- RT @HillaryClinton: We need commonsense reforms to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, the violently unstable, domestic abusers, an… 7 hours ago
- RT @SusieMadrak: Alex Jones To Clinton: 'Why Can't I Have A Gun To Protect Myself, You Bitch?' shar.es/1vpBPd via @sharethis 10 hours ago
- RT @tbogg: Waist deep in the big bloody: It’s the NRA’s country — we’re just dying in it rawstory.com/2015/08/waist-… #gunsense 13 hours ago
- RT @digby56: "Something's come dreadfully loose in the country" by @BloggersRUs bit.ly/1K8EmDI 14 hours ago
- RT @Fellwater: Set aside 50% of the earth for biodiversity and conservation, says eminent biologist E.O. Wilson theconversation.com/setting-aside-… #ec… 14 hours ago
- RT @adamjohnsonNYC: When will the media start calling Trump's "immigration plan" what it is: ethnic cleansing? 14 hours ago
- RT @Wikipatia: 8/26/1970 — The Women’s Bureau declares support for the ERA on 50th anniversary of the effective date of wmn’s right to vote… 1 day ago
- RT @ShaunKing: With an astounding 14 people killed by American police in the past 60 hours, it has been one of the deadliest periods of all… 1 day ago
- “You Are Doing Pagan Wrong!” and “Does Our Religion Work?” Blogging
- Wednesday What Sustains Me Blogging: Fierce Women
- Tuesday Night Moon in Taurus Poetry Blogging
- Monday at the Movies
- Sunday Ballet Blogging
- I’m Tired of this Bullshit
- Friday Poetry Blogging
- Wordless Wednesday
- Girl Reporters Should Shut Up and Not Ask Important Men “Hard Kwestionz”
- Monday at the Movies
Lately, we’ve been treated to several instances of (old, white, male) politicians essentially telling (younger, female) reporters to sit down and shut up. Girls shouldn’t be asking “rude kwestions.”
The first example was Donald Trump responding to a question from Fox New’s Megyn Kelly:
You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” Kelly said, to which Trump replied, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”
Kelly said he had called many more people names than O’Donnell, and a visibly perturbed Trump shot back, “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either. If you don’t like it, Megyn, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you. Although I could maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me.”
As we all know, Mr. Trump went on, the next day, to insinuate that Ms. Kelly must have been menstruating and, thus, “not nice.” She refused to apologize for asking him a tough question and her (old, white, male) boss, in a tradition familiar to many working women, then called Mr. Trump, apologized, made nice, and sent Ms. Kelly off for an obviously-much-needed vacation, which she, herself, was forced to explain to her viewers as due to the fact that it had been a “long six-months” for her without a vacation. This, in an America where fewer and fewer people can manage even a few days off a year.
Mr. Trump’s response to being called out for his sexism has all the trademarks of privilege. First, there’s the “ha, ha, jes’ jokin'” attempt: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” And she’s older, fat, and a lesbian so, haha it’s ok. When, “jes’ jokin'” didn’t work, Mr. Trump moved to the next gambit that most abusers use: “I’m trying to keep from slapping you, although you’re giving me plenty of provocation, bitch, and no one would blame me if I did. Consider yourself warned.” And, then, the next day, talking with “another guy” he did the “bitch was on the rag” routine. Ms. Kelly was “not nice” and, as we all know, it’s the woman’s job to “be nice.” Any failure to “be nice,” must be called out and punished.
The second example is from Ana Marie Cox’s interview of Bernie Sanders. Ms. Cox asked Mr. Sanders if he thought it was fair that Hillary Clinton’s hair gets more attention than does Mr. Sanders’ hair. A simple answer: “Yes, obviously, because she’s a woman, her appearance gets more attention and that’s wrong,” would have been just fine. It could even have been followed up with: “And the more time that our media spend on appearances, rather than on substance, the worse it is. Now, let me tell you two important ways that my positions are better than Ms. Clinton’s . . . .”
But, of course, that’s not what happened. Mr. Sanders, (privileged, old, white, male that he is) decided to mansplain things to Ms. Cox.
Do you think it’s fair that Hillary’s hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does?
Hillary’s hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?
Is that what you’re asking?
O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?
I can defend that as a serious question. There is a gendered reason —
When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.
It’s also true that the media pays more attention to what female candidates look like than it does to what male candidates look like.
That may be. That may be, and it’s absolutely wrong.
I’ll just quote Shakesville for the analysis of this:
Whew! Thank goodness Bernie Sanders, after mansplaining a question about sexism in media to a female interviewer, is willing to admit that there may be a problem. And, if there is a problem with the media treating male and female candidates in a disparate manner, then that is absolutely wrong! I guess that gives us all permission to study this important question which of course no one has ever thought about before, ahem.
Here’s the thing. Sanders isn’t wrong that the media should be focusing on problems other than the physical appearance of candidates. But he’s dead wrong if he thinks we can address economic injustice without also addressing the specifically patriarchal barriers to justice faced by women. Having more jobs doesn’t help women as much when we also have to jump through extra hurdles that don’t apply to our male competitors as much or at all.
Like having a patriarchally-approved appearance. It means something to women and girls when we see that one of the most politically powerful women in our nation’s history still gets the same old sexist shit lobbed at her. One doesn’t have to like Hillary Clinton or agree with her policies to get frustrated that a woman running for freaking president of the United States is still judged on how she looks.
It also means something when a man running for the highest office in the land will only say this stuff “may be” a problem, after essentially telling the woman asking to STFU and let him define her problems. And this is Bernie Sanders as a candidate, when he’s actually trying to get women’s votes, presumably. What will he be like as president? We’ve had enough Mansplainers-in-Chief, Bernie. Thanks, but I’ll pass on supporting another one.
So, while Mr. Sanders doesn’t say that Ms. Cox must be menstruating, nor does he threaten her to “be nice,” he still feels completely free to tell her what’s wrong with her question and to mansplain to her why she’s out of line to dare to ask him such a question. He doesn’t want to discuss sexism. In his worldview, it’s all about economic opportunity and silly stuff such as black identity or sexism shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with his message.
It’s going to be a long couple of decades. I want the ERA.
Picture found here.
My book club has been reading Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates. It’s not an easy book to read, despite the perfect prose that shines on nearly every page, but I believe that it is, as Toni Morrison says, “required reading.” Interestingly, one of the subjects that Mr. Coats discusses is poetry:
Poetry aims for an economy of truth — loose and useless words must be discarded, and I found that these loose and useless words were not separate from loose and useless thoughts. Poetry was not simply the transcription of notions — beautiful writing rarely is. I wanted to learn to write, which was, ultimately, as my mother had taught me, a confrontation with my own innocence, my own rationalizations. Poetry was the processing of my thoughts until the slag of justification fell away and I was left with he cold steel truths of life.
[My] gnawing discomfort, the chaos, the intellectual vertigo was not an alarm. It was a beacon.
Poetry is not; or seems not to be. But it appears that among the great conflicts of this culture, the conflict in our attitude toward poetry stands clearly lit. There are no guards built up to hide it. We all see its expression, and we can see its effects upon us. We can see our own conflict and our own resource if we look, now, at this art, which has been made of all the arts the one least acceptable.
Anyone dealing with poetry and the love of poetry must deal, then, with the hatred of poetry, and perhaps even Ignore with the indifference which is driven toward the center. It comes through as boredom, as name-calling, as the traditional attitude ofthe last hundred years which has chalked in the portrait of the poet as he is known to this society, which, as Herbert Read says, “does not challenge poetry in principle it merely treats it with ignorance, indifference and unconscious cruelty.
Picture of Minerva, Goddess of Poetry, found here.