Comments on: Game Change — Sexism at its Worst

By: Tweets that mention Game Change — Sexism at its Worst | PunditMom -- Topsy.com

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:49:32 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PunditMom, Shayna. Shayna said: Right on point! RT @PunditMom: Game Change — Sexism at its worst http://bit.ly/8Te0Kl #p2 #fem2 [...]

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:19:30 +0000

There is no such thing as bad publicity. After sitting in a campaign office yesterday doing a mailing for Dan Seals for Congress, other volunteers were gossiping about how interesting the book was. I have no doubt that the journalism isn’t strong but am still curious! Our culture encourages us to build up our icons (like John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards or Tiger Woods) and then when they screw up, act terrible or just generally behave like fallible humans, we tear them apart and rip them to shreds, calling them names and swearing we never really liked them at all. Should we be surprised someone writes a book about it — and badly? Let’s call it for what it is, People magazine in book form. I would like to hear your opinion about David Plouffe’s book on the race though, did you read? I have not.

By: PunditMom

PunditMom — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:14:05 +0000

Michael, if they’re going to act like boys, I think we can call them boys.

By: Just Margaret

Just Margaret — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:06:36 +0000

I’m curious to read the book–all I’ve seen are excerpts (which, incidentally, tick me off on various counts–the Us-Weekly allusion is spot-on). The only thing that holds me back is the notion of these hacks seeing a penny of my money for so much gossip mongering and deeply entrenched sexism.

Your point about deep background is really important. You need that when dealing with an issue such as governmental corruption. But when gathering nasty little tidbits from behind-the-scenes of what must be an enormously stressful time of all these peoples lives as fodder for the gossip mill? Deep background is not really essential. Real journalists *get that*.

By: Michael Brad

Michael Brad — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:36:22 +0000

“Walsh really let those boys have it”

you call the authors “boys.” as a man, I am offended. don’t hate the players, hate the game.

By: Meredith O'Brien

Meredith O'Brien — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:21:50 +0000

I completely agree. If you examine the language used to describe the women (with the exception of Michelle Obama), it was of the garden variety sexist ilk (hysterical, beauty queen, conniption, hissy fit. etc.). Male pols and the male spouses of the candidates, did not receive such harsh, negative treatment. It was the women who were depicted an unhinged and too emotional, despite the fact that the men would scream, swear and get red in the face with rage.

By: April

April — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:34:46 +0000

Great post! Thanks for writing it.
What’s really sad is it will be a bestseller and make the ‘authors’ millions of dollars. All I can hope is that yours does the same!

By: annie

annie — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:16:20 +0000

Elizabeth Edwards, as I understand, did go along with her husband’s bid even thought the affair could have gone public at any time, potentially sucking the air out of out the Dem primaries. It’s fortunate that he didn’t run well in Iowa, but had he? So, she doesn’t get a pass on that from me. But the other stuff was just to sell books.

Trouble with being terminally ill (or the caretaker) is that you are saint or shrew. There really is no middle ground.

Michelle Obama was probably giving a pass because she morphed. She went the good wife route. She gets points. But that’s just how it looks to me.

Hillary will never truly get her due. And Palin, who personally have no stomach for, is going to laugh her way to wealth and (shudder) the White House.

The US is general is quite sexist and equally as blind to it.