I wonder if the media is sexist.
The NY Times reported on what members of big media (and Howard Dean) had to say. Christopher HItchens then disagreed, with typical HItchens mean-wit, that any of the Times’ examples of sexism were really convincing of the crime. Really, he seems to use the column as an excuse to really make sure the audience knows how much he didn’t like her campaign, but I do agree with him in wondering how discussion of a cackle, while irrelevant, is a mark of sexism. The, TPM’s election page agreed , if “to be treated unfairly by the press” = “to be a victim of sexism.” (to be fair, the TPM piece runs through examples of media stupidity (unfairness, reporting on non-stories, etc) on Clinton, and promises a similar look into media stupidity on Obama (and one would urge McCain, just for a complete comparison). But the piece’s discussion of unfairness comes in the news-text of a bunch of pondering over sexism, and unfairness seems to be at least an indicator)
I’ve discussed the question of whether Clinton got sexist treatment from the media a few times now, and realize a few questions could use addressing. What is sexism? What is sexist media coverage? What is the media in this context, when talking campaigns?
The TPM piece on unfairness documents (and pretty savvily vis a vis the ‘what is media thing’) various unfair treatments of Senator Clinton. But, I’m not convinced the unfairness documented is of any greater degree than treatment of other candidates. The media doesn’t take most candidates seriously, ever – is there an “ism” word to cover treatment of candidates without money, celebrity status, charisma, relatively good looks, or some party history placing them in the group of “serious candidates”?
All the same, I am still very interested in whether sexism affected coverage, amplifying irrelevant and inane coverage as would exist regardless of age, sex, or race. I think we can identify sexism as a predisposition to hold a lower opinion of a person because of their gender (is it sexist to hold a higher opinion of a person based on gender alone? Was it sexist when media covered John Edwards’ good looks?) I think we can identify media moments of sexism by stories, columns, and online posts that betray the writer’s sexism (or, perhaps, the tv person’s sexism, as manifested through voice-tone, ad hoc comments, etc). But, the Supreme Court has proved that a writer’s intent is not always readily apparent. Is the media being sexist? Does the “media” include the websites, like Drudge, that fed so many stupid stories the networks picked up? Does it include blogs? Comments on blogs?
In any event, the discussion brings to mind an old question I’ve had about perspective. Say I read a news story, and decided “not sexist.” Then, say a female friend read the same story and decided “sexist.” Which of our opinions is right? Is she right, because she’s a female, having potentially experienced being a victim of sexism, and thus more adept in identifying it? What if she is over-sensitive to sexism, too-quickly labeling actions as sexist? What if, in that regard, I am more objective and accurate? Oh, but perhaps sexism is a subjective issue, whether it exists being dependent on the audience (if a person feels it, it exist). But that really makes a meaningful look at sexism, at all, impossible, doesn’t it? Thoughts?
June 23, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Re: “I think we can identify sexism as a predisposition to hold a lower opinion of a person because of their gender.”
Sexism is such a tricky thing to define. I have been thinking about what “lower” means in Andrew’s working definition. I believe we can safely say that those individuals who believe women (or men!) have less inherent worth are certainly sexist, with all the morally repugnant overtones the label implies.
I find it tougher to categorize those who advocate varying degrees of the men-and-women-are-inherently-different narrative. Surely it isn’t sexist for us to all admit that Andrew is gonna be able to bench press more than I can. But is it sexist for us to generalize that women are better at writing poetry and men are better at doing algebra? Is it sexist to believe that women’s highest calling is homemaking and motherhood, whereas men are the ones who should be out in the world of business doing the breadwinning? The latter two viewpoints are often criticized as being sexist. But are they only _really_ sexist, if we buy into the underlying assumption that writing poetry and motherhood are somehow less valuable to our society than doing algebra and business? And I’m not sure I’m ready to buy that assumption.
June 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Fine point – I think the general response here would be:
– yes, let’s reevaluate our valuations on societal positions…housekeeping/childrearing is by all means as valuable as selling cars and making excel tables.
– but, the point of feminism, and where we should be today, is that woman (and men) should be able to choose the path they want to pursue and should not be restrained (to the extent possible – sports, here, offers a particular thorn) based on gender. So if a woman chooses to take a career non-conducive to child-rearing, that is her prerogative. If a man chooses to keep the home, that is his.
So I think the contemporary paradigm is about choice. This could probably be informed by a discussion of community norms, duties, etc…personal choice, in my mind, is not the be-all – libertarianism ultimately leads to lonely self-utopian-let-down. But personal choice, to the extent it is tempered by communal obligation (as in our general sense of rights in America) is what I’d imagine is the generally favored paradigm.
June 25, 2008 at 10:47 am
I tend to agree with that — mabe the jump from non-sexism to sexism simply occurs in the transition from specific to general: i.e. when an individual moves from, “It is best for me to be a stay-at-home mom/dad” to “It is best for all women/men to be stay-at-home moms/dads.”
But could an argument be made from the “communal obligation” loophole that Andrew left open? Is it a valid point that our society would be better off if all women worked at home to raise their children and take care of their husbands? Of course there are obvious problems with this reasoning posed by single moms and other non-traditional family structures. Leaving that aside, are a child’s rights being violated when mom and dad work long hours, while Junior sits alone in daycare? Arguably not — as long as the child is safe, well-fed, etc. But do we have more of a communal obligation here (and/or familial obligation) than just to not violate the kind of rights protected by the constitution?
June 25, 2008 at 10:49 am
I think an obvious answer would be that our society is NOT better off when all women stay home all the time. There are plenty of countries around the world where this is the case, and their economies measurably suffer due to the fact that half of their potential workforce, mindpower, and brainpower is missing.