How do you act like a sexist pig without looking like one?

Hey Sweetie!


The NY Birdcage Liner:

Running Against Bachmann Poses Challenges for Male Rivals

Representative Michele Bachmann’s entry into the presidential race on Monday ensures one particular repeat of the 2008 campaign: another chance to test the impact of gender on American politics.

For the second time in four years, American voters will watch as a mostly male field of candidates engages, sometimes awkwardly and sometimes gingerly, with a female presidential candidate.

Already, there is evidence that those interactions are destined to produce memorable campaign moments like the one that forced Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” to apologize for asking Mrs. Bachmann whether she is “a flake” on national television.

“Is this how Chris Wallace would ask the same question of a man?” asked his Fox News colleague, Greta Van Susteren, on her blog on Monday.

Like Hillary Clinton before her, Mrs. Bachmann will dare journalists and bloggers to cover her campaign the way they would cover a male candidate’s. And she will put before voters the ultimate question they ducked in 2008: Are they ready for a female president?

It’s really not that hard. When dealing with women candidates don’t pat them on the ass, don’t call them “sweetie” or other demeaning names, don’t use sexist epithets like “bitch” or “cunt” when referring to them, don’t be dismissive, patronizing or condescending, and otherwise treat them with the same respect you would want someone to treat your mother, wife or daughter.

Above all, don’t act like having a penis makes you better than them.

The real challenge is keeping your followers in line, especially if your name is Barack Obama.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to How do you act like a sexist pig without looking like one?

  1. WMCB says:

    OT, but hurrah for sloped-forehead, redneck, awful, blue-collar Texans!!! This town is a tiny little red as red can be town:

    • ralphb says:

      There’s hope for us rednecks after all. ‘-) I never doubted for an instant that this would be the response of Texans. Thanks very much.

      • WMCB says:

        Yup. Most Texans, even the very religious ones, are mostly “mind your own damn business and be polite” sort of people.

        I would be curious to know if any of the people who defended and supported the gay families are of the personal opinion that homosexuality is a form of immorality. Because as difficult as it is for some to wrap their heads around, those sort of people abound here. I.e. those who hold a (wrong in my view) religious belief that they will fight to the death for their right to maintain, yet have no problem whatsoever treating actual gay persons with respect and dignity. That sounds contradictory, but its not. You’d have to live here to understand.

        It’s sort of like my very catholic aunt, who firmly believes that divorce for other than adultery or physical abuse is morally wrong. Yet she loves me, and was the most supportive person in the world to me when I went through a divorce-by-choice. I didn’t insist that she must give up her belief and enthusiatically validate my choice. She didn’t judge me. We just loved each other. People are much more complex than the labels we put on each other.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    HuffPoop:

    Once again, The Advocate magazine has hidden a Democrat’s anti-gay views. This time, The Advocate protects First Lady Michelle Obama. In an article today on TheAdvocate.com, writer Lucas Grindley reports on former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey’s appearance on CNN Monday but fails to mention McGreevey’s on-air suggestion that the First Lady and the President do not share the same views on same-sex marriage. Grindley fails to report what first looks like an “evolving” First Family position because hours later Michelle Obama’s office quickly issued a statement saying that McGreevey is wrong and that she does not support gay marriage.

  3. Lola-at-Large says:

    The evidence has been assembled: http://almostverbiage.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/michele-bachmann-and-vile-sexist-media/

    Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but it is at least on topic. 🙂

  4. ralphb says:

    Palin and Bachmann: A Very Good Problem for Republicans

    Good story from someone who has been on winning campaigns in Iowa.

    Many Washington pundits rub their chins and think there’s no way these two candidates can coexist in a Republican primary. There are too many philosophical similarities, they will be appealing to the same part of the electorate, gosh they even look alike…all reasons why one or the other won’t make it in the Grand DC Scheme of Things.

    Watching these two women at their various events, I came to a completely different conclusion. The health and strength of the Republican Party has never been better.

    Republicans have, potentially, two very strong female candidates. Both have a unique capacity to appeal to middle class voters, and especially middle class women. Both share a unique capacity to drive liberal media outlets into some sort of blind, rabid, spittle frothing rage. Both share amazing personal stories about their childhoods, raising their families, and the struggles they’ve overcome to achieve their present status.

    • 1539days says:

      That’s the thing. If Palin runs, people may actually get to choose between two women who have a chance of being president for the first time in history. And to do it, you have to be a Republican primary voter.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Exactly. And that’s why I’ll be changing my registration from Independent to Republican when I update my address later this summer.

  5. Three Wickets says:

    This is from Media Matters today. Note To Fox: Progressive Women Are Also Targets Of Media Sexism

    WTF. Sure they may have defended Hillary in 07 when she was leading. But I don’t recall Media Matters calling anybody out for the hardcore Hillary bashing in 08, mostly from Progressives. Or for the hardcore Sarah bashing that followed.

    • 1539days says:

      What they really mean is “Conservative women are NEVER targets of media sexism.”

      Idiots. Do they want Fox off the air or Fox to be more fair and balanced? It’s tough to do both.

Comments are closed.