Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

"Sweetie" LMAO.

avatar

I can relate to the Obama's latest faux pas with Detroit reporter, Peggy Agar. Seems the"O" man slipped up and referred to the reporter as "sweetie" while trying to brush her off. Bad move in this hyper sensitive age of political correctness. And the reporter, to her credit, saw her opportunity and took it. Talk about "15 minutes of fame" . Well this sweetie is signing off is what she said at the end of her broadcast or something to that effect. Trust me, her tone was a lot worse than it reads. The Obama man was forced to call back and leave an apology on her voice mail. (They even played the voice mail on WXYZ Television, her employer) "Hi this is Barack Obama.... I meant no disrespect so I am duly chastened on that front."



My wife, of course, thought her hero was out of line. But she's a professional who works in a male dominated field, so I would expect no less. "You have that problem too Mister. Have you ever heard yourself when you talk to total strangers?" "Hi 'hon', sorry 'gorgeous', and yes I have heard you use 'sweetie' on more than one occasion". "Guilty as charged" I declare, "and I will stop". " Why do you think I am always correcting you? Some women actually find that offensive. "





Of course being who I am, I had to defend myself:"Yeah but women do it too. There are these older women I work with who always refer to me or other guys at the job as "hon". "Yes but they are older right?" Yes, so what's the difference? "They can do that and get away with it. " "They came from a different time when it was acceptable, it isn't anymore." " So would it be cool for an older man to use the term' sweetie' when addressing a women?" "Of course not! What the hell is wrong with you?"






I am thinking that I don't know, and that right about now it feels good not to be a politician. I wonder if Michelle never gave the Obama these life lessons. "That's a bad habit of mine."


Obama, you are not alone.



http://field-negro.blogspot.com/


Comments (75)

avatar

That was a funny post! I betcha Michelle did give the big "O" a little chat up. For me, I wish Obama would soften little disappoints for me by calling me Sweetie. I wonder if I could get one of those mini recorders on my key chain with Obama's voice saying, "Sweetie". I could just punch the button whenever I needed a little lift after the world bumped up against me. I'm about old enough to be his mama, but he is by nature a sweetie and it would feel genuine coming from him I think. In that family picture where he's sitting on the grass with his wife and daughters, you can sure see that his girls think he's a sweetie. They're draped and melted all over him. Poor schmuck. Burned with "Sweetie gate". There are people who say those kind of things in a way that makes me want to set their hair on fire, but Obama isn't one of them.

Both of y'all are hilarious.

Ah identity politics. That whole you can't say that word because of your skin color, or your age, or in this case, your genitalia. Never mind that Obama what Obama would do for women, I care that he called someone SWEETIE! The injustice.

But pay no attention to Hillary Clinton getting her name recognition from her husband and riding it all the way to the white house and using HIS contributions when he was president as a sign of HER achievements. Or that, even though many feminists and Clinton supporters bemoaned how the press called her "Hillary" and the others "Barack Obama" or "John Edwards" when you can't watch a Clinton rally without seeing signs that reinforce that with "Hillary for President". It' okay because she's a woman.

I urge people, "man-up"(if you'll excuse the phrase, but trust me it's okay because I'm a woman) when confronted with identity politics. Confidently state you are not racist, agist, or sexist. Once you start floundering and looking scared of the label, that's when it sticks.

The difference is that men were not denied the right to vote in this country. Men don't earn 70% of what women earn. Men don't make up a minority of CEOs. So, if a woman calls you "hon", or whatever, it might seem belittling, but it's not going to feel like the system is trying to keep you down.

It's not easy for us men to understand, but we need to at least try.

(Similar arguments can be made for why the UNCF or NAACP is perfectly fine, but UWCF or NAAWP smacks of racism.)

what?

The whole post is about taking things too seriously. And you took it there again.

Obama defused a "set up confrontation" and all she could get was "sweetie" as a controversy?

What DOES that say about her professionalism as a woman to be so shrill?

She was trying to roll with the Secret Service and pushed her way up to him with her 1980's shoulder pad mentality and phallic microphone and thought she had promoted "feminism" all by herself.

I would hate to see what she's called at home.

When it comes to sexism (or racism), I do try to take it seriously. I'm not upset with Obama. He made a minor mistake, and he handled it well. (If you don't think it was a mistake, then presumably you think it was a mistake for him to apologize.)

My point isn't to pile on to Obama, but to explain why the double-standard makes sense. Why it is a man calling a woman (that he's not on at least a friendly standing with) "sweetie" is different than a woman calling a man "hon" (or similar). I'm making this point because it seemed the poster of the blog didn't understand it. I think a lot of men don't get it, just like a lot of whites don't get why having an association geared towards helping blacks is different than having an association geared towards helping whites.

It needs to be understood, so that is why I'm being serious. (There's a certain coincidental humor in being told I'm taking it too seriously on a blog entry from Bserious, but that's beside the point.)

Why was her question, "What do you have to say to the workers?" a SET UP QUESTION?

I saw the clip, and I didn't think she was "shrill."

And what in the hell do you mean by this?

She was trying to roll with the Secret Service and pushed her way up to him with her 1980's shoulder pad mentality and phallic microphone and thought she had promoted "feminism" all by herself.

I would hate to see what she's called at home..

I am a die-hard Obama supporter, but your dimissive comments about the reporter are out of bounds. He made a mistake. Don't blame her for that. He blew it. He apologized for it. Why can't you just be as big a person as he is?

And by the way, your "shoulder-pad" comment was far more insulting than "Sweetie."

You need to grow up.

Ben,

Men don't earn 70% of what women earn.

That is a myth. Equal jobs get equal pay in this country. This isn't 1970. This was brought up on another blog at one point and you can clearly see how the studies are flawed.

I disagree with the basic notion of your post (e.g. women can do what they want because they have been harmed in the past), but at least your points about when women got the right to vote, etc. are factual.

There is no pay-gap. It's a myth.

Kev

One can argue about the percentages and the reasons, but there most definitely is a pay gap. One of the reasons is that jobs that have been historically a woman's (and predominantly still are) pay less than jobs that have been historically a man's. Another reason is that women are far more likely to take time off (whether it's a few months, a few years, or longer) to raise a family. That doesn't change the fact that many women have younger men as their bosses, and that when these men call them "sweetie" it can come off as quite demeaning.

I disagree with the basic notion of your post (e.g. women can do what they want because they have been harmed in the past)

If you think that was the basic notion of my post, then I didn't explain myself very well. (That's not meant to be cute—I've read enough of your posts now to know that you're an astute reader. If it's not getting through to you, then I have to blame myself for not being clear.)

The basic notion of my post is not that women can do what they want, but that when a woman insults a man by using a pet name (which is still wrong) it just doesn't have the same historical context as when a man does it to a woman. It doesn't make it right (I can't say that enough, I guess), it just makes it different. Similarly, if someone calls me "boy" in an insulting context, it's rude, but it's not at all the same thing as calling a black man "boy" in an insulting context.

Sure, hon,no pay gap

see link below, to 2006 NYT business piece on pay gap

You didn't read his apology correctly.

What he also put out there was the unveiling fact that she was NOT the reporter who was cleared to be at the press conference.

Do you mean she was so offended that she chose to miss the later press conference to ask her question? He pointed this out to be clear. So what was more important to her?

He handled her as equal to the guy in PA asking for an autograph.

THAT'S what she didn't like.

I'm not defending the reporter. I'm explaining why using "sweetie" to someone you don't know is inappropriate, even if she's being annoying or are out of line herself. Are there worse things he could've called her? You betcha. That doesn't change the fact that "sweetie" was inappropriate. Don't get me wrong—it's a mere peccadillo. My bigger concern is that some people don't seem to understand why it was inappropriate.

Why is it inappropriate?

I'm female.

Because it has been used to remind women of their "place". In that way, it has some similarities to the term "boy" with regards to black men. (I'm not arguing they're the same, just that there are similarities.) If someone were to call me "boy" or "sweetie", I'd find it odd and, depending on the situation, I might even be offended, but I'd hardly feel like it's systemic. Both "sweetie" with respect to women and "boy" with respect to black men have been used (and abused) in a systemic manner. That's why it is inappropriate. The history of these terms cannot be ignored—especially by a politician.

Perhaps you haven't personally experienced these put-downs, but that doesn't mean that other women haven't. Furthermore, it's not unusual for a woman to experience put downs like this in a position where she's vulnerable—i.e., when it's coming from a male boss. (It could also come from a female boss, but I assume it's less offensive in that situation. I could easily be wrong.)

Obviously, it goes without saying that I haven't experienced this first hand, but I've known enough women who have, and I've listened to what they have to say.

So I should stop using the term myself?

Are you using the term with women you don't know? Are you using the term in a way that could be interpreted as demeaning, whether or not that is your intent?

In either of those situations, I would suggest that, yes, you should probably stop using the term.

"Sweetie" is a perfectly fine word, when used in appropriate context, as is "boy". The trick is to understand when the context is inappropriate. I wouldn't think it was that difficult, but presumably it is.

Now, don't get me wrong—I also think there are contexts where a woman shouldn't be calling a man "hon", and one shouldn't call any man "boy". Those situations, however, as well as you calling someone "sweetie" in an inappropriate context just don't carry the same historical or systemic baggage. Does this make sense?

So him calling the nut in PA "brother" was a slight too?

Listen, sweetie, do I really need to explain how this can be offensive? (I hope you'll forgive this case-in-point.)

I'd have to see the "brother" comment in context, but if he was a nut, probably so. That slight isn't the same, however, for the reasons previously given.

I mean, you're calling him a nut and I assume you saw the context around it, did you think it was intended as a slight or as a friendly gesture? (I hope I don't have to explain how the same word can be used in different contexts to different effect.)

Why don't you look at the spot for clarification before juxtaposing my comments.

I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't understand what you're saying.

Look at the incident in PA. See if my questions of similarity are justified.

I'm not sure what incident you're talking about… Could you provide a link?

Then why are you arguing AGAINST it?

WEIRD!

?

How was I arguing against it? I just gave a conditional argument above, admitting that I'd actually have to see it in context to make such a call.

What I was arguing was why the use of the word "sweetie" is context-dependent, that part of the relevant context is the gender of the sayer and the gender of the listener, and that it most definitely can be insulting and inappropriate in certain situations. I also made the statement that Obama's use of the word was mildly inappropriate, although I felt his apology was sufficient.

Until you brought up the "brother" incident, I hadn't commented on it. (Perhaps this was at the same time, so you assume if I saw one, I saw the other?)

Ben, let me help you out here. Yes. Don't use the term "Sweetie" except for your relatives.

Does THAT answer it?

Just a little background: I am a nurse, and years ago, nurses often referred to their patients as "Sweetie, or Honey." Pretty much NO ONE liked it. I certainly never did. It is demeaning. Most hospitals now require their employees to refer to their patients as Mrs., or Mr., or Ms, so and so., but if first name is preferred that is put into the chart.

When I go to a diner and the waitress calls me "Sweetie" it is fine with me. If I go to a doctor's office, I don't want to be "Sweetied."

So this is the rule:

If you are more powerful than the person you are addressing, don't call them "SWEETIE." If you are related to them, or are worse off than they are, go ahead!

HOPE THAT CLEARS THIS UP!

That probably is a fairly safe rule-of-thumb. However, I still would never call a female boss "sweetie", unless I was on a personal enough level with her to know that it could and would be taken the right way. (I probably wouldn't call a male boss "sweetie", either, now that I think about it.)

I knew it would be on video, cringed just a tad when I watched it and knew somebody would yank his elbow and she would get an apology. Case closed :).

Bserious your blog is COOL or whatever new or politically correct word I should use.

No pay gap is proved in that article. It does state that women are in jobs that pay less. That's a huge difference. If women want to accomplish what men do, they are welcomed to -- especially in 2008. The reason why you don't see more female CEOs is that most women have other goals in their life.

At the end of the day, everyone has to live with whatever priorities they choose. It's the wonderful thing about freedom. What's unfair is to expect an employer to pay you for work or experience not done (because you took time off to raise a family).

Time is finite, everyone has to make choices.

One can argue about the percentages and the reasons, but there most definitely is a pay gap. One of the reasons is that jobs that have been historically a woman's (and predominantly still are) pay less than jobs that have been historically a man's. Another reason is that women are far more likely to take time off (whether it's a few months, a few years, or longer) to raise a family. That doesn't change the fact that many women have younger men as their bosses, and that when these men call them "sweetie" it can come off as quite demeaning.

A pay gap is defined as a difference in pay for men and women in the same job.

I strongly suspect that we don't disagree once we agree on that definition. It sounds like you agree that a male nurse doesn't have a pay gap with a female nurse, nor a male doctor doesn't have a pay gap with an equivalent female doctor.

The problem with the mis-use of the term pay gap is that it gets people thinking that gender determines pay... and this is a nice emotional issue to exploit for various purposes. If you agree that gender doesn't determine the pay, but the job description does, then we agree on the fundamental point. Although I would hope you wouldn't use the term "pay gap" as it perpetuates an incorrect idea. (We agree that words matter! ;-))

I have some issues with your other statements above, however:

Jobs get paid what they get paid because of (a) perceived value and (b) skill required to complete the job and (c) number of applicants. If the jobs are worth more money, the class gets more money. If a female wants more money, she can get involved in a more lucrative field.

People who take time off from their careers should be paid less -- regardless if they are male or female. The problem is today there is a myth of "having it all" -- which is impossible. Example: Suppose a person has 10 years experience, and then goes off to raise a family for 10 years. When this person re-enters the job market, that person brings less to the table than someone who has worked 10 years straight, no time off, and is current (all other things being equal).

Society (and employers) should subsidize people who take time off for their careers. There are people who make their career their top priority -- and they are more valuable to a company.

Now, none of this has to do with using the term "Sweetie" which is unprofessional, especially when coming from a boss. But that edict comes from the fact that a boss/employee relationship (regardless of gender) isn't equal to begin with and so the boss has to be cognizant and careful with that fact.

The topic of using "sweetie", "hon", etc. in casual conversation requires context. In the south, for example, people use those terms all the time. Is it demeaning, for example, when a waitress does it to me? I don't think so. Is it demeaning if an guy smiles at a waitress and uses the term? Again, I don't think so. Do it in the northeast, where it is more unusual, then it requires more thought -- but still depends on context. I think most people can tell if something is meant demeaning or not. Intonation is critical here -- there are many ways of saying a single word. (One of the reasons why good actors get paid so much...)

The language police has gotten out of control in this regard, but I find that it usually is a small minority -- who just happen to be vocal. Usually the people that get out of control by being called "sweetie" (in a reasonable context) aren't that sweet. ;-)

Well, I'd argue there are multiple possible definitions of the phrase "pay gap", and that no one holds a monopoly on how to define it. That said, I'll agree it's useful to state up front what one means by it. I don't want to belabor the point as it would take far too long, but even by your definition, I'd argue there's still a pay gap, though not as big as one. I've known several women who've gotten paid less than men for the same job, and I feel that usually it's because the women haven't been as aggressive about asking for raises when the chance has presented itself. As you'll hear from many women, it's harder for a woman to be aggressive as it can end up giving her the reputation of being a "bitch". So, there are gender-driven differences that women get paid less than men. Additionally, there are societal and biological reasons (not blaming the employer here) why women are more likely to take time off from work than men. And, if you think that being a nurse or a teacher has less intrinsic value than being a lawyer, well… Whatever the reasons, that women get paid less than men means that women are often at a disadvantage domestically, and that's another problem that needs to be addressed.

OK, so after that diatribe that went on far longer than I intended (especially considering that we probably agree on most of the facts, if not the semantics or the degree to which it's a problem), I think we probably also mostly agree on the use of the word "sweetie". Using it in a diner to address your waitress can be fine, as long as you're not using it in a derogatory manner. I assume you agree it can be used in a derogatory manner in that situation. I'm also obviously not talking about prosecuting anyone over this. In this particular situation, I'm merely talking about what I consider to be good manners. (In an office situation, it could possibly be considered a means of creating a hostile environment. Again, it all depends on how it's being used, and whether an individual stops using when asked to do so.)

So it's ok to use it toward a waitress?

Why?

Job status?

Note that I didn't say it was fine, but merely that it could be. It would depend on how you're using it, and whether the context was such that it would be interpreted as a purely friendly expression or if it could be interpreted as being hostile or demeaning. The context matters greatly.

The job status is relevant only that there's a difference between customer-server relationships and employee-boss relationships. In the latter, there's a lot more at risk, so it's much less likely to be appropriate to use the "sweetie" term.

I've known several women who've gotten paid less than men for the same job, and I feel that usually it's because the women haven't been as aggressive about asking for raises when the chance has presented itself. As you'll hear from many women, it's harder for a woman to be aggressive as it can end up giving her the reputation of being a "bitch".

If the women aren't aggressive in a negotiation stance you can't blame it on gender. I've been in many negotiations from a business standpoint: there is no 3rd party arbiter. If you can't negotiate on your own behalf (and there are men who can't as well), that's a personal issue.

I agree about the vocab issues. How's that for short and... sweetie.


And for the excuse of women being called a "bitch" -- well, again, this is a fuzzy area. In the modern day and age, this is more like an excuse (like Hillary claiming victimization). I can believe that some people can't apply pressure without being too aggressive -- and again, this applies to men as well -- but again, it's a personality issue.

A pay gap is something that is institutionalized. So far, your examples are associated with individual behavior.

And, if you think that being a nurse or a teacher has less intrinsic value than being a lawyer, well…

It's called market value. Do I think a baseball player has more value than a lawyer because he is paid more? Of course not. But I also believe that some jobs require more training, more dedication, and draw from a smaller pool (or some combination of these 3) -- and that defines the salary. It's disingenuous (though common) to define salary on the basis of the value of the job. The world has never worked this way and it's ridiculous to impose regulation along these lines which would be imperfect anyway.

Whatever the reasons, that women get paid less than men means that women are often at a disadvantage domestically, and that's another problem that needs to be addressed.

WOW! You can't just say that! I know that the people who pick up the garbage perform a vital function -- just see what happens if they stop -- but that doesn't mean they deserve the same pay as me.

The only thing that is fair is to give everyone equal options. But just as some people plan more for their future than others -- and we all saw the various types in high school -- so, too, should the people that are more deliberate about their lives be rewarded more. I know plenty of women that decided not to have kids and earn even more than I do. It's about personal choice -- not making all the options have equal outcomes, because not all the options require equal effort.

Keep in mind that I often play devil's advocate—although I also agree with everything I've written here. If you haven't read Walden Two by B. F. Skinner, I recommend it, although I'll be the first to admit it's being hopelessly romantic with regards to this idea.

You're absolutely right that there are many factors that determine how pay is assigned, and I was being slightly disingenuous with my lawyer vs. teacher/nurse example. (The baseball player example makes me angry which is why I had to stay away from it.)

With respect to the domestic situation, I was not attempting to provide a solution, but merely pointing out that there's a problem. I assume you agree with that. Identifying a problem doesn't fix it, of course, but it can help.

Also, I'm not sure if you understood my domestic comment. The problem is that in a marriage, the woman might feel trapped if she feels incapable of earning enough to support herself independently. Of course, that's what alimony and child support are supposed to address, and yes, I'm aware that these can sometimes be unfairly applied. (I know someone who was working for his wife's rich father prior to the divorce, making a good salary. After the divorce he was working somewhere else and no longer making anyways near as much money, but the alimony was based on the wages he was making at the time the divorce was filed.)

This isn't a national pay gap. This is a company practicing discrimination. I hope the prosecution wins if the charges are true. But it involves one company -- which already has a history of poor employer practices.

The national pay gap is composed of lots of "one" companies. (I assume you admit that this is not an isolated incident.) Yes, each company is doing something wrong, but I don't get how that makes the problem less significant. That's a major component of the pay gap (definitely the biggest component if we're using your version of the term). It seems that you're wanting to amend your previous definition so that it only counts if the pay gap is due to "institutional" discrimination, and somehow "institutional" has to be at the level of more than one company before it counts.

In addition to the documented institutional discrimination provided for this company, as well as the documented institutional discrimination at other companies, there's a systemic social discrimination that's a lot softer and harder to measure. At most companies, job performance evaluations are necessarily subjective. A woman (or man) who fails to aggressively push for a raise will be at a disadvantage to a man who does aggressively push for a raise. However, paradoxically, a woman who does aggressively push for a raise can be unfairly thought of as being a "bitch" and hence unfit for that raise—even if such thoughts are subconscious.

avatar

I would rather be called "sweetie" than a long list of other epithets people commonly use. If Barack Obama had called me "sweetie" I wouldn't have made an issue of it.

From the snippet we get to hear -- and what we can glean from his apology -- seems Peggy was not the "lead" reporter on the story, and was just one of bunch of local newshounds trying to make their mark in front of the national media. Having walked in those shoes, I know the temptation of trying to come up with the day's "big story" or "big answer" to catch a little attention from the traveling press corps. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll get something that makes the national news, and you can add that to your portfolio. You've got your audio check, lots of video, some live stuff, maybe some anchor stuff, the heartfelt interview with the sad family, the gritty police beat stuff, the funny stuff, the investigative stuff and the political stuff. And maybe, if you're feeling really confident, you through in a few bloopers as well. It "humanizes" you.

Peggy "Sweetie-Pie" Agar could have played it off with aplomb, but she didn't. She was snotty. She made the national news, but not in a good way. She looked small and petty. And Obama came off looking... well, rather swell.

And the rest of you dwelling on it are making much ado about nothing.

What a novel idea, blame the woman.

Great blog, Field.

I've used the term "sweetie" on men, women, children and animals. I've never had anyone react negatively. I've even used it on this blog. I hope I did not offend the person I used it on. For me it's a term expressing mild affection in a social realm and nothing more. I've never used it on any of my more important male relationships, though, and I don't use it at work. It's not a term people in my area of work use on each other.

OK, so Obama used the term and apologized. What followed were many blog threads laden with psychobabble analysis about his relationships with his mama, wife, daughters and women in general and his dad. Geeez

Are you telling me that you've never seen or heard the term used in a condescending manner? Do you think that the way Obama used it was meant to show affection towards the reporter, mild or otherwise?

I'm not overly concerned with Obama's use of the term as I agree his apology addressed it just fine, and it wasn't that big of a deal. I'm just amazed at how many people don't seem to be able to understand that a term used in some situations as a token of affection can be used in other situations as a means of putting someone down.

Heck, I've had it done to me right here at TPM. (Ironically, by a Clinton supporter.)

I did not hear it as offensive. He came across as dismissive because he did not ever answer her question. That was dismissive to me, not the use of the word. Not answering her question was offensive. I don't know what was in his heart. Has this reporter been regular member of his media bus? Does he know her?

Now, perhaps the thing that bothered people is that it was an interracial use of "sweetie?" Seriously, I've wondered if all the bloviating on threads was not somewhat driven by the interracial aspect, albeit unacknowledged. It is true that had she been a he, Obama would have used different words.

I really doubt that the interracial thing bothered more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the people complaining about it. You make a valid point that the dismissing of her question was more of the insult than the use of the word "sweetie", but because these were juxtapositioned, I find it hard to make the assumption that the word was used out of affection.

Judging by her rude response, I also doubt that she was on his bus or knew him.

I really doubt that the interracial thing bothered more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the people complaining about it.

Disagree. Some of the psychobabble I've seen masquerading as analysis makes me not accept your doubt.


Well, I'll admit that I've steered clear of such psychobabble. Can you provide one that won't turn my stomach too much? ;)

Not really. I tried and was evidently successful, in forgetting. I have too much coming up to keep that kind of stuff in my head.

(I should probably make clear that when I agree that Obama dismissing the question was the bigger insult, I do not consider it to be an inappropriate insult.)

huh?

I'm just making the point that I don't find all insults to be inappropriate. His dismissing of her question was perfectly appropriate, even though I wish he hadn't used the word "sweetie".

He'll probably never use it again, in public.

I also disagree with you that the terms "sweetie" and "boy" are in any way equivalent.

No, you agree with me that they're in no way equivalent. Again, I failed to make that clear, it seems. I was merely using the "boy" example to demonstrate that a term that's fine to use in one situation is inappropriate to use in another.

oh. Apologies! Must not have read that with care.

Anyway, next time I drive through your town, and if I run into you, I'll be sure to not call you "sweetie." ;)

I'm out. Gotta make dinn for all my friends who are arriving any minute now.

No problem. If I were a good writer, I wouldn't still be working on my dissertation. (OK, maybe it also has something to do with how much time I'm spending here.)

Obama's Journal: Notes from the Trail

May 2008

"Don't call three-balled women "sweetie".

Really. He should attach signs next to the word.

☠ “sweetie” ☣

Alright, now I'm jealous that you've found some really cool HTML codes. Of course, now that you've posted them, I can use them too! :)

☠ ♫ ☣ (one of these things is not like the other)

LOL. Plagiarist. ☺

♀ ♁ ♂ (one of these things is not like the other)

I think everyone needs to take a vacation somewhere down south and get used to people who smile and call you things like "Sweetheart," and "pretty thing."

it's not that hard to take.

;)

It doesn't bother me, unless it's obviously meant as a put-down, and even then it doesn't bother me any more than any other put-down. Of course, I was raised in the South.

That said, Obama is on a national stage. He did well to apologize, and the reporter was a jerk in how she responded.

You tell 'em, Sweet Thang! And, while you're up, get me a coke.

Nice subtle humor, Billy!

Amen to that. When I moved to Virginia I went to work for a guy who turned out to be a real jerk but even I have to admit when I heard him call me darlin' I did melt just a little.

Barack's sweetie-not quite the same.

You hit the nail on the head.

THAT is the purpose of using a term of endearment with someone who is not your dear:

To put them back in their place; that is a LOWER place. Melting you just a little would accomplish that.

However, and talking about this case in hand, I just saw the clip and nothing in Obama's tone or body language seemed "nasty" to me.

Nonetheless, the use of the word "sweetie" to address a woman who is not your dear evokes diminution, even if such is not intended.

We may fail to see this because we are accustomed to such uses of the word.

I have no doubt that this word would not have fallen out of Obama's mouth (or anybody else's) if the reporter was a man.

Watching the clip, I did not find Obama's demeanor offensive per se, but I am glad he apologized.

And I am glad that talk of this brings the issue to the forefront for overt discussion of ways in which women are addressed.

Bserious

Had to drag myself away from your blog -- like it!

Despite my ramblings here (or maybe because of them), I'll second that. There's a lot of interesting information on that blog.

Oh my. Another thread on this?

I can't wait for all the pseudo-psychoanalysis to begin.

I don't understand all the writhing and foaming about this word.

I saw the vid and my response was very Cheneyesque -- So?

I'll admit that strange men never refer to me with that term. So perhaps I don't understand what the outrage is all about.

Hasn't Billy called you "sweetie" before? He's fairly strange…

heee.

good one!

damn. This thing posted before I was ready.

What I meant to say is:

Yes, good one. Only, while Billy is fairly strange, he is not quite a stranger, in that he posts here often and we kinda know him a bit, you know, from his posts. So while strange, not astranger. That was what that "strange" was a reference to, in my first post.

And as for Billy, I think he is a sweetie... Hence a closet Obama supporter...

heeee!

sheeets!

astranger = a stranger.

"a closet Obama supporter" - makes me think of undergarments or a carpentry device.

avatar

Up thread, a poster stated this rule, "If you are more powerful than the person you are addressing, don't call them 'Sweetie'.

That is an excellent rule and one that I break all the time...because I will address a child as 'sweetie' or 'small person' without batting an eye. But what the rule makes me think of this...perhaps Obama said 'sweetie' because he does not perceive himself to be more powerful than the reporter. I think that he revealed more about his personal perception of where power lies in that comment than he knew.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


July 21-25

Bill Bishop The Big Sort

July 28-August 1

Book Cover

August 4-9

Book Cover

August 11-15

James Galbraith The Predator State

August 18-22

Book Cover

September 1-4

Book Cover

September 15-20

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Al Shaw



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.