Before I start, I feel it necessary to say I am a woman in my 50's, a feminist, and an Obama supporter for a long while.
Now that that's out of the way, I'd also like to say that there has been sexism shown during this campaign. In fact, I was one of the many thousands of people who wrote to MSNBC and Chris Matthews for this comment made by Matthews.
"The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."
I'm happy to say that as a result of that outpouring, Chris Matthews abjectly apologized on January 17th.
Was that the only occasion of sexism? No, but probably the most blatant. I think the larger point made by some of Hillary's supporters is sexism is pervasive and that is the point I'd like to heartily refute. If it was pervasive, we'd have been shown more than an occasional example.
We have Bill Clinton claiming a conspiracy and disrespect for Hillary, Geraldine Ferraro claiming sexism by black journalists, holding out Bob Herbert of the NYT as an example of one who hadn't had a good thing to say about Hillary, ignoring his piece on mysogyny after the New Hampshire primary (and Matthews comment).
Right now, on a pro-Hillary site there is another post that mentions the pervasive sexism in the media, again with no examples.
This post is critical of an Al Hunt piece that says Hillary Clinton didn't lose the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a woman, and gender no longer is a big deal in American elections.
According to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.
From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal—apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns.
Given that, one wonders why this pro-Hillary site says this?
This is the "it's only sexism" version of the malign acceptance of sexism. I wonder if it too is acceptable. Sadly, it probably is.
Sorry, BTD, you keep claiming pervasive sexism, provide no examples, ignore the study that shows the media coverage was fair and equal, and yes, whine because, other than some die-hard Hillary fans, no one is buying your argument. One has to wonder why you keep harping on this topic. It might be fair to ask you if your intent is to prevent the party unifying by keeping some of Hillary's supporters angry on a subject which has been disproven.
As an ardent feminist, one who believes in parity between the sexes, I fear that you are embarking down a dangerous road. Continuing to make this claim of pervasive sexism without concrete evidence not only does a disservice to the political process, it endangers the next woman/women running for political office.
Do 'special' rules have to be made for women running for office? Is the political process, deemed a blood sport, and rough and tumble, (not to mention, one in which Hillary herself ably participated in) supposed to change going forward into a genteel, ladylike exercise?
I surely hope that you and all who claim pervasive sexism reflect on the possible negative outcome of your unsubstantiated claim.