Media trot out gender stereotypes in discussion of Elizabeth Edwards' comments
After Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a headline that read "GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY 'BEHAVING LIKE A MAN," several media figures trotted out gender stereotypes about the leading Democratic presidential candidates while discussing comments former Sen. John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, made about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during an interview with Salon.com Editor-in-Chief Joan Walsh.
In the interview, which was posted on Salon.com on July 17, Edwards said:
Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women.
On the July 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC senior national correspondent Claire Shipman claimed that "[t]here is striking gender role reversal on the campaign trail" because "Hillary Clinton [is] by far the toughest politically and stylistically," while Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "are emoting like crazy." Shipman later said that "[s]ome political watchers argue that voters are ready to move beyond gender clichés."
On the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asserted, "Edwards said she understands why sometimes Hillary has to campaign like a man in order to make up for the fact that she's not," before asking The Hill's A.B. Stoddard: "I mean, let's take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?"
In the July 17 edition of his "Best of the Web Today" column, OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto asserted: "Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over by John Edwards's womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards," before falsely claiming that Elizabeth Edwards "suggest[ed] that Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards."
On the July 17 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh asserted that "Well, now Mrs. Edwards has confirmed it today. Elizabeth Edwards has said Hillary is just -- she's -- well, let me get it up here. I don't want to paraphrase this because it's too important. Hillary is behaving like a man, unlike her husband. So vindication, ladies and gentlemen." Limbaugh was claiming "vindication" for an earlier smear of Edwards. As Media Matters for America noted, on the March 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh referred to a March 8 New York Sun article, "Could John Edwards Become the First Woman President?" to repeatedly mock Edwards as "the Breck Girl," who is "on tap now, according to one of the nation's largest abortion rights supporters, to become the first woman president in the United States." Limbaugh played a parody of "I Am Woman" as a lead-in to the segment on the July 17 broadcast, which, as Media Matters noted, he promised during the March 8 edition that he would use for "any further John Edwards news," calling it one of the "official update theme [songs] for the Breck Girl."
From the July 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SHIPMAN: And there is striking gender-role reversal on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton by far the toughest politically and stylistically.
CLINTON: Let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.
SHIPMAN: Obama and Edwards, meanwhile, are emoting like crazy.
JOHN EDWARDS [at hospital bedside]: Your hair is being fixed. You already look very pretty.
OBAMA: There's nothing more difficult than me being on the phone hearing about their soccer game.
SHIPMAN: Some political watchers argue that voters are ready to move beyond gender clichés.
ARIANA HUFFINGTON (Huffington Post co-founder): We as a culture don't need to be buying the stereotype that men are tough, women are emotional. In a way, she's giving into the cultural stereotype if she does that.
[end video clip]
SHIPMAN: The Clinton campaign was uncharacteristically quiet on all of this, but the two women are quickly developing an acrimonious history.
From the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Mrs. Edwards told Salon.com she doesn't think Hillary is a strong enough advocate for women on issues like health care and abortion. Edwards said she understands why sometimes Hillary has to campaign like a man in order to make up for the fact that she's not.
Two questions: Is Hillary Clinton's sex and her femininity still an issue in the presidential race, and would John Edwards be well served to get as publicly tough as his wife is? Here to answer those questions, associate editor of The Hill A.B. Stoddard and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey [R-TX]. Welcome to you both. A.B. Stoddard, is -- I mean, let's take this critique seriously -- is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?
From the July 17 edition of Taranto's "Best of the Web Today":
Yet another ultraliberal woman has been won over by John Edwards's womanly charms: his spouse, Elizabeth Edwards. In an interview with Salon, Mrs. Edwards suggests that Mrs. Clinton is more mannish than Mr. Edwards:
When I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women.
Taking a slight liberty with the quote, the Drudge Report ran (and later changed) the banner:
GENDER BENDER: WIFE EDWARDS SAYS HILLARY 'BEHAVING LIKE A MAN'
This put Salon editrix Joan Walsh, who conducted the interview, on the defensive:
I knew Edwards was making news when she criticized Clinton, but she was definitely not calling her a man, which is one of the GOP's favorite slurs against Hillary Clinton. This is the last, best hope of the Republicans to hold onto the White House: To brand the leading candidate, who happens to be female, as too mannish, while slurring the leading men -- John Edwards and Barack Obama -- as girly.
We remember reading such slurs in an article just last week:
In a few words, this Iowa voter had epitomized the struggle now playing out between the top two Democrats nationally. They are fighting for undecided female voters who are attracted by Obama's feminine appeal, but still drawn to the macho performance of the only woman to ever have a real shot at the Oval Office.
May the best woman win.
The author of that piece, Salon's Michael Scherer, didn't even hazard a guess as to whether Edwards was male or female. If you believe what you read in Salon, it takes a chicken sexer to keep the Democrats straight.
From the July 17 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you what, folks, we wanted to go back and play this update because Mrs. Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, has confirmed all of this. You remember back in March, The New York Sun -- Josh Gerstein did a story in The New York Sun in which he had talked to -- what was her name? Oh, Kate Michelman. Kate Michelman, former abortion-leader babe, said of all the candidates, that John Edwards was the most sensitive to women. Of all -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. John Edwards was the guy, first female president. Just like Clinton was the first black president, John Edwards was going to be the first female president.
And so we put together this update having seen that. And then, of course, Media Matters for America got all upset that I would dare stoop this low. Well, now Mrs. Edwards has confirmed it today. Elizabeth Edwards has said Hillary is just -- she's -- well, let me get it up here. I don't want to paraphrase this because it's too important. Hillary is behaving like a man, unlike her husband. So vindication, ladies and gentlemen.
Limbaugh ;"Well, now Mrs. Edwards has confirmed it today. Elizabeth Edwards has said Hillary is just -- she's -- well, let me get it up here. I don't want to paraphrase this because it's too important. Hillary is behaving like a man, unlike her husband.
He doesn't want to paraphrase, and then he goes on to twist what Mrs. Edwards said?
I take Limbaugh at his word. I'm sure he didn't want to paraphrase Edwards, but he was forced. It's the voices. They made him do it. Why won't they go away and leave him alone? He's done what they've asked for years, but they always want more! WHY???!!!
The residual effect of all that OcyContin.....
But that doesn't explain why Bill Clinton is, apparently, *irresistible* to women.
Republicans are just JEALOUS.
(Just kidding, that was satire... can't you humorless Republicans take a joke?)
:-)
"is Hillary Clinton too manly to be president?"Is Tucker Carlson too stoopid and immature to comment on news?Is Limbaugh too...Limbaugh...to do anything?
D'oh, can Tucker be even stupider than Homer?
Graydogs beat me to it. Rush assuring his ditto-bone-heads that he's "retrieving the actual quote and not paraphrasing (I'll even ignore Limpbaugh's choice of "let me get it up here". oops), and then making up his own quote.
Just like Drudge's made-up headline in quotes from this item, or Sean Hannity's tendency to bookend a rant with "quote" and "unquote", while editorializing through the entire thing, it seems these guys have found audiences who don't notice the ham-fisted propaganda and disregard for any journalistic standards that are the bread and butter of their most trusted sources of information.
Damn! and I put one lone quotation mark before "retrieve". Typo mulligan, I wasn't trying to falsely attribute half of a quote.
Elizabeth Edwards involunarily revealed the fear that the Edwards camp has about Sen. Clinton. The senator from NY is more of a man than John "predatory lender" Edwards can ever hope to be. Additionally, the "poverty champ" (he is all for creating more poor) is more of a woman than Sen. Clinton. LOL.....bring the popcorn as liberals try to explain these blatant sexist stereotypes.Won't be surprised to see Elizabeth Edwards to claim (in the near future) that her husband is "more black" than Barack Hussein Obama or some such.
Why would you expect "liberals" to try to explain your stereotypes?
HBL has it right- why would "us lib'ruls" try to explain YOUR stereotyping idiocy?
Amazing, you people. A "real man" you say. A "real man" like Vitter, or perhaps Foley? Is that the type of "real men" you prefer?
"Amazing, you people. A "real man" you say. A "real man" like Vitter, or perhaps Foley? Is that the type of "real men" you prefer?"I never used the word "real man" in my post. Essentially, the gist of your argument is based on something I never wrote...LOL. Keith Olberman, I presume?
So rather than actually READ the entire article, you just start in by making a smart assed remark about the spin Rush put on this....not what was actually said.
To paraphrase....Mrs. Edwards said that her husband is more concerned about the issues of women than Senator Clinton....NOT that he is more of a women than her.
She goes on to explain that she understands why Sen. Clinton may be doing this, because she has been in the same position as Sen. Clinton....a woman working in a field dominated by men. Sen. Clinton is working so hard to be portrayed a tough, that she side steps the issues of women, or of being one. I can see both sides though. How fast do you think the right would spin her into being more concerned about kids and mommies than Iraq?
Women have worked in fields dominated by men for years, and in many cases, if they want to be taken seriously, they detach themselves from their gender to blend in. This does not make Sen. Clinton a man...nor does it make John Edwards a woman because he is willing to discuss the issues and concerns of women.
What many forget in these threads, is that NO MATTER WHAT is said or done, it can be spun into something else in today's media. Sure, there are left wing columnists, and TV pundants, but anything they say that is contrary to right wing talking points, can be spun by louder media voices.
This is what MMFA is all about. They show us day after day, how the public is being bombarded by everything from outright lies, to very subtle uses of words and phrases..and how we have gotten to the point where no one is able to counter the misinformation they place in millions of households.
Actually, what they're doing is taking an unflattering story for Mrs. Edwards, or an unflattering story for Mrs. Clinton, depending on your point of view - and making it the media's fault.
V-I-C-T-I-M alert!
Tommy.....I didn't read this as an unflattering story about Mrs. Clinton, or an unflattering comment from Mrs. Edwards.
I swear there are two people who write under the handle of "Tommy". One who is sometimes, intelligent and willing to discuss subjects on an adult level, even if I don't agree with a word that you said......and then there is the other "Tommy", who makes stupid, or ignorant comments like you have made about this article.
If you read the article, you would see how the "spin" is completely opposite of what Mrs. Edwards said. I think what she said is correct, but I can also see how Sen. Clinton would see the angles of spin coming should she dwell on any women's isues, or God forbid remind anyone that she is a women. The spin is going to get her no matter how she behaves....it's simply which road do you take with the fewest "bumps".
Mrs. Edwards thinks she is taking the wrong road, but she also said, that being a woman who also worked in a field dominated by men, SHE UNDERSTANDS, she just doesn't agree on how Sen. Clinton is handling it. That's not an attack, it not embrarrassing for either of them, it's not unflattering.
What IS embarrassing, is that you SHOULD be able to see this difference when you read it, but you are too busy trying to be clever... stirring this up into something it clearly isn't. I know that you have some intelligence in there somewhere Tommy, because I have seen some in other posts. Which "Tommy" will be writing today?
Despite your petty insults on my posting, which is ironic in itself.........I repeat, I never used the word "attack". You either agree with Mrs. Edwards or you don't. I don't.
See, that's not hard.
Tommy......I NEVER said that YOU used the word attack.
Excuse me Mrs. Edwards...but I don't expect Hillary to be an advocate for woman. Nor do I expect Obama to be an advocate for African-Americans, or Romney to be an advocate for rich White men.
I expect the President to be an advocate [not even sure that's the correct word to use here] for the American people...no matter, color, gender, religion or financial status.
Well said, Mrs. Edwards' husband will do anything, apparently, to garner some media attention to his struggling campaign....this isn't the first time.
I wouldn't trust him...............
MISOGYNY works as argument, conversation, and "gool ol' boy" chatter in the locker rooms at the Country Club golf course.
For some reason, the Rightwing ... misogynists all ... think that this insulting and discriminatory stereotyping will work to the wider audience, and will convince the nation that women are incapable, silly, unserious, and when they TRY to be professional (i.e. more like "men"), then thy become some sort of hybrid monsters (i.e. more like "men").
What gets back-slapping and total agreement in the locker room will not play as well to the general audience, because MORE THAN HALF of that audience is made up of the people being belittled, insulted, and condecended to.
I'm very encouraged that the Right is tone deaf about the effectiveness of this "argument". They are cutting their own throats, if not lower.
Tex sweetheart,
Sorry, but your tired rightwing bashing just doesn't fit here, this is about one of your own "eating" one of your own....you can blame the rightwing in your fantasyland all you want, but reality disagrees.
But you been there before.
Tommy dahlink,"Media trot out gender stereotypes" The media sweetie, not the candidates, not the candidates spouse’s are using gender stereo types to discredit and disparage candidates. Your post is all wrong, my little cabbage, you scrumptious little snickedoodle.
Blame the media, blame the media.....the new leftwing talking point.
If you do that you can stick your head in the middle of the political sand and not have to take a side in this little squirmish between the two Democratic camps.......how convenient for you and the folks here.
Never speak a negative word against any Democrat, blame someone else - it works all the time.
Tommy, did you actually read the quote? Or did you rely on some one else's interpretation of what was said? (Rush's, Hannity's, etc?)
The quote does not bash either Edwards, Clinton or anyone at all.
She is saying, Hillary does not deal with women's issues as much as her husband does. But that she understands why Hillary does not do so, out of fear of being labeled as womanly or only concerned with women's issues.
This is not an attack, but some are twisting it to appear as such.
P.S. Soon we will see ads/opinions written regarding Edward's inability to "control" his wife or that she is a lose cannon that will hurt his campaign. When in fact she is one of the most honest upfront people involved in the campaign so far. Something Americans whine that they want all the time.
I don't believe I ever used the word "attack".
Nevertheless, the attempt here to shift the focus away from Mrs. Edward's words to a selected few in the media's take on it, is interesting.
But Tommy.....there is NO NEED TO SHIFT THE ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT MRS. EDWARDS SAID. So we are back to square one with you again.
Tommy.....clean off your screen. Adifferent McCain didn't say that YOU said attack either. ADMc was just using the word attack, as I did, to explain that we don't think Mrs. Edwards said anything wrong. BTW, I also described what she said as not being embrarrasing, yet you didn't say that I said YOU called her remark "embarassing". Is it any wonder that you can't make heads or tails out of an article.
Take your explanation directly to Bill Clinton then, because his response to it was exactly consistent to the way the rest of us read the comments.
TOMMY post 1: "Take your explanation directly to Bill Clinton then, because his response to it was exactly consistent to the way the rest of us read the comments"
TOMMY post 2"...you can find Bill's response to it anywhere on the web today where he says "I don't think she's trying to be a man"
I just spent half an hour on Google inserting various combinations of search words .... Bill Clinton, wife, man, Edwards, comment, etc., and I found not one article where Bill Clinton responds to what Mrs. Edwards said.
I'm not saying it' not out there, and it really doesn't change anything about the "spin" reported in this article, but you did say"....you can find Bill's response to it anywhere on the web today....." Can you show us where you saw this "anyhere" on ther internet?
Check out youtube.com, it's there under "I don't think she's trying to be a man" by Bill Clinton in response to Diane Sawyer.
I searched youtube inside and out, and used the phrase you gave me as well as other search words, but it said zero results.....
I did find this on the USA Today web site, section, "On Politics" However; it hardly proves your point, because it's what Mrs. Edwards actually said that matters.
They link to another On Politics update, where it is announced that Drudge removed his incorrect headline from his Report.
__________________________________________
"Since our post first went up, several other blogs have picked up on the headline that Drudge put out -- to a quote that wasn't in the interview. They include TPM Cafe's Election Central, Politico's Ben Smith and Time's Swampland.
Drudge, meanwhile, has taken down the big headline and -- to his credit -- is right now linking to this post, where we pointed out the problem with his original headline. posted by Mark Memmott
_______________________________________
OnPolitics USATODAY:
On ABC's Good Morning America today, former president Bill Clinton had this to say about his wife and whether he agrees with Elizabeth Edwards that sometimes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton might feel pressured to "behave as a man and not talk about women's issues."
"I don't think she's trying to be a man," the former president said of Sen. Clinton, who hopes be the next president. "I don't think it's inconsistent with being a woman that you can also be knowledgeable on military and security affairs and be strong when the occasion demands it. I don't consider that manly. I consider it being a leader." By: Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence
And one more thing.....because Mr. Clinton uses the retracted, incorrect, title of the Drudge Report in his reply, it seems reasonable that this false quote was given to him before the interview and he understood it to be what Mrs. Edwards said.
False quote? Read Mrs. Edwards quote where she specifically said "behave like a man", which was the exact quote Sawyer asked Bill about - hence his very reasoned response.
In any event, if you want to straddle the fence and equivocate with this, I could care less. Mrs. Edwards knew exactly what she was doing - subtly targeting the front runner because her husband's campaign needs some attention. That's politics.
Then we can assume that Drudge was wrong when he made his retraction for claiming she said otherwise? I wonder why he thought his title quoted her wrong?
Did I say anything about Drudge? He is irrelevant to this discussion. Your posting from GMA is where the exact quotes are, and they were not misrepresented by Sawyer in her question to Bill.
They are also in this thread above "behave as a man and not talk about woman's issues"
And I stand by everything that I have said. The article addresses the Drudge title, and how it misquotes Mrs. Edwards, and the spin following the interview.
The entire comment must be taken as a whole, not just three words, which refer to herself and other women. Mrs. Edwards was reflecting about how SHE felt as a woman in a man's field, saying that women often feel the need to behave like a man to fit in. She doesn't state that Sen. Clinton behaves like a man. Drudge retracted his title, so he must agree with MMFA.
I didn't watch the video, but If Mr. Clinton's response was based on what Diane Sawyer asked him, and how she phrased it, then the problem is with Diane Sawyer's question. This does not make your point that Mr. Clinton agrees that Mrs. Edwards said his wife behaves like a man. So according to you, he responsed to Diane Sawyer's wording, not Mrs. Edwards comment, and this proves your point?
Mrs. Edwards; "Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues........."
Oh my little buttercup,
Just for the record, I would never in a million years vote for either Hillary or Edwards or any Democrat until they at least try to impeach Cheney. I donated money, time and blood (got pricked by an overgrown rose bush while driving old lady to vote) in anticipation of massive Ken Starr style attack on Bush/Rove/Cheney boys only clubhouse.
Is that enough of an attack on Dems for ya?
Well obviously this was addressed to Tommasino, just for the record.
Just for the record, I disagree with Mrs. Edwards here - her characterization of Mrs. Clinton is off base.
I realize her husband's campaign needs any publicity it can muster, and if he isn't up to criticizing Hillary, then let the wife do it, apparently.
Tommy......You didn't read the article either did you.
This is NOT about someone on our side eating their own. Read my comment above for a better explanation.
Mrs. Edwards DID NOT say her husband was more of a woman than Sen. Clinton ....as it is being SPUN by the right. Hence, the reason of this article. It's how the right is spinning what Mrs. Edwards said.
I think Mrs. Edwards was being sympathetic telling Sen. Clinton that she understands why she is separating herself from women's issues.....trying to fit into the men's club, but she was also telling her she can't let this keep her away from women's issues. It wasn't an attack. I took it as a comment about a woman, from a woman who has "been there".
I could care less what the media says, I read Mrs. Edwards exact words and it is hardly an endorsement of Mrs. Clinton - you can find Bill's response to it anywhere on the web today where he says "I don't think she's trying to be a man".
So the dustup is there and it ain't the media's fault. It's a minor and most likely forgettable little tiff, but stop blaming someone else - it's whining.
jiminy Tommy, If indeed you say and meant it, "I could care less what the media says" why do you spend every waking moment commentating in a forumn exclusively devoted to what the media says?
I could care less what they say on this particular issue, does that help clarify an obvious comment?
No, you are still the same mysterious, sinister poster I have always thought you were.
have a splediferous day honey.