advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Janit
Date: December 03, 2017 07:39AM
The Men Who Cost Clinton the Election

[www.nytimes.com]

Quote

Jill Filipovic DEC. 1, 2017

Matt Lauer, like Charlie Rose and Mark Halperin before him, is a journalist out of a job after his employer fired him for sexually harassing female colleagues. It’s good news that real penalties are now leveled on men who harass — after centuries of the costs mostly befalling the women who endure harassment. But the deep cultural rot that has corroded nearly all of our institutions and every corner of our culture is not just about a few badly behaved men. Sexual harassment, and the sexism it’s predicated on, involves more than the harassers and the harassed; when the harassers are men with loud microphones, their private misogyny has wide-reaching public consequences. One of the most significant: the 2016 election.

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico.

A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

A month ago, Rebecca Traister wrote in New York magazine that with the flood of sexual harassment charges, “we see that the men who have had the power to abuse women’s bodies and psyches throughout their careers are in many cases also the ones in charge of our political and cultural stories.” With the Lauer accusations, this observation has come into sharper focus on one particular picture: the media sexism that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss.

The 2016 presidential race was so close that any of a half-dozen factors surely influenced the outcome: James Comey, racial politics, Clinton family baggage, the contentious Democratic primary, third-party spoilers, Russian interference, fake news. But when one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history and the first woman to get close to the Oval Office loses to an opponent who had not dedicated a nanosecond of his life to public service and ran a blatantly misogynist campaign, it’s hard to conclude that gender didn’t play a role.

For arguing that gender shaped the election narrative and its result, feminists have been pooh-poohed, simultaneously told that it was Clinton, not her gender, that was the problem and that her female supporters were voting with their @#$%& instead of their brains.

The latest harassment and assault allegations complicate that account and suggest that perhaps many of the high-profile media men covering Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the ones leading with their genitals. Mr. Trump was notoriously accused of multiple acts of sexual harassment and assault, and was caught on tape bragging about his proclivity for grabbing women. That several of the men covering the race — shaping the way American voters understood the candidates and what was at stake — were apparently behaving in similarly appalling ways off-camera calls into question not just their objectivity but also their ability to cover the story with the seriousness and urgency it demanded.

Sexual harassment at the hands of political journalists also pulls back the curtain on how too many of these men view women generally. The journalists in question are accused of a range of behaviors, some more serious than others, from drunken unsolicited kisses to, in Mr. Lauer’s case, sexual assault (in addition to exposing himself to a colleague and sending another a sex toy with a note detailing how he would like to use it on her). The theme running through nearly all of the complaints is a man in a position of power who saw the women around him not as competent colleagues or as even sovereign human beings, but as sexual objects he could either proposition to boost his ego or humiliate to feed a desire for domination.

It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place. When men turn some women into sexual objects, the women who are inside that box are one-dimensional, while those outside of it become disposable; the ones who refuse to be disposed of, who continue to insist on being seen and heard, are inconvenient and pitiable at best, deceitful shrews and crazy harpies at worst. That’s exactly how some commentary and news coverage treated Mrs. Clinton.

This has ripple effects for all women. Men are assumed to fail or succeed based on merit; they are mentored and supported by more senior men, and no one bats an eye. Young women, though, are often treated as suspect if more senior men take an interest in them (and too often, more senior men’s interests are suspect indeed, but it’s women’s reputations that suffer the stigma of being thought to sleep or flirt their way to the top rather than earning their perches).

When men see women as sex objects first and colleagues second, their actual talents, skills and smarts are easily overlooked. A boss who harasses the woman in the cubicle next to you may not be sexually coercing you or torpedoing your career, but his actions signal that he does not see women as competent co-workers entitled to a rewarding and effective workplace.

Some commentators, most notably Geraldo Rivera, have written some acts of harassment off as courtship gone awry. This is truly bizarre, and it illustrates just how tied we are to the idea that women are inherently inviting sexual aggression and that men are inherently sexually voracious and socially clueless. Women, and most men, know that courtship doesn’t typically take the form of unwanted grabbing or unsolicited indecent exposure. (“Mommy and Daddy fell in love the day Daddy called Mommy into his office and began vigorously @#$%& at her” is not exactly a meet-cute story.)

This moment isn’t about a nation of confused men. It’s about a minority of men who choose to treat women alternately as walking sex objects or bothersome and potentially devious nags. It’s about a majority of Americans who give men a pass for all manner of bad behavior, because they assume men are entitled to behave badly but hold women to an entirely different standard.

That is why it’s so egregious that sexual harassers set the tone of much of the coverage of the woman who hoped to be the first female president.

These “Crooked Hillary” narratives pushed by Mr. Lauer, Mr. Halperin, and a long list of other prominent journalists and pundits indelibly shaped the election, and were themselves gendered: Hillary Clinton as a cackling witch, Hillary Clinton a woman it was easy to distrust because she was also a woman seeking power, and what kind of woman does that? Mr. Trump emphasized this caricature as part of his more broadly sexist campaign, but he didn’t invent it. Nor was he the only famous man going on television to perpetuate it — while revealing a deep disdain for women when the cameras weren’t rolling.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: December 03, 2017 08:11AM
Quote

...the deep cultural rot that has corroded nearly all of our institutions and every corner of our culture is not just about a few badly behaved men.

It’s not “rot” or “corrosion”. Both words imply there was a time when it wasn’t rotten, when there was no corrosion; that there was a time when it was less rotten and corroded than it is now.

What she’s really discussing is a “status quo” which likely has no quantifiable starting point.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 03, 2017 09:17AM
I was far more aware of, and exposed to, claims of Clinton's "criminal" acts during the campaign than I was anything related to her gender. I'm referring to the relentless campaign rhetoric and news coverage.

What makes it hard for antagnonists to separate, is when they see women advocating for women or people of color advocating for other people of color. They quickly button it ALL up in gender/race, skewing the conversation, as if none of us should connect with others who visually represent us ... when THEY (whites, and men) do it every day.

It's a distraction.

Any minority's status is always a factor. Ideology is far bigger, still. Progressives were caught once again taking a nap in 2016, spinning their wheels about Trump without realizing that those who voted for him voted for an ideology, not the person.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: $tevie
Date: December 03, 2017 10:54AM
Quote
deckeda
I was far more aware of, and exposed to, claims of Clinton's "criminal" acts during the campaign than I was anything related to her gender. I'm referring to the relentless campaign rhetoric and news coverage.

What makes it hard for antagnonists to separate, is when they see women advocating for women or people of color advocating for other people of color. They quickly button it ALL up in gender/race, skewing the conversation, as if none of us should connect with others who visually represent us ... when THEY (whites, and men) do it every day.

It's a distraction.

Any minority's status is always a factor. Ideology is far bigger, still. Progressives were caught once again taking a nap in 2016, spinning their wheels about Trump without realizing that those who voted for him voted for an ideology, not the person.
Firstly, I feel like your response ignored everything said in the article.

Second of all, I think you are trying to get progressives off the hook as being part of the misogynist tilt and you are wrong to do so. Trust me, if Clinton was a man she wouldn't have appeared nearly so "evil" to the progressives who walked off and left us with Trump.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: sekker
Date: December 03, 2017 11:05AM
If a man with HC qualifications had run using the same game plan, he would have won.

No question in my mind.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 03, 2017 11:35AM
A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

Dang. That's a paragraph right there. If you tried to tell a conservative that NBC or CBS were anti-Clinton they'd laugh you out of the room though.

It's also worth noting that men (and some women) in television media and punditry all over the country take their cues from people like Matt Lauer or Charlie Rose and Mark Halperin, and copy their styles. So the ripple effect of this behavior throughout media would be profound.

There's no question that the media went easy on Donald Trump, including the really liberal media. They thought Hillary had it in the bag and they didn't want to be perceived as easy on her. They were also asleep at the wheel on the ideology that propelled Trump.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 03, 2017 12:45PM
Does anyone ever consider the misogynistic points of view and harassment here on the forum? The other side is particularly bad. The men are definitely a majority but that shouldn't make it a safe place for bad behavior.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 03, 2017 01:12PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Does anyone ever consider the misogynistic points of view and harassment here on the forum? The other side is particularly bad. The men are definitely a majority but that shouldn't make it a safe place for bad behavior.

$tevie started a discussion about it four years ago:

[forums.macresource.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: sekker
Date: December 03, 2017 01:26PM
I work in an organization that is 2/3 women, but 90% men in power.

You could hear a cricket chirping in the deafness of the response the MIP have taken to this new environment.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: December 03, 2017 01:29PM
Self hating men with special insight into her being an enabler of a harasser?



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 03, 2017 01:48PM
Quote
Ted King
Quote
Lemon Drop
Does anyone ever consider the misogynistic points of view and harassment here on the forum? The other side is particularly bad. The men are definitely a majority but that shouldn't make it a safe place for bad behavior.

$tevie started a discussion about it four years ago:

[forums.macresource.com]

that was interesting and thoughtful, thanks

the behavior I'm thinking of isn't about photos of women though. It's about treatment of women who post on the forum, and sexist, misogynistic language and attitudes that are prevalent among some posters. Rarely includes any pictures. I don't want to say anything more about it, or call out examples. Just wanted to say that it's noticed, and due to it I stopped posting on the other side a long time ago, only to forget and get re-reminded.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 03, 2017 01:56PM
Quote
sekker
I work in an organization that is 2/3 women, but 90% men in power.

You could hear a cricket chirping in the deafness of the response the MIP have taken to this new environment.

Why do you think there are not more women in those leadership roles at your place?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 03, 2017 02:45PM
Quote
$tevie
Quote
deckeda
I was far more aware of, and exposed to, claims of Clinton's "criminal" acts during the campaign than I was anything related to her gender. I'm referring to the relentless campaign rhetoric and news coverage.

What makes it hard for antagnonists to separate, is when they see women advocating for women or people of color advocating for other people of color. They quickly button it ALL up in gender/race, skewing the conversation, as if none of us should connect with others who visually represent us ... when THEY (whites, and men) do it every day.

It's a distraction.

Any minority's status is always a factor. Ideology is far bigger, still. Progressives were caught once again taking a nap in 2016, spinning their wheels about Trump without realizing that those who voted for him voted for an ideology, not the person.
Firstly, I feel like your response ignored everything said in the article.

Second of all, I think you are trying to get progressives off the hook as being part of the misogynist tilt and you are wrong to do so. Trust me, if Clinton was a man she wouldn't have appeared nearly so "evil" to the progressives who walked off and left us with Trump.

What you feel and what you think are incorrect assumptions and misinterpretations of what I typed.

I shared exactly what I thought I --- ME --- was being fed by the media at large. And then, in my 2nd paragraph, I described how mysonigists distract. Again, it was an observation about OTHERS. So forgive me for sharing some insight, and tacit acknowledgment, about what my fellow men perpetrated. You completely turned what I typed around so that I could be neatly included, for the offense of not 100% nodding in agreement with the article without perspective.

Try a little harder to not read what I type as secretly being all about ME.

I do not know how or why you feel as if I'm giving progressives a free pass with anything here. And that attitude is tiresome. The author noted several pieces of the puzzle; I do not recall denying any of them. I'll try harder next time to guess when it's OK to contribute here, and when I should just "know my place," thanks.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: $tevie
Date: December 03, 2017 02:45PM
I would like to note that things seem much better here then when I started that thread. Less non-sequitur nekkid women and a LOT less OMG I have to go j@rk o## now comments. I still think that people seem hyper-sensitive about potentially political comments whereas rude is seen as A-OK, but overall I think things are improved. At least folks seem to realize that we don't need to know when they get erections!

There are a couple of men here who are irredeemable misogynists but basically I have nothing in common with them, so I can put them on Ignore and not miss much.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: $tevie
Date: December 03, 2017 02:51PM
Quote
deckeda
Quote
$tevie
Quote
deckeda
I was far more aware of, and exposed to, claims of Clinton's "criminal" acts during the campaign than I was anything related to her gender. I'm referring to the relentless campaign rhetoric and news coverage.

What makes it hard for antagnonists to separate, is when they see women advocating for women or people of color advocating for other people of color. They quickly button it ALL up in gender/race, skewing the conversation, as if none of us should connect with others who visually represent us ... when THEY (whites, and men) do it every day.

It's a distraction.

Any minority's status is always a factor. Ideology is far bigger, still. Progressives were caught once again taking a nap in 2016, spinning their wheels about Trump without realizing that those who voted for him voted for an ideology, not the person.
Firstly, I feel like your response ignored everything said in the article.

Second of all, I think you are trying to get progressives off the hook as being part of the misogynist tilt and you are wrong to do so. Trust me, if Clinton was a man she wouldn't have appeared nearly so "evil" to the progressives who walked off and left us with Trump.

What you feel and what you think are incorrect assumptions and misinterpretations of what I typed.

I shared exactly what I thought I --- ME --- was being fed by the media at large. And then, in my 2nd paragraph, I described how mysonigists distract. Again, it was an observation about OTHERS. So forgive me for sharing some insight, and tacit acknowledgment, about what my fellow men perpetrated. You completely turned what I typed around so that I could be neatly included, for the offense of not 100% nodding in agreement with the article without perspective.

Try a little harder to not read what I type as secretly being all about ME.

I do not know how or why you feel as if I'm giving progressives a free pass with anything here. And that attitude is tiresome. The author noted several pieces of the puzzle; I do not recall denying any of them. I'll try harder next time to guess when it's OK to contribute here, and when I should just "know my place," thanks.
You have misinterpreted my response as badly as you misinterpreted the article. Let's not discuss this any longer.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 03, 2017 03:01PM
Quote
$tevie
I would like to note that things seem much better here then when I started that thread.


that's good to hear.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Speedy
Date: December 03, 2017 03:54PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
$tevie
I would like to note that things seem much better here then when I started that thread.


that's good to hear.

Some of us never change. I have seven identical shirts in my closet. Nothing else, just those seven shirts.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 03, 2017 04:01PM
Quote
$tevie
...Let's not discuss this any longer.

Yes, that's convenient.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Ammo
Date: December 03, 2017 06:20PM
Thanks for the OP, Janit.

At times, I’m surprised how misogynist some of my attitudes are until I am prompted to think about it. As the late Paul Wellstone said, “We all do better when we all do better.”



Always remember that your present situation is not your final destination.

"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." Jim Hightower
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Janit
Date: December 03, 2017 07:13PM
Quote
deckeda
What you feel and what you think are incorrect assumptions and misinterpretations of what I typed.

I shared exactly what I thought I --- ME --- was being fed by the media at large. And then, in my 2nd paragraph, I described how mysonigists distract. Again, it was an observation about OTHERS. So forgive me for sharing some insight, and tacit acknowledgment, about what my fellow men perpetrated. You completely turned what I typed around so that I could be neatly included, for the offense of not 100% nodding in agreement with the article without perspective.

Try a little harder to not read what I type as secretly being all about ME.

I do not know how or why you feel as if I'm giving progressives a free pass with anything here. And that attitude is tiresome. The author noted several pieces of the puzzle; I do not recall denying any of them. I'll try harder next time to guess when it's OK to contribute here, and when I should just "know my place," thanks.

dedeka- please consider the possibility that what you wrote was unclearly expressed, and therefore difficult for the reader to understand or interpret. By profession, I am a writer and editor, I disentangle matted prose for a living, and I could see that it would have taken me an extensive back-and-forth to extract the intended meaning out of your comment. Sorry for the bluntness, but it's late in the day, I am tired, and sound of you guys fighting is exhausting me further.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: sekker
Date: December 04, 2017 08:42PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
sekker
I work in an organization that is 2/3 women, but 90% men in power.

You could hear a cricket chirping in the deafness of the response the MIP have taken to this new environment.

Why do you think there are not more women in those leadership roles at your place?

For all of the standard fraternal reasons. Good ol' boys, etc.

For those of us who have a broader mind, we are often excluded from the discussions - so even those progressive males are ostracized.

It's SLOWLY changing, but it will still be bad even when I retire without MAJOR cultural change.

I see no current members of the core leadership who thinks this is that important.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: pdq
Date: December 05, 2017 02:02PM
Quote
Speedy
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
$tevie
I would like to note that things seem much better here then when I started that thread.


that's good to hear.

Some of us never change. I have seven identical shirts in my closet. Nothing else, just those seven shirts.

Speedy, I'd go the extra mile and get seven different shirts. You still don't have to think about it, and folks may never notice that every Tuesday it's those same blue stripes.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Speedy
Date: December 05, 2017 02:24PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Speedy
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
$tevie
I would like to note that things seem much better here then when I started that thread.


that's good to hear.

Some of us never change. I have seven identical shirts in my closet. Nothing else, just those seven shirts.

Speedy, I'd go the extra mile and get seven different shirts. You still don't have to think about it, and folks may never notice that every Tuesday it's those same blue stripes.

Too much trouble.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The deeper implications of sexual harassment by journalists
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 05, 2017 05:46PM
Quote
sekker
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
sekker
I work in an organization that is 2/3 women, but 90% men in power.

You could hear a cricket chirping in the deafness of the response the MIP have taken to this new environment.

Why do you think there are not more women in those leadership roles at your place?

For all of the standard fraternal reasons. Good ol' boys, etc.

For those of us who have a broader mind, we are often excluded from the discussions - so even those progressive males are ostracized.

It's SLOWLY changing, but it will still be bad even when I retire without MAJOR cultural change.

I see no current members of the core leadership who thinks this is that important.

Keep chipping away. If there are systemic reasons that women are not being promoted or being hired for leadership roles, those should be addressed. Otherwise the dinosaur behavior is one way to kill an organization.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 87
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 847 on February 04, 2015