Via Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog, let us reflect on the National Organization for Women issuing a report finding deeply ingrained sexism in the coverage of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The NOW gang resents candidate profiles "that trivialize female politicians by focusing on their clothing, hair, or taste in home décor, and those that position gender as her most important characteristic, playing on gender stereotypes in order to call into question her ability to provide strong, effective leadership."
Let's take the second complaint first. Since when has NOW -- which even endorsed the hapless Carol Moseley Braun for president in the 2004 cycle when she had as much chance of being elected president as write-ins like Ryan Seacrest did -- ever failed to position gender as a woman's "most important characteristic" when deciding between liberal candidates? (We understand they would never vote for Phyllis Schlafly.)
They seem to be saying don't isolate "gender stereotypes" like women being sensitive and mothering if it gets in their way of being perceived as a credible commander-in-chief. But then when the concerns turn to bread-and-butter issues like health care or education, then the gender stereotypes should be a tremendous advantage, and that's okay.
For what it's worth, I'd guess that Senator Clinton's positions on Iraq are very much like John Kerry's -- she was for it before she was against it, against a timetable and then for it -- ever-evolving. She doesn't need to be a woman to look weak and indecisive on defense. She's also made it clear that the primary issue in 2008 ought to be health care, and Osama bin Laden is just a pale excuse to prevent us from focusing on the real issues, terrorism not being one of those.
Now back to the first complaint. Do the media unfairly focus on Hillary's hair and house decor? Many of these stories are recycling memories of her White House days, when a First Lady is often scrutinized more for appearance and talents like interior design than your average FEMALE senator is. (Question: how many stories have you seen on Dianne Feinstein's hair?) If Hillary didn't want to be scrutinized for her hair, then why on Earth did she change it twelve times a year? At what point do the media memories come from sexism, and which come from Hillary's actual behavior, and her own publicity machine?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just like a man
March 31, 2007 - 11:07 ET by ecnirPRush Limbaugh has, for a long time, described Sen. Clinton as putting her pants on one leg at a time just like any other man. It souinds like NOW is in favor of Rush's description. What more does NOW want?
Everything. Their view on l
March 31, 2007 - 11:12 ET by dscottEverything. Their view on life is: I must have everything to ensure I have something. As long as you (male) have something, I don't have everything.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Right Again
March 31, 2007 - 12:37 ET by allanfMr. Limbaugh is also correct when he calls this bunch the "nags" and "feminazis". The attempts to feminzie Hillary are done for her benefit. Guess what hair, nails, makeup and clothing are important to women, and "news stories" about women politicians feminine qualities attract viewers.
What more does NOW want?-ec
March 31, 2007 - 18:27 ET by motherbeltWhat more does NOW want?-ecnirP
What they want is for Clinton to be treated just like a man, except when it's advantageous for her to be treated like a woman. Also, Hillary may bring up her sex herself, but no one else is allowed to.
I hope everyone remembers this when they start saying "women are better suited to..." or "women are better at...." or "women are more inclined to....". Of course, they might not want to start that, or others may say "Men are better at..." Don't want to go there.
Well, if Clinton wants to be treated like a man, maybe she should chuck all those
"Hillary!!" banners for some that say "Clinton!" You don't see any "John!" or Barack! banners, do you?
I mean look at Her Speakerness Nancy Pelosi. She calls herself the "the most powerful woman in America", but when it suits, she's just a Catholic mother and grandmother. In her first month, she definitely wore out the phrase "As the first woman Speaker of the House"!! And Ohmigosh, her claim that it would "take a woman to clean up the House"?? If a man had made that kind of reference to women and housecleaning, he would have been exiled by sundown!
The hypocrisy of these women boggles the mind.
Now there is a conservative d
March 31, 2007 - 11:10 ET by dscottNow there is a conservative dream candidate: Phyllis Schlafly. It's too bad she doesn't have executive experience.
Yeah, we all know NOW and their have my cake and eat it too attitudes. Thanks for raising the issue because this is precisely how bigoted groups like NOW demand false equality for their group. What NOW is demanding is privlege where they are weak in public acceptance. As we have seen anywhere where NOW has influence, the result is privlege trumphing civil rights. Hillary will sink or swim based on her positions and spin, hopefully enough people realize the danger she represents, not because she is a woman, but because what she represents - Socialism. Obama is no different in this regard.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I wanna see Hillary and Ros
March 31, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Right2thePointI wanna see Hillary and Rosie arm wrestle on the View ..mano a mano. Sorta.
Wishful Thinking?
March 31, 2007 - 11:27 ET by acumenWhen you wish upon a star.....
Ok, I hereby "demand&q
March 31, 2007 - 11:43 ET by sarcasmoOk, I hereby "demand" that the news media cover Hillary like they "cover" Dr. Ron Paul, but the old saying almost-goes: "demand in one hand, and crap in the other. See what piles-up first."
JMR
I can support that ideaThe ho
March 31, 2007 - 13:53 ET by James2306I can support that idea
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
NOW...wants a kind of coverage HILLARY rejects...
March 31, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasNOW wants the very thing Hillary rejects. Yes, NOW claims to want non-sexist coverage of one of the MOST SEXIST BIGOTS running...HILLARY CLINTON. Ha Ha. How so?
Newsbusters itself covered Hillary's recent claim..."I like seeing women in charge". Okay Hillary, if it is sexist bigotry (reminder I use the terms sexist and bigotry based on lib definitions and use) you want...then that is what you get...as for NOW...go complain to your SEXIST CANDIDATE first about her SEXIST BIGOTRY...and then come see us.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
A real woman is always in c
March 31, 2007 - 12:56 ET by 1sttofightA real woman is always in charge, just ask Mrs. 1sttofight.
After all , she does control the Center of the Universe. ;)
has NOW denounced Charlie Gib
March 31, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Conservative in the Artshas NOW denounced Charlie Gibson for his Nancy Pelosi grandmother taking care of the children while taking care of the country speech?
If not, I demand they shut up till they do.
has NOW denounced Bill Clinto
March 31, 2007 - 12:13 ET byhas NOW denounced Bill Clinton for his abuse of women? Has NOW denounced Hillary for her enabling Bill's unacceptable behavior?
If not, I demand they shut up till they do.
Is NOW going to come right ou
March 31, 2007 - 13:19 ET by ThisnThatIs NOW going to come right out and endorse Guillani for his comments on how he will invite his wife to cabinet meetings?
If not, I demend they shut up till they do.
Sorry, but NOW has already en
March 31, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Del DolemonteSorry, but NOW has already endorsed their candidate, whose husband got a pass from the group when he was accused of sexual harassment.
NOW later gave him a pass when he admitted that he had also engaged in an exploitative sexual relationship with a subordinate Federal employee, then asked her to lie about it under oath (a felony). He also admitted lying under oath himself-for which NOW also gave him a pass.
There will be a quiz on this stuff later.
Oh, and here's the story about NOW endorsing "Stand By Your Man" Hillary:
http://www.ny1.com/n...
There will be a quiz on this
April 1, 2007 - 11:54 ET by dahliatraversThere will be a quiz on this stuff later.
Can we jump ahead? The answer is, the National Organization for Women "endorsed" a woman-exploiting man. Let's put it another way. They came down against several vulnerable women squarely on the side of a powerful man.
From NOW's website:
NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society
Okay, ladies, how do you reconcile your actions with your mission?
Did someone say that NOW endorsed Hillary? For the record, NOW is a 501(c)(3). Are they even allowed to issue political endorsements of specific candidates?
Will "NOW " support
March 31, 2007 - 22:04 ET by Mica the MagnificentWill "NOW " support presidential stains on blue dresses of interns in the White house?
How will Hillary stain blue dresses to keep the Clinton legacy alive?
I did not have sex with that woman . . . ahh . . . you know . . that woman . . Mulva? . . . ahh . . . Dolores? . . .ahh . . . -- Bill Clinton reflecting on his presidency
Is NOW going to tell Her Sp
March 31, 2007 - 18:33 ET by motherbeltIs NOW going to tell Her Speakerness Nancy Pelosi to stop referring to herself as a Catholic mother of five, and a grandmother?
If not I demand they shut up until they do.
"Her Speakerness".
April 1, 2007 - 11:32 ET by dahliatravers"Her Speakerness". I like that.
When Pelosi was on the brin
March 31, 2007 - 12:21 ET by John in CAWhen Pelosi was on the brink of being Speaker, did the NAG's (National Association of Gals) protest when the WaPo, Time, et al, ran features on her $200 coif's, her Armain/Prada, (whatever the hell the are) outfits?
What are they complaining about? In 2004 the media covered Kerry and Edwards hair! for cryin' out loud. So, the media isn't treating the female candidate BroomHillary any different than they treated those female candidates.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
NOW hypocrisy
March 31, 2007 - 12:31 ET by nkviking75Has NOW ever rebuked the feminists who've written or said that women would be better leaders and more likely to keep us out of war? We've heard that a lot over the last few decades. As far as I know, NOW has been silent. Talk about sexist stereotypes....
Although Hillary seems to bel
March 31, 2007 - 14:04 ET by PKAlthough Hillary seems to believe that health care is the most important issue to be addressed by the federal govt. it emphatically is not.
the most important problem is protecting and expanding the health, security and well economic being of the entity known as the United States Of America!!!
its the feminazies that have fallen for the propaganda scam known as "Political correctness".
just for a minute, contemplate marching Osama Bin Laden and his second banana Zahwhiri down Pennsylvania avenue and making sure they keet up the pace with a cow prod.
The guys that say yeah, yeah, yeah know where its at.
The feministas that say "thats horrible" have been taken by the propaganda machine funded by various types who have no interest in the well being of the USA other than a cash cow.
c
SCREW the National Organiza
March 31, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Jack BauerSCREW the National Organization of Women. Metaphorically of course.
When Condoleezza Rice, an African-American woman, was nominated by President Bush to be his secretary of state.
Was the National Organization of Women cheering? Were they hell as like. The sound of silence was deafening.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez launched a SEXIST and DEMEANING verbal attack against Condoleezza Rice, bluntly warning her “don’t mess with me, girl.”
Where is the National Organization of Women on this issue? Where are the feminists blasting Chavez for his chauvinistic remarks toward Secretary of State Rice?
That's right. NO frackin’ comment.
Tammy Bruce, a pro-choice openly gay progressive feminist and former head of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women, documented leftists’ intolerant group think in a speech at Florida State University.
She described how she was shunned by the gay community as well as the feminists because she dared to disagree with their leadership and espouse views outside those “allowed” for people in these protected groups.
When a local NOW leadership publicly attacked Bruce, the one woman who came out in support of her was longtime political enemy Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
Similarly, when Bruce began hosting a radio talk show, she discovered that the kindest and most respectful callers were the people most demonized by the left, Christians.
No, no, STOP! Stop saying
March 31, 2007 - 15:00 ET by dahliatraversNo, no, STOP! Stop saying these truthful things!
subject
March 31, 2007 - 15:59 ET by tejanodiabloto change the subject a bit, the flying imams should not have been thrown off their plane ...... at least not until it was at 20,000 feet ... no imams = no sewers ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
Victimhood is liberal code fo
April 2, 2007 - 08:01 ET by dscottVictimhood is liberal code for trumping the civil rights of others through privlege. Their status is more important than our equality. Our children are sacrificed on the alter of their feminist dogma, they are the true worshipers of Baal and Ashra.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
IT'S A MAN BAYBEE!!! "Y
March 31, 2007 - 17:35 ET by BlazerIT'S A MAN BAYBEE!!!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
NAG's
March 31, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Pragmatic-ManNOW: National Organization for Women... for WOMEN! And they are fretting that someone is being treated as a WOMAN! Does this comment from them prove that they are negating the very fundamental essence of their mission? Seems to me they just deleted themselves.
Hmm, maybe they should have been a bit more... pragmatic!
Wow... I've been way ahead of
March 31, 2007 - 18:15 ET by MidAmericaWow... I've been way ahead of the curve for years.
Whenever I see her I never think... 'woman'.
NOW HILLARY. Hillary the mo
March 31, 2007 - 18:15 ET by ucNOW HILLARY. Hillary the most protected candidate for President in our history - how many years and months has she to date lived with secret service protection? Hillary going for most issued and reissued, positioned and repositioned, a twofer once, and now they want another. Hillary maybe also now the most lawyered up and surrounded by lawyers candidate yet in our history.
Maybe we should just see her covered as an "it."
Now why would Hillary need to
March 31, 2007 - 19:10 ET by dahliatraversNow why would Hillary need to get lawyered up?
Oh yeah ...
PETER F. PAUL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON,
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S.
SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., NEW
YORK SENATE 2000, DAVID ROSEN,
GARY SMITH, JAMES LEVIN, and
AARON TONKEN,
Defendants.
http://www.hillcap.org/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf
Ya know this gives some inc
March 31, 2007 - 19:22 ET by radiofitz34Ya know this gives some incentive to play a song on The Fitz Mix (fcac.org) called "Walk Like A Man" by Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons. I would do an intro saying, well if this is what Hillary wants, here you go.
That's why I like doing radio. It's fun and I can be creative. BTW my show is on Fridays from 1pm to 3pm EDT. Check it out next week. Hope you like it. Plus you can hear me rather than always reading my weird opinions.
This is not a plug necessarily because Fairfax Public Access is non-profit. But I would like you to give a listen.
radio, might think about dr
March 31, 2007 - 19:33 ET by John in CAradio, might think about dropping a reminder on the open thread next Friday - closer to the broadcast time. Just 'cuz most of us will probably forget.
Also, is the show archived for later listening? You're bumping right up agains Rush - that's never good for garnering listeners.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Yes I know John. I can't co
March 31, 2007 - 19:57 ET by radiofitz34Yes I know John. I can't compete with Rush. I don't currently have any archiving. Plus my show is mostly music and after 1:45 EDT contains a heavy dose of bluegrass.
But she's NOT a man.
March 31, 2007 - 19:23 ET by mostlymoderateBut she's NOT a man.
But she plays one on TV
March 31, 2007 - 19:55 ET by acumenBut she plays one on TV......
So, does this mean we can dem
March 31, 2007 - 22:59 ET bySo, does this mean we can demand coverage of Bill, like a woman?
Well no, Bill's not a man eit
March 31, 2007 - 23:28 ET by MidAmericaBill's not a man either. He's got a serious case of arrested development.
lol
April 1, 2007 - 00:33 ET bylol
NOW
March 31, 2007 - 23:40 ET by pocomocoThe NOW gang resents candidate profiles "that trivialize female politicians by focusing on their clothing, hair, or taste in home décor, and those that position gender as her most important characteristic, playing on gender stereotypes in order to call into question her ability to provide strong, effective leadership."
Now wait a minute NOW, it’s the press that continues to throw softball questions at her and skirts anything controversial. What’s left? Her clothing, hair, or taste in home décor.
Also, she purposely avoids question and answer forums as she did during her Senate race, and to date, no one knows what her core beliefs are. She is the consummate stealth candidate. Just call her - Slick Hilly.
pocomoco. That was a good o
April 1, 2007 - 00:05 ET by radiofitz34pocomoco. That was a good one. Slick Hilly. Seems to fit the shoe don't it.
SIR SHRillary
April 1, 2007 - 01:10 ET by philly d kidderSir SHRillaries Voice drives me around the bend........NOW.Is that sexist
Democrats are Anti America Anti Catholic and a little twisted