Speaking of sexism........

So this morning, MSNBC has yet another "hot babe" newsreader, telling us all about the market.  So besides "international super star" what's her name that Matthews and Scarborough drool over, now we have this new girl, Trish Reagan.  
And, take a look at every female news reader, pundit on all of MSNBC, CNN and probably FOX.  

"So what are you," some may ask, "jealous?"

My answer is over the fold (and I know you all, especially BiPM are waiting on pins and needles for my answer).

Am I jealous?  Let me think.  These are all young, extremely attractive young women who are "making it."  Shouldn't I be happy that women are breaking into the male dominated biz?

I suspect maybe it's not jealousy.

Sure, what over sixty, average looking, average sized woman would not want to have those asset....looks, body and youth, easy entry into the world of fame and fortune?  But that's not it.  

It is the sexism.  Let's be honest. In their own warped way, sick way, MSNBC plays the gender card all the time.  While drooling, old, average looking Matthews accused Hillary of this  (with his lies), it is actually his network doing it.  

GENDER is an issue on the news programs.
As much as I am not thrilled with Katie Couric, she has taken a bigger hit over dismal ratings while Brian Williams gets no "responsibility" for even bigger losses at NBC.

But here's the real irritant for me.  Why do networks get away with playing the ageism card ONLY for women; or the "looks matter" card, ONLY for women.  
Look at the GE teams (NBC, MSNBC and CNBC).  Not one of their male stars (Russert, Matthews, Williams, Carlson, Abrams, Scarborough) can even be considered remotely "hot."  Sure, I love KO but if Keith were not the liberal intellectual, he would be, at best, just your average looking guy.  In fact on the GE owned network, the men go from somewhat old and unattractive (Timmy, Buchanan) to at best average (Matthews, Scarborough,Carlson).  I mean, why don't we, the women get to have a Clooney or a Brad as the pundit leads?  Why aren't Russert and Matthews sent out to pasture, or Scarborough being told to get some plastic surgery?

But the women?  None of them are average in any way.  They are all young and above average in looks. If a woman does not look GREAT and young and beautiful, they are at best, occasionally invited to do a short report or a special on CNN.

So why does this bother me?  

It's sexism.  Women without drop dead gorgeous looks, perfect bodies, do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a gig in the news industry, no matter how bright, how intellectually  superior they may be.  No so with men. (Yes, I know it's also true in show biz in general.  That does not make it any less unacceptable).  

If people wonder why Matthews accusations of Hillary playing the gender card pushed a hot button with some of us, that is  (just) one of the reasons.  It is not freaking fair.  
Our society has been playing the gender card all my life.  It still is.  And yes it still plays the race card.  I just love when wingers (and some of the pundit shills) go batsh*t crazy over how that time, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had used an ethnic slur against Jews, everytime institutionalized racism is acknowledged.  Somehow their gaff, their insensitivity and stupidity is used to justify hundreds of years of racism with "see they do it too."  

Same thing with the whole "gender card" game that was played out in the media recently and sadly here.  Somehow, the "gotcha lie" on Hillary's visit to her alma mater is an "aha, see they do it too"  and, for some, justifies or undoes or neutralizes the fact that  gender is an issue in so many ways.

I don't know why I wrote this diary.  Maybe MSNBC just pushed that button for me again.  Or maybe I want to explain why many women, including myself and many of my friends, (even the ones for whom Hillary is not the first choice) do admit openly, the notion of a female president has a lot of appeal. No, we will not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. It would be a cold day in hell before any of us would have even remotely considered a Libby Dole, or any other wingnut female.  However, to us (and I know some here disagree which is their right) Hillary is a progressive, and has proven to us over the years she firmly supports many of the same causes we support.  Women are no more monolithic than any other group.  But we do share one thing.  Many of us have been shut out of many things for many years because of our gender (whether outright sexism, or the  ridiculous standards imposed on women:  looks, body image, age  not imposed on men).

This is my view and I am sticking to it.

•  Any alms, tips or tuppence

  for a mature female, will be appreciated.

  HINT: Gender is an issue in running for this office.  Race is an issue in running for this office. Religion is an issue in running for this office. If these things were not issues then we would not have had all 43 presidents being exclusively male, white and Christian.

  by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:17:28 AM PDT

  •  yeap

    its more than the notion of a female president. its the notion of a 60yr old female president. the one thing the media LOVES to force on people is the idea that women over a "certain age" are WORTHLESS.

    i was just commenting on another diary who called hil's run "the ultimate post-menopausal power grab' or something of the sort.

    it is so disguisting that i have no moved from a strong edwards supporter, to a likely hillary supporter.

    and i suspect plenty of women will/are donig the same

    by AmericanHope on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:23:06 AM PDT

    •  I saw that comment

      and I saw red.  I can't remember if I retorted or just kicked out some windows.

      HINT: Gender is an issue in running for this office.  Race is an issue in running for this office. Religion is an issue in running for this office. If these things were not issues then we would not have had all 43 presidents being exclusively male, white and Christian.

      by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:40:41 AM PDT

      •  good to hear im not the only one

        what i think is that all it does is take female supporters of the other candidates like me and make them like hillary more.

        by AmericanHope on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:46:41 AM PDT

        •  No you are not

          I still like John and Barack a lot.  I started out supporting John and the more I am here, the more I read the crap in the media, the more I am moving toward Hillary.

          HINT: Gender is an issue in running for this office.  Race is an issue in running for this office. Religion is an issue in running for this office. If these things were not issues then we would not have had all 43 presidents being exclusively male, white and Christian.
          

          by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:52:46 AM PDT

          •  and i think

            theres alot of us out there. this shit has been going on for far to long, and never  really gets talked about in any extended way

            by AmericanHope on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:55:29 AM PDT

•  In 1980, I saw an amazing presentation by

  the Boston Womens' Collective, about sexism in marketing.  This was a slide show lecture analyzing magazine ads.  They showed ads with women in stereotyped roles (kitchen and housework), ads that demeaned women as helpless or silly, ads that sexually exploited women, and ads that juxtaposed violence and sex.  Many of these ads were already familiar to me.  This raised my consciousness considerably (I was a college student at the time).  But more than 25 years later, I still see the same kinds of images constantly.  I certainly does not surprise me that news readers are chosen according to the same sexist norms.  Anyway, thank you for your very perceptive diary.

  by Dimetrodon on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:21:52 AM PDT

  •  I remember as a kid

    way back in the 1950s being lucky enough to have a Dad that had me convinced I could and should do anything I want (and considering my father was a first generation American from immigrant parents who hailed from a background (Italian) notoriously sexist).
    When some similar fathers (like my mother's brother) were adamantly opposed to women going to college (especially if they had to live away from home, akin to his mind to becoming a "puttana".

    Then as I went into the real world, I realized that there were blocks and ceilings than even my father's words could not overcome.  But I watched little by little as things did change in many arenas, which is good.  

    And yet, still the media insist on telling young women over and over and over that there is a triple standard for women in many arenas: looks, age and body size.

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:51:03 AM PDT

    •  what's the average male newcaster

      like in terms of looks/age/body size these days? (I have to admit I don't watch network news for the sake of my blood pressure if there is any way to avoid it.) We used to have the more "fatherly" types like Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley in my big TV watching days. Around the time William Hurt played the shallow newcaster in Network News I thought we were going over to the blow-dried pretty boy look. Are we back to old farts again?

      When whoever it was gushed "The Navy Seals rock my world!!" during a Iraq newscast I thought I saw my whole life (or maybe it was 30 years of progress against sexism) flash before my eyes. Kind of like a media near death experience. ;^)

      by glaser on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:09:07 AM PDT

      •  Well, there are definitely some of

        the prototypes from that movie (which I thought was very insightful) on cable.  But overwhelmingly the people dominating the news and the punditry are white, older males.  The younger males on cable are at best average so maybe if I were naive I would think that the network chiefs were  fighting that stereotype.  But the not naive me knows that the CEO's, being predominantly older white males, were just hiring themselves over and over and over.  

        During the hey day of Cronkite, Huntley Brinkley, the newsman reflected who we were: a white, protestant patriarchal society. Four decades later one would expect some change in representation.  It's not there..
        Katie was an attempt to change that perception.  Not to excuse Katie's own foibles, on some level, I suspect she has been instructed to NOT be too liberal (the Mommy party, you know).  And like a lot of women who do attain power, there is a concerted effort to knock down the stereotypes.  Hillary's "more hawkish than I would like" stance, for me, comes from fighting the accepted notion for most of our history as a country that a woman would never be tough enough to be a "commander-in- chief"; that her homones and natural bleeding heart of a female would make her unable to stand up to despots of the world.  
        So she overcompensates to change the perception.

        I have seen women do it all along.  When in my profession, education, women were finally breaking into administration, some of the first women principals bent over backwards to show they could kick ass with kids and parents as much as any man.  The good ones found out that their best path was to be themselves.

        by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:25:54 AM PDT

•  big time rec'd

  by AmericanHope on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

•  It sends a message to young women

  that they are worthless unless they are gorgeous.Maybe not worthless but "less than".At least MSNBC got an African American anchor.Of course she is gorgeous.I am not jealous.I looked vey good when I was young.But I never equated success with the way I looked.My generation tried to overcome that sexist attitude.We thought we had made some progress.Boy were we wrong.

  by kayfromsouth on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:25:03 AM PDT

•  It sends a message to young women

  that they are worthless unless they are gorgeous.Maybe not worthless but "less than".At least MSNBC got an African American anchor.Of course she is gorgeous.I am not jealous.I looked vey good when I was young.But I never equated success with the way I looked.My generation tried to overcome that sexist attitude.We thought we had made some progress.Boy were we wrong.

  by kayfromsouth on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:25:04 AM PDT

  •  Sorry

    for the double post

    by kayfromsouth on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:27:08 AM PDT

    •  That's OK

      Your comment was worth repeating.

      We were wrong thinking we would be past that crap. And that really is disconcerting.

      I remember a moment from the Mary Tyler Moore show.  Mary and Rhoda were at a party with a bunch of younger people (they, at the time, were unmarried 30 somethings, considered strange in our world, then and now).  Rhoda had gone with Mary who was dating a younger guy.  Anyway, they were drinking beer out of a styrofoam cup and Rhoda snarked "we've come a long way baby."  

      That line plays in my head to this day.  I remember how Matthews has been allowed to drool over these young women, be openly and blatantly and obnoxiously sexist and that's OK; no one in power says a word.  Hillary goes to her alma mater and speaks about the glass ceiling (real) and the boy's club presidencey (real) and he and the rest of the media go batsh*t crazy with their accusations of gender issues.  Sigh!

      HINT: Gender is an issue in running for this office.  Race is an issue in running for this office. Religion is an issue in running for this office. If these things were not issues then we would not have had all 43 presidents being exclusively male, white and Christian.

      by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:39:31 AM PDT

•  I agree with you, but--

  can't you see how Hillary will get clobbered in the general election, precisely because Americans aren't used to get any news and opinion from middle-aged women, and are uncomfortable unconsciously--and unprepared--for it, esp from a woman that they've already stereotyped and chosen to dislike.

  Hillary will sink the Democratic Party at the moment we need it most.  That's the blow for feminism.  To me, a man who supports women's issues is far more valuable than a figurehead.

  by laurenc on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:43:53 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, I cannot agree with this premise

    can't you see how Hillary will get clobbered in the general election, precisely because Americans aren't used to get any news and opinion from middle-aged women, and are uncomfortable unconsciously--and unprepared--for it, esp from a woman that they've already stereotyped and chosen to dislike.

    While I am sure there are some who remain in that thinking mode, my gut and my experiences with my own friends and family, tell me that women are just getting angrier and angrier about that stereotype.

    If not NOW, then WHEN.
    I think a lot of us are angry about, tired of hearing...
    "no, wait...there will be a better (younger, prettier, more acceptable to men) choice.  Screw the people with that mentality.  Most women I know are not willing to play that game any more.

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:56:57 AM PDT

•  If these women are scantly clad

  I would agree with you, but if not i'm not sure I could.

  by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:45:45 AM PDT

  •  Then you

    obviously missed the point.

    Or maybe this was snark?

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:42 AM PDT

    •  all I was saying

      If these women are dressed normally and know what they are talking about then how does sexism play a role?

      by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:10:57 AM PDT

      •  Are you serious?

        You really don't get it?

        If you are a woman, and know what you are talking about, maybe even are MORE informed, more experienced, and at the very least have the same degrees (if not more), but you are over a certain age, over a certain weight, and don't have the looks,  you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

        But if you are a man, those things are not even considered.  If they were, do you think Russert would be doing MTP?  

        If you don't see the sexism, then you need to do some reading and learning.

        by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:28:35 AM PDT

        •  pretty condesending

          and thinking you can't be wrong, am I talking to Geroge Bush? Here are some examples where you thheory doesn't work:
          The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
          emply both Judy Woddruff (born 1946) and Gwen Ifill(born 1955)
          Also a large majority of news women are normal everyday women, very few are bombshells.

          by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 09:44:36 AM PDT

          •  Not condescending

            but talking about MSNBC not PBS.

            You really don't see it. That's your perogative.

            A lot of people still don't see racism and sexism in the world.  That's their right.  I see it. I say it. You do not have to agree.

            Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill are good role models on PBS.  But they are not the norm. Over 50% of the population is female.  Where's the representation in the punditry crowd?  You can site one channel.  I can site the rest.

            by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 06:56:30 PM PDT

•  The men are rich

  Male bling is greater than looks.

  by The Dead Man on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:55:54 AM PDT

  •  And who makes the rules

    about that?

    I suspect it's fat, old, ugly rich men.

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:58:21 AM PDT

    •  I dunno, but it landed Thompson a looker

      Some people like that sort of thing I guess.

      by The Dead Man on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

      •  Well there is no doubt

        that "power and money" for some women (and men I suspect) are aphrodisiacs.  I remember as a young women joking with my friends, saying that "it's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor one..."
        Once when one of my friend's very beautiful older sister (who I thought looked like a model, tall and slim) was dating this short skinny guy, we were all stunned.  But then for their engagement gift he bought her a brand new '67 Mustang.  We all noticed how much taller and better looking he got...LOL

        But, I do think women, were socialized to look for certain qualities in men (good providers) throughout history.  There is an anthropological component too.  Remember for most of history, the result of sex for women was often a pregnancy which left them vulnerable and in need of protection and support.  

        While it has changed somewhat, a young woman can be attracted to an old "f*rt" because of needs.  When I was in my late twenties I dated a surgeon who was in his fifties.  I found his confidence and intelligence and success attractive, even if he was no Robert Redford.  I can see how that happens (though Fred Thompson's intellectual appeal seems null and void).

        Yea, she's a young and attractive women with an old, rich, powerful man.  Not that unusual.

        by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:54:20 AM PDT

•  I Still Contend The Progressive Bit

  You're right that she's often championed progressive beliefs, but I would say that that's only when they are not opposed by military-industrial or megacorporation desires.  When there's nothing but small-time social conservatives on the other side, I think she's championed them, but I do think that that's because her #1 & #2 favorite things to champion weren't involved, so she was able to pick her #3 favorite thing.

  **shrug**

  by kitkatkos on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:57:46 AM PDT

  •  Well, the fact that you

    perceive things differently from me, is your right.

    It's a perception of a person's motives.  We all do that to all the candidates.  
    People have questioned the motives of a lot of candidates.

    Does Obama really believe that us old baby boomers "can't change"...he just said this morning that he thinks the Clintons are stuck in the old battles of the 60s.  It's my perception that he really does not believe that but is pandering to youth who maybe do believe it.   Maybe I am wrong but it's my perception.

    Does John Edwards really believe Hillary was playing the gender card?   I don't think so.  My perception is that he saw an opening created by the media and took it.

    Anyway, perception of motives is what we all base some things on.  I have no problem with that.  My problem is that the middle aged male dominated press gets to take THEIR sick perceptions about women and use them against us.

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:05:16 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm...

      Okay, I don't believe that Sen. Obama's #1 cause is passing "younger-than-boomer policies."

      I believe that's, oh, maybe #20 or something.

      I believe his #1 cause is passing (by convincing opponents of their wisdom) progressive policies.
       
       
      Why the heck is his campaign having him talk about anything but his #1 goal (restated, of course, so he doesn't come off as a brainwasher to those he'd like to convince of progressive ideals one day)?

      BEATS THE HECK OUT OF ME.  I keep writin' 'em to tell 'em they need to shut up & let him outline progressive policies.  Yeesh.

      by kitkatkos on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM PDT

•  I agree w/ you on everything else, though!

  I love all the TV bits, though, and do wish that more Kossacks were putting time & energy into targeting those stations' execs & advertisers than trying to influence the primary elections.  :-(

  by kitkatkos on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 07:58:55 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    I just think that, regardless of your stance on Hillary as a candidate, it is foolish to believe that the men's club of the media is not threatened by her potential success.

    by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:06:33 AM PDT

    •  Oh, that I don't believe one bit. Sorry.

      Or, at least not seriously threatened.  I believe 100% that they'll find a way to keep the media the way it is, genderwise, no matter whether or not she succeeds.

      I believe that the ONLY thing that could keep them from finding a way to keep the media the way it is would be to fight the media/advertisers directly like I mentioned.  Sorry.

      by kitkatkos on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 01:14:55 PM PDT