Sexism In Politics (Again)


Don't miss the classic PMS crack in the bottom left.

Via the Washington Post.

Posted by Lisa Friday, January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM Labels: , , , , ,  

4 comments:

  Anonymous

January 11, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Personally, I think that her 'emotional moment' in New Hampshire was an excellent piece of showmanship albeit a very cynical exploitation of human sympathy. Consequently, thanks to cartoons like this, it makes it very difficult to have above board discussions on the matter without them turning into PMS jokes.

  Anonymous

January 11, 2008 at 7:53 PM

The very fact that so much time and space is being spent discussing HRC's emotional moment under any possible angle is itself incredibly sexist. Other candidates (and there are many others in frontrunning status) are not scrutinized so closely by the media and all sorts of commentators.

This goes back to the now classic film "Tough Guise"... if you're in the minority, you get scrutinized and questioned. If you belong to the dominant group, what you do is take as the default (invisible, never questioned) setting.

  Anonymous

January 11, 2008 at 11:09 PM

The very fact that discussion of any candidates’ political strategy somehow becomes sexist is at the other end of the very spectrum I was just alluding to.

On the far right side of the bell curve resides the camp that dismisses her political tactics as PMS. Then far to the left is the other camp, just as unreasonable, which attempts to stifle honest academic discussion with the label 'sexist'. Or in this case, ‘incredibly sexist’, as if there were degrees. One is either sexist or is not, there is no in-between.

To expand on the role of the media in relation to the candidates, it is the responsibility of the media to focus on every minutia of each candidate’s personalities. As candidates for the highest office in the United States they must welcome this type of scrutiny for this is a mere taste of what the victor will have to endure for four years. As citizens we must be able to use this information wisely to cast a vote.

  Anonymous

January 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM

What "honest academic discussion"?... what this was referring to was the drivel, pop-psychoanalysis / psychology that came out of the media for several days after "the tear".
THAT is a phenomenon worthy of academic and critical discussion. (1) That moment ("the tear") was overblown (there was no tear, no breakdown... irrespective of the way you interpret that moment), (2) media discourse was driven by a double standard since tearing up in public is not an uncommon occurrence, in the political arena in general, during campaign in particular.
It may be the role of the media to focus on minutiae but NOT at the expense of everything else. The role is actually to inform and be a check on the other 3 branches of power. That moment resonated because it failed on both accounts.

However, I'll be happy to look at any "honest academic discussion" on this particular incident. Please, post any academic references.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)