Here We Go Again

Here We Go Again -- Obama's Baby Mama?

by Michele

                                                           

Have you seen this video?  It's a compilation of all the truly vile and disgusting things that male pundits with fat contracts said on-air about Hillary Clinton and other female politicians (and women in general!) during this primary season. 

Here's just a small sampling.  A Fox News anchor saying of Hillary, "A ho is a ho." Tucker Carlson lovingly displaying the Hillary nutcracker and confiding that he involuntarily crosses his legs every time she comes on t.v.  Mike Barnicle saying Hillary reminds him of "everyone's first wife standing outside the probate court."  Bill O'Reilly asking Mark Rudov what the downsides would be to having a woman as the most powerful person in the world, and Rudov answering, "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings?"  Morton Kondracke comparing Nancy Pelosi to the wicked witch of the west; another pundit commenting on her botched face lift.  And no list of sexist doggerel would be complete without Chris Mathews, who brings his brainless frat boy mentality to national television five nights a week.  I'd include a choice few of his comments, but they'd take up the whole rest of the blog.

I've gotten into a few debates with friends and acquaintances over whether the ugly tone of Hillary's coverage is due to sexism, or whether it's simply that people legitimately hate her because she is in fact a castrating manipulative bitch.  For those of you who've managed to convince yourselves there's a distinction between these two propositions, I have two words for you: Michelle Obama.

Here we go again, folks. We're getting in on the ground floor, with a front row seat to the demonizing of another proud outspoken (potential) First Lady.  Add the race card, and what do you get?  Fox News calling Michelle "Obama's baby mama."  Right-leaning websites spreading the rumor that a videotape exists of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey" from the pulpit of Reverand Wright's church.  Or how about Sean Hannity's entire Michelle Obama montage on Fox news, where he calls her "bitter" and "angry" over and over again as video with unflattering lighting and camera angles streams on the screen.  Or the video produced by the Tennessee Republican Party interspersing her "proud of my country" statement with "good" Americans talking about their patriotic pride.

I've been confining myself to the mainstream stuff, the news anchors and pundits who reach millions of Americans in their living rooms every night.  If I even tried to address the ugliness of what's out there on the internet, I'd ruin everybody's day.  Try blog posts with titles like, "They Don't Come Any Blacker Than Michelle Obama."  How long is it before entire websites are devoted to hating Mrs. Obama, as they are to hating Hillary?  (Check out www.AgainstHillary.com). Hey, we live in a 24/7 information cycle.  Between the time I write this blog and the time it posts, such a site will probably have spawned from the primordial dreck of on-line hate.

The image of Hillary as castrating bitch was carefully and intentionally crafted over a period of decades.  It started in the world of right-wing talk radio, with people like Rush Limbaugh who were against Hillary for partisan reasons.  But there's enough deep-seated sexism out there that it easily made its way into mainstream discourse.  Men and women, liberals and conservatives -- everybody bought into it.  The Obama campaign bought into it, and used it for political gain. Hillary's wicked witch image is so ingrained that media bigwigs continue to insist that there was nothing wrong with her coverage, that it was her own fault because -- well, she's such a bitch.

We can sit here and watch the same thing happen to Michelle Obama.  (And as a Hillary supporter, I confess to having moments where that seems like poetic justice.  But I fight them.)   It's too late for Hillary, but it's not too late to stand up and say no, we will not let this happen again.  Give the woman a chance to talk.  Treat her with respect.  Be glad that she has a brain in her head.  And when the brainless frat boys of punditry make their nasty, insidious comments, turn off your t.v.

 

                                 

Comments

[Josh]

The important thing is to get ahead of it, rather than let it come to you. I think that people are already doing that, so that these insults will have to be sotto voce. More to say, but gotta get into the shower. Maybe later.

[Nancy martin]

Michele, I think all these frat boy (and girl!) attitudes spill over into other fields as well. Josh is right. (Somebody break out the snow shoes!) And so are you. It's time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and get out ahead of the sexism.

Here's a link to Anthony Lane's review of Sex and the City. It says a lot about accepted views of what women supposedly want in their entertainment.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/06/09/080609crci_cinema_lane/?yrail

[Harley]

The thing is, even if we were to remove the sexism from these remarks (which is impossible) they're just not . . . funny. These guys aren't talented enough to justify even a "Aw, honey, can't you take a joke?"

And for God's sakes, don't these men have wives? Mothers? Daughters? Sisters?

I'm trying to think if there's any quid pro quo here, if left-wing commentators have ever called Barbara or Laura Bush a bitch.

[Judy Larsen]

I continue to be appalled, although not surprised. But I think we have to act, we have to decide we're not just going to shake our heads and say, "this sucks" but we need to fight back. To decide we're not going to stand for a second of this crap.

[michele]

Interesting question, Harley! Laura Bush is the idealized wife figure. Criticisms of her from the left tend more toward how vacuous or Stepfordish she is. Those types of critiques aren't likey to pick up steam in the popular culture to the point where she becomes a hated stereotype. Laura Bush behaves as the sexist culture thinks women ought to.

Barbara Bush is another story. My memory is, she was more outspoken and thus more controversial, but she managed to do it in a motherly way. Again, that didn't seem to pick up the same kind of hatred in the popular culture that Hillary and Michelle Obama evoke.

Nancy Reagan, on the other hand, was despised on the left and seen as a Lady Macbeth type.

Thoughts?

Here's an interesting little piece in Slate on both Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, which talks about how potential First Ladies get reduced to their jeans size. (Cindy McCain is a size 0, BTW. Read that in Vogue!)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

[michele]

Judy, Nancy and Josh -- you're so right! We need to get out ahead of this problem and do something about it. I say we vote with our feet and stop watching these idiots -- Mathews, Olberman, Fox News entirely, Lou Dobbs (okay, that's about how he's single-handedly responsible for the current racist climate against Latinos, which is another blog for anotehr day).

If we want to protest, here is some contact information:

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html

[Maryann Mercer]

Unfortunately, just like Hilary(and most of us, by the way), Michelle Obama has uttered a few sentences that, taken out of context, can be contrued to mean she is not the nicest woman in the country. However, that doesn't justify the "hate parade", and she shouldn't have her lips zipped shut or be relegated to the back room. I'm not a fan, but I've never met her so how do I know who she really is? How many of her detractors know that? My money is on few to none.
The thing is, until Whitewater and Monica came along, the opposition couldn't find a lot of trash to talk about Clinton so they decided Hilary was fair game. Conservative Americans went along. A wife should defer to her husband, etc. Not too many people liked Eleanor Roosevelt either,at least not in the pundit camp. She was too aggressive and outspoken for her time as well. Now it's Michelle Obama's turn. There's not too much trash to talk about her husband, and she's outspoken, so...
Actually, Barbara Bush, grandmotherly with pearls, is rumored to be a force to be reckoned with, not the gentle lady in the portraits. Given the time in which her husband held office, modesty and reserve were the tricks she held up her public sleeve. I doubt George the First pushed her anywhere she didn't want to go. I'd say Laura has been smart enough to do the same thing. Besides, GW gets enough bad press for the entire family.

[Maryann Mercer]

And yes, I think we need to let the commentators know we won't stand for the degradation of political wives (or anyone for that matter). Thanks for the links.

[Karen in Ohio]

May I remind you all that Barbara Bush is the one who famously called Geraldine Ferraro "something that rhymes with witch", and also used the lovely little noblesse oblige-ish quip that the refugees from Katrina should be so, so happy for the upgrade of living in the stadium. Grrrr. (Actual quote: "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them." –Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 5, 2005)

Sometimes we women are our own worst enemies, in a collective sense.

[michele]

Thanks for that reminder, Karen. Wow.

And good point about Eleanor Roosevelt, Maryann. She was so ahead of her time, and she took a lot of grief for it. Which First Ladies *were* popular? Jackie? Would she be today or would we see her as a trivial fashion plate and criticize her for her materialism? And presumably JFK's infidelities would be all over the news, and we'd be judging her for sticking with him.

[Karen in Ohio]

Most presidents were unfaithful, it seems. The office is one of unbelievable power, and it seems to go to their heads, as it were (pun intended). It wasn't until Clinton that the press felt they had permission to go after a sitting CIC.

I never understood the horror with which the media reported H. Clinton's famous quote about staying home and baking cookies. She made a great point, and instead of pointing out how well she had integrated raising a great kid and working in a high-powered job, she was castigated for it. Good grief. Why else have we baby boomers been working so hard to gain equality, if not to achieve what Mrs. Clinton has?

[Kerry]

Great blog, Michele, and so important. How do we take action, other than voting with the remote? I mean, I don't watch those shows or read those blogs anyway, for exactly the reasons (magnified across issues) you've mentioned. I do come into contact with a lot of younger women and try to gently nudge them out of stereotypes and blind acceptance of media images when I can; I'd sure like to be able to do more. Ideas????

[Karen in Ohio]

Here's something I've been dreaming about during this insane election process: a distaff political party, just for women, or those who wish to promote women's issues. With all due respect to the fun guys who post here, I'm fed up with male dominance of politics to the point where only male candidates are even offered, let alone considered.

My middle daughter, when she was in third grade, came home one day and announced that she was going to be the first woman President. That was 16 years ago, so she will be eligible to run until 2019. I said "I hope we don't have to wait THAT long!"

[michele]

Unfortunately, Karen, we may have to wait that long or longer. Around the time HRC was being pressured to drop out, there was a long article in the Times about the other women politicians waiting in the wings. That article got tossed about and linked to as if it said, look, here are all these other choices. In fact, if you read it all the way to the end, it catalogued the very few prominent women in politics today (Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, etc.) and talked about how unlikely it is that any of them could become president. It basically concluded that there isn't any obvious successor with Hillary's clout and name recognition waiting in the wings.

What do we do about it? Get more active politically seems like an obvios one. Give money to or volunteer for women candidates. Join Emily's list -- here's the link:

http://www.emilyslist.org/

Or here's a radical one -- run for office!

[michele]

Question about VP picks -- would it make you more or less likely to vote for either candidate if he had a woman on the ticket as Vice President (assuming that woman was someone other than Hillary Clinton?)

[Annette Dashofy]

Weak men will always be intimidated by strong women. I said long ago that Hillary would never be elected president because she scared too many men. I was also soooo hoping to be proved wrong and almost was.

While I'm at it, let me add one more name to the list of intelligent, vilified women: Teresa Heinz Kerry.

[ramona]

Laura Bush is too boring to be called a bitch.

Barbara Bush was too motherly to be called a bitch.

The Bush twins were too young to be called bitches.

So everyone had to satisfy themselves with calling GWB a moron.

[Karen in Ohio]

I so agree, Michele. When I realized what my daughter would face, I looked around at the women in public office. There were a mere handful, and most of them were in positions like city council or school board. Then Martha Layne Collins became governor of Kentucky, after having served on her local school board, and I realized that we need women at all levels of government, so that the stepping stones to the White House weren't so far apart. So I began voting for women candidates, regardless of their political affiliation (except for some choices that I violently disagree with). That's my personal grassroots campaign. Wish I could run for public office, but I don't have the education or the background to get through the process, unfortunately.

And I have called Barbara Bush a bitch, many times. She's a mean-spirited old bag, in my opinion. Motherly, my behind.

[Nancy martin]

Unfortunately, even in our current era I think the most generally admired women are those who sit down and shut up---or better yet, still gaze adoringly at their husbands.

Hey, Michele, when are *you* going to run for office?

[michele]

Good for you, Karen!

Ramona -- but GWB IS a moron. Or is he? Everybody thought Ronald Reagan was a moron and he turned out to be an astonishingly successful politician. Could a stupid person have achieved that sort of supremacy?

[William Simon]

Great, thought-provoking blog, Michele. And so on target.

I do wonder sometimes, how much of the vilification is justified, and how much of it is based on, "Well, she's acting like a man, let's see if she can take it like a man." The old See If They Can Play with the BIG Boys nonsense. It saddens me how prevalent that thinking is, even today.

I have no real answer, but it's something to wonder about. I also sometimes wonder if the derogatory comments might come from people being negative simply because they can be. "Here's an educated, successful person, let's smack 'em around a little, show they ain't no better than nobody."

People never cease to amaze me. Shock, sadden, and depress me, sure, but not amaze....

[michele]

Running for office has always been on my personal to-do list, but you have to start small. Karen is right -- the school board or something. Personally, I would LOVE to do something that contributed on the local government level. I don't really see running at any higher level than that -- I would've had to start a long time ago. But even local politics takes real commitment over a long period of time. Making connections, building a record, being there for other candidates when they need fundraising done. Right now I don't have time for all that. I need to ditch this writing career, or let it ditch me, and then maybe it'll be in the cards!

[Mary Storyteller]

I remember a much-photocopied list passed around among businesswomen in the '70's, including gems like "He's assertive, she's pushy; he's a force to be reckoned with, she's a bitch." That word seems the first choice reaction any time a woman dares to express her own opinion rather than agree with a man. An old IWW song reassured, "You ain't done nothin' if you ain't been called a 'red.'" The b-word would fit in equally well there.
There has been some talk that Missouri Democrat Claire McKaskel would be a good V-P candidate. Shoot, I'd volunteer myself. As a former teacher, I've been called a bitch often enough -- I can take it.

[ArkansasCyndi]

Honestly, this issue has been around forever. An assertive woman is a bitch. An assertive man is a go-getter. I guess the difference may be that it's gotten acceptable to publicly call someone a bitch.

What I'm hoping is the next generation will be more enlightened about the difference between the intelligence between the sexes - What Difference?

Why are some men so threatened by a powerful woman? The men of the blog certainly aren't, so what makes the difference?

[Kathy Reschini Sweeney]

One of the many things that makes this election different is the Net. I heard a McCain advisor lament that nobody would be picking up all of his inconsistent statements if everything weren't on film and avaiable within seconds.

The same applies to women, but in a different way. It's so much easier to take things out of context and splice them into something that has nothing to do with the original statement.

And wait until we start seeing the underground photoshopping - I wouldn't be surprise to see a photo of Hillary, Michele and Fidel Castro or something. No holds barred these days.

As far as the media's treatment of women - I don't know whether it's because I'm a woman or not, but even though I'm getting used to the bold-faced lying that goes on in the name of news, it still seems like they save the really vicious stuff for women.

Emily's List is an excellent place to start.

Michele - you should run for office. Any office. We need smart people in government, and smart women are even better. No offense, guys, but you've had the place to yourselves for way too long.

[JodiL]

Politics aside, in my mind the issue is taking women seriously as viable candidates. In politics, in business, and every other area of life. Did we ever hear how old Joe Lieberman looked or how emotional/unemotional John Kerry was? Must we continue down the road of judging women on our physical attributes and our differing hormonal makeup instead of our brains, our ideas, our experience. Good lord, women have been running the world for centuries and men, I think, actually know it. But they are afraid to lose their place at the head of the line. When that happens, and it will eventually, there will be no looking back. Will the so called pundits then vilify the husbands for how they dress, what they say and the path they took to advance? I'm not sure just not watching/listening to the idiots on tv will do any good.

[Josh]

Would Michele's being on the ticket guarantee Florida? Think about it--the two great demographics of South Florida.

[michele]

You're right, Jodi -- the problem is definitely bigger than the idiots on tv. But I do think that's an important area to clean up. If we're getting our news from people who think this kind of sexist BS is acceptable, how can women ever get a fair shake? The pundits have an undue amount of influence in forming the voters' perceptions.

[michele]

But I'm Puerto Rican, Josh, and the Latino voters in Miami are Cubans. One of my best friends in law school was Cuban, and I never felt the same way about her after she said the following to me -- "To us Cubans, Puerto Ricans are like dogs."

[Karen in Ohio]

Jodi, you hit on something else that causes me to see red--making an issue of physical attributes. Like Hillary's "cankles", or her pantsuits. What the hell do they think she should wear, frilly sundresses? That is such a bogus argument. No one is making an issue of the goofy ears Obama has, or the totally weird and creepy multitude of physical ailments and quirks of John McCain.

I think you hit the nail on the head about men (in general)--they ARE afraid that if they once lose control they'll never get it back. Look at the world religions; nearly all of them were created (yes, created) to control women, in one way or another. I've never bought the idea that I had to kowtow to men in order to get to Heaven, and I am astonished that we've allowed ourselves to be pushed around in such a way for so long.

Fortunately, there are enlightened male persons, like William and Josh, et al, who can appreciate the fact that using less than half the world's brainpower is a stupid idea.

[Josh]

How sweet.

[Mary Storyteller]

Amen, Karen. History of religion and the place of women in it is a fascinating area of study. Religion didn't start out being about men dominating women; in fact, superiority of gender, color, etc. is so far off-track as to deserve the label "blasphemy."
Thank goodness for the enlightened males who realize the win/win of equality. It used to surprise my students when I pointed out that we had male supporters of feminism in the '70's, and even though I can't use personal experience to testify to it, in the earlier feminist movements also. (BTW, Karen, I can't find your e-mail, so send me another message sometime, for those occasions when responses shouldn't be on the blog).

[William Simon]

Michele said:"To us Cubans, Puerto Ricans are like dogs."

It's everywhere. No matter what/who you are, it's everywhere.....

[Kate Hathway]

There are several things one could blame men's attitudes on - male-dominated organized religions and the domineering they demanded (and still do, for most of them)and men's insecurities about themselves versus other men, being the two most obvious. I hold out no hope whatsoever that those things are ever going to change, no matter how far in the future we dream.
The only thing that might change is the increasing numbers of women in countries in Asia who have more education than men, so one might hope they could effect slight changes in justice issues, if they ever could make any inroads into education of their societies.
The thing that most disturbed me about Hillary supporters was their often-expressed idea that "It's time for a woman President" as the reason they support her over anyone else. While I agree with the princple, I have been mocked (and worse) by women for not supporting her because I don't think she's the best candidate for other reasons not related to her gender at all. It would be wonderful for women to unite with a seperate political party (where's Victoria Woodhull when you need her?), but if we only support a candidate based on gender instead of overall ability, it will not help anyone.

[ramona]

"One of my best friends in law school was Cuban, and I never felt the same way about her after she said the following to me -- "To us Cubans, Puerto Ricans are like dogs.""

Sorry, Michele, as you call this woman a friend, but she definitely sounds like a bitch. If she were a man, I'd say the same thing.

[michele]

Kate -- thanks for that thoughtful comment. I don't know if you're referring to what I said in the blog or not. I've never had a problem with those who don't support Hillary for legitimate policy reasons, or because they genuinely prefer another candidate's message, or whatever. What bugged me as a feminist was the large number of liberal Democrats (many of them women) who said the equivalent of "I will never support Hillary because she's a manipulative scheming bitch" (in so many words).

I had plenty of these conversations. The person always felt that hating Hillary qualified as an actual political opinion, and did not see any link between that and the sexism and woman-hating flowing from the media. My point is, you can't separate Hillary's image as a bitch from the years of hate spewed by the media.

[Karen in Ohio]

The word "bitch" has no male equivalent, and it's uniquely sexist. The closest "male" pejorative is bastard, which is also a slur on one's mother. My substitute is "asshole", which I've using disturbingly often lately. :-/

It's distressing to hear anyone, no matter what gender, to reduce a public figure to their lowest common denominator. It implies a laziness on the part of the speaker, and a lack of intellectual curiosity about the subject at hand, in this case something as important as a Presidential candidate. Teresa Heinz Kerry came under a lot of criticism for her looks, and for a lot of nonsense (read: lies) about how wealthy she is. Never mind that she oversees one of the largest charities in the world, or that Kerry's opponent was almost equally wealthy, but without the charity component. It makes me weary.

[Tom Barclay]

ArC wrote"Why are some men so threatened by a powerful woman? The men of the blog certainly aren't, so what makes the difference?"

I'm pretty sure it's a matter of how one is raised, how one educates oneself and how resistent one might be to the dominant paradigm of American Life. I certainly didn't come from a 'normal' household.

If gender-segregated team sports are the be-all of a life, how do you ever get comfortable with the other gender?

If the family is controlled by a domineering member of either gender, what's the operant model for the children? Nixon had no use for George Herbert Walker Bush, but respected Barbara Bush as "a real piece of work," in the sense that she was powerful and amoral.

If marriage is about property transfer and consolidation of wealth ("Screw down, marry up."), what do the sons learn about daughters and women?

Who's the better teacher with the more important message? Niccolo Machiavelli or that carpenter guy from Nazareth who was always hangin' with the fishermen?

If you're smitten by Diana Rigg/Emma Peel at a young age, why would you settle for less when you're older?

[sarahS]

What's funny is that Tucker doesn't even have balls. (See David Sedaris for psychological insights into bowties.)

The irony...the irony.....

And Barnicle...didn't he plagiarize someone?

[Becky Hutchison]

From the beginning of the campaign, Hillary was described as aggressive and bitchy and was constantly asked the hard questions. But I never heard anyone say she wasn't prepared to answer. What does that say about her knowledge? I never saw anything about how she couldn't answer a question, etc.

Obama got high marks for his knowledge and was rarely asked the hard questions at first. I didn't see him being berated or put down. Was that because he was nice, a minority, or a man? Who knows...maybe all three. But I'm someone who looks for knowledge and intelligence in my candidates, and in my opinion, both Obama and Hillary convinced me they were up-to-date on current events and knew how politics worked on all levels.

Now that being said, I know the press jumped on Hillary for misrepresenting some of her past actions (i.e., saying she was under hostile gunfire on her 1996 Bosnia visit when video showed different). But when there was the pastor problem for Obama (where his pastor gave strong racially & politically charged sermons), there was hardly a ripple in the press, especially once Obama ended his association with that church.

The fact that he attended that church for years, with he and his family listening to those kind of sermons, indicates to me his acceptance of the messages. I've changed churches three times when I felt the overall spirit of the communities wasn't right for me and my family. The incident didn't seem to harm his candidancy at all. So why does Hillary get railroaded but Obama gets a gentle reprimand? That really bothers me.

Now to answer the question about whether female running mates would sway my vote from Dem to Rep...not a chance in hell!! At this point, I don't care if Obama picked Chuckles the Clown as a VP running mate, I'd still vote for him!

[Pam aka SisterZip]

while I have always felt the way President Clinton did, that Hillary is much smarter than he is, I had my reservations about her as a candidate. I think she actually is very qualified and would do a good job. But I have to admit that I am so weary of the Clinto bashing (justified or manufactured) that I don't know if this country can take another 4 (or more if we would get so lucky) years of it. During Missouri's primary, I did voter for her, but it took me about 15 minutes in the booth to make up my mind. It had nothing to do with race, gender, or 'bitchability'. It came down to she is a Clinton and I just am weary of the whole thing.

I don't watch FoxNews. If Dear Hubby has it on (he just likes to watch them make fools of themselves), I walk out of the room. When I heard this "Obama's Baby Mama" shit, I literaly threw something at the tv. Luckily, I'm a lousy shot. Not only do I hate that term because it is disrespectful, it smacks of racism. Here are a bunch of white fathead pundits using a street term....arghhhhh!!!!!

I had a great deal of respect for Bush 1 before he compromised everything to be VP. He was pro-choice and he was better than the Dem's choice. And we know how that has turned out.

[William Simon]

Tom wrote:If you're smitten by Diana Rigg/Emma Peel at a young age, why would you settle for less when you're older?

Touche, Mr. Barclay! Touche, indeed....:)

[michele]

We have to remember that the Clintons were the first and only Democrats in the White House between the end of Jimmy Carter and now. I'm not sure the bashing was really about them so much as it was about the change in tone in our politics from the 70s to the 90s. Look at what happened to John Kerry when he ran -- if he'd won, wouldn't he have faced just as much negativity as the Clintons did?

But Becky raises a really interesting point. For whatever reason (maybe just because he's a great story) the media hearts Obama big time. If he's elected, surely the attacks from the right will be every bit as vicious, but maybe they won't gain as much traction? (Or maybe Michelle will be designated whipping girl?)

[Tom Barclay]

Michele wrote: "I'm not sure the bashing was really about them so much as it was about the change in tone in our politics from the 70s to the 90s."

Notice the change in the quality of the national dialog over the last 30 years? Those People are masters of the use of resentment as the blower fan in the Hate Furnace. The loss in 'Nam, the tough economy of the '80s, the collapse of the middle class now, the New Gilded Age . . . what propagandist could ask for more?

The more extreme and salacious the lies, the more the resentful eat them up. Since Those Men are afraid of women, don't understand women, don't *bother* to know women, and are jealous of the privileges to which they are entitled as Men, every breath and every act of a competent woman is a spur to Those Men's fear glands.

[Harley]

The irony is that when a culture suppresses its women, everyone suffers. Like, you know, men.

Another reason I love hanging out at Krav Maga, my martial arts studio, where at least half the instructors are women, and women that nobody in his right mind would mess with.

On another note, does anyone else find it disturbing that a worthy fashion accomplishment to become a size zero? And is there a Negative Two after that?

[Becky Hutchison]

I do, Harley! What's worse is the message that it's okay to do whatever you can to attain that small size...like smoking, not eating healthy foods, taking drugs, having unnecessary surgery.
And, please don't take offense Harley, but it's what I think of Hollywood and LA women having to do (or expected to do) to be in the film/tv industry.

Now America Ferrera has been recognized as wonderfully representing a "curvy" or "full-figured" woman. The dress she wore at the 2007 Golden Globes was auctioned at Clothes Off Our Backs and was it a size 12? No. A size 10? No. It was a size 6!!! Something is terribly wrong with that picture!!

http://www.styledash.com/2007/02/05/just-how-curvy-is-america-ferrara/5

[Pam aka SisterZip]

You do realize that they have changed the size charts for women, don't you? What was once a size 10 back in the 70s is now a 6 or smaller. You can't go into any store and look for the size that fits you...it is all different. Lane Bryant has changed the sizing of their jeans. Instead of 18w or above it is now 1, 2, or higher. Do they really think we don't know what size we are? I know that I have never in my life worn a size 3, but now in Lane Bryant jeans I can. How stupid is that?

[Pam aka SisterZip]

And Becky? That picture of America Ferrara is how women are supposed to look. Curvy, soft & curvy. Not hard and pointy.

[Nancy martin]

One of today's Yahoo headlines was the competition between the wives of candidates---which has the best cookie recipe. Sigh.

[Karen in Ohio]

McCain is not helping his case with this one, which is related to this blog: http://tiny.cc/kPCkL

When a candidate for the highest office in the land does not take seriously a "joke" about rape, we need to make him pay attention.

[Tom Barclay]

Author, wit and thwapper-of-the-clueless John Scalzi has this to say about The Greater Clinton today (and he don't mean Bill):

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=850

[Becky Hutchison]

Oops, sorry Pam. What I meant to say is "something's wrong with that statement...that she is an example of a 'full-figured' woman when she obviously isn't full-figured.

The picture shown on the linked web page is of a beautiful Ms Ferrera that shows how women are supposed to look. Even if she really wore a 12 (or a size 8 given your argument), Ms Ferrera is still not full-figured. She's just right, IMHO.

[tinfoil hattie]

I'm trying to think if there's any quid pro quo here, if left-wing commentators have ever called Barbara or Laura Bush a bitch.

No, but back in 1984, Barbara Bush, when asked what she thought of then VP-candidate Geraldine Ferraro, said she couldn't say the word on television, but it "rhymes with witch."

[Pam aka SisterZip]

Becky, I just reread what I wrote & it sounds really harsh. Didn't mean for it to come out that way...I actually was agreeing with you! lol.

[William Simon]

Size ZERO? Are you KIDDING?

[Mary Storyteller]

There's so much bizarre stuff swirling around us, it's hard to make sense of it all. A very sweet older woman, a nursing home resident, said today that there are just too many "unknowns" about Obama. Then she said, that even if he himself would be alright, she is afraid that if a black man is elected, all "the others" might "run wild," as they did after the Civil War. Even making allowances for advanced age, I just keep shaking my head. My head hurts just trying to figure out where she's coming from and which talk shows she's been listening to.

[michele]

Mary -- all I can say is wow!

I'm sure there are some incredibly racist views about Obama circulating out there. What I find strange, though, is you don't see them creeping into the mainstream media with him as much as you do with Michelle. What's the equivalent of the "baby-mama" comment for Barack? Am I right, and if so, why is this? Is it that women are easier to target so they go after Michelle? Is it that the media is so taken with Barack? I don't get it!

[Mary Storyteller]

I don't get it either, but I did just remember a slogan passed around among businesswomen in the '70's -- something about needing to be twice as good to get half as far as men. The deck is stacked, and I'm with you in any efforts that can assure more of a fair deal.

[Mary Storyteller]

"assure more of a fair deal."
Excuse me, make that "assure a fair deal." (Why settle for anything less? We've been waiting long enough).

[JodiL]

Michele, the issue with Michelle Obama or any candidate's strong, intelligent spouse, is the fear that the spouse will be the leader behind the scenes, so what you see is not necessarily what you get. Yeah, right, like the candidate isn't a strong, intelligent person in his/her own right. How else did he/she get to this spot in history anyway. I think you had a lot of that same fear about Bill Clinton being the man who would control the strings it just wasn't as overt as it is with Michelle. Jeez, makes you wonder what these people use their brains for, huh?

[Tom Barclay]

"What's the equivalent of the "baby-mama" comment for Barack? Am I right, and if so, why is this? Is it that women are easier to target so they go after Michelle?"

Michele, I think the more cynical editors, publishers, executive producers and VPs of News Divisions are trying out their 'weapons' on the available targets, to measure the results. Early days, and so forth.

I agree entirely with Ramona on this point: it's about business and profits.

[michele]

Tom and Jodi -- great points.

This just in from Nancy. A story about a man in Italy who took "Iron my shirts!" to the extreme:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080616/od_nm/kidnap_dc;_ylt=Av5Pu4q.swAU3WcwigIUYM2s0NUE

[Pam aka SisterZip]

I work with a woman who is in her late 60s early 70s. She is a staunch Democrat, but now that Hillary is out of the race she will be voting for McCain. She basically said the same thing as Mary's lady.

Two of my neighbors and my mother-in-law keep sending me the email that claims Obama is Muslim. Even though they know better.

My 82yo father, who in the 70s we called "Archie Bunker of the Midwest", is voting for Obama(and believe me when I say his children are in shock). He said that in this day and age there is not much difference. He's educated, articulate and wants us to get out of Iraq. Dad has simply decided that he isn't buying the crap that is coming from the other side anymore, I guess.

There really is no way to gauge how this will play out.