Comments on: Our Daughters Are Paying Attention

By: Lylah

Lylah — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:08:42 +0000

Hi, PunditMom — sorry, it took me much too long to check back. I think you’re right, they wouldn’t be counting him out, either. My point was that blaming the press for the success or failure of either candidate isn’t necessarily the way to go…

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:37:24 +0000

Lylah, one thing. What would the MSM be saying about Obama if her shoe was on his foot?? I don’t think they’d be counting him out yet either.

By: Lylah

Lylah — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:39:39 +0000

That could be, in part, because there really is no mainstream male equivalent to b*itch, scold, witch, etc. Males tend to get flak for exhibiting traditionally female characteristics, and those males rarely run for President.

As for Hillary’s historic effort… it’s not, really. Neither is Obama’s. Other women and other African-Americans have run for president, though none of them has gotten as far as these two have. It’ll be historic if she wins the nomination. Then again, it’ll be historic if Obama does, too. So that’s pretty much a wash.

Blaming journalists isn’t the answer, though. And I’m not just saying that because I am one. Maureen Down put it well when she wrote recently: “It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:36:47 +0000

Concerned Parent, I’m not saying that. But what similar “bad names” are news outlets calling Obama? Or McCain??

I haven’t heard anyone calling them the male equivalent of b*tch, scold, witch, etc. My point is this — it’s NOT OK for journalists to be able to describe a woman candidate in such sexist, derogatory terms. We don’t do it to the men. Why can’t we criticize them with a vocabulary that’s a bit more civil that doesn’t send the message to girls that if you’re a strong woman, you’re a b*tch?

By: Concerned Parent

Concerned Parent — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:14:59 +0000

So are we to just let her get elected just because she IS female so we don’t bruise our daughters? Should we not equally be able to call Hillary the same bad names we call any male candidate? Or are we supposed to give her a head start because she is a female? I think people need to loosen up. I have a daughter of my own. I don’t want her thinking that just because Hillary is a girl that she is a good person or that because of that she deserves to be talked about any better than any other lying politician. Nope, sorry. She is equally corrupt. And she will get the same respect as any male that takes money from corporations and lies through their teeth.

There is a difference in equality and preferential treatment. I don’t think most people actually want TRUE equality…

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:21:28 +0000

To “Not Buying It,” those are all references from the main stream media — MSNBC, NY Times,Washington Post (they called her “screechy”), and others.

Glad you’re concerned about my daughter’s reading material, though.

By: Not Buying It

Not Buying It — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:12:48 +0000

Oh, please. The “journalists” you refer to are bloggers, no? I’m not hearing those kinds of references to Hillary being made by any legitimate news sources. If your second grader is reading political blogs you have bigger problems to deal with.

By: Veronica

Veronica — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:48:20 +0000

When people say that we are past looking at gender in the election, I look at our daughters. They are, for the most part, free from our learned feminist histories. All they know is what is in front of them. For them to notice that A GIRL is running for president and that it’s a big deal, I say it’s a big deal. That gender matters.