THE TRIVIALIZATION OF hillary clintonFriday, August 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm — admin
Lucky us! Today we get another fantastic guest post from Lois Adams.(Bio below)
This was always going to be a tall order, however- women's issues have never been on the foreign policy agenda of any SoS - whether male or female. And, despite HRC's pledge, people everywhere - and not just in the US - remain convinced that foreign policy is about men's issues, i.e. war and conflict, terrorism, nuclear weapons, hijackings etc. And if the SoS happens to be female she had better toe this line or risk being ridiculed. To wit: check out the Ann Althouse (apt name, that) eponymous blog for these choice words about Hillary, who, contendes that Hillary is "pissed" at being relegated to Africa by Obama: "Here I am in Africa, encouraging female farmers and consoling rape victims. I'm being marginalized, marginalized as a woman — with women. It's so unfair." Judith continues:
In fact, Bill's foray into North Korea was a godsend to the macho media for it was a convenient distraction from the appalling subject of rape and sexual assault which always makes them very uneasy. At best, their reaction is to studiously ignore it (clearly, if Hillary hadn't had her "outburst" they would just have done just that) or switch focus to feminism as the purported reason for bad male behaviour; at worst, pundits make sexist off-colour jokes and/or whine about "male-bashing". This time, hallelujah, Bill Clinton got the macho press off the hook. Not only did his trip to North Korea enable them to blunt the message SoS Clinton went to the Congo to deliver but also provided another great opportunity to indulge in the sniggering, Monica jokes that have now become so wearily predictable at any mention of the former president. And when Hillary lost her cool, however momentarily and however justifiably, they got to pot two Clintons for the price of one! And the female press - the misogynes d'appoint, as one French female writer calls them - were as usual cheering them on from the peanut gallery. Where male journalists feared to tread they rushed in with adolescent glee to chatter about Hillary's feeling fat and bad hair days; one English harpy went as far as to deliver on behalf of the men who would not have dared to do it the ultimate misogynistic sneer - maybe she was having her period! Judith says:
So what else is new? Madeleine Albright was called a snake and a witch, Condoleeza Rice was called a lesbian and unqualified for the job and Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky told the world that she "needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied." Yet both Albright and Rice performed well and above the average and managed to debunk the myth that only men could do the job. No one has any doubt that Hillary will too, which is precisely the point of "trivializing" her in advance. But because she has bravely chosen to grasp the nettle of "women's issues" - which Albright and Rice dared not touch with a ten foot pole in their day - one would think that women journalists, at least, would give her a break if only for their own selfish good. But I am not holding my breath. Bravery is in particularly short supply in the female press these days. Sorry Judith. LOIS ADAMS is an international lawyer - LLB (Hons.)(Euro), Exeter University, Devonshire, England - LLM, London University, London, England. |
|
Comments
I enjoyed Lois Adams' guest
I enjoyed Lois Adams' guest post. She speaks in to a universal belittlement all women feel.
Bravery is in particularly
Bravery is in particularly short supply in the female press these days.
no doubt about it, but what shall we do to changes this?
Why are female journalists so
Why are female journalists so spineless? And are they, really?
Louise North, a former journalist says:
"A female journalist trying to make it in a newspaper newsroom has just three options: use her feminine wiles, act like one of the boys, or accept she will always be an outsider... Young women know that to get into a newsroom you have to adjust to the culture, and (those) are the three strategies they usually tip between..." (and in most newsrooms, it seems they choose the second option). North also describes the atmosphere in her former newsroom, which includes lack of merit-based promotion and how this differs for male and female journalists; disparity in story allocations, with "hard news" still often seen as a male domain; and sexual harassment in the newsroom. Another key theme is the dominance of men in senior editorial positions." - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25496923-5016935,....
And just how outnumbered are they?
Media Report to Women says:
"Bylines in the nation’s top intellectual and political magazines are heavily male. In an analysis of 11 magazines published between October 2003 and May 2005), male-to-female byline ratios ranged from 13-1 at the National Review to 7-1 at Harper’s and The Weekly Standard to 2-1 at the Columbia Journalism Review. (Columbia Journalism Review, July-August 2005)" - http://www.mediareporttowomen.com/statistics.htm
And a quick look at the bylines on the major news blogs - even those run by women - reveals a similar picture. Chief among them? The Huffturncoat, whose home page today features 29 male to 8 female bylines (including the Huffturncoat herself).
As for major newspapers:
Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator says:
"Of the eleven columnists the Times advertises as its team of Op-Ed page writers, nine are whites. Of those nine, seven are -- ouch! -- the disgracefully whitest of white men!" - http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/21/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-be
Furthermore, the major news organizations are OWNED by white males and their mastheads and editorial boards feature only token female and minority representation - check out Jeffrey Lord's article mentioned above, and Women's Enews, which says:
"For executive positions, this year's report showed that the presence of women varied from as high as 50 percent at the Scholastic Corporation to nonexistent at seven--or 12 percent--of the 57 companies. Those with no women in their top jobs included McGraw-Hill, Fox Entertainment and the advertising giants Omnicom and Grey Global Group. For boards, the range went from 31 percent at the New York Times Company to zero at Fox Entertainment, Grey Global Group and a host of entertainment and telecom companies. Ten of the 57--18 percent--had no women on their boards. No company had boards or executive teams with a majority of women. - http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1681/context/archive
So the "female press" is pretty minuscule compared to the male, and heavily in thrall to the male.
What all this means, apparently, is that:
- since they aren't exactly thick on the ground, if female journalists wish to see their bylines in print they have to please their (male) bosses;
- this is particularly crucial in the increasingly misogynistic climate in the US fostered by both the left and the right, where sexism still sells and female politicians are expected not to "whine" about the egregious treatment reserved for them by male journalists and bloggers;
- pleasing a male boss means a willingness not only to tear women in the news to shreds - because they are women - but to "go the extra mile" in doing so, so as to "make your bones"; so
- if the male bosses decide a given female figure (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Britney Spears) becomes "fair game", you are expected to "fall in line" and join the hound pack baying for her blood; and
- if you don't like it you can just quit "whining" and leave.
What can we do to change this? Not much. He who pays the piper will always call the tune UNLESS the real bosses (the audiences) fight back and the company starts losing readership (hey, what a good idea!).
In the meantime, let's use the Internet which, last time I checked, was not under anyone's control (and that could be a good - as well as a bad - thing!).
Bravo to you Ms.
Bravo to you Ms. Adams!!!!!
This might be a good time for readers to review the FemiSex mission statement (under our "About" Tab) as well as our inaugural post -- a byline analysis of thought-leader magazines.
Also, in July of this year we did an updated byline analysis of the major thought-leader mags. (links below)
Here is part of our Mission Statement:
links:
http://www.femisex.com/content/and-man-shall-have-dominion-over-all-font...
http://www.femisex.com/content/males-alloted-85-bylines-power-periodical...
"Female print journalists
"Female print journalists made $9,000 less a year than their male colleagues while female television news directors made $4,000 less."
Ouch and that is several years ago per your link. I can only imagine what it is now.
Equally distressing, is it that women get only 85 per cent of bylines in leading magazines? That this continues year after year is really baffling.
Seeing cable I thought the differences had largely subsided. This is very enlightening.
Earlier this year a judge
Earlier this year a judge stopped an angry boyfriend from the beating he was giving his girlfriend in court. The judge was the hero, not the woman for not being afraid to testify against her boyfriend, and for taking the beating before the judge intervened.
This is analogous to Bill Clinton rescuing the two journalists from Korea while Hillary Clinton gets ridiculed for reacting honestly to a stupid question that was actually posed by a male member of the audience in Congo.
The male hero worship not only continues in the media, but it is then used as a reason for Hillary Clinton's reaction to a question that no matter how she had answered, would have put her under media scrutiny and ridicule.
http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2009/08/hillary-clinton-in-congo-being-ask...
Post new comment