Oblivious Sexist Asshole at the Washington Post
Joel Achenbach’s column at the Washington Post today is entitled — and I wish I were kidding — Those Daffy Democrats. When I first saw the headline I thought, “Cool. Joel’s going to dissect the absurd sexist anti-Democratic coverage that seems hell-bent on making Nancy Pelosi into a vindictive cootie-laden schoolgirl.”
Wrong. Joel doesn’t dissect the sexist coverage of Pelosi or the incredible anti-Democratic tilt of the news media. He accepts it all at face value.
Here’s his first paragraph:
You know all the old jokes about Democrats. When they form a firing squad they stand in a circle. “I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” The word “fractious” always comes up. Think: Jimmy Carter running for re-election with Teddy pounding on him every day. This kind of thing goes way back, to the early 1790s, when Thomas Jefferson would have furious arguments with himself.
“Great setup,” I thought when I first read the piece; now Joel’s in position to deconstruct the current wave of anti-Democratic slander. Second paragraph:
Rumor had it, just months ago, that the Democrats had learned to master the art of party discipline. But now that the Dems are in charge of Congress, what do we read about every day? Internal party dickering, sniping, backbiting. We read about leadership battles, such as Murtha vs. Hoyer. And now we’re all on pins and needles about who Speaker Pelosi will pick to run the Intelligence Committee. Such drama!
Exactly! That second sentence has the key phrase — “what do we read about every day?” Now Joel can explain that the reason we read about this alleged drama and schoolgirl backbiting is because that’s the script the pundits have chosen. Go to it, Joel:
The latest news is that Pelosi won’t give the Intelligence job to ranking Democrat Jane Harman, who she doesn’t like for personal and political reasons, or the No. 2 Dem, Alcee Hastings, who was impeached as a federal judge many years ago in a bribery scandal. (Hastings’ lawyer argued in the Post yesterday that the congressman had never been convicted by a jury; today’s Post story demolishes that argument.)
But Pelosi still hasn’t decided who she’ll put in the post — thus ensuring the continuation of the story, and more discussion of how Pelosi doesn’t like so-and-so, or is at odds with such-and-such faction.
Wait a minute. Where’s the deconstruction? Joel’s repeating this stuff almost like he believes it…
From The Post:
“The fight over the top spot on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exposed the kind of factional politics that bedeviled House Democrats before they were swept from control in 1994.”
From the NYTimes: “The news that someone is not being given a post is rarely the subject of announcements here. But the question of who will lead the Intelligence Committee has developed into something of a soap opera.”
No deconstruction. No commentary from Joel on the extraordinarily tendentious nature of the reporting. No analysis of how the “soap opera” exists only in the eyes of the pundit class and the reporters who follow their lead. He just presents it, as if it’s unquestionably accurate.
Joel ends the piece with a recap of some of the items on House Democratic agenda for their first 100 hours, which he snidely notes “might take” rather longer than the Democrats anticipate. Yeah, how can they get anything done when they’re so busy criticizing each other’s make-up and stealing each other’s boyfriends?
As the Poorman said, when do we get to elect new pundits?
25 Responses to “Oblivious Sexist Asshole at the Washington Post”
-
Infidel says:
What Joel is oblivious to is the significance of the 109th congress. Or of the significance of the number 109. PT109 was Kennedy’s boat. 109 is a prime number, a centered triangular at that. And it was in 109AD Pliny the younger was made governor of Bythinia.
What I would like most to see of 6in’06(the focus of a Democratic Congress) is: “Enact real pension reform to protect employees’ financial security from CEO corruption and mismanagement, including abuse of the bankruptcy laws.”November 29th, 2006 at 3:11 pm EST -
richard cherry says:
well with a woman in charge what can you expect…probably thinking about how she’s going to have her hair done…fucking liberals the lot of them…vote republican.
ah the free press. -
ScienceTim says:
With such insightful commentary and trenchant media criticism as displayed in the blog posting, the quality off the comments that it inspires should hardly be a surprise.
Regarding what Achenbach actually was writing about — personally, I don’t have a problem with the Democrats arguing in public. That’s what the Dems really stand for, in contrast to the Republicans: the ability to hash out policy differences in open debate and arrive at a consensus, or at least a reasonable compromise. On the other hand, I can see how one might have expected, after their years in the wilderness, that the Dems might have returned to power with a desire and motivation to show themselves as serious policy professionals. Wrangling is fine, but the style of the wrangling makes the House Democrats look a bit silly to some, even though it’s fine by me.
-
Violet says:
ScienceTim, I think you’ve missed the point.
Democrats aren’t doing anything Republicans don’t do. It’s just being reported differently.
-
Infidel says:
At one in twelve men as perpetrator and one out of every five women as victim, couldn’t rape be put on a par with terrorist attacks on America in the guise of homeland security, shouldn’t all men be wire tapped, and wouldn’t profiling be made easier. Surely this should be a plank on any political party’s platform- So where is it??
-
richard cherry says:
if i promise not to rape anyone can i escape having my plank wired?
don’t worry, scienece tim (‘crazy name, crazy guy’) – you’ll soon be up to speed with our in-depth political analysis.
good luck understanding the infidel -
richard cherry says:
‘Democrats aren’t doing anything Republicans don’t do. It’s just being reported differently.’
hmmmmrandom invasion of iraq, anyone? general fostering of anti-choice legislation designed to fuck women about? anti-gay stuff?….oh i don’t know;
-
Paul Tergeist says:
To 5: Not necessarily, Raul. It quickly becomes religious persecution. For instance, THIS
says that THIS is perfectly OK if you can’t find a small child to abuse.
-
Bob S. says:
Hmmm… – I get your point (“Idiotic Post ‘blogger continues to spew hackneyed MSM viewpoint!”), but I’m not sure where the sexism came into play. Nor am I quite as certain as you as you seem to be that this “controversy” is entirely a creation of an ‘evil right-wing conspiracy’.
I think that there are, in fact, hurt feelings within the party over Pelosi’s choices (or lack thereof) and involvement in these leadership post decisions, utterly apart from Republican gamesmanship. To point out (accurately) that other parties in other times have undergone the same trauma doesn’t change this particular case.
-
Mandos says:
(Something for the juju theories file:
-
Mandos says:
Previous post didn’t work… trying again.
(Something for the juju theories file:
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Mandos: Thanks for the *cough* comment over at the forum-at-which-I-am-not-allowed-to-post-freely.
I doubt anyone over there understood it, but…
-
Paul Tergeist says:
I’m not sure where the sexism came into play. Nor am I quite as certain as you as you seem to be that this “controversy” is entirely a creation of an ‘evil right-wing conspiracy’.
-Bob S.Sexism: A disagreement with the choice any woman makes. If Alcee Hastings had been chosen and that had drawn a negative response, the author would have been a sexist.
Right Wing Conspiracy: The primary cause of sexism.
Patriarchy: The primary cause of the Right Wing Conspiracy.
Joke: This post. I am channeling Ambrose Bierce.
-
Mandos says:
Not sure you understood it…
-
Paul Tergeist says:
Not sure you understood it…
-MandosThanks, pal.
-
Violet says:
I’ve just had a brainwave: the reason so many men are oblivious to sexism is because they’re…oblivious! I’m a fricking genius!
For anybody who really doesn’t see the sexism at work in the media’s treatment of Pelosi, read this and this for starters. And this, too, for a good comparison of how Democratic politicking is treated differently from Republican politicking.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
That’s not a ‘brainwave’. It’s an ‘epiphany’. Of course we are oblivious, Vi. How could you not know that?
-
richard cherry says:
never knew i was oblivious…why did nobody tell me?
i just assumed when people are being critical of pelosi if the us media is anything like the uk media it’ll be sexist..cos they are.
a priori does it for me – and in the beginning was the right wing conspiracy.
Yes i know i’m stretching the term before any more scientific people start telling me things…and i know what reductio ad absurdam means too. -
Paul Tergeist says:
and i know what reductio ad absurdam means too.
-RCUmm…..it’s ‘reductio ad absurdum”, not that anyone would be such an asshole as to point it out.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
never knew i was oblivious…why did nobody tell me?
-RCWe didn’t notice.
-
ehj2 says:
Doctor V,
You see things quickly through the lens of sexism, which isn’t to say that sexism isn’t really there. It is. But sometimes there’s something in addition to that.
I would invite us to consider the possibility that the larger narrative that’s being repeated by the column you refer to here was proclaimed in its title, “Those Daffy Democrats.”
The Right Wing long ago decided to paint itself as “the serious people,” “the adults,” “the realists,” and the Democrats as the unserious fuzzy-headed children who would give the expensive silverware away to strangers at the door. No matter what the issue, it is consistently framed through viewing the Democrats as childish, unserious, unorganized, uncertain, unreal. They are belittled and their issues are “feminized” and belittled.
As you’ve noted, these are the same attributes used by sexists to demean women and undermine feminine (i.e., “human”) goals. “The Arnold” made it explicit at the Republican Convention a few years ago — if you’re not a Republican economist, you’re a foolish empty-headed “girly” economist. While this assertion is bereft of intellectual and (more to the point) economic content, it was good for a laugh and dominated the Right Wing media for weeks.
Given the demonstrable incompetence and criminality of the Right Wing for the past decade, it remains to be seen how long this narrative can hold. With the explosion of government debt and the incredible weakening of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies, it “should” be harder for the Right to maintain hold of the “we manage the nation’s money better” mantle. But don’t count on it. People who aren’t in the middle class think they are — and they want their tax breaks.
Our understanding of narratives, both personal and national, is that they do not change slowly. You’re looking for something more like a tipping point. The underlying structures change slowly, but the narrative that holds everything together changes quickly.
And yes, the goal is to be as invisible about imposing narrative as possible. People like to imagine that they are guided by intelligent thinking and reasoned argument, not simply led about by the nose via a narrative of which they have limited consciousness. So people are oblivious to it.
Democrats are still successfully painted as “tax and spend” and the phrase is almost invisible. Endless polls suggest that Republicans are still regarded as the hard-nosed realists in world affairs. It really doesn’t matter that they collectively get almost everything wrong. Individual people do not want to change their worldview and actually work hard to find media and messages and narrative that bolster and support their world view. Until suddenly they can’t. Then they tip.
Ms. Pelosi is “daffy” simply because she’s a Democrat. And because of her sex, it’s easy to paint her as a “girly economist” and (because of the innate sexism in our culture) to demean all her interests and intellectual tools as unimportant and “girlish.”
///
-
Paul Tergeist says:
You know……the women who get the most publicity, make the most money, have the greatest effect on the way women are perceived and are the main role models for young girls…are never even mentioned in this blog.
I mean, of course, Britney, Paris, Lindsay, Angelina, Madonna, Shakira, the Victoria’s Secret models……….not a college professor amongst them.
And the movers and shakers of the patriarchy….that would be Tom Cruise, Danny DeVito, Rosie O’Donnell, etc. don’t get much press here either. Certainly not enough.
-
richard cherry says:
it’s ‘reductio ad absurdum”, – indeed it is, Paul (being neuter rather than a random feminine thing as i managed to make it). Thank god you picked it up before an asshole spotted it. Phew, close one!
-
Violet says:
It’s true that the media portrays all Democrats as Keystone Kops, but the sexist treatment of Pelosi is not just an adjunct of that. This is from the second link I gave above:
Yesterday on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, conservative pundit Dick Morris claimed incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn’t support Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) to be chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee because Pelosi “doesn’t want a female competition. She doesn’t want two aggressive Democratic women congressmen in California.” When host Alan Colmes asked Morris if he was accusing Pelosi of gender discrimination, Morris said that accusing Pelosi of being “jealous of another woman in California” is “a fair thing.” Watch it:
Morris made no mention of the multiple substantive disagreements between Pelosi and Harman. Instead, Morris was the latest media figure to attribute Pelosi’s differences with Harman to purely personal motives. Washington Post columnist Robert Novak recently described Harman as Pelosi’s “rival diva from California,” and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called the disagreement a “catfight between two strong-willed, expensively dressed Democratic pols married to California gazillionaires.”
Catfights? Divas? Female competition?
Can any of you imagine the media reporting that two male Democrats — say, Murtha and Hoyer — hate each other because one time they wore the same suit to a party?
-
Paul Tergeist says:
it’s ‘reductio ad absurdum”, – indeed it is, Paul (being neuter rather than a random feminine thing as i managed to make it). Thank god you picked it up before an asshole spotted it. Phew, close one!
-RCNo worries, old sod! We Yanks are always ready to help our pals across the pond, as well as the occasional Englishman!
