
    I wonder who is worthy of the moratorium on criticism after death?

    If Rush Limbaugh were suddenly called to his reward, how many people would piously assert that "now is not the time" to air any criticism?

    [ Parent ]

    Let me suggest that the line be drawn (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    at Jesse Helms.

    [ Parent ]
    A-men! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    Got the news at the orange.  They are busy eulogizing him.  Something about attending the funeral to make sure he is really dead.

    Wonder if the Rev Phelps is busy?

    [ Parent ]

    It is not about "which women" -- (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    it is about womanhood.  

    Because it is about our daughters not women yet, about girls unborn yet.  

    Are attacks on masculinity about "which men"?

    [ Parent ]

    women are worth defending but (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    blindly jumping up and down in a politically correct manner leaves me saying no thanks. i agree there are other better ways to take her to task for acting in a rude manner. the cackle clinton comment was so unnecessary. maddow jumped on the bandwagon of the women under the bus brigade, so excuse me if i don't have a lot sympathy for her. she needs apparently to be taken to task. maddow needs to learn some table manners.

    [ Parent ]
    Standing Up for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    It's not so much about defending Maddow.

    HER name is not attached to this despicable characterization that is so fraught with nasty associations.

    What, after all, cackles?

    Hens? Witches?

    Bad enough when it was leveled at Clinton. Now they're auditioning it to become a routine snicker news guys can use to put down other women they're threatened by or who get too mouthy.

    Myself, not even a Clinton supporter, I think she deserves better than to let this slide into pop usage with her name and (misrepresented) image attached to it.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no excuse for it (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:03:20 AM EST
    There is no excuse for Scarborough's sexist and belittling comment to Maddow.

    And there was no excuse for Maddow's complicity in the sexist comments towards Clinton and her supporters during her MSNBC tenure.

    Maybe Maddow will eventually learn the lesson that you are preaching BTD - when you go along with it, it hurts all women, including potentially yourself.

    Sorry but I just don't see the sexism here (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    has it come to a point that a man cannot compare a womans laugh with another womans laugh without being sexist? Or how about a woman comparing a man to another man, is that also sexist?

    Seems to me if we socially outlaw such things that we might run out of things to say. Comparing women to other women and men to other men by the opposite sex is probably as old as man & woman themselves.

    My lord, if I kiddingly tell a woman she laughs just like Julia Roberts am I being sexist? If a woman tells a man he laughs like Bill Clinton is that being sexist?

    Now I agree and deplore the sexism by the likes of Tweety and company during the election but there is real sexism and then there is not. When you have two people like Maddow and Scarborough who are doing a talk show where the format is to argue and disagree and trade barbs calling that sexism is a bit over the top IMO. I don't take offense when I hear women on TV refer to a man's testosterone levels.

    Seems to me we are taking this sexist thing a bit to far where it interrupts a normal flow of human interaction. And I do mean normal. Who has not commented to the other sex and compared them to someone else. That's just natural.

    [ Parent ]

    Not even worth a reply (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    Sorry. I get that you don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    i think it was a sexist (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by sancho on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    putdown, viciously ironic (as joe s. often is), but i wonder if maddow does. she may distinguish sexist put-downs from "hillary" put-downs. such was her implied logic when hillary was still in the campaign. hard for me to feel for sorry for her until she recognizes the sexism she enabled--the worst (or most dramatic), imo, since the rise of television.

    but thanks for pointing it out, btd, since i dont watch cable news anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    Well try answering (none / 0) (#24)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    some of the questions I asked in my post Molly. Am I that far off? I don't think so.

    Again, if I hear a woman laugh and she sounds like Julia Roberts and I tell her so is that Sexist?

    [ Parent ]

    talex, most of us responded to the (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    "hillary cackle" comment here. that was used along with ugly comments about hillary's shape, face, etc during the campaign. i agree maddow is one who doesn't get it and doesn't deserve much sympathy. but we want women treated with respect. maddow deserved to get her hands slapped. no argument there.

    [ Parent ]
    How Often? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    How often do you hear men on 'news' or opinion programs comparing the laughs of other men on panels or of male politicians?

    I haven't even heard any comments about Obama or McCain that compare with the nonsense focused on Clinton at times--her laugh, for God's sake?

    If it were something done all the time to everyone I wouldn't care. Well, I'd care about the sheer childishness of it, but hey, it's the media. But it isn't done all the time. It was done exclusively as far as I can tell to Clinton.

    I'm not a knee-jerk reactor to every instance, great and small, of sexism wherever I encounter it but even this Obama supporter with no great love for Senator Clinton saw the way this worked sometimes. And letting it now get enshrined into the common parlance as "the Hillary cackle" (and clearly meant as a putdown) is not an option, as far as I'm concerned.

    [ Parent ]

    If I may add to daring grace's comment (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    it's more than just comparing the way two women laugh.  The "Hillary cackle" is an actual video that is mailed around and posted on right wing websites.  It is composed of clips of very fake sounding laughs from Hillary pasted together to make her look silly or weird and not presidential or strong.  It's a terrible video and it's meant to be demeaning and cruel.

    In addition to cackle refering to a witch sound, it's a inappropriate for Scarborough to reference a right wing propaganda tool.


    [ Parent ]

    "The Clinton cackle" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    That's all I have to say. If you don't get it, I've learned it's impossible to make someone get it. No disrespect, but I'm not interested in this, it's silly IMO. Bye.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh it's the word 'cackle' (none / 0) (#35)
    by talex on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    that bothers you? OK. Bit to be honest I have heard women say another woman has a cackle. If you look up the wrod it is not necessarily a derogatory word. It describes a certain type of laugh. Even men can cackle. The word is not gender specific.

    Or maybe anything thing Scarborough says is immediately deemed sexist.

    [ Parent ]

    ah yes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dws3665 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    the "does that bother you?" gambit. Translation: "are you THAT oversensitive?"

    Please learn a little bit about the history of sexism before you toss on and on revealing your ignorance. There have been dozens of takedowns of the "Hillary cackles" meme that several people in the media put forward during the primary season. Find one and learn. Shakespeare's Sister would be a good place to start.

    [ Parent ]

    Cackle, cackle, scribble, scribble... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by katana on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Oh it's the word 'cackle'...it is not necessarily a derogatory word.

    I can't tell whether you're simply having a bit of fun, or you've actually fallen down the rabbit hole.  But given your boasting about your expertise in psychology and human relations, I'm guessing the latter.

    Let's postulate this: your wife cackles, your sister cackles, your daughter cackles, and your mother really cackles.  Not derogatory.  Not offensive. Why don't you ask your wife, and your sister, and your daughter, and your mother if they enjoy having their laughter described as cackling.  

    As to to your other hilarious hypothesis...

    My lord, if I kiddingly tell a woman she laughs just like Julia Roberts am I being sexist?...

    ...What does that have to do with Scarborough and his remark to Maddow?  It's the straw-man syndrome carried to absurdity.  If Scarborough had compared Maddow's laughter to Julia Roberts', or Meryl Streep's, or Kathleen Battle's, do you really believe this thread would exist?  Or are you simply so inept at debate that you think any analogy fits any circumstance?

    The point, which you so militantly (and mysogynistically) deny, was that Scarborough compared Maddow's laugh to Senator Clinton's (supposed) cackle, because he meant to demean them both.  As did you.

    [ Parent ]

    My father-in-law cackles. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by shannon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:22:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Try not being reductionist (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    Try looking at the broader context, not just the dictionary definition of the word.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you say "the Julia Roberts cackle"? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    Do you get it yet?

    [ Parent ]
    A normal flow of human interaction (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    is prescisely why the sexism is hard for some to see.
    Scarborough epitomized boorish, condescending males and was transparent in his antipathy for Maddow.  Haranguing the infinitely smarter and more likeable Maddow was simply his daily reiteration, without Mika on hand to titter and diffuse the offense.  He is one of those guys who just can't hide his dislike as hard as he tries. I suspect he thinks he is doing a good job, but the camera doesn't lie.  Maddow's political reasoning is brilliant and compelling, capable of operating from a rich reservoir of perspectives with analytical skills, nuanced understanding and persuasive argumentation.  She also defends her ideas with poise and genuine grace.  No wonder that she can make some men feel defensive, insecure and antagonistic.  She was trying to laugh good naturedly when she was clearly out voted in Scarborough's juvenile request for a show of hands to determine panelists' support for her position. Joe, obviously not happy with her response, took a  nasty swipe insulting Maddow's laugh instead of her position.  His timing was swift and insulting, and effective, as the laughing ceased.  The sexism is inherent in the put down of a Maddow because of her laugh rather than her opinions expressed before this snippet of the show .


    [ Parent ]
    maddow has poise on here? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    we didn't see the same tape.

    [ Parent ]
    Normal doesn't mean good (none / 0) (#200)
    by VicfromOregon on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:54:50 PM EST
    The normal flow of sexist put downs flow from us so readily that few of us even notice them.  That is normal, but not good.  Cackle means cackle - it is a put down leveled only to women.  It is never used in any other context but a put down to deflect a woman's laughter, especially when she is not being compliant (as a cackling witch, or when she is being stupid and a mindless flock member clucking about).  There is nothing kind in what the term implies.

    [ Parent ]
    Maddow and sexism (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    Good reply.  In Maddow's fervor for Barack Obama she has been silent at the sexism directed at Hillary Clinton (as have most so called progressives).  The comment about Hillary's laugh -- or "cackle" to the boys -- was about being a witch.  Witch's cackle.  Maddow is now in the witch league according to Scarborough.  They have had previous run ins.  She basically show him up for being stupid and he crosses his legs and lapses into women hating as a response. No love lost there.

    [ Parent ]
    maddow does not deserve to be on (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    tv anymore. there are so many good able women who are just as smart and more sympathetic to the women in this country. rachel has shown she has one interest and that is herself.

    [ Parent ]
    Maddow on TV (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    I dunno about that.  Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and has a doctorate in political science.  I'm thinking she is one of the smartest political commentators around.  I've seen her grow through her early Air America days to now being an MSNBC "analyst" and have mostly enjoyed her commentary although I do not share her rabid support of Sen. Obama.  She can get snarky at times but it is nothing compared to what the guys around her do. I wish she and Scarboro would take it outside.  

    [ Parent ]
    sorry i am no longer impressed (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by hellothere on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    with resumes. i watch and see how they perform. if they fail, off they go. i won't find excuses for lousy and failed commentators. there are so many women from our own jeralyn to some of the other bloggers like the confluence that would make us proud. rachel failed, off she goes.

    [ Parent ]
    And I used to love her (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    She was able to make great commentary w/out stretching the truth like Randi Rhodes.
    And then she got on the Obama train and forget any semblance of objectivity.
    She may be smart and educated but she has sold out.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:56:46 AM EST
    comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Typical and disgusting. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    But I've come to see sexism is the ultimate best tool in the political tool box for stopping would-be female Presidents.  It works especially well when Democratic men use it.  The mere label "D" makes it near impossible for women like Maddow to see it.

    And how did Maddow react? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:09:16 AM EST


    Humor (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    What irks me to no end, is that usually when a sexist comment is made, the "victim" has no immediate redress.  If she says something, the reaction is usually, "gee, what is wrong with you girls, don't you have any humor".  "feminists are humorless"  

    But, if you see how racism is treated, it's typically obvious to everyone when it comes to the humor.  No one would dare tell someone who is victimized by a racist joke, that they are humorless.  

    And don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    "strident"
    "bitter"
    "politically correct"
    "whiner"
    "playing the victim"
    etc.


    [ Parent ]
    Yep. I have gotten that -- but (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    at the same time when told we feminists have no sense of humor, I have been told to stop laughing and even smiling so much or I would not be taken seriously.

    I have survived some very sick workplaces.  Well, with scar tissue.  That is how we get that thick skin we also are told to get, if we wish to get along with the guys.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, for crying out loud. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    Watch it here.

    The tape is even longer than I tought.  More than 10 minutes of Rachel being utterly obnoxious.  

    I really suggest BTD put the youtube video up, for people to decide.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing that happened before (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    justifies sexist behavior.

    There is no context that would justify the comment.

    [ Parent ]

    You do realize that your comment (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    suggests that it's okay because she deserved it, don't you?  Not unlike that CNN commenter who said that it isn't wrong to call a woman a b!tch if she actually is one.

    I didn't see the segment, but I know this: intelligent and rational people do not have to stoop to the level Scarborough did in order to call someone out for obnoxious behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the test: Do guys "cackle"? (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    Yes, from that tape (thanks), Maddow was awful -- the war is no laughing matter -- and Joe could call her out on that.

    But there were other words to use, other comparisons to make.  If a guy did what Maddow did, would Joe have compared him to Hillary and called his laugh a "cackle"?

    Maddow merited criticism.  That is different from sexism, which never is merited.

    [ Parent ]

    You're exactly right on the word cackle, (none / 0) (#117)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    it's definitely specific to women, with the intent to create the image of stong women as witches, evil, b!tches, etc.  
    But I disagree that Maddow is laughing about the war.  She's clearly laughing at Scarborough because he's wrong about Obama flipping on Iraq.


    [ Parent ]
    Very confusing. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    I thought Scarbro was one of the very few MSNBCers who covered Hillary favorably in the primaries, on Morning Joe.  And who also decried some of the sexism in the coverage, no?

    As for Maddow, who was far from the worst anti-Hillary offender among the left in the media during the primaries (that would be Olbermann and Ed Schultz), I wonder if this gay feminist liberal had some things to say about the sexist coverage on her radio show.

    I seriously doubt it all went unmentioned, and I suspect (though can't prove) that she spoke out against it on AAR -- probably by putting it in the same political equivalency context as racist remarks, she would claim,  directed at Obama by the Hillary backers.

    she did nothing of the sort on aar (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:16:11 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really Dr Molly? (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    You've listened to all those hundreds of hours of the RM Show on AAR during the primary season and can say with certainty that Rachel never addressed the sexist media coverage or at least in the equivalency manner I suggested?  

    My memory is different, and that's from just from occasionally sampling her show in the past 6 months at AAR.  So the likelihood is she's addressed the issue more than once or twice in that time period, and probably at least once as I remember it in the sexism/racism vein.  

    She does have 3 hrs or so per day, 5 days a week, and the primary contest was very long this year.  You don't think it's not only possible but very likely she discussed the media coverage and the sexism angle?

    [ Parent ]

    bizarre argument (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    The absence of evidence is evidence I guess. Whatever.

    I never once heard her address sexism on AAR, but I did hear her deny and excuse a lot of sexism on both AAR and MSNBC. But I guess since I haven't listened to every single second of her radio show, there might just be a chance that she did do what you claim and I just wasn't there to hear it. I'm sure you have some evidence somewhere for this..... But, if not, let's just keep pretending you're right because the absence of evidence is now evidence until otherwise proven.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, no one should be punished (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    to that extent, listening to AAR.  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL. She addressed it the same way all (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    other media addressed it during the cycle.  Claiming it was no big deal or non-existent and that it paled in comparison to racism.  That's the way MSNBC covered "sexism" during the campaign and Ms. Maddow was certainly part of that brigade.  And I listened to her daily until I could no longer take it.

    [ Parent ]
    "I wonder if, I seriously doubt" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    and "I suspect" but cannot prove -- unquote Brodie.  But by the next comment, all is asserted without question, and any who suggest otherwise based on being listeners, too, do not know what they are talking about.

    Split personalities?  One that did not listen and can only suspect, one that came out and can assert -- and attack?  Fascinating.


    [ Parent ]

    Air America (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Kate Stone on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    I listen to her.  She did not tackle the sexism aimed at Hillary Clinton.  Maddow is a supremely smart woman who has risen fast -- really fast -- and will probably get her own show on MSNBC.  A lesbian like Maddow does not get where she is by rocking the boat hard.  KO can get away with it.  Straight liberal guy.  As soon as she starts the same stuff as KO she will be a dyke and gone in the ether.

    [ Parent ]
    there is no excuse maddow can give (5.00 / 2) (#56)