Browse By

News & Notes Monday

I’m going to be on NPR’s News & Notes again Monday as part of the blogger’s roundtable.  One of the things we’re going to discuss is the incident Nora mentioned in the previous post. I’ll try to keep the disgust from my voice.

Also: I’m super excited.  I always feel honored when they ask me to come back!

ETA: Here’s a link to the show if you want to listen.

8 thoughts on “News & Notes Monday”

  1. John says:

    I’ve not been reading your stuff long, but what have read (including “Required Reading”) is great! I’m sure you’ll do just fine! No luck needed.

  2. Melissa says:

    Congratulations! I love this show!

  3. Rob Hansen says:

    OK, so this is not exactly the most important reason to be excited by the prospect of an Obama presidency, but he’s a geek! We could actually soon have a geek in the White House:

    I particularly like the Alfred E.Neuman comment.

    And congrats on the gig. Could this be the start of a future in TV punditry?

  4. the angry black woman says:

    I just said “oh noes” on national radio….

  5. Angel H. says:

    I just said “oh noes” on national radio….

    GEEK! ;-p

  6. Jon says:

    I think you missed the point about Palin’s $150,000 story. It’s not about and has nothing to do with sexism. It’s about hypocrisy and irony. The Republicans are painting Obama as an elitist who is out of touch. Palin is talking this ‘ordinary Americans’, ‘Joe Six Pack’, ‘hard-working middle America’ that sits around the dinner table worrying about how they’re going to pay the bills, pay for college.

    To claim sexism has me scratching my head. Biden was told to hold back don’t attack her because? Her gender. While Palin is allowed to be an attack dog. One can go on the attack without fear of retaliation and the other is told to hold back. Don’t remember ANYONE labeling that sexism. Can’t have it both ways.

    Also, Clinton’s crying was a play on gender, something McCain or Barack couldn’t have gotten away with.

  7. the angry black woman says:


    I might agree with you except that there are so many other fronts from which to attack Palin on those very points — the whole she’s not living as an average american thing. Stuff that has nothing to do with her clothes and hair and whatnot. It’s not that it isn’t at all valid to attack Palin, it’s the gendered way in which she is attacked.

    I often bring up the example of Ann Coulter. now, everyone who knows me a little bit knows that I think that woman is a fucking nut. Hateful, vile, evil. However, whenever someone starts talking about how she looks like a tranny (their word, not mine) or going on about her man hands and adam’s apple and that she’s ugly and whatever, I get pissed off. That’s a gendered attack and it’s sexist. There are plenty of legitimate grievances with Ann without bringing in traditional woman belittling.

    The whole thing with her being allowed to attack isn’t sexism. It’s just strategy. Biden had to walk a fine line in dealing with her, as most people do, because the aura around her is delicate little flower… until she attacks you OMG! But fi you attack her, she’s a delicate flower. Actually, I will amend, because it is sexism, but it’s still sexism against Palin that hurts her detractors.Sexism hurts us all.

    I don’t understand the point of your last paragraph.

  8. Jon says:

    I agree there are plenty of fronts to attack her and focusing on her looks distracts from those legitimate fronts. Personally I don’t care about her clothes in terms of fashion or aesthetic statements. To me the criticism was about the dollar figure of $150,000 (not the appearance). However her looks & her motherhood have been invoked and alluded to by her supporters as positives, and the latter promoted as part of her resume. So I think only to the extent that they are being put on the table they are fair game. One still doesn’t have to be crass but it is floated for discussion. And if one accepts the praise, you’ll have to live with the criticism. We can’t wait until it turns to criticism to then label it belittling.

    Men are not exempt from being judged superficially: JFK’s looks were in play, especially juxtaposed to Nixon. There has been talk about Barack’s looks, his smile, slender build, etc. I think handsome men are given more slack for their infidelities & indiscretions.

    I try not to think about Coulter.

    I referred to Clinton because a man couldn’t have gotten away with crying. So in a sense she was playing on her gender one moment, then complaining that it’s an issue the next. Sort of like women in the workplace who use the power of their femininity when it’s convenient and then complain about sexism.

    Question: Can something be sexist without being sexism? Like racial without being racist? The reason I ask is: IMO- With women there is just so much more to work with, more flexibility, creativity, experimentation when it comes to style. So there’s the novelty of critique; what one does with it. With men and professional attire, unfortunately there’s not much to work with, we’re basically stuck with 3/4 colors: blue, gray, brown & black, mostly boring. I hate khaki pants and only have a pair because I will need them at some point. The parameters are so narrow there’s not much to discuss. Neck tie is the only area to add color or get creative…and oddly (or ironic) it’s the place where there is the most critique (among men) and shoes of course. So we’ll look at another man’s neck tie & shoes and comment. My point is: all of that is human and it can exist without reference to qualification.

Comments are closed.