HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic
Common Dreams
AmericanPoliticsJournal
Smirking Chimp
CJR Daily
consortium news

Blog-o-rama

Eschaton
BagNewsNotes
Daily Kos
Political Animal
Driftglass
Firedoglake
Taylor Marsh
Spocko's Brain
Talk Left
Suburban Guerrilla
Scoobie Davis
Echidne
Electrolite
Americablog
Tom Tomorrow
Left Coaster
Angry Bear
oilprice.com
Seeing the Forest
Cathie From Canada
Frontier River Guides
Brad DeLong
The Sideshow
Liberal Oasis
BartCop
Juan Cole
Rising Hegemon
alicublog
Unqualified Offerings
Alas, A Blog
RogerAiles
Lean Left
Oliver Willis
skippy the bush kangaroo
uggabugga
Crooked Timber
discourse.net
Amygdala
the talking dog
David E's Fablog
The Agonist


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014 05/01/2014 - 06/01/2014 06/01/2014 - 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 - 08/01/2014 08/01/2014 - 09/01/2014 09/01/2014 - 10/01/2014 10/01/2014 - 11/01/2014 11/01/2014 - 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 - 01/01/2015 01/01/2015 - 02/01/2015 02/01/2015 - 03/01/2015 03/01/2015 - 04/01/2015 04/01/2015 - 05/01/2015 05/01/2015 - 06/01/2015 06/01/2015 - 07/01/2015 07/01/2015 - 08/01/2015 08/01/2015 - 09/01/2015 09/01/2015 - 10/01/2015 10/01/2015 - 11/01/2015 11/01/2015 - 12/01/2015 12/01/2015 - 01/01/2016 01/01/2016 - 02/01/2016 02/01/2016 - 03/01/2016 03/01/2016 - 04/01/2016 04/01/2016 - 05/01/2016 05/01/2016 - 06/01/2016 06/01/2016 - 07/01/2016 07/01/2016 - 08/01/2016 08/01/2016 - 09/01/2016 09/01/2016 - 10/01/2016 10/01/2016 - 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 - 12/01/2016 12/01/2016 - 01/01/2017 01/01/2017 - 02/01/2017 02/01/2017 - 03/01/2017 03/01/2017 - 04/01/2017 04/01/2017 - 05/01/2017 05/01/2017 - 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 - 07/01/2017 07/01/2017 - 08/01/2017 08/01/2017 - 09/01/2017 09/01/2017 - 10/01/2017 10/01/2017 - 11/01/2017 11/01/2017 - 12/01/2017


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Saturday, November 10, 2007

 
Gender Bender

by digby


You all remember this little exchange between Tucker Carlson and Cliff may from a couple of weeks ago I'm sure:

CARLSON: Do you think that people who are voting on the basis of gender solidarity ought to be allowed to vote in a perfect world? Of course they shouldn't be allowed to vote on those grounds. That's like -- that's moronic. I'm sorry. I know I'm going to get bounced off the air for saying it, but that's true.

ROBINSON: That doesn't trump all other characteristics. There are a lot of women who are going to vote for Republicans in November because they're conservative.

CARLSON: I'm not saying women shouldn't vote for Hillary at all. I'm merely saying the obvious: that you shouldn't vote for her because she's a woman. Here's what the Clinton campaign says: "Hillary isn't running as a woman. As Hillary says, she's not running as a woman candidate. The only reason to vote for her is that you believe she's the most qualified to be president."

Well, that's actually completely false, considering the Hillary campaign -- and I get their emails -- relentlessly pushes the glass ceiling argument. "You should vote for her because she's a woman." They say that all the time. She just said that on The View. I mean, that's like their rationale.

MAY: At least call her a Vaginal-American, as opposed to --

CARLSON: Is that the new phrase?


According the Carlson, women are assumed to be backing Hillary in greater numbers than men because they are voting purely on the basis of gender solidarity. And they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote if that's the case.

Fast forward to this week:

CARLSON: Senator Hillary Clinton enjoys a big lead in the national polls, but it‘s a much tighter race in the early primary state. Today a new NBC News/”Wall Street Journal” poll reveals that over half of the men in the country and almost 40 percent of the women say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, a poll in “Parents” magazine found that among all the candidates, Hillary is the one parents would least trust to baby-sit their children. But wait. If that‘s true, how is she doing so well?

[...]

PRESS: I also have to say the parenting thing, here‘s the real question. Would you want any of those—trust any of those presidential candidates to baby-sit your kids? I mean, get serious. They‘d be dialing for dollars the whole time.

CARLSON: Let‘s be honest. Who would be the most severe when it comes to toilet training. I think we know the answer.

BUCHANAN: Who would you allow—you wouldn‘t want to be baby-sat by her. Holy smokes...

CARLSON: I think a lot of—it‘s interesting. If you—a lot of people love Hillary Clinton and she can obviously be elected president. I‘m not even attacking her. But I notice married people, married men and married white men, getting more extreme, despise her. Why is that? I‘ll tell you why. Because she gives off the feeling that she despises them. If you give the voters the feeling you don‘t like them, they won‘t like you back.

PRESS: That‘s your read of it. My read is different. I think first of all that these polls—I think we make too much of these polls. We don‘t know who the opposition is, what the issues are in November 2008. So how can you say that 55 percent of married men today are never going to vote?

CARLSON: Married guys—she won‘t get within ten points of winning them. No way.

PRESS: There are a lot of married men out there today who are afraid of strong women and don‘t want a strong woman and won‘t vote for any woman.

CARLSON: You really believe that?

PRESS: I honestly do.

CARLSON: I live in a world of strong women. I love strong women.

PRESS: So do I, I‘m just saying we‘re not among that category.

There are a category of men out there who would never vote for a woman.

CARLSON: This is how she loses when people say things like that. The implication of that is you‘re not a good enough person to support Hillary Clinton. If you‘re a more decent person, you‘d like her. That‘s how liberals feel about it. Like you‘re not ready to support her. Maybe I just don‘t like her.


Notice that little sleight of hand there? When women say they support Hillary it's because they are irrationally supporting someone because of their gender. When men say they won't support Hillary it's because "she gives off the feeling that she despises them." If you even bring up the fact that there are men out there who will refuse to vote for any woman, you attacked for allegedly saying that men aren't decent people. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Carlson believes that women shouldn't be allowed to vote if they like the idea that a woman may become president and vote for her partially on that basis, but it's not irrational for (white) men vote against a woman because they irrationally feel she "despises them."

I get accused of being a shill for Clinton all the time because I write about this stuff and it's assumed that it's some sort of partisan plot to boost her candidacy. But the truth is that I haven't backed anyone and my reasons for highlighting this narrative is because it reveals the way these Village pundits really think. I don't care who you support in the election, this kind of talk -- especially just spewing out in the mainstream media with very little awareness --- makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck if you happen to be female. It's like having everyone assume that the "normal" state of being in this world is male and this strange idea of appealing to women is some sort of illegitimate pander to an extreme, fringe interest group.

For decades the Republicans have been running against the "soft" (read: "gay" or "sissy") Democrats and it's worked quite well for them. But with an actual woman running to be the Big Kahuna, it seems to have scrambled the decks, which isn't surprising. Their attacks are received differently when they aren't seen through the lens of a puerile boys locker room. It has a different characteristic, more jarring and dissonant, maybe because it's so much more direct. (I'm certainly not defending the "gay" slur either --- it's just that it's so commonplace in politics that most people don't even see it.)

But what did surprise me --- and I guess I'm just a fool for not having realized it before --- is that so many of these men in the media seem to have such severe psychological issues in this sphere. Tucker and Matthews and many of their guests are personally offended that a woman would appeal directly to other women for votes, as if that's undemocratic and unfair. And they get extremely bent out of shape when their sexist attitudes are challenged.

Jamison Foser captures one of those moments in his column this week. I saw it and it was jaw dropping:

While kids are dying in the war, Matthews obsesses over Hillary Clinton's "Chinese" clapping. For three straight days, Matthews wasted viewers' time with discussions about ... clapping. Thursday night, he discussed it in two separate segments. Finally, Chrystia Freeland of the Financial Times urged Matthews to get over his fixation with Clinton's mannerisms and focus on issues:

FREELAND: I do think that we have to be a little bit careful also about not picking on Hillary's mannerisms a little bit too much. So --

MATTHEWS: Ah, those secondary characteristics are off-base. Am I being told that?

FREELAND: Just a little bit. I mean, there's the clapping, there was the laugh. I think there are things to pick on Hillary about, but probably the clapping wouldn't be what I'd choose.

PATRICK HEALY (New York Times reporter): Well, there's one thing, Chris --

MATTHEWS: Well, give me a list -- Chrystia, give me a list some day on email of whom -- what I'm allowed to criticize about Hillary. And how --

FREELAND: Any policy matters; dynasty I think is OK, too.

MATTHEWS: Oh, OK. Yeah, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Jim Warren, what do you make of this as a cultural phenomenon? If you're watching us from overseas, you say, "Is this what Americans do at political rallies? Oh, it's interesting."

JAMES WARREN (Chicago Tribune managing editor): Well, I mean, she can't copy me and stick her hands into her pants pockets. So, there's not much left to her. And given the repetity of her life, 10,000 different appearances a day -- oh, my gosh, it looks like she's at Sea World in San Diego. Here comes the seal! Yikes. [This was in response to a video that spliced a bunch of different events together. --- digby]

MATTHEWS: You're worse than I've ever been.

WARREN: Anyway.

MATTHEWS: Throw me a fish.

Watch the video. Matthews' "I'll be sure to keep that in mind" was just dripping with sarcasm.



(If only Imus had been on hand to call her a fat-assed bitch, the show would have been complete. I'm sure they'll all be making pilgrimages to his new show to resume snapping towels at each other as soon as possible.)

Keep in mind that Chrystia Freeland was a reporter for the Financial Times, not a Democratic operative. And as with Tucker Carlson, there's that puerile derision between the host and one of his guests. Plenty of people on those shows seem uncomfortable with the bizarre inappropriateness of the hosts, but they don't quite know what to do about it. Carlson and Matthews end up picking one to be his Ed McMahon to laugh loudly at his "jokes" and egg him on.

It's a very bizarre spectacle, especially since it's on the newly anointed "liberal network." I find myself turning over to the somnambulent tones of Wolf Blitzer whenever these guys get going on this subject. I can only stand so much of it before I boil over. I hope they realize that if they want to place themselves on the leftward side of the dial that non-stop juvenile sexist banter isn't exactly going to get them there.

The fact is that politicians of both genders and all ethnicities and races all over the country are trying to say in one way or another, "I'm one of you. I understand your needs and your problems and I will represent you!" It's what they do. To say that Clinton is doing something that's out of bounds by making a pitch to women is mind-boggling, (particularly after the years and years of hunting trips and horseshoes and cigarette boats to make that pitch to the ever valuable "angry, white male.")

To constantly deride her on the basis of gender is ridiculous. She's the front runner and there's plenty to criticize her for. (Her support for the Peru free trade agreement, for one.)That these guys are obsessing on the gender stuff is very, very revealing.

And by the way, despite all the fuss about how married men are rejecting Clinton because she allegedly despises them, the race probably isn't going to hinge on their tender feelings of insecurity:


Single parent households have grown from under a quarter to over a third of American households over the past 25 years and a majority of households are now headed by unmarried Americans for the first time. From 1960 to 2006, the percentage of the voting age population that was unmarried grew from 27 to 47 percent. Between the 2002 and 2006 elections, the growth rate of unmarried Americans was double that of married Americans. If this trend continues, the unmarried will be a majority of the population within 15 years. These changes have broad implications for the future of our country, its politics and the policy direction of the national government.

Importantly, unmarrieds come to the table with a somewhat different agenda, even more focused on changing the direction of the country, more focused on basic issues of the economy and jobs, more focused on ending the war and, it should be noted, a bit
more cynical about law-makers’ willingness to listen to their concerns. For this and other reasons, the rising unmarried majority has so far remained relatively quiet in our national conversation.

While improved in recent election cycles, unmarrieds, particularly unmarried women, still do not vote at the same levels as their married counter-parts. In total, there are over 53 million unmarried women of voting age, 20 million of whom stayed home in the last presidential election. What is clear is that this cohort is changing America culturally and demographically and as it becomes increasingly involved in the democratic process, will continue to change America as well.

The importance of unmarried Americans is clearly demonstrated by the demographic shift that this country has been (and is continuing to) undergo. Between the 2002 and 2006 midterm elections the proportion of unmarried voting age citizens grew at a rate that surpassed the married population. In fact, the rate of growth of the unmarried population was nearly double the growth rate among those who are married.

While the rapid growth of the unmarried population over the past four years is notable, it is merely the continuation of a long-term trend. Between 1960 and 2006, the percentage of the voting age population (as opposed to households) that was unmarried increased from 27 to 47 percent. If the current growth trend continues, the unmarried population will become a majority in the next 15 years.


All the Democratic candidates will hopefully be smart enough to look to the future of this country and go where the votes are, including unmarried people and Latinos and other growing influential demographics. Perhaps they will finally throw off this self-defeating notion that the only people who are worth trying to persuade are a bunch of white male Village pundits who have serious problems with ordinary Americans they don't recognize from the favorite TV shows of their childhoods. I'm holding my breath.



If you are a blogger or have a web site, you can get a neat little widget that allows people to register to vote at Women's Voices, Women Vote.


.