The Insidious Nature of Misogyny and Sexism

The The Wall Street Journal's Mar. 29, 2008 Page One has an article on the reaction of women to Hillary's campaign that is reasonably fair and accurate but also disturbing, because some of the men and women interviewed have bought into sexism and misogyny without even realizing it.

Listen to Professor McCollester:

"Charles McCollester, a professor of industrial relations at Indiana University of Pennsylvania who works with union members, says he is ready for a woman president, "just not this woman." He supports Sen. Obama. "Several of my really close female friends feel this is unleashing some kind of antiwoman sentiment. But I don't see it. We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys."

Look at his justification: "We love women. I just never cared much for Hillary. She has set out to become as male as all the rest of the boys". Can one imagine anything similar being said about a man? What does it mean to "set out to become as male"? And if being a man is good, why is this bad? If this isn't sexist, if this isn't misogynist, than what is?

So, OK, McCollester, is a man. What about Amanda Moniz, a PH.D. candidate?

"It isn't easy being a woman in academia," says Amanda Moniz, a 36-year-old Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Michigan. "I want a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed," she says.
"Although Hillary has achieved a lot on her own, she wouldn't be where she was if not for her husband -- and that isn't an inspiring lesson."

First, of course, she echoes McCollester's sentiment: "... a woman candidate who is strong, but also feminine, and who doesn't feel she has to be tougher than men to succeed." What on earth does she mean? What is Hillary supposed to do? Speak softy? Wear flowery dresses? Cry? (Oh, no, she can't do that. Only men are allowed to cry in public these days - which I suppose is one kind of progress.)

And I wonder how many people who voted for Bush 43 worried about the fact that he wouldn't have gotten where he is if not for his father? The U.S. political system has from day one had political "families". Check the Wikipedia if you want to see how prevalent this is. What about family businesses? Since when have we insisted that only self-made individuals can make a name for themselves in the arts (the Fondas, Redgraves) business or government?

Then there's Alexa Steinberg:

Alexa Steinberg, 25, a graduate student at the University of New Hampshire, says she recognizes "that women only make 78 cents for every male dollar, and there are still hurdles for women that I'll face." She says she thinks it's only a matter of time before she'll be supporting a female candidate for U.S. president -- but it won't be Sen. Clinton. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be," she says.

Ms. Steinberg, who supports Sen. Obama, says she's far more drawn to Michele Obama as a role model. "Michele has a career and even earns more than Barack, and she can knock him for not picking up his socks or doing the laundry," she explains. "But she has a sense of humor, too. She has a blend of many things, a balance that I can see and appreciate."

Do you see a pattern here? It's McCollester again. "Politically and personally, she's trying to take on the male persona, and isn't a woman in the way I want a woman candidate to be". Does Steinberg think that Obama is trying to be too Black, or too White, or too multicultural? No. What does it mean to take on the "male persona"? Competence? Strength? A willingness to defend herself? I have no idea. These characterizations go back to the days of suffragettes and the ERA. Women who opposed getting the vote or an Equal Rights Amendment used similar arguments against the Suffragettes. These women absorb male prejudices and don't even realize they are doing it.

Ms. Steinberg also, of course, doesn't seem to know much about Hillary - who has been a lawyer all her life, was the chief breadwinner while Bill was running for office and Governor of Arkansas, who has been a mother and raised a daughter to be proud of, who has demonstrated a fine sense of humor on the campaign trail. I don't know if she has ever complained about Bill's laundry habits in public, but good heavens, what kind of criterion is that for the Presidency.

New Hampshire 2008 & The Pundits

Well, the pundits are trying to explain what went wrong with their predictions. Unfortunately, they don't understand why they were wrong because they are incapable of learning.

For the most part, they blame the mistake on the polls and the pollsters. One common explanation is that White voters lied about voting for a Black man (the so-called Bradley effect after the mayor of L.A.). See: the pundits aren't responsible for the voters' hidden racism. Dyson, even after hearing a report that the polls were right about Obama's percentage (thus negating any Bradley effect) and the problem was under-counting Clinton's support, insisted that there was racism. According to him, you could hear it in Hillary's comments & Bill Clinton's attack on Obama: that Black men aren't capable of doing the job. (So we can't criticize Obama for anything because any criticism has to contain at least a seed of racism?) Besides there's never been a Black President. Ahem.... there's never been a female President either.

Then they mine the exit polls for explanations, things they didn't see before. There isn't much, except the large turnout of women and the percentage of women who voted for Hillary. So, what do the pundits conclude? It was the "tearing up" moment which showed that Hillary had a human side. It is already the standard explanation. Pundits stick together. Original thought is not encouraged. On CNN, however, one woman made the astute and, I think, accurate assessment that women saw the endless replay of the moment and got mad. Did this assessment cause Wolf Blitzer to reconsider? Of course not: he repeated once again (as if the woman had never said what she said) that it was the humanity of the moment.

Some of the "outstanding" pundit moments:
1.) Tim Russert was beside himself with joy that 5 days into the primary campaign,they still didn't know who the winner would be. Imagine that: 5 whole days, 1 caucus & 1 primary and they couldn't crown a nominee in either party. Horrors.

2.) Tom Brokaw said "we don't have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process". Chris Matthews' response: well, what would we talk about? Unfortunately, Brokaw didn't seem to expect that response and, to my ears, kind of fumbled for an answer.

Gee, do you think the media might study the voting records of the candidates? Hillary's been in the Senate 6 years, Obama 2 (plus 8 in Illinois), Edwards also has a Senate record. Maybe they could interview legislators & community people who have worked with the candidates. How about an analysis of pork (the money kind) proposed by the candidates. Richardson has held many roles in government that I suspect most voters, like me, know absolutely nothing about.

3.) Joe Scarborough accurately suggested that it was due to the media savaging of Hillary - in which he was one of the primary figures. Did he acknowledge that he was one of those savagers? Don't be silly. Of course, not.

4.) The hyperbolic descriptions: greatest upset in American history, blow-out, etc., etc. But look at the numbers. Hillary beat Obama by 3%, in one primary. That's not a massive victory.

5.) The Comeback kids. Please. Hillary lost Iowa, the first test. She won NH. I fail to see how that qualifies as some overwhelming return from the dead. Maybe it is fair to apply it to McCain since he had not only been written off but had to fire almost his entire staff for lack of money. But there are a total of what? 40 primaries to come? When a baseball, basketball or football team wins one game after losing one game, do we call that a comeback? It apparently has never occurred to these cretins that the lead might, gosh, actually change hands several times before a winner appears.

6.) Kristol, the latest star on what used to be the Op Ed page of a great newspaper. Hillary's tears were fake, women felt sorry for her and voted for her. This is sooooo offensive on so many levels, it leaves one speechless.

7.) Pundits never learn. Within an hour of admitting they had goofed, I started hearing pronouncements that Obama HAD to win Nevada. And predictions for South Carolina were running hot & heavy within minutes. Geez. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Dan Abrams, not one of my favorite news personalities by far, provided the most original (for the media) explanation and one that resonates with me, as a Californian: that it was wrong for the media to call the primary season over after one caucus and one primary. He said it was the equivalent of ending a trial after the opening statement.

I can't prove it, but I think women voters decided that they didn't want anybody to be crowned King by the pundits - and they had finally had enough of the endless misogyny of the attacks on Hillary (even on Air America( - so they voted for the person the media had written off.