Open Phones: Sexism And Religion

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Former Congresswoman and previous candidate for Vice-President Geraldine Ferraro stated that sexism reared it's head in last week's Democrat debate, is that the case? And Pat Robertson endorses Rudolph Giuliani, Charles Dunn, dean of Regent University's Robertson School of Government , analyzes the decision.

Comments [25]

eligit from astoria

on the second half of the topic....the reason for the giuliani endorsement from robertson is....power, plain and simple. giuliani is the front runner on the republican side....and robertson does not want to lose access to power by backing one of the other candidates.

"religious principal" is usually code for power acquisition when it is referenced by politicians and other powerful figures.

so i guess robertson does not care as much about hating on gays (and all the rest of it) as his followers do.

Nov. 07 2007 12:07 PM

To reply to the comment above about chivalry: there can't be equality and chivalry because chivalry indicates inequality. We should all be inclined to give up our seats on the bus to somebody who looks tired, etc, but men shouldn't be obligated to give up their seats to women in an attempt to be "chivalrous." Chivalry isn't dead, but should be. There instead should be equality and decency/kindness/respect. I am a young women in my twenties, and when a man twice my age tiredly offers me his seat on crowded rush hour train, I politely say "no thank you," and hope that the man was just excessively kind and not abiding some silly old chivalry law.

To the woman who just called in brought up global feminism and Muslim women: your comments are dangerously close to racism, and were absolutely indicative of western ignorance. We mustn't graft our philosophies onto other cultures. Feminism is different within every culture, every community, every religion, every household.

Nov. 07 2007 11:52 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

I know what a woman leader should look like. I've encountered many women who I think could be Presidential material if only they had the ambition or experience to do it. I look at them and say: If we could find a national counterpart, she could be President. The real problem at the end of the day is what women are actually making it to the national stage. I cannot think of a single prominent female member of Congress that I would want in the Oval Office. But I think that's the result of the priorities of the electorate when they pick a woman to be a Representative or Senator being just terribly wrong.

Nov. 07 2007 11:51 AM
chestine from NY

I think if you want a non linear take on power relationships go to the Whitney and look at the work of Kara Walker -

I find it interesting that the majority of comments here are from men, most of whom seem to me totally not to get it and maybe bound to come back in the next life as feminist females!

Nov. 07 2007 11:50 AM
chestine from NY

seems to me this culture really isn't clear on what a woman leader looks like and so it is working this out with Hillary as lightning rod

Nov. 07 2007 11:42 AM
Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey

Truthfully, it is just about politics. And if Obama was way out in front in the polls and was treated by the media as de facto winner, and he'd been piled on and then later claimed discrimination like Clinton has done, I would consider him to be unworthy of the nomination. But I've thought her to be unworthy of the nomination anyway.

A caller said that if it had been a black person that the black community would be rallying around him or her calling it racism. And she's right. But much like Hillary's claim, it would've been bogus! So the argument then is: "Where are the women to back up this bogus claim?" Is that how far we've come?

Nov. 07 2007 11:39 AM
Chris from manhattan


Gimme a break.

If this is a preview of how Prez. Hill is going to handle any future *serious* criticism (oh, I don't a sudden 180 turn into Iran, lacklustre healthcare reform, or further curtailing of civil rights -all real possibilities under HC) then the Dems might as well throw the keys to Ghouliani right now.

Seriously, if she wasn't the Queen of the DNC, we all know her latest performance would've effectively been her SCREAM moment.

Nov. 07 2007 11:36 AM
Lia from Brooklyn, NY

I'm a young woman, and an artist, and I think the "feminist" issue that concerns me most, is the constant focus on and representation of women, particularly in art and the media, as defined by our relationships to men and to our own sexuality.

Look at the representations of men in art and literature throughout the ages--their stories are about their relationship to god, to themselves, to their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their friends, about finding their place in the world of work or the world of the intellect (the list goes on), and I am troubled to see, again and again, the stories about women (even the feminist ones--maybe even especially the feminist ones) being almost solely about finding and keeping love and/or rebelling against finding and keeping love.

It's time, in my mind, that the stories we tell about ourselves become broader and wilder, so that we are not dealing entirely and exclusively in the realm of our sexuality.

Nov. 07 2007 11:36 AM
Brian from Forest Hills


First, these are not real debates. You can't have a real debate with a 30 second timer going off. In 30 seconds please tell me your stance on illegal immigration. Your time is up. Please raise your hands if....

Second, the moderators are looking for got-yous and trying to make news by asking Kusinich about UFOs as opposed to his impeachment resolution.

Third, Barach taking off the gloves? I truly wonder how much of the interview concentrated on taking off the gloves, as opposed to issues. What the press report about the campaign is barely what is going on. Watch C-SPAN's Road to the White House and see what was reported by the Press about those events. The press wants sound bites and numbers.

Fourth, sexist? You knows, but they were not going after the woman, they were going after the person with the biggest numbers. If Barach was in first, they would go after him. If Richardson was in first, they would go after him. Remember how they went after Dean?

Lets have real debates. Put it on C-SPAN, no time limits. Have fact checkers to challenge the facts presented (not the opinions). Have moderators like Brian Lamb who will ask questions about the real issues. Anyone ever read the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

Nov. 07 2007 11:30 AM
susie from brooklyn

I think the 'piling on' was mostly based on her being the front-runner. I actually think it's irresponsible of her and her campaign to make these claims because sexism actually does exist in the world and is incredibly harmful; what happened to her is politics as usual. The attacks show that she is being taken seriously as a candidate. I'm much more troubled by her absurd response to the attacks, especially using a phrase that evokes the idea of rape or a gang-bang. This is crying wolf at its worst.

Nov. 07 2007 11:27 AM
Roger from Bronx

One of the reasons that John Kerry did not win the presidency is because he was slow to defend himself when attacked by the Swiftboat Veterans, the reasoning being if he can't defend himself how could he defend the nation. As election day gets closer the Republicans are going to play up the perceived security advantage, especially Rudy Guiliani using 911. Hillary if she indeeds wins the Democratic nomination has to be viewed as tough and not a cry baby. A lot of people have to be convinced that a woman is tough enough to take on this job and part of the job is that she is going to be criticitized and attacked. This is childs play compared to what is ahead for her from the Republicans should she become the Democratic nominee. Toughen up Hillary!

Nov. 07 2007 11:26 AM
jf from ossining

Chad Harris--

I am disgusted. Already emailed the show about Kucinich's move yesterday. Still silent.

Seems Lehrer might be part of the MSM gatekeepers afterall. Brian did talk about Kucinichs' UFO remark I guess he got his fair due.

Nov. 07 2007 11:23 AM
Bill from New York

"Obama's and Edwards's attacks are purely misogynistic. Plain and simple."

Than it should be simple to explain it.

Nov. 07 2007 11:22 AM
Bill from New York

Note to caller: If this is what they were trying to do to Kerry, then it's not necessarily sexism, is it? And if they tried to do to Obama what was done to Kerry it wouldn't be racism either. Kerry, remember, was neither black nor a woman. It's pure politics, that's all. At least as far as we know.

Nov. 07 2007 11:20 AM
Jim from Brooklyn

Attacking a competitor for her policy positions and inconsistent statements is totally legitimate and has nothing to do with gender.

Let me give you an example of what would have been sexist attacks by Edwards or Dodd or Obama:

"You, Hillary, can't be an effective president because you do not have enough testosterone."

"Senator Clinton, because she's a woman, will be unduly emotional and won't be able to make rational decisions as the commander in chief."

THOSE would be sexist arguments/attacks. What happened was not sexist at all. She is the frontrunner, and the other candidates are trying to give themselves a chance by making it obvious that Hillary's candidacy has weaknesses. They didn't say she personally is weak.

In another debate, Hillary called Obama "naive and irresponsible." Did he come back and say, "She is racist! She said those things because I'm black!" No, he didn't, because he understands that politics is about articulating your positions and being able to defend them against attacks from others.

Hillary deserves to be attacked for the triangulating she has done, and this has nothing to do with her gender. If she wants to be taken seriously as a candidate, she should not hide behind her gender when it's suddenly a convenient way to spin the narrative.

Nov. 07 2007 11:19 AM
Bill from New York

Apparently the other candidates should just let Hillary win, so's not to hurt her feelings? Brian quoted Hillary herself as saying something like "I was ganged up by all the men" as evidence of sexism. And that stands to reason, right? Because all the other female candidates were totally behind her....

Sample size, folks. She's a front runner, she's the only woman and they, all of them men, have their sites on her. There's no evidence that her sex is anything but incidental.

Her playing this card is totally reprehensible.

Nov. 07 2007 11:14 AM
MichaelB from UWS of Manhattan

The fact that this is a "controversy" is both laughable and pathetic.

The Emperor has no clothes on this one. Throwing this out there as a legitimate issue is really stretching it.

In my opinion, people who buy into this are really gullible and easily manipulated based on their politics.

Nov. 07 2007 11:13 AM
Michael Barker from Flushing

The highest nail gets hammered down. Is that sexist?

Nov. 07 2007 11:13 AM
jf from ossining

Ridiculous statement!

How is it different for Ferraro to point out Obama's race and claim it makes him safe from attacks? Isn't that playing the politically correct race card for her side?

Edwards doesn't attack Obama as much, because they actually have more in common as the more progressive candidates.

Nov. 07 2007 11:12 AM
Mo from NY

Y'know, I'm an intelligent human being, let ME figure out why YOU are different from HER. Just talk about you and what you are going to do. Tell me why I should vote for you. Don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for HER, that's my decision.

Nov. 07 2007 11:10 AM
Michael Winslow from Inwood

Obama's and Edwards's attacks are purely misogynistic.

Plain and simple.

I'm not a Clinton fan but come on.

Nov. 07 2007 11:10 AM
Chad Harris from Ridgewood

What about the other candidates? Sexism? Are you kidding me? What about the bigotry for the other candidates? Mike Gravel wasn't even invited to the debate because he "didn't have enough money."

What the heck is that about? Is Bill Richardson neglected because he is Latino??? Is Kucinich dismissed because he is not attractive or from big oil?

What is wrong with you people? There are two wars going on. Articles of impeachment were brought into the congress yesterday.

Stop doing a disservice to the people of NYC.

I am a regular contributor to this station, but I did not give this last time and I am done with any money for WNYC.

Why is this only about Clinton and Obama?

Nov. 07 2007 11:06 AM
Erin from Brooklyn

Why can't there be equality and chivalry?
Just wondering.

Nov. 07 2007 11:02 AM
Bill from Brooklyn

ask Geraldine: do you want Equality or Chivalry? because you can't have both.

Hillary is the "frontrunner" and is being attacked as any frontrunner would be. should she get a free pass because she is a woman? that would be a lot like the traditional dynamics that held sway before the 1960's. "don't say those things about Hillary- she's a lady!!"

Hillary wants it both ways (or at least her staff does)-that's hypocritical and unfair.

Nov. 07 2007 10:50 AM
jd from nyc

a lot of women don't want another woman telling 'their man' what-to-do. very territorial, as if all they have is their sexuality to fall back on. how sad.
that's why i usually like working with men; unless they are truly jerks, it's usually just reminding them that you're a professional who understands that money is more important than sex, and unless they have really nasty personal habits, you're not going to let that male-female thing get in the way of getting the job done. [yes, right, if you know what you're doing.]

Nov. 07 2007 12:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.