Dan Choi: Comments Unbecoming

My friend Tanya Domi has an excellent post at The New Civil Rights Movementabout Dan Choi that is a must read! It demonstrates that even among an oppressed group there are some still willing to oppress others.

My friend Dan Choi uttered a truly despicable analogy of Harry Reid, Majority Leader of the Senate, last week by likening him to a “pussy” that “will bleed once a month,” because of Reid’s “weak” leadership in failure to pass a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure in September.

Just so happens, Dan’s very demeaning analogy was recorded by Village Voice journalist Steve Thrasher on Oct. 27, who reported his words in a lengthy feature for all the world to see and read.

The statement Dan made had nothing to do with sexual orientation, or DADT. Rather, his words reveal deeply-held beliefs that are predicated upon sexism that equates women with weakness. His rationale: Women bleed, women are wounded, thus unable to wield power effectively.

Inside the LGBTQ community, the issues of sexism, racism and classism are continually at play, as we all struggle to unshackle ourselves from a myriad of oppressions. Yet, it remains true and unspoken, that sexism is an undercurrent in all forms of oppression.

A joint letter to Dan from the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network and the National Organization for Women appears to have caused Choi to reconsider his comments. Good.

MI Assistant AG suspended over gay-bashing blog - UPDATE

Andrew Shirvell with photo shopped picture of Chris Armstrong

UPDATE: It appears that Attorney General Mike Cox didn't suspend Asst. AG Andrew Shirvell. Shrivell says reports of his suspension are untrue, and that he has merely taken a voluntary leave of absence from his job.

Joy Yearout, a spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, said this morning that media reports saying Cox suspended Shirvell were inaccurate.

If that's the case, then Cox should be fired!

Clearly these two anti-gay, Tea Party state employees should not be the leading law enforcement officials in the state.

* * * * * * * * * *

Finally, some good news! If you hadn't heard the background on this story, the Assistant Attorney General in Michigan -- Andrew Shirvell -- started a blog for the sole purpose of harassing University of Michigan student leader Chris Armstrong. So why would a presumed adult take the time to stalk and harass a college student? Chris Armstrong is gay.

Another Michigan blogger described Shirvell's behavior this way:

You would think the guy working for the republican Attorney General who lectures in schools about how to stop cyber bullying would know better. But Michigan AG Mike Cox's Asst., Andrew Shirvell just can't keep his teabagging, gay hating, religious zealot mouth shut.

College student Chris Armstrong is the President of the University of Michigan's Student Assembly. And he's been politically active, or as christian teabagger Asst. AG Shirvell might put it, "using his Nazi-like anti christian cult to lure innocent heterosexuals into accepting the evil gay." Evil, anti christian things like campaigning against tuition hikes, and working for safe housing for transgendered youth on campus.

Michigan's Attorney General has been reluctant to do anything, citing Shirvell's First Amendment free speech rights. All of Shirvell's blogging activity has allegedly taken place after hours.

Shirvell had recently stepped up his harassment of Armstrong by stalking the college student near his residence, and at local clubs where Armstrong was known to hang out. The actions caused Armstrong to seek a personal protection order against Shirvell.

I began this post by saying there is finally some good news! Well, after (cough) careful consideration, MI Attorney General Mike Cox has had a change of heart and suspended Shirvell.

Attorney General Mike Cox changed his stance Thursday, suspending Andrew Shirvell after the assistant attorney general attracted national attention for a controversial blog that ridicules and denounces a University of Michigan student leader for his gay advocacy, religious beliefs and character.

The suspension came a day after Cox told CNN he didn't intend to fire Shirvell, citing civil service rules that protect government employees from being "fired willy-nilly" for exercising their rights of free speech.

Cox said he hadn't earlier read all of Shirvell's blog, "Chris Armstrong Watch," that dogs Armstrong, the 21-year-old, openly gay president of U-M's student government and accuses him of "anti-Christian behavior," "mocking God," promoting homosexuality and trying "to recruit your sons and daughters" into the gay lifestyle.

"I'm at fault here," Cox said. "I've been saying for weeks that (Shirvell's) been acting like a bully, that his behavior is immature, but it's after-hours and protected by the First Amendment."

Republican (Tea party supporter) Cox couldn't leave it at just suspending Shirvell. He had to take a shot at Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who posted on Twitter that she would have fired Shirvell.

"I don't know why she's so freaking irresponsible. ... she went to Harvard Law School," Cox said. "The civil service rules are a huge shield for free speech and she knows that."

As governor, Granholm enacted policies applying to state workers that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- but those rules apply to the workplace, not to what employees say or blog after-hours. The rules allow political appointees like Cox to fire employees for "just cause," including "conduct unbecoming a state employee," said Matt Fedorchuk, a spokesman for the state department of civil service.

What determines that conduct isn't explicitly described. [...]

Larry Dubin, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, said he doubts that Shirvell can effectively perform his job representing the public, when he's forcefully expressed his "biblical" views condemning homosexuality as the work of the devil. "My real concern is whether as an attorney for the Michigan Attorney General's Office, he can competently represent gay people in our state," Dubin said.

"Perhaps that raises a legitimate question as to his competency to hold this job, rather than examining his right to speak his brand of hate."

It doesn't stop there for Shirvell. Also on Thursday, Diane Brown, a spokeswoman for the campus police, confirmed Shirvell is subject to an ongoing investigation of "harassing or stalking" and banned from campus. Shirvell was read a trespass warning on Sept. 14 that bars him from setting foot on campus, Brown said. Shirvell is appealing the order, but no hearing date has been set.

Armstrong may need a body guard now that Shivell has been suspended.  Judging from the way Shivell has escalated his harassment of Armstrong, he's probably not safe.

We've heard a lot about kids bullying other kids lately. Is it any wonder this behavior takes place, when adults -- in positions of authority -- act this way!  Shivell needs to be fired, to send a strong statement that this behavior is not acceptable.

Ohio Male Cheerleader Beaten by Bullies

This is another example of why people need to be concerned about sexism. Tyler Wilson expected some teasing, what he didn't expect was a broken shoulder and bruises. Here is a little boy who is planning ahead. He wants to get into college, and cheerleading could provide that avenue. At a nearby university, the University of Toledo, half of the 40 cheerleaders are male.

Sexism not only hurts women and girls, but also men and boys. It's time for society in general to stand up to the bullies and say "no more!"

Size matters

Or, what's wrong with this picture?


One of my coworkers purchased these two shirts for her children. When she took a closer look at them she became concerned. You see, the green shirt on top is a 'children's medium' for her son, and the burgundy shirt on the bottom is a 'woman's extra-large' for her daughter.

So what's up with sports clothing promoters? Are they trying to tell women we need to be the same size as six-year old children? The difference in the size of these two shirts is just inches. My coworker, who I would consider an average sized woman, cannot wear the 'women's extra-large' shirt.

What message is being sent to women and girls? Share your thoughts on this.

Gov. Rendell: Open Mic Insert Foot Oops

Change still needed

The buzz is that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be offered, and will accept, the position of Secretary of State in the Obama administration. She certainly earned it.

What is still missing, however, is a national discussion on sexism.

"This is the most underwritten story of this campaign ... by the press ... by the media. [...] Nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this ... issue ... and to this day, it has been swept under the rug and been forgotten because she didn’t win. [...] We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened ... and it happened to Sarah Palin too." -- Howard Dean

Dean is right. We haven't yet address the issue of sexism, and until we do we will continue to see women abused by the media, corporate America, and certain religions.

A good start would be to never again have an all-male panel discussing issues of the day.


h/t to egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women

.

Challenging the Glass Proscenium

Playwrights like the sound of 'standing room only' -- even when talking about challenging the status quo Off Broadway. The New York Times reports:

Frustrated by what they describe as difficulty in getting their work produced, enough female playwrights to make a standing-room-only crowd are planning to attend a town hall meeting on Monday night to air their grievances with representatives of New York’s leading Off Broadway and nonprofit theaters.

The gathering was organized by the playwrights Sarah Schulman and Julia Jordan, who have rallied their colleagues to the cause, contending that their male counterparts in the 2008-9 season are being produced at 14 of the largest Off Broadway institutions at four times the rate that women are. More than 150 playwrights appeared at a meeting last month to discuss the issue, and all 90 seats at New Dramatists, the playwriting center where Monday night’s meeting is scheduled, are already spoken for, and there is a long waiting list.

“I personally don’t think playwriting is a gene on a Y chromosome,” said Theresa Rebeck, a playwright whose work (“Omnium Gatherum,” “Mauritius,” “The Scene”) has been produced frequently on New York stages, including on Broadway. She added that there has been a reluctance to confront the issue: “Many of our male peers find the debate intolerable. Men in the community seem to think that everything is fine.”

Of course the men think everything is fine ... it is for them!

“It’s harder for women playwrights and directors,” said Oskar Eustis, artistic director at the nonprofit Public Theater, because “it’s harder for professional women in the United States.”

One possible explanation for the imbalance is that most artistic directors, who have a large say in what shows are produced, are men. The men say they "don't relate or connect with women as much as men." This same explanation could probably be used to describe MOST discrimination in the workplace. White men are more comfortable working with other white men -- which leaves women and people of color out.

Ms. Rebeck said that male friends “in the system say to me I have to keep my mouth shut; don’t be part of the problem, don’t be a whiner.” But Ms. Rebeck, who has written on the subject in the London newspaper The Guardian and attended the last meeting, has disregarded their advice.

“I think it puts in question excellence,” she said. “Whether it’s cronyism or bias,” she added, the result was that a message is sent that what is put onstage is “not about excellence.”

You go grrl! Keeping quiet is never the answer.

.

Gov. Sarah Palin Comes Out Swinging

Prime time viewers got their first look at Republican VP designate Gov. Sarah Palin -- and she came out swinging.

I'm really surprised at the attacks Republicans are leveling at the media. Gov. Palin went after them tonight, and Sen. McCain and his spokespeople earlier. McCain has always seemed to receive pretty favorable coverage from the media, but for some reason the campaign has now decided to go on the attack.

I think it's more in response to the great speeches we heard from the Democratic convention last week. Clearly the Republicans have to try and hide from the past eight years, so maybe the best way to do that is to try and play "the victim" card and claim the media is biased.

Joe Klein posted a pretty strong response to this:

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate--and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past--have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain's rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God's sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn't have: she had deployed them to fight fires.) [...]

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

Good for you, Joe!

I also have to comment, however, on the apparent awakening the media has on the issue of sexism. CNN's Campbell Brown, who just yesterday took on McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds in what some are describing as 'finally doing her job', has suddenly decided that sexist comments are really offensive. Apparently a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid described Gov. Palin's speech as "shrill." Brown, looking to Gloria Borger for affirmation, commented that shrill is never used to describe men, only women. Gee, I wonder why she didn't think of that when it was being leveled at Sen. Hillary Clinton? Come to think of it, a lot of the commentators have suddenly decided that their might be sexism in some of the coverage of women candidates. Get outta town!

I hope the MSM will heed Klein's advise and not let up on the McCain/Palin ticket. The public needs to know exactly how they plan to dig the country out of the mess left behind by George W. Bush.

The Media's Obsession with Clinton

Must read posts from the blogosphere:

Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story
by Eric Boehlert

The Media's Clintonitis
by Taylor Marsh

Hillary Sexism Watch, #109
by Melissa McEwan

.

Woman of Courage Lilly Ledbetter

One of the things I've always enjoyed about being involved with NOW is the opportunity to meet courageous women who are working to make a difference for all of us. One of those women is Lilly Ledbetter.

For 19 years Lilly worked at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber production plant in Alabama. She was hired as a supervisor in 1979, received excellent employment evaluations over the years and was even selected to take on a special task for the company.

When she discovered that men doing her same job were earning much more, some as much as 40% more, she took her employer to court. A jury agreed that she was paid unfairly, and awarded her $223,776 in back pay, and more than $3 million in punitive damages, but a judge cut that to only $300,000 because of a 1991 law that limits a company's liability for damages.

Goodyear took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against her, taking away every cent of the damages and back pay. In a decision written by Bush nominee Justice Samuel Alito, the Court told Ledbetter that she should have filed a complaint of pay discrimination within 180 days of her first unfair paycheck, even though she had no knowledge of the disparity.

Lilly Ledbetter may never recover the pay she rightly earned. But federal legislation has been introduced in her name in an effort to restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and protect other women from wage discrimination.

The House has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but the bill fell four votes short in the Senate. Republicans, who have used the filibuster at an alarming rate (up more than 150%) blocked the bill from even coming to the floor for consideration.

Ledbetter said she was surprised to receive a personal call from Sen. Hillary Clinton when the Supreme Court decision was announced. Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama interrupted their campaigning last April to fly back to Washington for the Senate vote.

NOW presented Ledbetter a Woman of Courage award today, and she truly deserves it. She not only stood up to Goodyear, but to family and friends who thought she should just leave well enough alone.

But the question remains: Why should women settle for less than what men are paid? And as I have said before, when women are paid less than men EVERYONE suffers. The additional $223,776 in back pay Lilly EARNED could have paid off a mortgage, paid college tuition, or could have been invested to insure her retirement.

When women are discriminated against, everyone in the family suffers.

Lilly Ledbetter will probably never recover the pay she rightly earned, but the federal legislation in her name could restore the true intention of Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and protect other women from wage discrimination.

We must make this a priority of our new Congress ... and president.

Title IX New Frontier: Science

If pseudo-feminist Christina Hoff Sommers is against something, it must be the right thing to do!

The New York Times reports:

Until recently, the impact of Title IX, the law forbidding sexual discrimination in education, has been limited mostly to sports. But now, under pressure from Congress, some federal agencies have quietly picked a new target: science.

The National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy have set up programs to look for sexual discrimination at universities receiving federal grants. Investigators have been taking inventories of lab space and interviewing faculty members and students in physics and engineering departments at schools like Columbia, the University of Wisconsin, M.I.T. and the University of Maryland. [...]

So far, these Title IX compliance reviews haven’t had much visible impact on campuses beyond inspiring a few complaints from faculty members. (The journal Science quoted Amber Miller, a physicist at Columbia, as calling her interview “a complete waste of time.”) But some critics fear that the process could lead to a quota system that could seriously hurt scientific research and do more harm than good for women.

The members of Congress and women’s groups who have pushed for science to be “Title Nined” say there is evidence that women face discrimination in certain sciences, but the quality of that evidence is disputed. Critics say there is far better research showing that on average, women’s interest in some fields isn’t the same as men’s.

Did you hear the buzz words? "More harm than good for women" and "women's interest in some fields isn't the same as men's." Yeah, I thought so.

And if you click through to read the rest of the article you'll hear the ultimate buzz word ... "quota's."

Followed by how this could ultimate hurt both science and women's equality. Yes, and men's football programs on college campuses are profit centers ... right.

And the ultimate threatening language that sends up red flags is:

“Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems,” Dr. Sommers said. “In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”

Followed by:

Whether or not quotas are ever imposed, some of the most productive science and engineering departments in America are busy filling out new federal paperwork. The agencies that have been cutting financing for Fermilab and the Spirit rover on Mars are paying for investigations of a problem that may not even exist. How is this good for scientists of either sex?

Good grief.

Obama: "Oops, I did it again"

The folks at NARAL should be wiping the egg off their faces about now ... as Obama has just tossed them under his ever-growing bus. (Unfortunately, they aren't -- which is another post for another day.)

I just saw this at Shakesville, first in a post by Melissa McEwan and then a follow up by Jeff Fecke. Melissa writes:

Everyone in the world has sent me the link to this AP story about an interview Obama did with Relevant Magazine, a Christian publication, in which he reportedly said that "mental distress" shouldn't qualify as part of the mother's health exception to late-term abortion bans. I quite honestly could not believe this was being reported correctly, so I looked out the original article.

And, sure enough, that's what he says all right.

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate's stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don't believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

I just honestly don't even know what to say. Part of me wants to explore the bloody fucking obvious hypotheticals that make this position totally untenable (e.g. a pregnant woman under such psychological distress that she is a danger to herself and ergo necessarily the fetus), and another part of me just wants to point out how gobsmackingly offensive (and misogynist) this is.

Jeff adds: ... here's a highly-trafficked blog who noticed!

Obama's stated model for Supreme Court justices (Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer), pro-lifers should not expect that Obama will actually appoint any Supreme Court justice who would find any law that restricted abortion in any way to be Constitutional. In other words, there's still literally no reason that any thinking pro-lifer should *vote* for Barack Obama.

But that doesn't mean that Obama should not be lauded for rejecting the extremism and the fanaticism of the worst elements of the Democratic base like NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned Parenthood. It is good to know that whatever Barack personally feels about abortion, he has recognized that certain extremist groups with their extraordinarily liberal positions do not deserve to be part of the national conversation, and for that Obama deserves to be praised. Hillary Clinton, for one, would never have done anything like this. Her husband vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Act twice and by all accounts Hillary treated the Emily's Listers and NARAL extremists like they were important and respectable people. Barack Obama knows better. Good for him.

Jeff sums up the feelings of a lot of us: "Yes, Barack, you've won an "attaboy" from RedState! You must be so proud. Please note that they're not planning to vote for you. Also, please note that the NARAL extremists (*cough*) and the Emily's Listers were."

This is unbelievable.

.

Jesse "Senator No" Helms Dead at 86

The country is a little more compassionate today because one of our most strident bigots is dead. Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator, is dead at 86.

Nicknamed "Senator No", Helms built his extremist conservative career opposing civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art. Helms opposed providing assistance to people who had fallen on hard times, once proposing that funds for welfare be cut in half.

The New York Times reports:

“I didn’t come to Washington to be a yes man for any President, Democrat or Republican,” he said in an interview in 1989. “I didn’t come to Washington to get along and win any popularity contests.”

Perhaps his most visible accomplishments in the Senate came two decades apart. One was a 1996 measure that tightened trade sanctions against the Marxist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The other, a 1973 amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, prevented American money from going to international family planning organizations that, in his words, “provide or promote” abortion. He also introduced amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for foreign aid, welfare programs and the arts. [...]

In the 1980’s he took on the National Endowment for the Arts for subsidizing art that he found offensive, chiefly that of the homosexual photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and of the artist Andres Serrano over his depiction of a crucifix submerged in urine. He later led an ill-fated attempt to take over CBS, exhorting conservatives to buy up stock in order to stop what he saw as a liberal bias in its news reporting.

He was also well known for holding up votes on treaties and appointments to win a point. His willingness to block the business of the Senate or the will of Presidents earned him the sobriquet “Senator No” — a label he relished. [...]

He fought bitterly against Federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.

“Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah,” he said, “and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle.” [...]

In 1993 Helms had a run-in with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a freshman senator from Illinois and the first African American woman elected to the Senate. Moseley-Braun led the opposition to Helms' proposal to renew the United Daughters of the Confederacy's design patent on an insignia featuring the original flag of the Confederacy.

The patent had expired, and the Senate Judiciary Committee refused to renew the design patent. (Moseley-Braun was a member of that committee.) Helms then decided to attach legislation for the design patent as an amendment (Amendment 610) to the National Service Bill. His comments to the full Senate were that the Judiciary Committee's previous action was "An unintended rebuke aimed at 24,000 ladies who belong to the United Daughters of the Confederacy who work together as unpaid volunteers at veteran's hospitals and many, many other places" (Congressional Record, 1993, S9251). The Senate then prepared to vote on the bill, which would have guaranteed passage of Amendment 610 as well.

Before the vote could take place, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African American woman elected to the Senate, was pulled by her staffers out of Judiciary Committee hearings and notified that the United Daughters of the Confederacy's (UDC) request for patent renewal was being re-introduced as Amendment 610. To her surprise, it was about to be voted on in the full Senate. Moseley-Braun rushed to the main floor to try to stop the vote.

I can still remember Senator Moseley-Braun taking the microphone that day and refusing to give it up. Word quickly spread through the NOW office and we all rushed to the conference room to watch what was happening on C-SPAN.

Her filibuster on the Senate floor that day led to protests from some of her colleagues who at first were unwilling to challenge Helms. They repeatedly asked her to give up the microphone, to which she replied: "I've got the mic and you've got the problem." It was clear she was NOT going to give up control of the mic until she had the votes needed to defeat the bill.

Rob Richie at The Center for Voting and Democracy noted: "After Moseley-Braun argued in an impassioned speech that the confederate flag was an emblem of slavery, the Senate, which had earlier approved the patent, reversed itself and voted 75 to 25 to reject it."

THAT is the kind of passion missing from the Senate today.

Probably more widely known was Sen. Helm's use of racism to defeat challenger Harvey Gantt.

Trailing in a tough re-election fight in 1990 against a black opponent, Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, Mr. Helms unveiled a nakedly racial campaign ad in which a pair of hands belonging to a white job-seeker crumpled a rejection slip as an announcer explained that the job had been given to an unqualified member of a minority. Mr. Helms went on to victory.

One of the first events I attended as a new staffer at the National Organization for Women was a fundraiser for Harvey Gantt. There is no question the country would have been much better served by a "Senator" Gantt, than we ever were by Jesse Helms. The NOW national conference is coming up in a few weeks, and I fully expect to see some of the participants sporting "Helms NO" T-shirts, buttons and tote bags. They've been a staple for the 20 years I've been a member.

.

Misogyny is like jazz: Women know it when they hear it

This is for John J. ... and the underoos are for all the women reading this!

Sexism in the Media -- You Bet!

Wow ... if a major newspaper is going to publish an article on sexism in the media, is THIS really the image that should accompany it? Note the photo above of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her head is missing, and the camera seems to be is focused on her chest ... and some people wonder if there is sexism in the media? Good grief!!

The New York Times has a report on sexism titled: Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage

No shit.

I'm not sure how this can even be described as a "split." The one woman with the courage to speak up -- Katie Couric -- is being lambasted by the dozens of men so entrenched in their own misogyny they can't see just how bad their behavior actually is!

Taking aim from the inside, though, was Ms. Couric, who herself has faced harsh criticism as the first woman to be the solo anchor of an evening news broadcast. Ms. Couric posted a video on the CBS Web site on Wednesday about the coverage of Mrs. Clinton.

“Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media,” Ms. Couric said.

She went on to lament the silence of those who did not speak up against it.

The group that really takes the cake is MSNBC -- or as I like to call them the Misogynist Sexist Network Boys Club. Their spokesperson, Keith 'don't-tell-anyone-I'm-a-sexist' Olbermann had this to say:

"... while there were “individual, sexist, mistakes,” there was no overall sexism. ... there was “constant reflection and analysis at MSNBC, and I must say there was constant good faith in trying to make certain Senator Clinton was not treated unfairly.”

Bullshit.

Olbermann, and his buddy Chris Matthews, were co-presidents of the 'no-girls-allowed' club. Their daily rants are a major reason anyone is even examining the issue. After all, it was Olbermann who suggested a party official needed to take Sen. Clinton in a room, and "only he comes back out."

Cable television has come under the most criticism. Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a “she-devil” and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had “messed around.”

Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s “cackle” and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.

Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” “She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her," Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized.

The article does mention Howard Dean's to-little-to-late comment on sexism, as Sen. Clinton was ending her campaign.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who says he was slow to pick up on charges of sexism because he is not a regular viewer of cable television, is taking up the cause after hearing an outcry from what he described as a cross-section of women, from individual voters to powerful politicians and chief executives.

“The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview.

“It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism.

Gee, thanks Howard.

“We’re certainly not going to take this lying down,” said Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily’s List. She said her hope was for a national discussion to focus on “what is fair in the new political world of Internet, cable and traditional news coverage.”

I would second that. Not only do we need to examine MSM, but also the so-called progressive blogosphere as well. That is a discussion I would welcome.

.

Keith Olbermann Strikes Again

I wondered who Keith was going to beat up on now that Hillary Clinton is out of the race for the White House. It didn't take him long to find his new target, and no doubt she was selected for making a comment that hit too close to home for Keith 'yes-I'm-sexist' Olbermann.



Keith Olbermann, claiming that he observed a reporter covering the Obama campaign and deemed him to be completely objective, is like the fox standing at the hen house door saying "there were no chickens inside, why would you think there were chickens inside?".

Taylor Marsh writes:

Mr. Olbermann takes it personally that Couric makes an assessment that even Cowan admitted was real. The Boys Club mentality of the MSNBC anchor is nakedly on view every time he talks about Clinton or women in general. What Olbermann doesn't get is that journalism is about being unbiased and undeterred by atmospherics in order to report. Cowan admits being somewhat seduced himself, to his credit, except that means he failed to do his job, even as good as he is. Olbermann can't handle that truth. His anger last night at Couric once again revealed his own biases (and ego), as well as the inability to look at something very important in our media, of which Olbermann is a prime culprit. His venting at Couric says one thing. Me thinks Keith he is no Edward R. Murrow Olbermann doth protest too much. [...]

... Olbermann's review of Couric in "worst person" is beyond insulting. "A little Kool-aidish, but her opinion and she's entitled to it," is his response to any suggestion of sexism during the primary season. The man couldn't be more clueless. Everyone's got their own brand of Kool-Aid. Keith just takes his introveniously.

It's well past time to either show Olbermann the door, or label his program for what it is -- sexism at it's worst.

Olbermann puts the Misogynist in:

Misogynist
Sexist
Network
Boys
Club

Laura Flanders on Coverage of Race and Gender in the 2008 Campaign

Obama's Media Problem

Keith Olbermann invited Dana Milbank to appear on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight to discuss where Sen. Obama goes from here. In talking about how to appeal to Sen. Clinton's supporters, Olbermann suggested it might include Obama needing to talk more about health care (as he has been doing over the past 48 hours or so).

Milbank disagreed, saying there is no "real difference" in the policy proposals of Clinton and Obama, that the campaign turned more on personalities -- and that is what Obama would need to address. Milbank went on to clarify that he didn't think we should expect to see Obama suddenly start "doing shots" or "weeping" on the campaign trail.

Not missing a beat, Olbermann agreed.

Don't these two idiots get it?

The Obama camp better ask for a meeting with these two men quickly, to urge them to ramp DOWN their sexist comments. They are doing Obama NO FAVOR keeping this shit going.


.

Obama Apology Tour Continues

It seems every time we turn around Sen. Obama is apologizing for something! How clever that he doesn't have to make the questionable comments, and can try to appear to be above it all. That's not going to fly much longer Senator.

So what is Obama apologizing for now? This:


Let me be very clear in saying that if I thought for one moment that Sen. Clinton felt entitled to the nomination because she is "white" I would drop my support for her in a heartbeat. Fortunately, I don't have to do that because this is the biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.

On this point, Father Michael Pfleger is wrong.

Is there "white privilege" in this country? You bet. Is it a good thing? Hell no. Is this the way to address it? Absolutely not.

There is no question in my mind that "white privilege" exists, and that some people do feel entitled to benefits simply because they are white. It's also true that sexism exists, and that probably many of those same people believe they are entitled to power because they are men.

And there is no question that far too many corporations have benefited from the exploitation of both people of color and women. It's been going on for a very long time.

There are racial problems that need to be addressed, just as there are issues of sexism that must be addressed.

We must not allow ourselves to fall victim to a divide and conquer strategy, and THAT is the problem I have with Father Pfleger's message.

Reliable Sources - Misogyny in the media

[I]f you ever saw the language, the vulgarity, the vitriol that is hurled at Hillary Clinton by liberal Democrats, by the liberal blogs, largely by, frankly, Obama supporters, you'd be appalled. I mean, you'd punish your children for this.

--Marie Cocco


h/t Tennessee Guerilla Women