Cable News' Locker-Room Mentality Really Stinks

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3492

By Sandra Kobrin
WeNews commentator

David Shuster has stirred the latest hue and cry against MSNBC after he slurred Chelsea Clinton last week. Sandra Kobrin says he's just one symptom of a cable news culture that's sick with misogyny.

...

'Dark Persistence of Misogyny'

Too few are willing to tackle the negative media treatment of Hillary but Bob Herbert of the New York Times is one exception. Last month in a column entitled "Politics and Misogyny" he wrote: "If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it's the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it's the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football."

Like Imus before him, Shuster has been suspended by the cable network. His colleague Keith Olbermann has found his comments inappropriate and indefensible and offered his sincere apology.

Thanks Keith, but women battered by cable news shouldn't be too ready to forgive and forget; the lessons of domestic violence tell us that just invites more abuse down the line. And other opinion stars hardly offer women real allies.


MORE...

waiting for all the "but this isn't sexism" whiners to chime in.

...whiners too.

Use a "c" word ....like CULT, and they'll be on you like stink on shit, though!!!!

women haven't come "a long way baby"--at least not as far as public life goes.

I am honestly a bit surprised. Saddened, too.

...women have gone BACKWARDS in US society in the past 20 years. And the "news" media has naught but helped that regressive trend along.

misogyny is everywhere, and the patriarchy is not yet on its deathbed.

..don't hold your breath waiting for that - women aren't news in this country - unless the "news" is about what inferior human beings they are - or if they're being "pimped" out, or if they're *unts, bitches, the "first wife" outside the courtroom, or if they sound "castrating" when they're running for President (all while the "news" media fawns over the male candidate and can't say ENOUGH good about him no matter what he's done, said, or not or HOW he's done or said it).

What I've said about this is that women are typically NONE of those things.

Many MEN'S IDEAS of women are though - many MEN'S DEFINITIONS of women are those things. But are WOMEN those things?

Is it REALITY? No.

But that's how MEN DEFINE women. And society - LETS them. (including the lamestream corprat-good-ol-boy network media). They VOTE accordingly too - NOT according to the female candidate or who or what she REALLY is or is not - but according to THEIR DEFINITION of who and what she is or is not - which more often than not has NOTHING to do with who she really IS.

Locker-room indeed.

I'm not necessarily FOR Hillary - I'm very undecided and have been since Edwards dropped out. But I do NOT hate the woman and I am totally disgusted at the way she's been treated (and by association ALL WOMEN) in this campaign.

The misogyny is just ALL OVER THE PLACE and has been for months.

It's immature, disgusting, juvenile, neanderthal, and incredibly narcissistic. I'm not as surprised as I am disgusted.

I wish the cockroaches would just crawl back under the floorboards they came scurrying out from beneath when this election started.

The Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s. When did the Equal Rights Amendment pass?



(Answer, for those of you who don't know, is: never).

And, I'm afraid I knew the answer before I got to the bottom of your post. :(

Thought we as women had come much farther, but it took a woman running for President to realize that we haven't budged more than a few inches.

:mad:

If this was 88 talk radio would be obsessed that no woman could have her finger on the Nuclear Trigger. Sure that she would PMS and Nuke the world. Not to mention that no one in a skirt could possibly stand up to Putin, save for Margaret Thatcher.

...same ol same ol.

Nothing's changed.

Actually, I think you would see women have come farther if you had one that didn't have policy flaws (I say that only because I disagree with some of her policies). I work with a woman who says she wouldn't vote for Hillary because she cried and her voice cracked. As a man, those are immaterial to me, but they meant something to her. If the right woman would run (meaning I agree with her policies), I would vote for her. I will also admit that is still a lot of opposition out there to women - but I don't believe it to be as serious as you believe ('course I'm a little biased).

..however, the absolute venom with which she has been attacked here on DU, in the media, is WORSE than I've seen on freak repube-lick.

There's NO REASON for it and much of it is sexist, miosgynist commentary. And yes the crap about crying, etc. is just that - crap. It's meaningless to me and is just another excuse to attack her because she's a woman. And yes, many other women go along with that and buy into those attacks.

Of course you're biased. You've lived exactly zero days of your life as a being that is considered by our society to be second-class - at best. You've never experienced it. Hard to believe it's that bad when you've never lived it. I can understand that.

It is worth a lot that you do admit there is a lot of opposition out there to women. Thanks for that. I'm glad to know that some men do at least recognize that even if they don't think it's as bad as some of us women do.

It's a point well made!

but he has a contract,blah,blah,blah. where i have worked if anyone said that in that context they would be fired.

I read it right here on DU, posted by someone I used to respect.

Hoo boy. I've read 'em here but that one really competes with the topmost...sheeeeeeeeesh.

Blech.

I mean when someone you thought was respectable says something like that?

According to his caller - who he then agreed with - Hillary Clinton is McCarthy.

It's all about the Unity Ponies, y'know.