Rendell called sexist for ‘no life’ remark

Source: Philly.com

Politicians are supposed to watch what they say - especially when a nearby microphone might be on.

But, yesterday in Philadelphia, Gov. Ed Rendell made some blunt remarks that could be construed as insulting, if not sexist, about Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, chosen for Homeland Security chief by President-elect Barack Obama.

A spokesman for Rendell downplayed any controversy, saying that Pennsylvania's governor "meant no disrepect."

Rendell's words were picked up by an open microphone at the podium of the National Governors Conference, held yesterday morning at Independence Hall.

"Janet's perfect for that job," Rendell is heard to say. "Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day to it."

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/35468589.html

He needs to apologize to her personally. I hope he does.

After all, technically he is correct. How do you know they haven't met in the past, and she told him "Geeze, I work twenty hours a day - I have no life at all."

The sad thing is, men in such positions are expected to have no life. They are expected to put in 14, 16 hour days at work. Now THAT is sexism at work.

its sexist that her lack of family is cited. its assumed that men w.families are quite capable of doing work 19 hours a day whereas women have their families to attend to

Women are not.

When it comes to that kind of high-powered position.

There's no sexist expectation in saying a single is expected to work ungodly hours, of whichever sex. If you are single, and in that kind of position, it is expected that work will be your life. Men, however, are expected to put in those hours, whether married or not - that is sexist expectation against men, that we should neglect our families and die young for the sake of a powerful position.
(Something that will never happen with me - I neglected my family and will die young for entirely different reasons.)

even at the expense of their career.

your making men sound like the hapless victims here, which is kinda funny.

at 50 a victim. There's a reason that women are longer lived than men.

It's a fucked up society that makes these kind of demands, and then demonizes either men or women who do not accept the chosen roles for them.

What Rendell said, albeit ineptly, was that she would be able to meet the expectations that a man in the same position would meet. Perhaps he was referencing his own lack of a life when he said it. I don't know. But I submit that them both being governors who have met and talked before, he would not have said it if he thought it would be taken by her as hurtful.

yeah, men put up the time at work - women pick up the extra work hours at home. And by the way, I'll be working 16 hours Saturday.

Actually she does have a life, and she does have family, just no husband or children. Yep, kind of sexist, and certainly stupid. Get it together, Rendell.

He's right, but sadly so.

Women in senior positions in the Clinton and Bush administrations were far less likely to have kids than men in senior positions.

talking about a gay male?

Gay men are "less likely" to have children.

He's just from Philadelphia.

unlikely anyone would make a comment on that.

Bake

He pretty much doesn't have a life outside the prosecutor's office. So I don't think it's sexist.

.

this isn't sexist. insensitive, yes, but sexist?! for fucks sake.

Or more specifically, her suitability for a demanding job.
Not about women in general.

In fact it wasn't sexist to any significant degree. Tacky, sure.
Women might be slightly more sensitive to such a remark, but that doesn't
really ring the "sexist" bell.

Actually your remark was more sexist than his,
don't you see that?
No? Oh, my.

Let me guess, you're a white male.

You asked: "Let me guess, you're a white male."

Let me guess, you hate white males.
Please don't hurt me, my official classification is Meek Popsicle.

My computer must be malfunctioning. I thought this thread was about a
comment by Rendell, but I seem to have wandered into a thread on lynchings.
Bad computer.

women are poor drivers is sexist.

then there is no sexism, just some bizarre idea about single people. If not, though, then, yes, it was a sexist remark. I don't think you or I are in a position to know for certain either way. My guess, though, is that Rendell, old school as he is, would not have made that remark about a single man.

have to family. this weird expectation is largely for women.

Forgive me for being ignorant and opaque, but what does Napolitano's gender have to do with the insult? It seems to me to be directed much more at the job than the nominee.

In fact, it sounds like a shitty job that I'd go out and start a family to try and avoid.

No Elephants, I swear to you that I wasn't baiting a trap here. Please don't mistake my tone in this post as being anything but polite and entirely well-meaning. We are, after all, discussing a "tone" of sorts, so I want to make sure I'm spelling mine out up front.

I don't know Rendell well enough to make guesses about what he thinks, but I know really well about my own experience, because I'm a guy with "no life." Unmarried, no kids. I probably should have mentioned that up front when I asked the question.

What "no life" means to me is that I'm the guy who gets asked to work weekends and stay late, presumably because whatever plans I have are less important than everyone else's. I have a grandmother-in-waiting who repeatedly reminded me that not having a wife and children is some sort of a character flaw. There are entire social circles which I intentionally avoid because whether or not its actually true, I feel like they treat me as some sort of a kid brother and in those circles I feel that I'm not permitted to have an opinion on marriage or children. More than once, when the subject of gay marriage has come up amongst others who are married, my thoughts were brushed aside with a "what would you know about it, anyway?"

So trust me, I know for certain that at least one guy in the world gets a small amount of crap for the same thing.

However, I think there is a middle ground on which we can probably concur. I think that the crap I'm getting is something that on the fly I'll call "traditionalism." As I'm defining it, it's the mindset that places heavy stock in the traditional nuclear family, and I think the practitioners of that mindset tend to think less highly of alternative choices, like mine.

Sexism and traditionalism are certainly related (sexism, after all, is an unfortunate tradition) and definitely overlap in places. As I read it, Rendell's statement is a compliment of sorts, but delivered with a strong backhand of traditionalism. Sexism may be a part of his outlook, because some traditionalists are certainly sexists, but I'm still not convinced that we can assume it from this comment.

And, while we're at it, please allow me to change my tone for a moment and wave an angry fist at imaginary people who are not No Elephants: I don't think that deciding to be cooped up with someone you have a 50% chance of winding up hating and pushing out a bunch of screaming poop-factories while six billion people are elbowing each other for enough food to eat is a wise decision. So there!

Edit: When that same grandmother-in-waiting finally gave up on me, she mentioned something I went and looked up. In 1975, Ann Landers asked her readers with children if they would do it over again. Seventy percent of responding readers said they would not. It ain't science, but it certainly shows that the decision isn't ideal for everyone.

They know each other. They've met. They're both governors.

How do you know she did not tell him, in some conversation, "Sometimes it seems like I have no life - it's all just work."?

In a local radio show interview she said that they were good friends and that she looked foward to teasing him about it.

I don't know anything about Rendell, he may very well be a sexist egotistical jerk. Yet it doesn't seem to me to be a sexist comment. Those kinds of jobs are extremely high pressure, and as man in that position I wouldn't want to have a family (as in a spouse and/or children) that relied on me. The job requires an enormous amount of time and focus and could make things severely complicated for anyone with a family.

So I'd basically say that the suggestion that her not having a spouse or children (which I assume was what he meant by "family") would be beneficial in regards to the job.... I don't find it inaccurate or sexist.

Perhaps insensitive, and perhaps his intent was sexist... hell, I don't know, I'm not a mind reader.

I am, however, a white male - though I don't see what that has to do with anything.

discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities, gays and females more than members of groups that have been traditionally against miss the same issues. Not always and not all hetero white males. Hence the career path of sensitivity trainer.

I am sure that there are a number of white, hetero men who miss such issues - but I think that to say that we as a group have a tendency to do so is unfair and inaccurate. There are many, many of us who are deeply concerned about and passionate about such issues. Saying not always and not all still seems to me to be using a rather broad brush.

To assume that we are ignorant in regards to such issues (even if you're speaking "generally") because we're white, hetero males is condescending, racist, and sexist. The fact that we are white, hetero, or male has nothing to do with the issue at all. People who are white, hetero, or male, may indeed miss these issues, but it is not because they are white, hetero, or male. Rather, it is because of ignorance, a lack of empathy and/or consideration, and in some cases blatant idiocy and/or intentional cruelty or neglect.

Such philosophies (and comments) detract from, and do not add to our understanding of each other. Rather, they tend to alienate those of us who do give a damn because we're lumped in with those who don't. Guilty by reason of race, gender, and sexual orientation. It is unfair to condescend based on these things, regardless of the race, gender, or sexual orientation in question.

While I do feel that his comments were insensitive, I do not see how they were sexist. If you are implying that anyone who does not think so is somehow "missing the issue", then I think you are mis-interpreting a difference in perspective as willful ignorance.

That I could be completely wrong in any number of ways. I am not saying that you are racist or sexist, simply that I think those comments were and perhaps I am guilty of misunderstanding your intent. I am certainly exhausted as I haven't slept in a good while and that can make my brain function less adequately.

To me, it seems that you were basically saying that because I am a white, hetero male, I am somehow very likely not to understand such issues at all. That somehow my understanding or ability to understand is inherently inferior, flawed, because I am a white, hetero male. If that was not the intent of what you said, then I apologize.

I'm not the enemy, I imagine that I probably want a lot of the same things you do. Greater understanding, more compassion, wisdom and love in this world. Better standards of living and ways of living for everyone... and equal opportunity for everyone.

Just because I'm white, male, and hetero, doesn't mean I have many opportunities. I'm at the bottom of the barrel right now and very depressed. It's extremely hard to get help.

Right, I'm rambling... time to count sheep.

Last night a caller to the Pennsylvania Cable Network, a single working mom (not offended), asked him about his comments. She felt the media was blowing them out of proportion.

I thought he acquitted himself quite charmingly in his explanation (he even brought up the Obama thing). He said he himself wouldn't be able to do his job fully if his son was eight instead of 28 as children are a priority no matter your gender.

Yes, our gov does express himself, however impolitic his words may be. Love him or hate him, he can be, ah, refreshing. As an aside, a friend with whom I was watching the PCN show -- and who is the first to skewer any elected official -- noted that, no matter what else you may think of him, you have to give him credit for being visible and accessible. He even felt Rendell was more so than a lot of governors.

I didn't dig around to see if there was video available from last night but here's the link to the show:

http://www.pcntv.com/shows_callin.html

Women need wives. ;)

I am so sick of "all men are pigs," and "all deadbeats are dads."

He said "no family," you all translated that as "not a mother" in your heads because "all men are pigs."

male has "no life?" This Democratic woman got herself elected Governor of a red state. My guess is that she has a life on that basis alone, even if she has no living parents, siblings, aunts, uncles or close friends. However, I also assume that someone personable enough to be elected Governor in a red state has friends and most people have some living relatives, too. Why on earth would Rendell automatically assume she has none, simply bc she has no spouse or kids? And would he assume the same thing about every single man, without knowing anymore about the man than "no family?"

I'm just not seeing where "no life" is sexist. Even the no family part - that's what I said about myself on more than one occasion.

Forgive the caps, but that's the real story.

and if it's true it isn't even offensive.

Saying that someone doesn't have a life, to me, just means that they don't have much going on outside of work. This can be a very good thing for your career.

but if it's true you can't really claim sexism, or racism, or any other -ism.

I have no control over how other people choose to feel. But I can try to look at these things objectively and say if she was genuinely slandered, or if it was a fair assessment. I don't know the woman in question so I can't say definitively one way or the other, so I left it open for either eventuality. If she really is obsessed with her job, then there is no fault. If she isn't then he was wrong to say it, but it still isn't sexist.

Does she have a family? I've heard the same said about men. Hell most successful businessmen would be described as having no life outside of work, ideally no family or any other non-work obligations.

or the family-work balance mentioned. overwhelmingly a family is still considered a woman's responsiblity and one she must learn to balance w.her career.

if it were common we wouldn't have this thread.

And he didn't say she's neglecting her womanly duties to bear children (preferably male children) to carry on her husbands name. Just that she didn't have a family. Big whoop.

Sounds like manufactured outraged to me.

general.

i am surprised that you havent heard this expression multiple times in your life because i certainly have. the work-family balance and how is she going to do it all is mentioned hundreds of times.

when palin was running, people on du mentioned her 5 children many times. how could a mother be a vp and take care of these children.

again, i am surprised that you havent noticed.

not every comment laid against every female is sexist. Both hillary and palin tried this during the campaign and it just made them both look petty.

Not by candidates, but by members of the media.

i find resorting to sexism to be rather stupid.

I didn't mention Palin in my post because I felt that the media was extra careful in dealing with Palin and I don't remember Obama saying anything sexist about Palin. There was that lipstick on a pig comment but she was the one comparing herself to animals.

on edit: I meant to reply to post #79, not #78

And is a legitimate issue? Nope.

Look around, most people agree this faux outrage is silly.

look around, a lot of them are men. or ones who are directly talking about the "no life" comment, which i already dismissed as not sexist.

Specifics. Were you fired because your boss wanted you to stay home with the kids?

And that goes both ways. Men who can't provide financially for their families are called deadbeats. It seems that anyone, male or female, who is seen as not doing a good job taking care of their families is looked down upon. Which seems fair to me.

Of course she doesn't have a family. So I'm not sure how she's expected to carry any extra burden.

Seems a moot point.

it's the same stupid shit that they tried to stick to murtha after his "western pa is a racist area" comment.

men are not expected to not have families to do their jobs well.

i dont think the lack of life is the sexism

The politically correct geeks and their hair splitting contests bore me to death!

of picking up the slack for married people and their spoiled, ungrateful kids in the workplace.
They can never work any longer than they have to.....I mean, their 19 year old needs to be picked up from school, or their husbands need their dinners cooked, etc, etc.......or they just need to buy their spoiled brat another car because they never had a new one growing up, etc, so of course,the single people can work longer because they have no lives.

Sorry, just ranting. :)

I don't get it. Saying someone has no family and no life is "sexist"? How?

You could say that about anyone, male or female.

he wouldn't have said it of a man, therefore it was sexist.

We might wonder how they would view the comment
"Nice moustache."

in a similar prominent government position. Men's family choices, whether or not they married or had kids, are considered so irrelevant to their work that it wouldn't even cross people's minds to consider that.

Because the assumption is that whether they have a family or not, they will be able to devote all their time to the job because "someone else" (the wife at home) will take care of the family obligations.

The crucial thing is if Gov. Napolitano offended? She's the one that he was talking about. And yeah, I know plenty of women who don't have families and are married to their jobs. My aunt is one. She's damn good at what she does, but she doesn't have a husband or kids. I'm the closest thing that she has. Of course, she's a lot saner than her two sisters (my Mom being one) who married and had kids.

She ain't filing a sexual harassment suit against him.
:eyes:

Says alot. This seems to be overblown controversy and her comments are underreported, probaly because it was on a local morning radio show.

I was watching Beth & Bill
yesturday(Local morning news show here in AZ) and she was laughing about it. In fact she said she was thinking of ways to approach him and poke fun at him about the whole thing.

...political correctness. I'm not a big Rendell fan, but what he said was absolutely true and would not even be construed as sexist if he weren't talking about a woman. There is NOTHING sexist in the above quote. The mention of having a family does not pertain only to women, and anyone who thinks so is the real sexist.

Men also have families and like to go home to them. And if you're working 19, 20 hour days, then you DON'T have much of a life, no matter HOW you take a pee.

Jesus. Does every little thing people say have to be nitpicked? This is just ridiculous.

He has no girlfriend, no wife, no family, and works constantly.

The same exact things are said about him.

I can't believe this could be perceived to be sexist.