Yesterday, I posted a story about the media's motivations for playing up the drama of the Clinton-Obama relationship. I had mainly asserted that the MSM looks for easily translatable frames like the hero-nemesis frame to play up in order to capture immediate attention. But many commenters pointed out that there is a deeper dynamic to the nature of the media coverage of Clinton. On DailyKos, user DrFritz said:
“I think there's a lot of sexism masquerading as recognition of the clout of female voters. Hillary's supporters are being portrayed as emotional rather than pragmatic. Buchanan is only the loudest among many pushing this take on things. Hillary's supporters should be up in arms about that, if you ask me. The media has not corrected the sexism that did leak out during this election, it's compounding it as a part of the bid for phony drama to pump ratings. They really need to think SERIOUSLY about the criticisms that have been voiced throughout the process.”
The sad truth is that, in this day and age, the go-to line of attack for any argument given by a woman is still that of “she's just being emotional.” As a woman, I find this attack flung at me all the time. A prime example of this is a response to a letter to the editor I submitted to the Boulder Daily Camera, regarding White House Spokesman Geoff Morrell's making a joke in response to reports that KBR had forced troops to shower in wastewater:
“Why does he smile? Kate Drazner thinks it's because he (and the rest of this administration) are despicable. Hers is a stubborn emotional viewpoint, so there's no point in arguing the point.”
The problem is, regardless of how far we have progressed as a nation in terms of equal rights, it is just too damn tempting to defer to this archaic viewpoint because it's so easy. You no longer shoulder the responsibility of having a substantive dialog about the issues when you can just say “you're just emotional, so there's no point in reasoning with you.”
But I should point out that it works both ways: men are often subjected to attacks on their masculinity as the easy fall-back argument against them. Take the New York Magazine's headline about Hillary Clinton's inclusion in the DNC: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"
The underlying tone here is that 1.) Obama is somehow weak to allow Clinton to be included in the DNC and 2.) more generally, it is a man's responsibility to keep women in their place. Says Eric Boehlert of MediaMatters:
“Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line.”
Is this the filter through which America should be getting it's information? And how much of these subliminal enforcement of traditional gender roles is influencing the social compass of our country and inhibiting its progress? Progressive Future seeks to deconstruct these obstacles by leading a nation-wide campaign to get people talking about the issues and not just accepting the news at face value.
We're organizing in key states all over the country this fall, and mobilizing progressive citizens to talk to their family, friends and neighbors about the issues that matter in this election, whether it's the right to an unbiased, open press, bringing our troops home responsibly, investing in domestic initiatives, or educating citizens about voting rights. Click here to be a part of the movement.
