Skip to main content

View Diary: Andrea Mitchell flunks American democracy in debt debate (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, it's as sexist as can be and I'm tired of (12+ / 0-)

    the excuse of of "she's a republican, so it's okay to use sexist ploys against her".  Please name one time a man has been referred to as Mr. whatever his wife's name is in order to diminutize him.  It's not done.  Using her husband's name rather than her own is insulting in the most sexist manner.

    And to head off the "it's only being done to make clear who she's married to" excuse, it takes only a few extra keystrokes to type in "Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan."

    Please, can we quit the double standard for women?  Please.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:13:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wait (13+ / 0-)

      So you don't think being married to the former head of the fed has anything to do with her reporting? Just like being married to a SCOTUS justice does not influence Mrs. Thomas' actions or vice-versa?

      Puh-leaze!

      •  I guess you missed the last paragraph? You don't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gchaucer2, Christin, NWTerriD

        have to use a sexist method to point that fact out.  What's so damn difficult to get about that?

        Puh-leaze!

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:46:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So . . . (0+ / 0-)

          It's "sexist" to point out who she is married to? I think it would be better to say that it is obfuscatory NOT to point out who she is married to. If she wants to be taken seriously as a journalist she will do the hard work and ask the tough questions, but she doesn't so we can assume she is quite happy being Mrs. Greenspan.

          I believe in full disclosure of the media. I also think Dick Gregory should post a disclaimer that says he danced with Karl Rove at that stupid press dinner. I haven't taken him seriously since either.

    •  It's not sexist (12+ / 0-)

      to point out that benefits richly on a daily basis by being married to a man who has made millions off of destroying the US economy and making life harder for the middle- and lower-classes of this country.  She has benefit from the pain and suffering of others.

      The 2010 Midterms are more important than any of us realize

      by HarlemUSA on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:26:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So do it by including the information of who (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gchaucer2, Adept2u, Christin, NWTerriD, Tamar

        she's married to.  Like I said it takes only a few extra keystrokes to say Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan.

        To refuse to use the name a woman chooses to use and instead impose her husband's name on her is sexist.  Period.

        It would be equally sexist if a woman choose to change her name upon marriage, but you continued to use her birth name to "point out" who her father is.  You wouldn't do that - you'd use the name she chose, but add that her father is (whoever).  

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:48:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          makettle

          overreacting, but I have been known to do so myself on occasion.

          •  I'm guessing (0+ / 0-)

            that you are not a woman who has ever been referred to by her husband's name despite her own choice to keep the name she was born with. If you were, you would probably realize how offensive that behavior is.

            The name by which a person presents themselves to the world is an integral component of basic human dignity. Remember a guy named Kunta Kinte?

            "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

            by NWTerriD on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:40:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I find your comment distasteful (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              makettle, Brooke In Seattle

              and not effective in making your point.

              I suggest you try a different act if you are trying to persuade people to see things your way.

              Imagine if my response to you on an issue important to Latinos was "you're not a Latino.You can't possibly understand."

              •  read "tack" instead of "act" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                makettle
              •  Sorry you find my comment "distasteful." (0+ / 0-)

                I found yours offensive.

                "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

                by NWTerriD on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:03:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And btw -- (0+ / 0-)

                  I didn't say you couldn't possibly understand. That is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

                  Many people who don't fall into the category of "married women called by their husband's name over their objection" nevertheless understand that calling a women by her husband's name over her objection is offensive. You apparently believe that someone who is offended by that behavior is overreacting.

                  If you had experienced that offense, I doubt you would have called such offense an overreaction. There are lots of other routes to such understanding that involve empathy rather than being a membef of the offended group. Nothing that I said precluded that possibility.

                  "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

                  by NWTerriD on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 01:10:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Such ends this conversation (0+ / 0-)

                  I hope you are pleased.

                  Well done.

                  •  Would be more pleased (0+ / 0-)

                    if you had acknowledged and responded to any of the content of any of my several comments.

                    "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

                    by NWTerriD on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 07:28:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I tend to agree that saying (5+ / 0-)

          "Mrs Alan Greenspan" is snide.

          But this is the person we're talking about:

          A report in The Washington Post ("Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media" by Mike Allen and Dana Priest, Washington Post, September 28, 2003), that Mitchell was an original recipient of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity led to her being questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the case. While Mitchell never appeared before the grand jury in the indictment or in the trial of I. Lewis Libby, she was on the subpoena list as a person of interest. In October 2003, on the Capitol Report, Mitchell made a statement which Libby's defense construed to mean that it was widely known among journalists that Joe Wilson's wife was in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a statement that she later recanted. As a reporter, Mitchell has covered the case without acknowledging her own involvement.


          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Did SHE respect the fact that Valerie Plame wasn't Mrs Joe Wilson by reporting the fact that people were out leaking Plame's identity to the CIA? Or was she ok that people were using the fact that they were married to go after the wife for the husband's political "sins"? And why in the heck was SHE reporting on it? Did she tell NBC news that she was compromised?

          And as for Greenspan himself, GWB's Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill specifically told Bush that the deficits they were running up were a problem,and going to become a BIG problem. It's all outlined in his book The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. I'm no fan of any member of Bush's cabinet.

          But:

          A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill, while he was Treasury Secretary, suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003

          And:

          O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired ...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(Secretary_of_the_Treasury)

          How accurate is the book?

          Well:

          Rather than denying his allegations, Bush officials attacked O'Neill's credibility

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Alan Greenspan didn't just have a front-row seat for this. He was involved in all of the financial discussions.  Where was crack journalist Andrea Mitchell?

          Ah yes, she was busy helping (or at the minimum, just standing by) while Cheney's minions outed Valerie Plame for her husband's desire to educate the American people about the Iraq war.

          I don't like sexism --  and sexist language is something that really bothers me because it's insidious.

          But if one doesn't conduct herself with a modicum of decency, if she's willing to put hundreds of lives on the line, then I'm willing to look away if someone in a blog calls her by her husband's name.

          © grover


          The library is a wonderful place with books to read and you can listen to records like "The Air is Alive with the Sound of Music." -- grover, the furry blue taxi driver

          by grover on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:15:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No. It. Isn't. (7+ / 0-)

      It shows a clear connection and IMO a possible conflict of interest. Lots of people don't know of the relationship.

      ...and the word is diminish or maybe diminuate if you want to stretch it.

      I certainly don't bite peoples' heads off if they call me Mrs. xxxx even though I have my own name. I don't feel diminished at all.

      •  Thank you for correcting my word. You're right on (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adept2u, NWTerriD

        that, wrong on the sexist aspect.  You can't point out the relationship without refusing to use the name the woman chose.

        The intentional use of a woman's chosen name is done with the sole purpose of diminishing her and making her simply an adjunct of her husband.  

        You can point out the connection and possible conflict of interest by pointing out the connection and possible conflict of interest.

        Obviously, pretty much everyone does know of the connection since everyone here knew exactly who "Mrs. Alan Greenspan" was referring to.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:51:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You see no connection (9+ / 0-)

      between Alan Greenspan and today's economic and political situation?

      Is it the "Mrs." that you object to? Would it be ok to reference the fact that she is married to Alan Greenspan?

      This seems like an "American Talban" objection to me.

      Full disclosure - I've made references to Mitchell being married to Greenspan on numerous occasions when she has chosen to discuss our economic situation.

      Frankly, it has appalled me that NBC has left her on the domestic beat when it involves economic issues. She seems hopeless compromised because ofher personal situation.

      •  It is one thing to point out that she is (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gchaucer2, gustynpip, Adept2u, Tamar, NWTerriD

        married to Alan Greenspan; it is quite another to refer to her as Mrs. Alan Greenspan. This is not an American Taliban objection. People have a right to use their own names. It is one thing to point out that Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is married to Mitch McConnell; it is quite another to call her Mrs. Mitch McConnell.

        •  Both names were used. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          makettle

          Discussion over yet?

          The two things Teabaggers hate most are: being called racists; and black people.

          by Punditus Maximus on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:45:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I suppose (0+ / 0-)

          Given the commentary this has engendered, perhaps the better course would have been something like:

          "Andrea Mitchell, whose husband Alan Greenspan can take great credit in the Republican campaign to destroy the world, has taken offense at mere peons being asked by the President to register their views with their elected officials."

          For me, "Mrs. Alan Greenspan" is a short hand for that.

          But I understand your objection. I don't share it but one should strive to avoid even the appearance of racism or sexism.

          So I would change it if they were my words.

          But I can't say it is the most important issue on my mind right now. Even with regards to this post.

          •  Or how about "Andrea Mitchell, wife of (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adept2u, blue jersey mom, Tamar, NWTerriD

            Alan Greenspan"?  Unless you're typing Mrs. Alan Greenspan, whose husband can take great credit . . .", it takes VERY little to point out the connection without being sexist.

            I'm so sick and tired of this, I will be continuing to point it out every damn time someone pulls this stupid sexist stunt, whether it's the most important issue at the moment or not.  

            People can choose to use a nonsexist approach, or continue reading my objections each time they choose the nonsexist approach.  

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:56:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Keep doing it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue jersey mom, NWTerriD

              I support you 100% on that.

            •  your persistence will hopefully pay off. I'm not (0+ / 0-)

              as upset as you, but I agree with you totally.  Having changed my name in my first marriage on the advice of a very bad marital therapist, and having gone back to my name and kept it ever since (almost 40 years), I take name choices very seriously.  My view is that peoples' names are whatever they choose them to be, and it's none of my business.  Andrea Mitchell is Andrea Mitchell, no matter to whom she's married because she calls herself Andrea Mitchell.  
              And you should see my younger daughter's name -- already saddled with her first name, her Chinese name (short, but 2 syllables), my last name and her father's last name (not hyphenated), she chose to add the name of the city in China she's from.  We respect that and try to write her name that way as much as possible -- a total of 35 letters (excluding spaces).  
              Recently it got worse when her older sister decided that she should add her Hebrew name in -- another 9 letters -- but our younger daughter, I think, isn't interested in doing that on a regular basis.  (hear my sigh of relief?).

              If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

              by Tamar on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:52:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's a political opinion (3+ / 0-)

          not a policy statement and not a platform plank.  Mrs. Alan Greenspan is ironic and sarcastic and pointed.  Andrea Mitchell has a conflict of interest for a journalist as glaring as can be imagined.  Mrs. Greenspan is not the worst thing she could be called.

          There's such a thing as being too PC.  Which you should know already, assuming you're really "blue" Dem and not some pot-stirrer.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:49:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep, it's too PC if it relates to sexism. Right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adept2u

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:56:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "relates to sexism" is a pretty broad brush (3+ / 0-)

              and you could smear pretty much anyone with it.  How about we consider context and intent before quashing speech as unPC?  Or would that hurt too many feelings?  BTW, it insults me as a woman to imply that I can't tell the fucking difference between sarcastic political speech and a sexist remark.  So check your own sexism.

              Marquess of Queensberry much?  This is politics.  She's joined at the hip to her plutocratic evil twin and enables him with every poisoned mote she spews in the guise of a responsible journalist.  And the more people are made aware of it by whatever means, the better.

              Which side are you on?

              by wiseacre on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:07:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Do you object to "Andrea Mitchell, wife of (0+ / 0-)

          Alan Greenspan" or "Elaine Chao, wife of Mitch McConnell"?

          May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

          by msmacgyver on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:14:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am more familiar with (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gustynpip, Adept2u, NWTerriD

        talented women writers who use their own names but are referred to by their husbands' names because the husband is also a noted literary talent.  I find it demeaning.  

        If a woman has chosen to be known professionally by whatever name she chooses -- she should not be re-identified as an addendum to whatever male to whom she is married.

        Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:47:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt that (3+ / 0-)

          the description could be seen as an attempt to demean her because she is married.

          I think the usage was intended for the reasons I describe.

          That said, given the reaction from some of you, a different usage would probably have been wiser.

          THAT said, I think we have said enough on the subject myself.

          But I've been known to go after an issue beyond what some might think reasonable myself.

          •  Agree the discussion is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adept2u

            exhausted.  Not sure if you are married but will henceforth refer to you as Mrs. odnamrA!  Cheers.

            Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

            by gchaucer2 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:59:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Do you see anything in my post that says I don't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NWTerriD

        see a connection?  If you read my post, you know I pointed out that the way to make certain people know of the connection is to fricking point out the connection, but use the woman's own name.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Republicans I Work With... (5+ / 0-)

      ...had no IDEA she was married to Alan Greenspan until I called her "Mrs. Greenspan" during a discussion.

      So I call it calling out a fifth columnist.

    •  100% agree with your position (0+ / 0-)

      I don't actually understand why this is at all controversial.  I would also state that by referring to her like that it gives the impression she doesn't have her own brain that might be 100% in opposition to that of her husband.

      "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

      by Adept2u on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 12:11:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site