The men say it’s not misogynistic…us women better listen…
I’m trying really hard to not laugh about the blog drama that has begun over The New Republic cover because part of it is serious, however I always find it funny when men lecture women on how they should perceive something that is related to misogynistic behavior, real or imagined. A little secret, I have no idea what it is like to be a man, nor would I pretend to know. Those 78 genes that separate us do matter at times beyond just the five physical differences (not counting genitalia).
So, Pho, Eric and Tim all share why they don’t believe Jill or I guess Kathy or Jessica or Jeff or Amanda or Taylor or a different Jill are correct in this being over the top and misogynistic.
Infact Jill from Feministe makes some great points:
This is really beyond the pale. And really, if the “What election sexism?” Democrats can’t see how over-the-top this is, I don’t really know what to say.
Progressives should be better than this.* I haven’t been a Clinton supporter, but the misogynist crap she’s gotten throughout the election has made me a whole lot more sympathetic towards her. There are a lot of questions to raise and a lot of skepticism to be had about both Democratic candidates — we can do that without resorting to sexist and racist crutches. And we can cut the whole “She’s tearing the party apart!” nonsense. You know what tears the party apart? Insulting and attacking the party’s base by launching racist and sexist attacks. Drawing big fat lines between Clinton and Obama, as if either he or she were the bad guy — and in doing so, giving John McCain (the real bad guy) a great big pass.
I think of the quote by Meghan O’Rourke on The XX Factor while referencing a different situation still fits:
“If these comments were only ‘seemingly’ sexist, I wonder what, exactly, indubitably sexist remarks would sound like?”
I hope Taylor Marsh is wrong, but I have a feeling if things continue the way they are? This could end up true:
Sexism? What sexism? Misogyny in the progressive ranks? Nah, not possible. It’s not only possible, but it’s our ugly reality.
This is what Democrats and progressives have been doing on the web for months now. Hunting powerful women is now considered sport in the Democratic party, especially online. It’s why if Clinton is not the nominee her supporters will defect in droves, and progressive Democrats will have only themselves to blame when McCain rides in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on the back of Democratic voter outrage after what Clinton has experienced.
That would not be something to laugh about…
I’ve closed comments for this post for the time being since too much interpersonal drama took place that was not related to the point I had to ban someone as well as edit content.
Chills from reading the truth. Chills. Thanks, Lisa Renee.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:01 pmWell, we have racism where privileged white women (and the men who support them) — no matter how progressive they say they are — say it’s not happening, and us WoC/stated positional allies better listen.
So why wouldn’t we have sexism and misogyny, where men — no matter how progressive they say they are — say it’s not happening, and us women better listen?
((shrugs))
Makes sense to me. Certainly wish it didn’t, but it certainly does.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pmThere’s a bigger picture issue than Marcotte’s book, which I haven’t read or bought. I’m not a WoC but I also am not involved in the feminist blogging community anymore since it became apparent that I was not “feminist enough” for some of them a few years ago so I just kept blogging my way.
To be honest that is probably part of the reason women have not been able to capitalize on gaining power in government, we allow ourselves to be splintered off rather than to first focus on the main goals first. We all want to end up in the same place, but we argue on which roads to take to get there, some of us end up taking the long way while others want to take the short cut…After a while you just want someone to say let’s just go.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:10 pmI went after a simular topic today. Liberals and those who think liberalism is something different than “progressives” are in quite a quandry this year aren’t they?
If they don’t vote for the black guy, they’re racists (according to the Obama supporters.)
If they don’t vote for Clinton, they’re being sexist (according to the Clinton supporters).
Funny how fear of other people’s perceptions dictate the leftist mindset first and foremost.
Fear of somebody calling them racist or sexist supercedes their decision to vote their conscience.
All the PC crap and fancy packaging aside, which candidate will actually LEAD the nation and obey the constitutional duties and restraints of the job?
Sadly with 2 parties and 3 contending candidates, NONE of them have any intent to follow the constitution according to things they’ve all said.
Our choices this year are crap, shit and, feces who are all trying to convince us that the other candidates are dung.
May the best soundbite win!
BTW Lisa, keep doing things they way you want to do them on here. The feminists must be mad because you aren’t subjecting your ideas to their formula but, instead subscribe to your own thinking. Feminism’s original intent was independence. Those who simply follow a prescibed formula aren’t really all that independent then are they? Simply trading one master for another!
April 25th, 2008 at 2:20 am#2
“Well, we have racism where privileged white women (and the men who support them) — no matter how progressive they say they are — say it’s not happening, and us WoC/stated positional allies better listen.”
…hmmm….
administration edited for content after continual rule violations.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:54 amSepp, thanks I agree that the focus on the “historic” firsts has been more of a focus than actual skills of the candidates, I personally think that had something to do with part of the reason John Edwards ended up in the position he was in.
Dave, you’ve demonstrated what I think is another part of our problem, we focus to much on individual personalities and get side tracked into discussions about others rather than the issues. Similar to what is happening with some of the WoC. If Jill was the only person out there stating a position then it would be understandable that the direct focus would be on her, same with Tim. Yet in this situation it’s being reported by many, many women those who support Clinton and those who do not that they are seeing the same thing that Jill is as well as other men who are stating the same thing that Pho, Eric and Tim did, that the misogyny does not exist.
I used the examples of those I had read, to demonstrate what was being said rather than as a critique of their individual personalities.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:30 amNo matter what… “individual personalities” are an important consideration when anyone (including you and I) try to determine who we are going to trust regarding the dissemination of information.
I simply don’t trust a rich, white, suburbanite woman on a soap box with regards to telling poor, black, inner city people how to run their schools.
Likewise, I don’t trust obnoxious testosterone-filled man jerk BS blog bashers (ie – Tim, Eric and Pho) trying to project that they know anything at all with regards to experiencing misogyny and/or sexism.
Administration Edit – Comment modified for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:29 amDave, we’ve had this discussion before, so my position on personal attacks on my blog is known to you, it’s not something I want my blog used for. This post isn’t about just one person, I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate on Jill or Tim. While, it’s fine with me if you don’t agree with me, as I stated before, many more people agree with the position Jill has taken.
When you do this, it degrades the thread into a stream of personal attacks with people feeling as if they have to defend themselves and we end up not talking about the real issue. Which is the underlying sexism that has existed in this presidential campaign from not just the media but from our own party and some of it’s members.
The majority of my readers don’t know the whole history with you and others in the blogosphere, and I will not let my blog turn into what has happened on the others. To be perfectly blunt please don’t take advantage of the fact that you know I don’t ban or delete people to post like this.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pmYou could make Marsh’s argument in the exact opposite, which is mostly why I discount it. I’d tend to guess that the side who actually WON would be more apt to defect in droves than the side who had less delegates but ended up with a nomination.
Actually, this jumping up and down and whining that “if i don’t get the nomination then we’ll lose in November” almost precisely makes the point of some of her critics. It’s ludicrous to be calling time out down 6 with .4 seconds remaining. The only honest appraisal of it is that she has no path whatever to the nomination but via burning the party down completely. The only responsible thing would have been to realize that and bow out. Now we are left with it being somewhat torn down regardless due to her unwillingness to lose with some amount of dignity. I imagine this is also a reason for the disdain and the seriousness of it leaves some to lash out at her in ways that are, indeed, offensive to some. The cover? Simply political mockery and using a cover illustration to boost readership. No more hating of women than other covers lampooning political candidates.
She won’t get the nomination because she ran a poorly conceived campaign based on an air of inevitability and completely got her ass kicked in caucuses she didn’t even think would matter. The response was to go down in the gutter and invoke 9/11 like a scared GOP rat. Twice! Completely discounting veiled racial attacks (cocaine, doing “something” in the neighborhood, as far as i know, reverend wright, bill in SC) this is enough for me to write her off and should be for any other person on the left who had to endure BushCo doing it to us in ‘04 and beyond.
I think a great many of the attacks seen as sexist (not interchangeable with misogynist btw) were a direct reaction of their campaign going negative in an attempt to save her 0-11 behind. Doesn’t excuse them, but like someone else said on this topic earlier, nobody ever said equality would be easy. If you don’t want to be attacked by every imaginable angle, don’t run for President. Hell, the Clinton campaign should know most of all…they perfected the art!
LR, I find it funny that you use the word “lecture” in what seems to be an indictment of my ability to comment on something related to misogyny or sexism, real or perceived. I blogged my opinion on the matter. If you view this as “lecturing”, maybe you have more the hangup than I. I know it’s not your opinion that males cannot comment on the issue as you seem to have included some who think the cover IS misogyny. I think lecturing is an unfair characterization, as revealing as it may be. I also never said you or Jill or anyone else shouldn’t perceive the cover as indicative of woman hating, I merely stated that it was not. I think that is also an unfair characterization.
PS – Hi Dave!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:02 pm@8: Don’t worry, LR. We’ve got an extra green jacket for you!
April 25th, 2008 at 1:04 pmEric, point take on the word lecture, from my perception that’s how it comes across at times being done in a “don’t worry your pretty little head” manner. That’s probably not the intent, but at times that’s the impression not just from the three of you but in general which is the way I was referencing it from a historical point of my experience. It was not directed at you specifically.
I also don’t disagree with you on Taylor Marsh’s prediction, other than to hope it’s not true, the same can be said for blacks that have stated if Obama is not the candidate they won’t support Clinton. There will probably be a few on either side who do feel that way but I hope that when this is all said and done the goal remains getting a Democrat elected.
We have both seen this before and it is a natural part of being passionate about whoever your chosen candidate is. We argue, we get mad, we get disappointed then most of us come together.
The underlying issue of how women are being treated by the Democratic party is going to have to be addressed though, this campaign has raised a lot of issues on race and sex that can’t be ignored forever.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pmI can understand that. It just made me actually a bit sad to think my take on it might come across as lecturing the likes of you and Jill. I respect the both of you too much to ever lecture. I WANT your full blown opinion (even if I do have to yank it out of Jill like an infected molar).
I totally agree on issues of race and sex and not ignoring them. My argument with the TNR cover was actually precisely that. The issue of misogyny and women’s rights and treatment is far too important to water down with a simple magazine cover lampooning a candidate for President. As I said in my post, not every attack on Obama is racist. Not ever attack on Hillary is sexist (and certainly not misogynistic – being separate from sexist).
Both of these issues were bound to be raised above the surface and I’m glad we’re talking about them. Let’s not have such a hair trigger that fair political lampooning and attacks get turned into something else. It’s almost as if the supporters of either side now wield such characterizations like political axes.
That doesn’t mean we ignore what we perceive as REAL racist or sexists attacks – and our perceptions, to be sure, can differ.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pmEric – I love you, man.
BUT…
You are trying to define for me (and others) what is a “Real” sexist attack. The problem with sexism AND racism is how insipid it is, how ingrained at so many levels of society.
There is no such thing as something not being “sexist enough” to call attention to it if it upsets someone. You get the free reign to say that’s ridiculous, it’s not sexist enough, in your opinion. But I’m asserting that the TNR cover is more than sexist enough and is in fact misogynistic.
To say that a sexist or racist use of imagery is too nuanced to rise to the level of being objectionable is no reason not to say it’s objectionable. The nuance of it makes it all the more dangerous.
But I still love ya, man.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:52 pmI love you back. (damn have i been waiting for an opportunity to use that!)
I’m not trying to define anything for you. I can’t. I can only define it for me and hope we agree. We don’t. You also cannot define it FOR ME or any other male. All we can do is voice our views and hope to understand one another a bit better. That’s about it.
I’m not arguing “sexist enough”. In fact, I think the cover might be sexist as Jason of Blue Bexley pointed out in a comment at my place. I just don’t think it rises to the standard of misogyny, or hate of women. It may be playing upon an unfair stereotype of women, however. Mainly I think the cover is just a bad photo with some fair thought bubbles criticizing her campaign.
Maybe instead of just saying “I think this!” loudly you should explain why. I’ve explained why I don’t see the cover as woman hating, why do you? Is the standard a goofy photo? Is the standard making fun of a woman? What is it for you?
Thanks so much for allowing me to use a signature Obama line in the opening. That made my day…
PS: Did you see this post? Misogyny again? …or could it be just a funny picture with valid criticism of her campaign and their fuzzy math on having a path to the nomination?
April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pmIf you go back to my original post – it was a title, a picture and four links.
I wrote it that way on purpose. And I’d do it the same way again.
Lisa Renee links to some excellent posts – far more specific in the whys of all this.
The reason for my spare post, as opposed to the ones to which she links, is because to me – it speaks for itself, to me. Like Marc Dann’s use of the word “Friend” to describe the employee he hired who is alleged to be involved in some bad shit – at the expense of women. When I saw that word – that was it! End of story. The man’s boundaries are messed up big time re: his work and what’s going on – whether it’s because he is involved or not.
No one needs to explain to me why the word “friend” in that context is an enormous red flag.
Likewise – I don’t need anyone to tell me why that cover is wrong and feeds the frenzy for hating women and Hillary.
It’s like trying to explain why I’m Jewish. I am. End of story.
That cover – wrong and hateful.
I still love you back.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pmnot the first or last time we’ll agree to disagree…
April 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm…just thought of this as well. Given the differences of opinion on what the cover meant to various people, I’d feel compelled to argue that the post certainly DID NOT speak for itself. That’s why I implore you to add more commentary on future posts of this nature so we don’t have to spend 12 comments getting to the crux. Unless, of course, this was a comment strategy all along.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pmAdministration Edit – Comment deleted for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pmDave, seriously I give a shit about a magazine cover because it is more than that, it’s a trend that has continued and has NOTHING to do with Jill other than the fact she pointed it out along with many other women.
This has nothing to do with the majority of what you’ve posted and I have asked you this time and in the past to not do this here. If you can’t post on the topic raised without going into personal junk – don’t post. It’s stupid that I should have to do this over and over again. EVERYONE is welcome here and how I make that happen is by working my ass off to make a place where people can discuss things reducing the amount of personal bullshit and insults as much as I can.
If someone attacked you, I’d do the exact same thing I’m doing now.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pmhickmania! it must be spring!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:05 pmI don’t believe I’m being stupid for standing up for lower to middle class people in the face of arrogant white suburbanite AssHats.
You are entitled to “give a shit” about a fleeting magazine cover, but don’t expect me to. You give a shit because you want Hillary to win. I could care less because I want Obama to win.
The magazine cover represents a political maneuver rather than something misogynistic/sexist that you and other female Hillary supporters want to get your collective panties all in a bunch about.
There… now you can start a whole new thread about me entitled:
“Hickmania represents misogynistic sexist bastards for Obama”
Would publishing that make you feel better Ms. Ward ??? I’m sure you’re “upset” enough about me to now accept that exclusionary green jacket.
Go ahead Lisa… take the Ohiosphere “green jacket” exclusionary kool aid.
I don’t give a damn !!!
Administration Edit – Comment modified for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pmDave, you said no one would give a shit, I pointed out I do. I clearly stated my request on how I expect everyone, including you to act on this blog.
The only way rules work is to apply them fairly and that is exactly what I am doing.
We waste so much time of the non-necessary drama. If you don’t care because you support Obama and that is your reasoning, I’d point out there are many Obama supporters who do feel differently, read some of the comments on the thread links that I shared.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:32 pm@18: Well, since this comment does still exist here, figured i’d take a moment to answer some of the scurrilous charges by one David B. Hickman Jr.
I actually don’t really give a shit about this particular magazine cover, funny enough. I’d add that we hand out green jackets as a form of humor and to make a point. The photoshop in that particular post David is referring to happens to be one that generated the most email comments to me ever. People love it! It’s some of my best work. Coryell was right to ban Hickmania from his blog and I suspect it may happen here some day as well. Unless and until Dave learns how to play nice with others online.
I’ve actually never worn a business suit to any rally. I’ve certainly never advocated the position that you are only legit if you do. I think there is room for suits, ties, drum circles, and dreads in my progressivism. Pity you don’t. I think Brian did because he had meetings beforehand. You know, the king of meetings that generate interest among those who might fund progressive causes. You don’t get far in those things wearing torn jeans and faded peace sign tee shirts. I’m actually more of the faded peace sign set myself. But nice job realizing that and jumping off into an attack on Rothenberg. You are one of a kind!
You are unworthy of consideration, Dave, for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with socio-economic status.
PS – Glad we agree on Obama, but I should correct you. I’m an arrogant white EXurbanite. You’d know that if you weren’t so PlunderDUMB!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pmAdministrative edit…
None of the post was related to the discussion so it has been removed.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:27 pmgo for the green jacket, lisa. a tradition unlike any other!
April 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pmOkay Dave, we are at a stand off. I’ve asked you more than once to follow my rules or to not post here. It’s stupid, it’s a waste of my time and frankly it’s disrespectful. It’s up to you how this proceeds. If you truly want the “honor” of being the first person I ban? Keep pushing me and eventually I will get tired of editing. If you want to reconsider and tone down the unrelated personal attacks that have no bearing on the discussion? That’s up to you too.
It is your behavior that is driving this and not mine, my rules are clearly known to you and as stated before – everyone who can do that? Is welcome here. No matter their political party, their economic status, color, race, creed or sexual orienation.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:47 pmIt was VERY “related to the discussion” …
but granted a bit too controversial for Ms. Ward’s taste.
However, now at least Lisa knows the rest of the story regarding this VERY telling photo (she was there dammit!):
administration edited for content after continual rule violations.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pmI was there, and since I was there, I can attest that the discussion was not one where footsy was happening. We were discussing how men behave on the internet and how some attempt to demean or belittle or bully women. What can we do to encourage more women to blog…It’d be like saying the very unflattering picture of me is one where I am licking my lips in anticipation over whoever was talking at the moment. Or for me to go off on a tangent wondering what the motivation was for that picture to have been posted on the interent since it clearly made me look fat and unattractive. (smile)
Which is only relevant to the discussion if we are going to talk about how some men are not respectful enough of women bloggers which has created the continued focus on sexism…
April 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pmNo one has shouldered more blog “disrespect” than I have …
It all started way back when, on the BS Blog, when Bryan Clark tried to diminish the Election Reform group I worked for called the Ohio Honest Elections Campaign. big boi bryan coined my nickname of “Hickmania” Tim Russo and Eric Vessels were responsible for building on what Bryan Clark started with help from Scott Piepho and Jason Haas.
Thus, I can’t imagine that any woman has had it any worse than I regarding blog “disrespect.” That’s just part of politics. You roll with the punches and make the best of whatever dirt you have on others.
Eric, just because YOU screwed-up on your job at Progress Ohio does not make me “unworthy of consideration.” You got yourself into a pickle but tried to point the finger at me as the bad guy. You lost.
http://ohiodailyblog.com/uploaded_images/five-790815.JPG
April 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pmI know over my lifetime that it’s a pretty effective tool to discredit a woman by portraying her to be angry or strident.
And that picture looks both.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:44 pmDave, you have not been blatantly discriminated against because of your sex, it’s been because of the way you have chosen to share your beliefs that has created most of the problems you’ve experienced.
I don’t agree with you that insulting and attacking people has to be a part of politics. It creates more enemies than allies. Nor is making the best of what dirt you have on others, it creates an endless cycle of them looking for dirt on you and in the end? As we’ve seen, less gets done. Nothing really gets accomplished in the continuing saga of one upmanship of who can lob the best insult that sticks.
Another reason that perhaps it is time for women to have a larger role in government than we have now. It’s clearly evident that in the past few decades that men have not exactly done a stellar job in dealing with the important issues like health care, education and the economy.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pmAdministration Edit – Comment deleted for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:56 pmDave, I always try to be fair, just as I’m sure you can understand that Eric responded to what you wrote about him. Though, getting into the topic you are is straying from what the original post was about.
Kate, that’s what the basis of this discussion was about or at least started to be about is how the cover is viewed and is there a larger problem with sexism to the scale that it could be considered misogynistic
April 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm#31
Women are just as adept at “playing politics” albeit differently than men. You are wrong or at least uninformed in stating that I have not been blatantly discriminated against based on my sex. I have been in work situations where women called the shots that ultimately effected me in a negative way.
Regarding my interactions on the blogs, some women unfairly typecast me based on my heavy-handed approaches that I use to fend off super testosterone filled men.
In response to Eric’s comment above: If “playing nice with others online” means succumbing to and acting all Suburban/ExUrban, like Eric and Jill, then count me out.
I agree that it is time for women to have a larger role in government, but not because I believe women will run things any better. Instead, I’d rather see women shoulder their half of the responsibility rather than them being so damn critical of male leadership.
Women will be just as corrupt and inept as men. You’re not going to convince me any differently. Women leaders will be sniping at other women and men just as much as men are “insulting and attacking” people today.
Most women I’ve known well are just as vigilant at “one upmanship” as any man I’ve ever know. Women just “one up” people differently than men, but it all leads to the same results.
Thus, I refute your contention that women leaders are or will be any better than men at doing a “stellar job” regarding issues facing our society.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pmDearest Dave,
I’d suggest to you (as I have before) that you discontinue commenting on something you know nothing about, especially trying to push a lie like this:
“Eric, just because YOU screwed-up on your job at Progress Ohio does not make me “unworthy of consideration.” You got yourself into a pickle but tried to point the finger at me as the bad guy. You lost.”
Those are dangerous waters you are treading water in my man. Anyone truly interested could give Rothenberg a call and find out Dave is full of shit and lying in an attempt to somehow discredit me.
I don’t lose, Dave. I’m able to comment on any blog I wish. I also HAVE a blog. You are universally reviled and ridiculed among both bloggers and readers alike. In fact, I can’t remember a single time anyone has ever come to your defense. You may want to revisit your notion of losers.
Hugs,
Uncle Eric
April 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pmthe green jacket is calling lisa. the azaleas! think of the azaleas!
April 25th, 2008 at 7:14 pmAdministration Edit – Comment deleted for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pmDave, made the charge, Eric refuted it and that should be the end of it. You are going way off topic again and Eric’s job at Progress Ohio has nothing to do with this. Eric was not fired from what I was told. Nor does Todd, Bryan, Russell or Tim have anything to do with this.
This is the exact reason why the censorship happens is because it ends up being an endless drama.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:34 pmI’m getting emails from regular readers who are asking me what in the hell is going on here. So…final warning to stay to the topic or I’ll just close the thread since the regular readers don’t want to wade into this drama that has nothing to do with the original topic at hand.
If they want drama and speculation they have the Stainbrook post which is at least related to people they know.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:36 pmAdministration Edit – Comment deleted for continual violation of posting rules.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:51 pmOkay that’s it. I’m a patient person Dave, and I have done my best to be fair but you don’t seem to want to respect my wishes as far as what I allow or don’t allow on my blog.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:53 pm