I don't find it terribly sexist. I think that Frum would have said the same thing about Kennedy.
To the extent that it may be sexist, I think it would be less an issue of Frum being anti-woman and more the somewhat feminized language to describe weakness.
I'm not sure if it's fair to describe him as anti-woman when 'clueless' may just as well apply.
But then, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of evidence for Miers' susceptibility to (what, exactly, wanting to be liked? or to go to conferences in Italy?) whatever it is that turns Justices liberal other than the fact that she's female.
Of course, if she's that susceptible, perhaps Scalia will be the contagion. Or maybe Frum is just talking out of his ass.
Yeah, actually, having re-read it, he pretty much implies that she's a shrinking violet who will wilt because she wants the boys to like her and if she has a different opinion they won't ask her to homecoming.
And that reads sexist to me, although not particularly unusually so. (Although I don't think I agree with the last sentence. I'm not coming up with appointees, but politicians get dinged for having the wrong personality all the time.)
What I was referring to with the term feminized is "the sweet little inducements--the flattery." That seems to me to be the language of seduction and courtship, where women are supposed to be weak and susceptible.
In the twenty-odd years I've been reading political coverage, I can't rememeber even *one* instance of someone opposing any kind of appointment with the claim that the nominee doesn't have the proper personality to handle the pressure.
Really? What about John McCain? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of Democratic presidential candidates thought to be not tough enough to do the job properly?
This particular criticism also seems basically similar to one aspect of the critique levelled against John Kerry w/r/t flip-flopping: that the candidate doesn't believe strongly enough in absolutes to be trusted with office.
Point taken, Tom, but Dean and McCain were a bit different, in that the line was that they would snap, and blow shit up, not that they were weak and fragile and liable to "inducements." But given the reaction here, obviously not everyone reads this as being as sexist as I read it.
In various profiles, Miers isa described as tough, so Frum's description is surprising. Could conceivably be because of sexism, but Frum is a former insider, so maybe he speaks from personal expreience.
I don't think it's a gendered thing; it's a common right-wing fear about Supreme Court nominees. There's a hilarious conservative postulate that justices trend liberal over time because they want to be liked at all those elite liberal cocktail parties -- and in particular, because they want to get favorable coverage from Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times' Court correspondent. It's known as "The Greenhouse Effect," and it's discussed whenever a nominee lacks a Clarence Thomas–style overarching worldview to supercede little things like the facts of cases.
Oh, the fear isn't gendered; the language of the description ('taut and nervous', the 'vapors', 'the sweet little inducements--the flattery') is a little gendered. It's not all that strong -- I'm surprised it set ogged off to the degree it did.
I'll split the difference on this. I think the language is gendered and feminized but I also could see Frum using those exact words in an attack on a male candidate to impugn his masculinity.
Tough. You want to apply prescriptively the rules to all the words, but once you've given the keys to the OED to the people, shouldn't you spell fresh words as they describe? I think "hos," but I also admit that I have no flow/skillz.
Given the crowd that uses such language, it is likely that the better spellers would be in the minority, and so I claim victory by virtue of unpopularity.
I don't find it terribly sexist. I think that Frum would have said the same thing about Kennedy.
To the extent that it may be sexist, I think it would be less an issue of Frum being anti-woman and more the somewhat feminized language to describe weakness.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:34 AM
I don't see the sexist part either, or are you saying he calls Kennedy a girly-man?
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:43 AM
I'm not sure if it's fair to describe him as anti-woman when 'clueless' may just as well apply.
But then, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of evidence for Miers' susceptibility to (what, exactly, wanting to be liked? or to go to conferences in Italy?) whatever it is that turns Justices liberal other than the fact that she's female.
Of course, if she's that susceptible, perhaps Scalia will be the contagion. Or maybe Frum is just talking out of his ass.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:53 AM
Some of his word choices are odd. "The vapors?" "Sweet little inducements?"
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 9:59 AM
the somewhat feminized language to describe weakness
I don't see this, except in that weakness is pre-associated with feminity. I think he's using fairly gender-neutral terms to describe weakness.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:10 AM
Yeah, actually, having re-read it, he pretty much implies that she's a shrinking violet who will wilt because she wants the boys to like her and if she has a different opinion they won't ask her to homecoming.
Taut and anxious describes most lawyers I know.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:11 AM
Hey, lots of us are squishy and anxious.
And that reads sexist to me, although not particularly unusually so. (Although I don't think I agree with the last sentence. I'm not coming up with appointees, but politicians get dinged for having the wrong personality all the time.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:19 AM
What I was referring to with the term feminized is "the sweet little inducements--the flattery." That seems to me to be the language of seduction and courtship, where women are supposed to be weak and susceptible.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:21 AM
We're entering the level of scrutiny also known as "Scanning for most objectionable content."
Posted by ogmb | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 10:48 AM
In the twenty-odd years I've been reading political coverage, I can't rememeber even *one* instance of someone opposing any kind of appointment with the claim that the nominee doesn't have the proper personality to handle the pressure.
Really? What about John McCain? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of Democratic presidential candidates thought to be not tough enough to do the job properly?
This particular criticism also seems basically similar to one aspect of the critique levelled against John Kerry w/r/t flip-flopping: that the candidate doesn't believe strongly enough in absolutes to be trusted with office.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:32 AM
Point taken, Tom, but Dean and McCain were a bit different, in that the line was that they would snap, and blow shit up, not that they were weak and fragile and liable to "inducements." But given the reaction here, obviously not everyone reads this as being as sexist as I read it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:39 AM
How ironic.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:40 AM
And what's the irony?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:41 AM
I'm glad I wasn't the first to say it.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:42 AM
Oy, if this is a bphd thing, feel free not to explain.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 11:43 AM
Doesn't Frum know Miers personally?
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:36 PM
In various profiles, Miers isa described as tough, so Frum's description is surprising. Could conceivably be because of sexism, but Frum is a former insider, so maybe he speaks from personal expreience.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 12:59 PM
Or maybe Frum is just talking out of his ass.
Indeed, I see no reason why this instance should be different from any other time he opens his, uhh, mouth. I'll bet his breath stinks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 1:05 PM
I don't think it's a gendered thing; it's a common right-wing fear about Supreme Court nominees. There's a hilarious conservative postulate that justices trend liberal over time because they want to be liked at all those elite liberal cocktail parties -- and in particular, because they want to get favorable coverage from Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times' Court correspondent. It's known as "The Greenhouse Effect," and it's discussed whenever a nominee lacks a Clarence Thomas–style overarching worldview to supercede little things like the facts of cases.
Posted by D is for Drivel | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:28 PM
Oh, the fear isn't gendered; the language of the description ('taut and nervous', the 'vapors', 'the sweet little inducements--the flattery') is a little gendered. It's not all that strong -- I'm surprised it set ogged off to the degree it did.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:41 PM
I give up.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:44 PM
You meant to say that Ogged is banned.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:48 PM
Unfogged is a B+ blog at finding sexism.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:49 PM
I had a funny comment all typed up, but I can't determine the correct spelling of the hip-hoppian abbreviation for "whores." "Hos" or "hoes"?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:52 PM
I'll split the difference on this. I think the language is gendered and feminized but I also could see Frum using those exact words in an attack on a male candidate to impugn his masculinity.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 2:54 PM
I do believe that the gentlemen of hip-hop are known to refer to their ladies as "hos," not "hoes."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:02 PM
But see here.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:04 PM
The second category is obviously digging up on the prolific web sites run by the Urban Amish.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:08 PM
No, I don't think so.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:10 PM
(who frequently cite that "life is nought but bitches and hoes.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:10 PM
wait, "urban amish" actually returned results, and when couple with "bitches"? That's amazing.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:11 PM
Those results exclude "urban amish".
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:12 PM
oy, minus sign. I'm a B+ reader.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:12 PM
However, we have this and these.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:13 PM
Urban Amish, Amish Urban
I wear a hat, yo, not a turban
Black's my color, these colors donj't run
I'll step to you with a hoe, not a gun
--Thresh 'n FX
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:17 PM
And even these.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:18 PM
Tough. You want to apply prescriptively the rules to all the words, but once you've given the keys to the OED to the people, shouldn't you spell fresh words as they describe? I think "hos," but I also admit that I have no flow/skillz.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:24 PM
In support of me. Also, ho But not hoe. Further.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:24 PM
And
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:26 PM
Ho, ho, ho, Michael.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:26 PM
Michael, no one disputes that one whore is a "ho," the question is whether many whores are "hos" or "hoes". Back to the urban dictionary.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:29 PM
It's my fault others have trouble making plurals.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:33 PM
not my fault, I meant.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:34 PM
Let's just leave it there.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:35 PM
wait, what about your hilarious comment?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:36 PM
The time has passed (and I only claimed "funny").
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:38 PM
It does seem that the "hoes" pluralization is the preferred one, no matter how wrong.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:39 PM
Given the crowd that uses such language, it is likely that the better spellers would be in the minority, and so I claim victory by virtue of unpopularity.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:41 PM
What are you trying to say about urban culture, Bill "Michael" Bennett?
Posted by MC Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:44 PM
Hey, I know it's like a hog callin a guy "stinky," but them boyZ is creative spellers.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 10- 3-05 3:49 PM