I read it as a joke. Others read it as a vile sexist attack. Your thoughts?
“She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated, she’s tough. She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general.” — President Obama, quoted by the Washington Post, on California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D).
Yes, it was a comment, and yes, a compliment, on Harris’ appearance. But it is also a joke. He said it to get a laugh and a cheer. He obviously did not say it to belittle her, as some who are yelling sexism are saying. To the contrary, he said as a joke, or a bonus, after he listed Harris’ true and most relevant characteristics.
Rhea Hughes, a stellar sports radio host who happens to also be a beautiful woman in a male-dominated and sexist sports world (and thus would be familiar with sexist attacks and comments on her appearance), tends to be my barometer on what is sexist and offensive and what is not. She is outspoken when she is offended, and this morning, when Angelo was trying to make a big deal about “the President is in trouble in making a sexist remark, and may have to apologize,” Rhea immediately jumped in and said “No he doesn’t, it was funny.”
So you know my thoughts, what are yours?
BuzzFeed, in response, compiled a list of the 12 hottest attorney generals, all male. The winner? Delaware’s own Beau Biden.
I never took offensive when someone said Sarah Palin was attractive, pretty, or good looking so I’m not seeing the sexism here.
Sexism isn’t giving someone a compliment.
I read it as a compliment. Many compliments are gender specific. For example He/She is brilliant – not gender specific. Compliments that are gender specific are not automatically sexist. To me a sexist comment would be one that demeans or disparages a person. Since what he said was neither demeaning or disparaging it was a gender specific comment.
There are those who would categorize recognition of any difference between genders as sexist, which I believe promotes homogenization rather than recognizing and celebrating our differences.
In this case… since the male making the comments doesn’t have a history of sexist remarks/actions.. it isn’t vile sexism…. but you still wouldn’t have heard it about a male AG. Is there such a thing as “positive sexism?”…. i.e something that would only be said (in a western heteronormative sense) by a man about a woman, but isn’t intentionally derogatory/demeaning. So…. I’ll call it sexist, but unoffensive.
Even if it was sexist — I’d argue it’s looksist, actually — what are women going to do, vote for the Republicans instead? I think not.
Remember when everyone pointed out that Joe Biden called Paul Ryan handsome? Me neither.
I do remember a lot of people saying how handsome Mitt Romney, John Edwards and Scott Brown are. And what about JFK?
So, I’m gonna have to disagree with you, Ben. We do hear it when it comes to men. We simply don’t notice it for some reason.
There is an actual definition of sexism.
Good that Buzzfeed waited until this year to do its rankings.
Delaware would not have fared well with Jane Brady or Charlie Oberly as our standard-bearer.
It’s a littttttle sexist.
point taken… allow me to clarify what I was saying. (aside from joe biden…. and not in a formal-setting) you dont typically hear politicians (underline) mention male physical attractiveness when giving a list of accomplishments. The media does, but they get a different set of rules.<snark
Devil's Advocate…… By pointing out AG Harris's physical appearence, Obama played to the traditional sexual role that a woman's appearence is important… Which fits the definition.
@socialistic ben – I suppose you’re right but that’s quite a hair split. He didn’t SAY her appearance was important, he just stated a fact after using superlatives like brilliant, dedicated and tough. He also qualified it by saying the old “she happens to be”, as in “she happens to be” gay, or he “happens to be” black.
If it is sexist it’s barely so. Was he implying something sexist. Not for me, but it’s not for me to say I guess. Did it make Harris uncomfortable? Did she even comment on it?
oh, i know it’s a hair-split. Subjectively, I don’t think it’s sexist. In a Yea/No setting, I have to say “yes” with a TON of qualifiers and explanation. I’m also kind of using this to highlight that it can be tricky and there really isn’t always a “yes or no” answer to this sort of thing.
If he had said, “She is the best looking attorney general – no wonder she got this job.” That would have been sexist.
This reminds of when certain men say, “I’m no longer holding a door open for a woman, because… Feminism!”
Holding a door open for anyone is a basic courtesy. Pretending it isn’t is simply a way to lessen real feminism. Just like the fuss over Obama’s statement strikes me as a way to lessen real sexism. Sometimes I can’t help but think people are being deliberately dumb in a clever sort of way because if everything is sexist then nothing is sexist.
heh. In all honesty, i thought about taking a swipe at Angelo (who really has demonstrated some unarguable sexism over the years) for doing exactly what you just said by bringing it up. I just couldn’t think of a good way to put it.
Having nothing else, the GOP has turned to gaffe hunting 24/7 This gaffe just may put McCain over the top.
If something like that becomes offensive, we may as well pack up the notion of sanity. On this, I support the President and agree with Pandora.
Athletic, sharp, handsome, better looking or any pleasant, positive description, big deal.. (Do notice however, none of the descriptive words, including that of the President’s – refer to sex.) The President’s remark includes being -“brilliant, ” dedicated” and “tough,” and are qualities far better than those of many of the present generation, in general.
Such attacks on the President of the United States for jokingly adding, “best looking attorney general” of his longtime friend, is hideous when at the very moment and at every second of every day, millions of children across America can and do turn on the TV to hear every descriptive referral as well as put down and sexual insult, and see depictions of sexual positions of sex acts, ( aka prime time ‘comedy,’) from threesomes rolling in the sack, to breathless after the fact descriptive accounts, interrupted by warnings of a 4 hour hard, from a little blue drug and – the present generation accepts it. Where’s the outrage?
But then again, what can one expect from an American generation that accepts the world’s climate being catastrophically changed by the ugliest, lowest forms of stupidity and greed – so that the world’s children are being left to deal with the direct results. Crank up the thermostat, jump into the gas hog but don’t let the thought of crimes against humanity, bother one’s pretty little head.
Let’s see, would one rather accept being jokingly referred to as “better” looking or accept the destruction of the only livable planet? Tough decision?
A man calling a woman “better looking” than men, is a joke; but then again, a different man might think a ‘man’ is far ‘better looking.’ Perhaps some are ‘feeling’ slighted as their particular ‘better-ness’ had been overlooked. Hello republicans.
What’s true is, being ‘better looking,’ whether it’s put into words or not, can work as either an advantage or as a disadvantage for all sexes, regarding employment. Have fun pretending to be able to sort that out. But never mind, because there are actually, more important issues. Life on the planet, for example.
Fret about someone’s appearance, instead of millions of climate change deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars in climate change losses, 396,80 ppm CO2, the increasing, alarming speed of melting polar regions, heated, acidic oceans; droughts, floods, extreme storms – that are a present and future reality with a known cause and effect, mainly, the over abundance of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and the rising global temperature. Which does not make life on earth look ‘better.’ In fact, an over abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere is hazardous waste, industrial by-product, vile and deadly. Don’t mention that, however.
One could call the present lying/denying generation, the ugliest generation in the history of all ‘mankind,’ and that includes – men and women, particularly those holding political office whose job description it is, to enact laws to ‘lead’ the states, the nation, the world, to a ‘better’ future instead of a catastrophically ugly one.
The present generation needs to put the mirror down and get over themselves. Try focusing on something actually important. Anthropogentic climate change, for example. Greed is never a pretty thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fwGCIzfwrE
Where are the millions of climate change deaths?
Do the math:
I know you don’t like to watch video geezer, but you should try to watch the above referenced video passed the ‘preview’ interruptions at 18 and 25 minutes – to the end of video. It’s impressive and pre Sandy.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5019
“By 2000, in fact, climate change was already responsible for 150,000 excess deaths annually-deaths that wouldn’t have occurred if we humans weren’t burning vast quantities of fossil fuels and loading up the air with carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”
“The World Health Organization (WHO) has calculated that by 2020 human-triggered climate change could kill 300,000 people worldwide every year.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77
When you are the best looking political guy in any office as being the originator of the quote, I think being called good looking would be considered a sincere compliment.
But if Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh said the same thing, I’d throw up in my mouth. Because you know they were only commenting on the breasts and ass….
Why are Republicans always so creepy?
I used to think that Rich Gebelein was, by far, the best looking attorney general.
But then came Charlie Oberly.
As expected, I saw nothing in the linked articles to support the scare numbers in even the slightest way. The only factor even mentioned was drought, which you might have noticed affects large parts of the globe with or without climate change.
The reason you can’t get any traction is that you make absurdly inflated claims. That was the stated strategy of James Hansen when he started on his quest, and it remains the biggest problem we have in trying to convince people that something should be done.
Wow, way to misrepresent the other side there, DD. I don’t think it is “vile sexism” but it is a form of sexism called benevolent sexism. You can read the science of it at this link:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/
Pointing out someone’s looks in a professional setting is wrong. It is very uncomfortable and dismissive. I know because it has happened to me. It’s a way to diminish your contribution. I’d rather get complimented on my work, knowledge or contribution.
Now, I don’t think he meant harm but this is a teaching moment. A lot of women don’t appreciate this behavior and it can turn creepy/aggressive. I’m sorry but it really bothers me and it is appropriate that he apologized to her.
Sorry, I saw some comments on Twitter last night (not yours) that were simply outrageous, calling for the President to be forcibly made to attend gender sensitivity training and the like.
And again, regarding “benevolent sexism,” you forget that he did compliment her on her work, and then joked that she was good looking. I’m sorry, but the complaints over this remark is the kind of thing that makes real femiminists look bad and make men feel like they shouldn’t even treat a woman nicely lest he be called a sexist.
“Look, I’m a 68-year-old guy and I do notice, honestly, the way that women look sometimes. But you’ve got to learn to sort of keep your opinions to yourself,” Democratic strategist James Carville said on MSNBC. “I doubt if he’ll do it again.”
And there you go. That is how it will be from now on. Men will have to keep their opinions to themselves. Of course, this means that women are no longer legally allowed to ask their boyfriends and husbands if they look good in that dress or if they look fat in that dress. Or, at least, men are no longer required to answer that question. 😉
Geezer, you must not have read the text or looked at the videos you asked for, so you still say, there’s no proof. One is merely a messenger, passing along links from legitimate climate scientists. There is no doubt as to the science offered (that’s why links are included,) – as now their predictions come true. But there is and remains, an over abundance of denial and corruption that has been ‘growing’ the climate problems for decades until it is as dire as it is today.
Doubting Thomas, even a direct personal experience would likely not change your ‘belief’ which of course, only fossil fuel interests would agree with. (What would it take for you to face the truth geezer… bodies?) Even then, you would say, “how does one know that person wouldn’t have died anyway.” (Everybody dies, right geezer?)
I’ll insert this true story here. I told a republican that people, especially poor people, are dying every day, due to climate change. The response? “So what, they’re going to die anyway.” True story. But one is sure a republican would expect more consideration of their own right to life. Hundreds of millions of human lives will be affected by climate change, but perhaps geezer and the denier/liars would rather not process that.
The biggest problem there is in ‘getting something done,’ would be the politicians who are their own special interest -their ‘interest’ being, getting re elected by supporting denier/liars. Why do you keep denying every link to proof, as you stand on the same side of the fence as deniers?
So, where’s YOUR proof geezer, that the people already dead by extreme climate storms, floods, starvation by climate drought, climate migration wars, drinking water shortages, resulting diseases, heat stoke by extreme temperatures – would have died at that very time anyway? YOU prove it to me. geezer. Otherwise, you’re in the same stinking, sinking boat with the 1% denial bastards, making stuff up.
This isn’t a climate change post. Please take this discussion to the Open Thread. DD has an interesting discussion going on about Obama’s comments on a post he took the time to write. Thank you.
You’re welcome. Of the Bidens, one hopes future generations can remember them, as being great leaders.
The original post at 11:50 a.m. above, was to show how meaningless it is to argue about two words in a joke. And yes kiddies, it’s much more fun, sexy and important, to talk about how one “looks” but sorry, it’s just another republican trick to attack a President they despise. But being reminded how attention and time can be wasted on the senseless, when mankind faces the largest problem it has ever faced, just isn’t fun, is it.
One woman is jokingly called ‘better looking,’ people become excited, ignoring the larger problem which is the current self centered generation on track to become the dumbest and ugliest generation in the history of mankind.
Geezer, If you want to offer the requested proof, kindly do so at Friday Open Thread.
@DD “Sorry, I saw some comments on Twitter last night (not yours) that were simply outrageous,”
We live in the outrage era where outrage is the only acceptable response and if one isn’t outraged, they are taken to task about how they can be so insensitive, or rascist, or sexist or some other ist that they fail to be outraged. Remember the differences between the Spanish and English signs at the park? The first reaction was not to wonder why they were different. Rather it was outrage. We get outraged at mistakes, faux pas, inconsiderate behavior, and well…just about everything. Used to be a polite tsk tsk would suffice. Now, the required response is outrage.
Did YOU read the stories you linked to? No, I didn’t watch the video. I require print. And I read all three stories. Tell ya what — maybe I missed it. Why don’t YOU show me the lines about the millions of dead? Go ahead, I’ll wait — you apparently have boundless energy for typing self-righteous screeds. Go find it for me.
You’re just dumber than a bag of hammers, aren’t you? I already agree with you about climate change, you dumb fuck. I just don’t want to hear you screech about it, especially when you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. If you’re going to blame every weather event on climate change, nobody is going to listen to you. And I don’t blame them. I don’t want to listen to you either.
I told you this last time: Stop preaching to the choir. Go post this stuff at right-wing blogs, where they need to see it. Or, less politely, fuck off, asshole.
Response to geezer’s abusive protests, will be posted according to pandora’s request, at Friday Open Threat immediately following this post, as anonymous will make perfectly clear, what it is geeezer denies and why it is ‘geezer’ protests so unprofessionally and vulgarly.
Are Geezer and Mike Protack the same person? Or has the same hacker infiltrated each?