Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's "sexist language"?
Based on commentary from ABC news blog here,
Obama may be using sexist language when he said before the Louisiana
primary that, "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come
out."
ABC blog continues.
The CLAWS come out? Really?
Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been -- if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive.
Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."
"Claws"…"feeling down"...I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.I find it impossible to parse "launches attacks" as sexist, and "periodically" really seems like a stretch. I think the actual video of the comments here probably does damage to the idea that this was some carefully crafted message to hit Clinton on her gender. The whole response is filled with pauses while he seemed to search for the right word.
"I understand that, you know, Senator Clinton ... um ... periodically, when she's feeling ... uh down ... launches attacks, and ... uh as a way of - of ... you know, trying to boost her ... uh boost her appeal."
Maybe he found exactly the gender-biased words he was looking for, but it seems again a stretch that this was the goal.
As for the "claws" comment, surely that's sexist because as noted, that would be hard to imagine being directed at a male candidate right?
"Will Barack Obama finally show some claws?" asks CNN's Wolf Blitzer in this daily show clip from the end of October. (about 55 seconds in. Extra bonus, that's a clip from Clinton's "inevitable" days.)
Advertisement
Comments (8)
Jane Hamsher took a poll at Firedoglake. Most women think it's sexist. Most men didn't . Altho I'm Flavius not Flavia I voted with the women.
February 17, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, though I'm a man, and the post above me disqualifies my opinion for me, I don't think it is sexist. I've used/heard "claws out" in reference to either gender when speaking about being on the attack. This is a manufactured news item.
February 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I watched that press conference live, and didn't catch anything nasty in what he said. It seems like people are LOOKING for sexist things to hang on him.
Still, the fact is, our entire culture is sexist, both subtly and overtly. We live in a male dominated society, and women have been demeaned for centuries both by men and by each other. It's just that we finally have a woman in a position to draw attention to the stereotypes and sexist statements that are appallingly common but usually innocently spoken. As other posters and columnists have been pointing out in recent weeks, we've built up a tolerance to sexist speech to the extent that if some of the recent statements referred to race and not sex, more of our elected officials would be shouted out of office for their prejudices.
I can't find the darn article, but Slate ran a great piece that discussed a campaign stop in NH(?) where an elderly woman asked McCain, "just tell me how we'll beat the b****" (or something to that effect). McCain chuckled and said he felt confident that he could beat Sen. Clinton in November - acknowledging that 1) she's a b**** and 2) it's funny to call her one. The author then asks, what if the elderly voter had asked "how will you beat the n*****?" Would McCain have responded so easily or even found it funny? As a culture, it's more acceptable to joke and demean people on the basis of gender than it is on race.
That said, I really don't think Senator Obama thinks Clinton is a less-qualified candidate because she's a woman and I don't think that he would ever deliberately say anything to that effect. Looking at the women in his life I can't help but believe that he deeply respects strong-minded women, and the sexist argument just doesn't hold in his case (whole other issue with McCain, IMHO).
Altogether, hanging the sexist tag on Obama seems like a bit of a stretch, but this is a great opportunity for us to examine our culturally fostered beliefs about the roles and acceptable behaviors of both men and women, and the language we use to discuss them.
February 17, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Jane "Blackface" Hamsher and her crew of sychophants, who didn't find any of the Clinton's campaign's race-baiting tactics all throughout Dec. to be just that? Oh. Okay. I wrote about the claws comment because in the increasingly crazed corners of the liberal blogosphere people who are so full of hate are actually saying that that's a sexists term. And now "periodically" is sexist? Please. I'm female and I think that's a load and I think any woman who'd go around saying that it is a fucking moron. There are more than enough sexist "codewords" in our everyday language and we don't need for some nitwits who are voting for the Clinton's because they have some pathetic desire to recapture their Gen. X angst. to create more that have nothing to do with anything.
February 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Female anatomy update: Women do not have claws.
February 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. I know. I can't believe the same people who said there was nothing wrong with "shuck and jive" etc etc etc can parse "periodically" in this manner.
February 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, though, there are hidden meanings in literally everything, including prepositions and articles!
TIME OUT!
This entire split is getting both silly and dangerous. If you want to support Clinton because she's a woman (Did she choose to be one?) you are every bit as sexist as if you choose not to support her because she's a woman. Likewise, if you choose to support Obama because he's black (Again, did he make that choice?) you are every bit as racist as someone who refuses to support him for that reason.
Vote for the candidates of your choice based on who they are, not what they are. Vote based on what they bring to the table. Vote based on the likely effect they will have on the future well-being of your country.
And vote based on who is more likely to defeat John McCain and cost us less downticket in November. (Hint: Barack Obama...)
February 17, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also deeply disturbed to have Andrea Mitchell and Norah O'Donnell standing up for my gender. Seriously, no thank you.
February 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment