The piece by JM Rieger of The Huffington Post addresses “overt . . . sexism” on cable news. It was published in response to recent sexist accusations made by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) to Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. This video assembles various instances of bigotry and chauvinism exhibited by both cable news hosts and guests, all of whom are men. Their remarks range from the petty – mocking Nancy Pelosi for her looks – to the more consequential – denigrating the wherewithal of working women and of a female president. The clips span a number of years, but the majority were aired by Fox News.
I found this video interesting because, although many are outraged by the misogynistic rhetoric surrounding Donald Trump’s bid for president, they are less outraged by the equally discriminatory and hateful rhetoric Americans see on television every day. This lack of outrage may be attributed to a lack of awareness rather than a lack of concern. Most Americans do not tune into Fox News, and those who do are far more likely to vote for Trump than they are to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election. In fact, I would hazard that these cohorts almost completely overlap. It is this ignorant, vitriolic rhetoric that made the rise of Trump, of Trumpism, at all possible in 2016.
My central questions are these: If pollsters say that Clinton is our next president, yet cable news says women belong in the kitchen, what does this mean for women in America? How will they – how should they – respond to “critics” whose only aim is to attack? How do the women in these clips (from what we can see) respond? Do they tend to invoke feminine style, or do they adjust their responses to the aggressive, male-dominated format? What is the role of a responsible male orator in this situation? And what does all of the above mean for a (very likely) Clinton presidency? Will Clinton’s election legitimize women as so-called “breadwinners”? Or will it incite even more rhetorical violence against women? Finally, perhaps more importantly, what is the source of this rhetoric? Is Fox News merely stoking the flames, using sensationalist tactics to win over a large audience? Or are they taking cues from the American people, only saying what the majority of our country wants to hear?
Thanks, again, for reading!
~ BH
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
This had come up on my facebook feed not long ago, and I had watched a minute of it then moved along. Sitting through all 4 minutes of this was so incredibly painful…. Regardless I want to touch on a few of your questions!
Clinton becoming the first female president will do as much for women as Obama did for African Americans. It will serve as an example and an inspiration, but holding this title will not change the systemic infrastructure of our society.
The female response to misogynistic comments or actions in these clips seems to be disbelief, and it went too quickly for me to really see a fully formed response.
Perhaps a Clinton presidency will establish women as the “breadwinners” but that term is nonexistent today. Our economy makes the feasibility of a single income household impossible, and if feminists are fighting for equality I don’t understand why any one gender should be seen as the breadwinner.
Fox news is designed to serve a certain mindset, and does so effectively. I agree that a large portion of the American public may ascribe to these misogynistic ideals, or else Fox news wouldn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, this was just painful to watch. Fox News has been the scourge of public television since I was alert to it and its perpetuation is a mark of shame on our country.
I’m not going to rewatch the footage but from what I recall, the women involved either showed shock or tried to talk back to no avail (reminds me of certain debates I’ve seen recently). The demeaning demeanor adds insult to injury considering as women are as much bread-earners as men especially the sacrificial anchor-women featured here (who is that guy to tell a woman what she should do to be happy? [goes back to Republicans telling women what to do with their bodies]).
I’m not sure I understood why Chris Matthews was featured at the end there; his remark seemed far more benign to the others shown.
LikeLike
Hi wordsofthewall,
I was wondering the same thing too, about Chris Matthews. After rewinding that bit I realized what was up-the female reporter, or pundit he was speaking to was leaning slightly forward and wearing a silk purple blouse that was unbuttoned to the second button, and the sleight of hand was that he asked her to come back into the frame of the camera, presumably as a joke to see down her shirt. So yeah, that was creepy. The sadder part of this Fox reel is not only related to the comments that many of us posted about not wanting to watch after a few minutes but also the helplessness that these professional women have to endure in the face of such nonsense on national television, and lurking below below the obvious disbelief. Though I’ve tried to view them with compassion, the women for Trump group have had me scratching my head for awhile as it points to the implicit bias many of us women have with this ‘locker room’ talk, as its been a staple for generations and embedded in our interpersonal exchanges for so long often shrugged off with platitudes like “boy will be boys” but over time, like any externally assigned value of worth, it erodes silently inside and becomes an internalized value of unworthy. Here’s hoping Hillary’s win on Tuesday will open these dialogues further and our tolerance lesser.
LikeLike
I agree that this footage is hard to watch, especially when the women on-screen are very much sacrificing the same as their male counterparts – if not more. I know Fox News gets a lot of scorn but I would have thought they could have been above something this demeaning.
LikeLike
Sarah, you make some good points – catering to the desires of your clients keeps your business going and growing. It’s also much easier to cater to desires/ideas that are already in the psyche of your clients, rather than create a new genesis (idea) and implant that in your clients’ psyche. If Hillary becomes president, her presidency would indeed inspire people to believe it is possible (and okay) for a woman to be president – it may even inspire other women of younger generations to presidential aspirations, however, it will not entirely abolish sexist or antiquated ideas about a woman’s proper role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was a dismal clip and to watch it was an annoying and almost amusing experience. If so many people didn’t uphold the perspective channeled in this clip, it would be quite funny to see small men belligerently or somberly declare that women would be much happier being their man’s glorified counterpart in the kitchen and with kids. If this perspective were as outdated and irrelevant as I wish it was, then Fox News would not have an audience; they would have to change their content to stay relevant and on the air. Fox News does have a loyal fan base because a big chunk of this nation’s citizenry do believe what is being said.
I do think that the performers from these clips are some of the loudest people championing their perspective, which lends to the idea that they’ve got many supporters, which in turn is what gives them the courage to be so loud. In response to your question about how should people respond, I would like to say, with intelligence and dignity, however, it may be more effective to respond to this belligerence with one’s own belligerence (I cringe as I write this).
LikeLike
Agreed. You reminded of this: http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/a17153
LikeLike
Wow, so hard to watch this saturated sexism. Frightening really. Especially the ignorance of the statements made in reference to women as “breadwinners”. So I ponder the question posed regarding breadwinning: “Will Clinton’s election legitimize women as so-called “breadwinners”? While we all can agree that Hillary’s presidential nomination and imminent election is undoubtedly historic — I think many women voters feel that this latest “breaking of the glass ceiling” doesn’t really resonate as much with them because so much progress has already been achieved by women in the workforce. Indeed more and more women are becoming heads of companies and the current statistics show that 40% of women are already the main breadwinners in their homes. So while Hillary’s election will certainly serve to further legitimize women as breadwinners, the real fight still remains–as this video so clearly shows– that we still have a deep-seated misogynistic and sexist society where there is still so deeply embedded a resistance to women — particularly strong women in positions of power.
LikeLike
We all know that deeply-embedded misogyny has been around for centuries. Take Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew” which I think put in writing the idea that women are shrews or harpies with little to no emotional control and that their lives will be easier if they submit to husbands and embrace domesticity. Hopefully it won’t take centuries to dissipate this antiquated idea (of women as complementary figures) for good, and until then, it helps for men to speak out in support of feminism while women continue fulfilling their ambitions. The counter-statements from outraged male student athletes to Donald’s “locker room talk” blanket statement are a good example of men taking positive action for change.
To answer your question, I agree with Sarah’s post–I think the women in the video clip had difficulty forming a strong verbal rhetorical response due to the sheer bafflement and anger incited by those inane remarks. Their facial expressions are very telling, though, and perhaps this body language is a rhetorical strategy in itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was nauseating to watch. Four minutes of professional men constantly belittling professional women—on national television no less! Is this 2016? Or did we travel back 50 years? In any case, a very difficult video to watch.
To answer your questions: I think women should respond accordingly to these backward views: Women should be angry, even mortified, that they are seen by male newscasters like this. As seen by how the women in these clips respond, they appear astounded by the rampant sexism that unfolds, right in front of them. Some of their faces contorted in disgust, bewilderment, and they expressed annoyance or anger when men attempted to talk over them. Clearly, female newscasters and politicians are not pleased by the treatment they receive on national television.
I think their responses are adjusted to match the male-dominated format. They do not sit back and let the men speak over them, though it proves difficult when the men are this aggressive. I think the male orator needs to step back and let the female interviewee speak, or intervene if there is trouble. For example, Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe denied turning off the microphone and was clearly not pleased with the argument unfolding.
I think Clinton’s election will solidify women as “breadwinners” but with much difficulty. Unfortunately protestors and outcries will be held against Hillary and it is unclear what the results will be. I think Fox News is utilizing sensationalist tactics in order to attract a larger audience.
LikeLike
“Will Clinton’s election legitimize women as so-called “breadwinners”? Or will it incite even more rhetorical violence against women?”
I feel as though you cannot have one without the other. As women gain more legitimacy in non-traditional spheres, the rhetoric against will only grow more intense. As the once-off-limits avenues to success and equality are opened by women like Hillary Clinton, the patriarchal mindset will freak out even more than it is already and ramp up the rhetorical violence (awesome phrase, by the way). Keeping Clinton out of the White House would be a big win for the patriarchy, even with all of the potential fallout that would be the result of a Trump election.
I feel part of the idea that women cannot be breadwinners is engendered by the type of households where the mother doesn’t work – the post WWII nuclear family type where men were able to work and earn enough to have a car, a house, and food on the table. People still hold onto this type of familial structure even with the cost of living skyrocketing without a commensurate wage increase. Growing up in a time where only mean were breadwinners creates in a person a set standard. Younger generations will hardly understand a time in which their mother, if she is present, was not working and earning. Hillary’s presidency could very well be the first step in making this potential future a recognizable reality.
LikeLike
I think you ask especially powerful and relevant questions here. I want to focus on these questions: “How do the women in these clips (from what we can see) respond?” and “What is the role of a responsible male orator in this situation?” Unfortunately, I feel rather pessimistic about this matter (at least when it comes to the more conservative parts of this country).
A particularly tired argument for the idea that women are not made for the “breadwinner” role is that, historically, women were happier in the home and taking care of the children. I am amazed at the lack of awareness in this response. It’s not that women are unhappier now, it’s that women are more vocal about the double standards that persist in society. A great deal of advocacy requires pinpointing the source of the problem or inequality. What traditionalists fail to recognize is the agency behind the tone, the same agency men invoke when working to get ahead (only, in this case, it’s called “ambition”).
And how do women respond? Look at the incredulous stares, the forceful responses, the persistence, and the outright refusal to listen anymore (referring to the one woman who got up and left the conversation entirely). There is no right response because the attackers are not searching for a satisfying response or answer; they’re looking for complete compliance. And while I don’t think it is in any way a man’s job to “defend” women in this position, but the role of a “responsible male orator” starts at hiring: I’d like to demand higher quality male orators and those who, for that matter, work in partnership with their female counterparts. I hate that it feels so idealistic to ask that the people with public sphere privileges be vetted for non-feminist rhetoric. That these men in the video can speak so “highly” (I use that term very, very lightly) about mothers and homemakers, but with such vitriol for career-driven women is a double standard that offends me to the highest degree. Mrs. Clinton’s presidency will not legitimize female “breadwinners” because those who cannot see reason cannot be reasoned with. I sadly and truly believe that what will happen is that a good chunk of her legacy will be marked by baseless, gendered critiques.
LikeLike
I completely agree with your argument on the happiness of women at home vs at work. I think people filter what they want the see and women being vocal about the double standards has now become women complaining about the working environment.
I like your thoughts on the responsible male orator. The male orators here aren’t to blame for despite the negative ideas they spew. It’s the people who gave them this voice which should be blamed. Although I do think that the orators are using their platform for entertainment in order to appeal to fox’s audience and push their agenda so being a responsible orator means different things for different people. I would push for people to watch different sources and consciously make up their own minds although I know that’s a stretch. Be a responsible consumer and don’t rely on “responsible” orators.
LikeLike
This was disturbing to watch but yet it the content was unsurprising. We all know people who unfortunately still think like this. What did shock me was the ease and confidence that these sexist remarks were said with. Its particularly taboo to be so outspoken nowadays about such matters and yet Fox News gets away with it quite easily. I wonder if Fox’s audience expects it or doesn’t notice it. I feel like if any other news source broadcasted content like that there would be so much backlash. What I did find familiar and unsurprising was the response on part of the females in the video. They invoke their feminine style by not responding. For the most part there was no real fighting back as much as there was a retreating. I’ve seen so many women do this when attacked, even senator Clinton. It’s almost a universal reaction and I personally don’t see it as a weak response but rather letting the action speak for itself and having the insult represent the ignorance of the speaker. And to answer one of your questions, I think that having a female president won’t silence or negate these type of comments but I do think that it would further validate the female in power. And validation goes a long way in potentially earning respect.
LikeLike