Comments on: Sexism at The Nation? Surely not! History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:19:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Looking for sexism in the coverage of women candidates for office? Try a mirror. : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:03:24 +0000 [...] glanced at the archives of The Nation from 2007-08 lately?  No?  Need a refresher?  Look here.  And here.  And here, where notorious d!ckbag Tom Hayden calls Hillary Clinton “the screech on the [...]

By: Historiann Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:49:05 +0000 I read the links–I didn’t think the publication date was as important (2007 v. 2008). I remember reading a column of hers in the print edition in which she wrote something like, “If people don’t STFU with the sexism about Clinton, I may just have to go ahead and vote for her!”

I remember the Tom Hayden article quite clearly. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back about (not) renewing my subscription to the magazine.

Thanks for the link & intel about Tina Fey’s book. And, for the record–this ain’t my day job, so I don’t really care who reads or who doesn’t. I’m a lot more excited about the impressive historians who read me anyway–people most Americans have never heard of, but they’re more important to me than any other readers.

By: Martha Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:41:00 +0000 Wrong link.

That’s the link about Katha & this site. Other link goes to Ava and C.I.’s book reviews — Shirley MacLaine’s new book and the awful book from Tina Fey. On Fey, they note how laughable and dishonest her sexism discussion is — including what happened on the first SNL show.

By: Martha Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:39:25 +0000 Historiann: “She covered the sexism of the 2008 primary in real time, and was concerned about it although she was openly an Obama supporter.” No, she didn’t.
You got Rickrolled by Katha Pollitt. 3 of the 8 articles she provided links to are from 2007. She didn’t do much at all in 2008 and did you not read the link to the Tom Hayden article? Where she confesses she’s been biting her tongue to do her part for Obama, biting her tongue and ignoring sexism?
Third Estate Sunday Review wrote about this yesterday:

And unlike you, they’ve covered reality for some time. In 2007, The Nation featured 491 bylines by men, 149 by women. Third Estate did a year long study. In addition, they’ve called out Katha repeatedly.

You really need to read the articles Katha provided links to. They do not back up the claim that she defended Hillary. The one with Nader in the title is calling — despite Katha’s opening — for Hillary to drop out the race in March 2008.

Next time, don’t be so thrilled “Katha reads me!” Next time stick to your guns. You were right the first time. You’re wrong now.

By: Emma Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:22:52 +0000 Historiann,

Pollitt wasn’t “the” public voice of feminism. She was “a” public voice of feminism. Other voices were out there: Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan to name two. Of course, there was also Samantha Power who, I suppose, could be called a diverse viewpoint on the relative merits of Clinton v. Obama.

Nonetheless, in my view, as either “a” or “the” public voice of feminism, Pollitt fell down on the job by writing about how glad she was that Clinton didn’t win because, you know, it just would’ve been too hard to watch. Is is unfair to say that? I don’t see how.

IMO, Pollitt’s writing about Obama v. Clinton really came off as Pollitt looking for any excuse not to support Clinton. Why she wanted that excuse is anybody’s guess, I suppose, but it certainly doesn’t seem to have been based in policy differences.

By: Historiann Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:57:51 +0000 Carenna & all–but isn’t the point that it’s completely unfair and unnecessary that Pollitt is “the public face of feminism” in the U.S.? My point is that it’s totally unfair and unreasonable that there’s only ONE bimonthly column space for ONE feminist writer in mainstream U.S. magazines.

Feminism is a diverse movement and feminists frequently disagree with one another. Feminists don’t vote in a bloc and we frequently support different candidates in primaries and in general elections. Pollitt had her views on the relative merits of Obama v. Clinton–I disagreed with her and with the magazine she writes for, which appeared to be engaged not just in partisanship or boosterism for Obama (forgivable) but vicious character assassination frequently built on sexist tropes against Clinton (baffling and unforgivable, IMO).

The solution is for more feminist voices in the mainstream press so that a *variety* of feminist viewpoints are represented. But, no one except feminists–who are already almost completely shut out–care about this, even on the left. Leftist men are completely OK with high profile news magazines and elite opinion being decided entirely by men.

By: Slinkies « Grumpy rumblings of the untenured Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:07:48 +0000 [...] An example of language being dangerous by Historiann. [...]

By: Carenna Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:04:24 +0000 Thanks, Emma. As preposterous as I find the notion that we could appease misogynists if we’d just give them what they want and go away quietly, I think it’s even more shocking that a public face of feminism would single out the country’s only-ever viable female candidate for a unique obligation to deliver her votes. I don’t recall this heavy burden devolving upon, say, Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean, neither of whom suffered much in the way of consequences for failing to assist their primary opponents in any significant way, and I frankly can’t imagine any major left publication having the chutzpah to declare that:

“It’s incredibly important for Obama to do the right thing and rally these men to Clinton, and I wish I felt surer that he would rise to the occasion.

He could begin by pointing out that Clinton is pro-civil rightsand as President will pursue policies to benefit all men–on labor, healthcare, voting rights and many other issues.”

And if any publication did have the chutzpah to address the nation’s second major African American candidate thus, and put such a unique and unreasonable burden on him? I imagine they’d regret it, as the outcry would be rather prodigious.

By: Hattie Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:45:00 +0000 Why fight among ourselves? Is that safer than actually taking on the misogynists? I really hate some of those guys, like Tom Hayden, for instance. I almost lost it when Naomi Klein had to be interviewed with him. Yuck.
Pollitt nailed it when she said the men of the left loved public assistance, because it relieved them of their obligations to the women and children in their lives.

By: Historiann Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:19:44 +0000 I don’t think it’s necessarily sexist. (After all, it’s widely recognized that Abigail Adams and John Adams–like other couples–influenced each other intellectually and politically.) I didn’t read The Nation for more than the Bush II years, but Pollitt didn’t seem to me to change her tune overall from 2001-2008 or so.