Democrats are all gay, not just the women
There has been a little bit of a scandal recently over some comments by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who said of Hillary Clinton that she "seems to have a lot of anger." Today, Media Matters reports on some of the press reaction. It seems that a lot of commentators are sticking up for Senator Clinton. Chris Matthews is quoted as having had the following exchange with Cynthia Tucker:
However, Matthews is wrong. For years, Democratic politicians have been subjected to gender-based attacks, both from their Republican opponents and from journalists and talk-show hosts. Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has chronicled these character smears for years, and reminds his readers recently of the complicity of, in particular, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in the campaign to publicly emasculate Gore, Kerry, and Edwards.
How is it that calling Senator Clinton "angry" raises crises of sexism from the stewards of public discourse in America, while Ms. Dowd is free to comment on Al Gore's professional relationship with consultant Naomi Wolf by writing, "[W]hen a man has to pony up a fortune to a woman to teach him how to be a man, that definitely takes the edge off his top-dogginess"? How is it any less misogynistic to imply that Gore is too feminine to be president? Indeed, the latter assault is much more clearly rooted in gender politics than the accusation that Clinton is angry.
MATTHEWS: Is this a -- I get the point. Is this a purposeful gender attack on her --I suspect that this sort of attempt to paint Senator Clinton's character as unfit for a lady will not be very effective, because, if she does run for president, people will be extremely sensitive to the fact that she is a female candidate seeking to be the first female president, and they will be on guard for gender-based attacks. Anything that even seems like it might be motivated by gender politics on the part of her opponents will be subjected to special scrutiny by the news media. Matthews' defense here will be a potent tool in defusing character attacks against Sen. Clinton, or any other prominent female politician that makes (what the people in the media judge to be) a serious run at our highest executive office.
TUCKER: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: -- that you wouldn't do against a man.
However, Matthews is wrong. For years, Democratic politicians have been subjected to gender-based attacks, both from their Republican opponents and from journalists and talk-show hosts. Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler has chronicled these character smears for years, and reminds his readers recently of the complicity of, in particular, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in the campaign to publicly emasculate Gore, Kerry, and Edwards.
How is it that calling Senator Clinton "angry" raises crises of sexism from the stewards of public discourse in America, while Ms. Dowd is free to comment on Al Gore's professional relationship with consultant Naomi Wolf by writing, "[W]hen a man has to pony up a fortune to a woman to teach him how to be a man, that definitely takes the edge off his top-dogginess"? How is it any less misogynistic to imply that Gore is too feminine to be president? Indeed, the latter assault is much more clearly rooted in gender politics than the accusation that Clinton is angry.
posted by gregates at 1:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home