Tag Archives: sexism in politics

Beware Your Associates: The “Birds Of A Feather” Maxim Might Come Back To Bite You

A week or so ago, one of the pundits…. I forget which…..wrote an article listing points of advice for President-elect Obama. He said forget Lincoln.  Look to recent presidents and the mistakes they made if you want some current and relevant lessons of specific  mistakes to avoid.  He mentioned Clinton’s trying to change the “no gays in the military” rule before he’d built sufficient capital with Congress; Carter’s micro-managing the schedule of who was playing at what time on the tennis court .  But one of his points was extremely well taken. He cited Ronald Reagan’s associates who wound up tarnishing him and his reputation.

The old “birds of a feather flock” together maxim.

This is one that may not be good news for the Obama administration.   At least, as far as women are concerned.

First, we have  Larry Summers of the “women are genetically inferior to men in math, science and engineering” fame, who was nominated by President-elect Obama to be the next head of the White House’s National Economic Council.

Ok.  Let’s just say Obama was so impressed by Summers’ economic acumen he decided to magnanimously overlook his Paleolithic outlook on women ( see The Larry Summers Dust Up: Women vs Paleolithic Role Models).

Next up to bat. Bloomberg reports that Timothy Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for U.S. Treasury Secretary, is seeking to ditch Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, the only woman on his incoming team.

Bair is a popular regulator, well respected on the Hill,  who has sided with struggling homeowners and sought tougher conditions on financial firm.

Barney Frank, Banking Committee in the House, and openly gay, so no stranger to bias, made the following observation: “I think part of the problem now, to be honest, is Sheila Bair has annoyed the ‘old boys’ club,’” To some extent, bank regulation and mortgage foreclosure have made a situation where we have several regulators up in the tree house with a ‘no girls allowed’ sign — and it’s aimed at Sheila Bair – - who’s been really good.”
We were all so relieved that Larry Summers was passed over and Timothy Geithner, was nominated for U.S. Treasury Secretary, that perhaps we didn’t take a close enough look at Geithner,  a long standing colleague of Larry Summers who might share some of his views on women.  Or, at the very least, may want them to be quiet and know their place.

And finally, the Washington Post pointedly asked, in One More Question, how incoming Obama administration director of speechwriting Jon Favreau, pictured above, left, might answer the Obama vetting teams questions regarding the offensive and juvenile photos appearing in Facebook and Myspace and particularly…

Question No. 63 which asks that applicants “please provide any other information … that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect.”

That’s when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended — including one where he’s dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he’s placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady’s chest ( groping her) while a friend (appears to be nibbling on her cardboard ear and ) is offering her lips a beer – popped up on Facebook for about two hours.

I don’t know about you, but I am tempted to start wondering if this is a pattern.   I’m also wondering if Obama’s vetting team, with that much vaunted judgment, is exploring and making appropriate decisions on whether each of these candidates has failed to make the evolutionary trek from the Paleolythic age to contemporary society, where gender skewed opinions and barbaric behavior are not the norm and shouldn’t be rewarded by appointment to high office.

Obama, are you listening?  No president escapes unscathed from outrageous acts of associates. This time, you picked them so you are responsible for their poor behavior.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Larry Summers Dust Up: Women vs Paleolithic Role Models

I belong to a number of women’s groups and one such group, non partisan The New Agenda is, or at least some of its members are,  extremely exercised over the nomination of Larry Summers for anything. (Summers, you may recall, was nominated by President-elect Obama to be the next head of the White House’s National Economic Council to coordinate economic policy making).

Summers may be a whiz at economics ( though some people question even that – see Larry’s Summer’s Judgment in Forbes), but he is pretty much a dud, not to say a disaster, with his people skills.

In 2005, Larry Summers, when he was Harvard University’s President, put forth his theory that women are genetically inferior to men in math, science and engineering. That, he declared, was why women were under-represented on the faculties of hallowed institutions that taught these subjects.

Forget that there is zilch research to support this.  Forget that bias, gender barriers and care-giving for their families have been identified and well documented as the historic and universal barriers to women’s professional progress.

Larry Summers thinks we’re stupid. Or more accurately, riddled with genetic blind spots that leave us incapacitated when it comes to his favorite subjects: math, science and engineering. No wonder no woman has made the cut to become a tenured female professor of mathematics at Harvard in its 370-year history. Must be that genetic deficiency popping up in 100% of the pool of women academics who might have been considered.

Of course, Summers got into major hot water.  He was essentially ousted from Harvard.  And now women, and many academics are looking forward to Summer’s elevation to this high post in the Obama Administration with about the same anticipation they would have if being dragged to the dentist for a full root canal.

Let me fill in a few blanks on Summers.  According to the Boston Globe , Summers had a brief and troubled stint at Harvard. “Nearly from the start, the world-renowned economist managed to alienate faculty with his autocratic management style. And then, in early 2005, he struck the match that ignited the firestorm. In suggesting that women lacked the same “intrinsic aptitude” for science as men, Summers opened a path for his eventual ouster. In a February 2006 meeting, two weeks before Summers resigned, professor after professor stood to tell him they lacked confidence in his leadership. Not a single one rose to his defense during the two-hour meeting.”  Without a lot of choice, Summers exited Harvard, on a sour note.

But…..you’ve probably seen those movies where all’s quiet in the graveyard then at the stroke of midnight some scary creature pops up from the grave to roam the earth again. He’s back!

Summers’ return and pending reinstatement to the highest positions of the land has caused a bit of a divide among women and womens’ groups.

Some high profile women like Wendy Kopp, chief executive and founder of Teach for America, think Summers is a great guy despite some “ill chosen words“. Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post comes to the conclusion Summers may have been right after all, we really are dumb.

Marcus caps this off by concluding: “Summers was boneheaded to say what he said, in the way that he said it and considering the job that he held. But he probably had a legitimate point — and the continuing uproar says more about the triumph of political correctness than about Summers’ supposed sexism.”

I hardly think that opposition to the position of girls being innately inferior in some fields amounts to “political correctness”.  I think failing to do so amounts to political cowardice. Or lack of discipline to read the weight of scientific data on the subject instead of cherry picking any shred of variance which may make Summers look like less of a Paleolithic anachronism. I’m pretty much a believer in former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark:”There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.” And I can’t see that supporting Summers by supporting the thesis that women are genetically stupid is much of a help.

Many other women have lined up to fight Summer’s appointment to any office. ( Out of our sight and back to the graveyard was the general thinking.) Nonpartisan group, The New Agenda, said appointing Summers to that top Cabinet post would be a “grave mistake.”

Sensing an opportunity to distract women’s groups and seeking to focus attention elsewhere, it seems some set out rather cynically to instigate a battle of pro and con quotes from women’s groups or prominent women on the suitability of Summers for such a high profile office. The goal, it seems, was to encourage controversy and a general slug fest among women’s groups on the Summers question.

I think this would be the ultimate magician’s hat trick, to get us to look over there, while Larry Summers is being pulled out of the hat, over here. It is not hard to get women’s groups bickering among themselves.  The challenge, I think, is to hang together, to have a “big tent” of women; to try to work united and in the same tent.  Those of us who are Democrats did that when we stood up for Sarah Palin.  I think the way forward is not to critique each other but to critique and hold accountable Paleolithic men like Larry Summers and call into question the judgment behind appointing him and the ramifications to women and academics of what he stands for which the Obama vetting team clearly doesn’t get.

If you agree, why not fire up your email and let the Obama team know, even if Summers is outstanding in his field, he is a poor choice for high office and as a role model.  When Obama said “We don’t have a Red America and a Blue America, we have a United States of America,” just as we don’t have a white America and a black America, he might well have said, “We don’t have a male America and a female America, we have a United States of America.”  This is his chance to prove those aren’t just words, they are a standard he will live by, including in his appointments to high office.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

WHY SOME WOMEN HATE SARAH PALIN

Put her out of her misery, please

Image by bobster1985 via Flickr

Lynette Long: WHY SOME WOMEN HATE SARAH PALIN.

This post by Belinda Luscombe was pretty enlightening for me in an unfortunate way.  I have been wondering why a number of women I know and respect get apoplectic at the mention of Sarah Palin.  You can almost see sparks shooting from their hair.  When I try to say “A lot of women are not so much for Sarah Palin as they are against the media riculing her or the talking heads disparaging her” ( because someday we really would like a woman vice president or, better yet, president).  The response I often get, after a rolling of the eyes upward is “No one is disparaging her.  Or at least they’re not disparaging women in general.” I see.  Well, actually, I don’t.  But after reading Belinda Luscombe’s post, I’m beginning to.

Some polls are suggesting that after gaining an initial bump, McCain‘s campaign is being hobbled by Sarah Palin‘s vice-presidential candidacy. The voters who are deserting her fastest, some of whom are even calling on her to withdraw, are mostly women.

Ah, women, the consistently, tragically underestimated constituency. What the Democrats learned during the primaries and the Republicans might now be finding out the hard way, I learned at my very academic, well-regarded all-girls high school: that is never to discount the ability of women to open a robust, committed, well-thought-out vat of hatred for another girl.

It’s a simple three-point pass-fail exam: Will the other girls like her?

Here’s why Palin doesn’t make the grade:

1. She’s too pretty. This is very bad news. At school, pretty girls tend to be liked only by other pretty girls. The rest of us, whose looks hover somewhere around underwhelming, resent them and whisper archly of their “unearned attention.” So, if everyone calls your candidate “hot,” you’re in a whole mess of trouble. If the Pakistani head-of-state more or less hits on her, well, yes, she’ll get a sympathy vote, but we’re in Dukakis-in-the-tank territory. It’s an admiration vaporizer. (Of course a candidate can’t be too ugly, or it will scare the men, who are clearly shallow as a gender.)

2. She’s too confident. This also bodes ill. Women have self-esteem issues. But they also have other-women’s-esteem issues. As almost any woman – from the head of the Budgerigar Breeders association to Queen Elizabeth – can attest, it’s almost impossible to get confidence right. Too timid and you’re a pushover. Too self-aggrandizing and you’re a bad word unless it’s about a dog, or Project Runway‘s Kenley. Or Michelle, my best friend until 9th grade, after she won that debating prize and got cocky.

3. She could embarrass us. History is not on Palin’s side. Every time a woman gets a plum job, be she Hewlett-Packard‘s ex-boss, Carly Fiorina, or CBS‘s Katie Couric, there’s always that whispery fear that people will think she got the job just because she’s a woman. So if things don’t go well – and a couple of YouTube clips have suggested that they’re certainly not going well for Palin – women are the first to turn on her for making it harder for the rest of us to louse up at work.”

The fact of the matter is once a female decides it’s over with another female, it’s like an end-stage marriage. No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits.

I know, I know. With all this extra baggage a female candidate has to bear, the chances of finding a woman whom other women won’t hate seem skinnier than last year’s jeans. But don’t despair, if all else fails, we could just do what we always do and just vote in some guy. It’s worked so well for us in the past.”

Fo the entire post go to Lynette Long: WHY SOME WOMEN HATE SARAH PALIN.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Lynette Long: NEW AGENDA TARGETS CHRIS MATTHEWS FROM LA TIMES

Lynette Long: NEW AGENDA TARGETS CHRIS MATTHEWS FROM LA TIMES.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews remains in the bull’s eye for new women’s group

Forget the battle for the White House — here’s a campaign that’s really heating up: the bid by a new women’s group to hold Chris Matthews accountable for what it asserts is “misogynistic journalism” practiced by the voluble MSNBC political pundit.

The New Agenda, a nonpartisan organization promoting women’s rights, today sent a letter to NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker asking for a meeting to discuss Matthews’ attitude toward women.

Amy Siskind, one of the group’s founders, said in an interview it wants Matthews (at right, with Ron Reagan behind him) to issue a public apology and change his on-air behavior. Absent that, he needs to be fired, she said…

The group’s letter applauded the recent decision by MSNBC to remove Matthews and Keith Olbermann from prominent roles anchoring political events, but said more action is needed.

“MSNBC can regain its reputation as a respectable news organization by taking more appropriate action against Chris Matthews,” the letter said. “If Matthews were an employee in a Fortune 500 company, he would have been fired for sexual harassment long ago. Instead, MSNBC peddled misogynistic journalism to the American public.”

Compiling a list of actions that it deemed offensive, The New Agenda wrote that the “Hardball” host a couple of years asked if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would “castrate” a fellow Democrat with whom she had feuded, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

The letter also faults Matthews for likening Hillary Clinton, during the Democratic primary campaign, to Nurse Ratched, the power-mad character from Ken Kesey’s novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

“The historic candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and [Republican vice presidential nominee] Sarah Palin have brought to light for all Americans the rampant sexism in the media,” the letter said.

For the complete post go to Lynette Long: NEW AGENDA TARGETS CHRIS MATTHEWS FROM LA TIMES.

Lynette Long: LYNETTE’S COMMENTS AT A MCCAIN-PALIN RALLY

LYNETTE’S COMMENTS AT A MCCAIN-PALIN RALLY

Crowded house: Thousands listen to Senator John McCain at a Republican rally in Fairfax, Virginia.

Although everyone may not agree with Lynette Long’s conclusion, AdvancingWomen believes it would be difficult  to dispute her logic or the clarity of her thinking on this controversial issue.

This is the text of my speech at the McCain rally on September 10, 2008:

My name is Lynette Long. I am a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.

After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, myself, and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain and Carly Fiorina. I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet you will not see a single picture of a woman on paper currency or on a single coin in circulation. Women are underrepresented in every branch of government and there has never been a female president or vice president. I personally asked Senator McCain loudly and clearly to choose a woman for the Vice Presidential slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Little did I know then that he heard me and the millions of women of this country who have gone unrepresented in the Executive branch of government for far too long.

When I made similar requests of the Obama campaign, I was laughed at by the canvassers outside my home, told there weren’t enough qualified women by a member of his Finance Committee, and asked by a member of a policy committee why I was making such a stupid request. Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, “It’s a girl” or “It’s a boy.” From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. You can’t learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can’t have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what’s best for women. You can’t legislate for women, without women.

By choosing Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain acknowledged that two men can never know what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister – things Governor Palin knows all too well. Senator McCain chose the second only bi-gender ticket in American history reinforcing his image as a maverick. Choosing a vice-president, was the first significant decision Senator McCain and Senator Obama had to make. Senator Obama talks about change but picked a running mate who is part of the Washington establishment. Senator McCain’s actions speak for themselves.

I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party was disrespectful to all women when they refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other Democratic or Republican candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the sexist attacks of the mainstream media. My party’s candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party’s candidate was silent when the rapper Ludacris released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. Neither my party nor its candidate has demonstrated in this election that they hold women in high esteem. And yesterday, I understand Senator Obama personally said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig.” Well, Mr. Obama, calling girls names is something fifth grade boys do and I don’t want a fifth grader running my country.

I might not agree with Senator McCain and Governor Palin on all the issues, but I don’t agree with any candidate on all the issues. But in Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I find two people with personal integrity and a love of their county — individuals who not only talk the talk but walk the walk. I can work with that. I will vote for McCain-Palin. In fact, I’ve decided to try to win one vote a day for the McCain-Palin ticket. My new personal mantra is, “A vote a day, keeps Obama away.”  I urge all Clinton supporters and McCain supporters to do the same. Thank you.

Why We Fight : The New Agenda

Why We Fight : The New Agenda.

This is a post that sums up the kind of media sexism women have had to grapple with and the long terms effects it may have on today’s youth:

Gary Kamiya’s article in Salon was graced by that picture of Palin. That picture of Hillary is from Spy Magazine, circa February 1993, just a month after she and Bill arrived in Washington.

The post concludes:

This is why we fight. We fight for my daughter and the millions of girls like her who are endangered by the sexist rhetoric that passes for media these days. We fight for the millions of boys who are looking at the Progressive Dude Nation right now, at their style, their pazzazz, their irreverence, and who are wanting to posture the same stance one day if they haven’t adopted it already. There is more at stake than just this year, this election, or the next four years. There are legions of young minds being shaped, and we must inform them, using rhetoric that is natural to their intellect, of what is going on right now and what is possible for the future.

Lipstick on a Pig

Lipstick on a Pig – The Corner on National Review Online.

Well, to my question “does anybody really think Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig?” the answer appears to be “yes, about a gazillion and a half emailers do think so,” though another half a gazillion don’t. And the video without question looks very very bad. The audience certainly seems to take him to refer to Palin. I think Obama’s choice of words was unbelievably stupid (as it so very often is when he’s not chained to a teleprompter), and I certainly think both he and Biden have completely lost their cool because of Palin and are getting hysterical—Biden’s ugly reference to Palin’s Down syndrome child and stem cell research today is one example. But did he set out to call Palin (or McCain) names? I think it’s a bad gaffe, not an attack. That’s bad enough, but the McCain folks themselves shouldn’t overreact. Let them melt down. Roger Kimball has it right.

Tennessee Guerilla Women: MSNBC Axes Olbermann & Matthews as News Anchors – Hallelujah!

Tennessee Guerilla Women: MSNBC Axes Olbermann & Matthews as News Anchors – Hallelujah!.

“MSNBC is doing the world a favor and dropping its two most popular sexist jerks from their gigs as anchors of live political events. The self-centered opinionated woman-hating duo will be replaced by David Gregory during the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates and on election night.

This means some women might actually tune in to the misogyny channel. Or not!

Let’s not forget that Keith Olbermann is the low-life Rush Limbaugh clone who said this about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Because a senator – a politician – a person – who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot – has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.”

AdvancingWomen.com  applauds all those women’s groups who put their efforts behind getting these two insulting misogynists dumped from their anchor spots.  Here’s a video showing them in action:

Ouch, the Media Might Need to Put a Little Ice on that (Wizbang)

Ouch, the Media Might Need to Put a Little Ice on that (Wizbang).

The most amusing thing to watch following the Palin speech last night was the journalists pretending not to know why on earth Sarah Palin would be so critical of them. She definitely landed a punch with her criticism. Roger Simon shot back with a sarcastic, dare I say “shrill,” column listing the reasons the media does not owe Palin an apology. My answer to Simon’s silliness is to tell him that Republicans have no problem with the media asking questions. We would love to see the media ask all kinds of questions, not just of our candidates though. There are hundreds of questions that have not been asked of Barack Obama, but the media had plenty of time to go around in search of DNA samples.

A FEMINIST DREAM AT THE GOP

A FEMINIST DREAM AT THE GOP by Kirsten Powers

“If you drive around my home state of Alaska for very long, you’re sure to see a bumper sticker exclaiming, “Alaska girls kick ass.”

Last night, “Sarah Barracuda” more than lived up to that slogan as she fought back at the media and Washington naysayers who’ve ridiculed her as a bimbo bumpkin interloper and showed she isn’t going to be pushed around.

Had the media not been viciously attacking her family for the last few days, the speech might’ve seemed too tough. With that backdrop, it was more than appropriate.

The Obama camp also gave her the perfect chance to smack it around for being elitists – since its first response to John McCain picking her was to ridicule the size of her home town.

On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she’s savaged for being a working mother…

Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good ‘ole girls telling you what to think.

Ladies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about deciding what you believe; the audaciously named National Organization for Women is here to speak on your behalf.

NOW put out a press release saying that Sarah Palin doesn’t speak for women’s rights. That’s NOW’s job.

Except if a conservative woman is being smeared in the media with sexist attacks and held to a completely different standard than her male counterparts. Then NOW has nothing to say about women’s rights.

Time for a little truth in advertising.

Liberal women have been furiously penning identical screeds against Sarah Palin – blasting McCain for not understanding women and then announcing, “Now, let me speak on behalf of all women and tell you what women want in a candidate.”

Talk about condescending.

Where is the condemnation for the sickening misogyny, such as the DailyKOS’s mock Playboy cover with Palin? The Huffington Post’s photo montage of Palin, headlined “Former Beauty Queen, Future VP?” The Washington Post’s Sally Quinn criticizing Palin for being a working mother?

Well, I suppose she could’ve stayed home and baked cookies.

But conservatives shouldn’t get too self-satisfied – they have plenty to atone for, too. Having discovered sexism now that their darling Sarah is under attack doesn’t get them off the hook for their part in tearing down liberal working women in the past. (See: Clinton, Hillary, cookies.)

Many liberal women remember how infuriating it was to watch the conservative Phyllis Schlafly travel the country lecturing women about the evils of equal rights and urging them to not work (as she worked and was away from her family). Now, she supports Sarah Palin.

At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan demonized Hillary Clinton as a “radical feminist” who hated the institution of marriage despite her seeming attachment to her own marriage against all odds.

When asked during the primary by a supporter about Hillary, “How do we beat the bitch?” McCain laughed and answered: “That’s an excellent question.”

Both sides suffer from the same illness: Ideology trumps all.

Now it’s time for both sides to move past this and embrace some postpartisan feminism. Sexism will never stop if both sides are blind to it when it happens to their opponents. ”

For all the new women’s groups, progressive or conservative, who are supporting Palin’s right to run without being harassed by the media, or denigrated by other political groups, AdvancingWomen.com says: “Kudos!”