Comments on: A Bad Day For Sexism Is A Good Day For Women http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:37:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Sorens http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-160394 Sorens Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:58:31 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-160394 "I remember the “White House dog” incident–I actually saw it" You saw NOTHING Sasha. You're a liar. “I remember the “White House dog” incident–I actually saw it”

You saw NOTHING Sasha. You’re a liar.

]]> By: Find Out What It Means To Me | Mind on Fire http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150809 Find Out What It Means To Me | Mind on Fire Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:50:00 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150809 [...] her ability to let most stuff just flow over her like water off a duck). And she does not tolerate having her daughter dragged through the same mud. (If you only visit one link, make it the [...] [...] her ability to let most stuff just flow over her like water off a duck). And she does not tolerate having her daughter dragged through the same mud. (If you only visit one link, make it the [...]

]]> By: Lindsay K http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150559 Lindsay K Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:45:54 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150559 In some ways it's perfectly innocent, because it distinguishes between her and Bill Clinton. (Remember how Bush2 was "W" or "GW" to distinguish him from his father...) BUT I've noticed the same thing, and it worries me, because it's almost belittling in a way. That's not to say everyone who calls her Hillary is sexist or misogynist or belittling women. But I make a point of referring to her as Clinton or Senator Clinton or HRC because I think calling her just by her first name is a bad trend, and it's a bad idea to encourage it. In some ways it’s perfectly innocent, because it distinguishes between her and Bill Clinton. (Remember how Bush2 was “W” or “GW” to distinguish him from his father…)

BUT I’ve noticed the same thing, and it worries me, because it’s almost belittling in a way. That’s not to say everyone who calls her Hillary is sexist or misogynist or belittling women. But I make a point of referring to her as Clinton or Senator Clinton or HRC because I think calling her just by her first name is a bad trend, and it’s a bad idea to encourage it.

]]> By: Law Student Hot Mama http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150521 Law Student Hot Mama Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:24:21 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150521 I just have a question - why do we keep calling Hillary Clinton "Hillary?" I detect a tinge of something there . . . Famous women are much more likely to be called by their first names. Take "Britney" or "Madonna" or "Angelina" as some examples. Margaret Thatcher was also "Maggie." Mrs. Clinton's campaign signs also say "Hillary," so clearly she's embracing this probably because it makes her seem less aloof. However, I do wonder why she's "Hillary" more often than "Senator Clinton." I just have a question – why do we keep calling Hillary Clinton “Hillary?” I detect a tinge of something there . . . Famous women are much more likely to be called by their first names. Take “Britney” or “Madonna” or “Angelina” as some examples. Margaret Thatcher was also “Maggie.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign signs also say “Hillary,” so clearly she’s embracing this probably because it makes her seem less aloof. However, I do wonder why she’s “Hillary” more often than “Senator Clinton.”

]]> By: jck http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150513 jck Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:05:16 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150513 Got here from ms-jd. While I recognize the basic premise here - that being able to call-out sexist coverage is an empowering step forward - I think the progress is more limited that this analysis suggests. For instance I think the calling out is limited to the Shusters and the Mathews, i.e. the angry white men. When it's less usual a suspect (like another woman, or a person of color) the response from the Clinton campaign has been more muted. I also think there's a total lack of recognition that generally the media and its consumers condone sexist commentary to a greater extent than they do racist commentary. I hear a lot of people talking about this election as a test of our racism and sexism and only looking to voting patterns for answers. But I think, despite the ridiculousness of the question, that there are more answers to be found in the coverage of these events than in the electoral outcome. If nothing else ,I find it incredibly problematic that Obama is portrayed as a uniter due in part to his multi-racial background, while Clinton is characterized as devisive and manipulative when she references her gender. Got here from ms-jd.

While I recognize the basic premise here – that being able to call-out sexist coverage is an empowering step forward – I think the progress is more limited that this analysis suggests. For instance I think the calling out is limited to the Shusters and the Mathews, i.e. the angry white men. When it’s less usual a suspect (like another woman, or a person of color) the response from the Clinton campaign has been more muted.

I also think there’s a total lack of recognition that generally the media and its consumers condone sexist commentary to a greater extent than they do racist commentary. I hear a lot of people talking about this election as a test of our racism and sexism and only looking to voting patterns for answers. But I think, despite the ridiculousness of the question, that there are more answers to be found in the coverage of these events than in the electoral outcome. If nothing else ,I find it incredibly problematic that Obama is portrayed as a uniter due in part to his multi-racial background, while Clinton is characterized as devisive and manipulative when she references her gender.

]]> By: Feministe » Leave Chelsea Alone http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150298 Feministe » Leave Chelsea Alone Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:42:45 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150298 [...] my last post, several commenters discussed the mistreatment of Chelsea Clinton, which began the minute she hit [...] [...] my last post, several commenters discussed the mistreatment of Chelsea Clinton, which began the minute she hit [...]

]]> By: donna darko http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150277 donna darko Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:22:27 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150277 Yay Thomas! Glad to see you here! Yay Thomas! Glad to see you here!

]]> By: Manju http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150267 Manju Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:49:30 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150267 <blockquote>And when people were accusing the Clintons of racebaiting in NH, NV, and SC Shuster defended them. </blockquote> well that mekes sense, sounds like shuster's blind to a lot of isms.

And when people were accusing the Clintons of racebaiting in NH, NV, and SC Shuster defended them.

well that mekes sense, sounds like shuster’s blind to a lot of isms.

]]> By: Felicia http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150248 Felicia Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:05:18 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150248 I think "pimping" was an inappropriate word for Shuster to use. But I do think Hillary Clinton is exploiting this unfortunate matter to benefit her campaign. Why is she willing to debate on Fox News when their top commentators are racebaiting homophobes? Have we forgotten what Gibson said about Heath Ledger? Yet, she's willing to increase their ratings by participating in a debate on that network. David Shuster isn't the one Clinton should be going after. It should be Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. Shuster did an excellent job of covering the Scooter Libby trial. And when people were accusing the Clintons of racebaiting in NH, NV, and SC Shuster defended them. He said he had covered the Clintons since they were in Arkansas, and they were not racist. So I ask people this: why has Hillary Clinton forgiven John McCain for telling a cruel, sexist, homophobic joke about about a teenaged Chelsea Clinton and AG Janet Reno, but she want's Shusters job? I think “pimping” was an inappropriate word for Shuster to use. But I do think Hillary Clinton is exploiting this unfortunate matter to benefit her campaign. Why is she willing to debate on Fox News when their top commentators are racebaiting homophobes? Have we forgotten what Gibson said about Heath Ledger? Yet, she’s willing to increase their ratings by participating in a debate on that network.

David Shuster isn’t the one Clinton should be going after. It should be Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. Shuster did an excellent job of covering the Scooter Libby trial. And when people were accusing the Clintons of racebaiting in NH, NV, and SC Shuster defended them. He said he had covered the Clintons since they were in Arkansas, and they were not racist.

So I ask people this: why has Hillary Clinton forgiven John McCain for telling a cruel, sexist, homophobic joke about about a teenaged Chelsea Clinton and AG Janet Reno, but she want’s Shusters job?

]]> By: louise http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150206 louise Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:06:44 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/08/a-bad-day-for-sexism-is-a-good-day-for-women/#comment-150206 How is it that Shuster gets a suspension, but McCain can make jokes about Chelsea being fathered by Janet Reno and have it slide under the radar? And there are reasons why he didn't get the nod in 2000- what, a decade has mellowed his ass? please. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml How is it that Shuster gets a suspension, but McCain can make jokes about Chelsea being fathered by Janet Reno and have it slide under the radar?

And there are reasons why he didn’t get the nod in 2000- what, a decade has mellowed his ass? please.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml

]]>