Fox 25 Reporter Sharman Sacchetti had a follow up interview with Charlie Baker on the actions of the NFL on domestic violence. Baker initially was quoted when asked about whether NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell should be fired:
If we fired everybody every time we got into one of these situations, I don’t know, I would like to see more data and more information
Well, with no additional data surfacing Charlie Baker did an about face and said Goodell should be fired a few days later after an uproar over his remarks. Sacchetti called Baker out and asked if this was politically motivated:
When FOX 25’s Political Reporter Sharman Sacchetti asked Baker at a “Women for Charlie Event” last week whether or not NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell should be fired, he paused and said he needed more data.
For days the Coakley campaign hammered him and said she didn’t need more information. Then she used his comments to boost her record on domestic violence. Tuesday, days later, Baker does an about-face and Sacchetti asked him if it was politically convenient to say that Goodell should be fired at this point.
Sacchetti then inquires about Baker’s media shakeup and asks if this means that negative ads might be coming. Baker’s response?
“Okay this is going to be the last one, sweetheart.”
Just completely dismisses Sacchetti to the point where she needed to speak up and challenge him on his remarks. That’s never a situation that a professional should be in. But it tells a lot about Charlie Baker as a person.
it’s stupid, but it doesn’t appear all that condescending. He’s sort of using a female version of “pal” or “buddy” here.
I went out to lunch with my 20 year old daughter yesterday and the waitress called us “guys” four times (“you guys ready to order?”) and it sounded wrong.
The woman at my local DD calls everyone “honey.”
I think we’re all struggling with these types of issues. I said “gals” the other day and someone took offense. Someone we were doing business with last week said “our girl” referring to his employee (who was like 22) and all sorts of people had issues.
I have smaller children as well and they call half our friends by their first name, the rest are Mr or Mrs (or sometime both).
Again, not sure I would connect the dots the same way that johnk does. Another one day issue that won’t sway any votes.
Coakley ad: “Do you want a guy that calls you sweetheart as Governor?”
to defend Baker.
Your comment is just sad.
and this from the station that likes to employ very attractive petite women in very tight dresses.
Heslam
he should have known that this wasn’t a wise thing to say, especially with the widely known effort to reach the women’s vote.
I agree. It’s pathetic that this would be the reason that people would vote/not vote for a governor. There are far more important issues at hand that ought to take the stage over an offhand reply, meant to sound friendly. It’s petty and it does not sound the least bit condescending, but still, Baker ought to be smarter than this and learn to remove such words from his vocabulary. That’s the world he lives in.
Please provide us with lists of sexist and/or condescending terms and actions that do or do not cross the line. Can Baker tell a woman she should smile more?
Forget about his “work for welfare policy”, his plan to lower taxes on the rich, his experience as a high paid CEO who slashed the jobs of others and still made millions. None of that compares to the utterly vile time that he called a woman he was friendly and acquainted with “sweetheart”.
The people who down voted me remind me of the Tea Party loons who point out that Obama did not wear a US flag pin on his lapel during the debate. Oh, the horrors!
Lifelong liberal Democrats are not pure enough for you but I’m the “Tea Party” person because I don’t think it’s acceptable to treat a woman doing her job like a silly nuisance who should just be quiet? In case you’ve not noticed people on this site have pointed out all of the policy issues you cite. Being wrong on that doesn’t make him right on this.
Bet ten bucks you thank me in advance for not making it about you.
Okay, I’ll buy lunch.
… you’re a male and you’ve never been on the receiving end of this kind of sexism. (It’s likely, also, that you’ve never been on the giving side of it either, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.) We would all like that all campaigns run on the issues and the terms that matter to us… but that’s not the real world.
Every woman, on the other hand, has had a male boss, co-worker, teacher/professor, doctor, lawyer or even waitstaff who’ve done this type of thing to them. Often repeatedly. It’s not about you. It’s about people who live a daily existence far removed from yours.
This is very very bad for Charlie Baker… but that’s probably because it’s very much who he is and he just can’t escape that.
In the first comment on this diary MG mentioned that the woman at DD calls everyone honey, presumably including him. I’ve been on the receiving end as well. Should we take offense? I don’t.
I *really* encourage folks to spend some with women who study gender attitudes professionally.
No male can ever be on the “receiving end” of this, because no male brings to the exchange (with a server in DD, for example) a life-long history of major and minor assaults, teasing, heckling, harassment, genuine fear, and everything else comparable to the history that a woman brings to the same words.
What Christopher, and others who feel this way, should do is LISTEN to women when they try and tell you why this hurts and why this is offensive.
Jeesh, I really can’t believe this guy is STILL making such stupid blunders. It is just astonishing to me that an ex-CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, well-paid and well-educated, who has been in the public eye for years STILL carries these attitudes towards women.
This guy is positively NEANDERTHAL!
and when you’re constantly talked over, and you have to hide your intention on when and how you’ll start your family, then yes. At that point, you should take offense.
It’s not the words themselves that are offensive — it’s the baggage that comes with them.
And yes, I am a male so no, I can’t say that I’ve received this sort of thing, but who among us has not been the recipient of a condescending remark? Yes, this is a bad thing for Baker and I am glad for that. I just wish people would be as outraged when he was condescending to poor people.
I get your point but don’t despair. Some of us are just as angry when he condescends to poor people. But we have a long history in this country of struggling to overcome the idea that some people need not be taken seriously or respected because of the race or gender they were born with. This implicates that directly.
and gets angry whenever I use it in public conversation. I’m not just trying to make a point here. That’s a 100% true statement.
“Opposite of rich Republican Charlie Baker?”
Or close
…but a candidate for office in 2014 really should not be calling a woman sweetheart in a professional context. I personally tend to err on the side of professional terms in just about any context, but also think there are more important things to get upset about.
Charlie Baker isn’t applying for a job as a waitress, and he isn’t applying for a job at Dunkin Donuts. He’s trying to become our Governor.
He knows he made a mistake, and he is trying to fix the situation by apologizing and by bringing out Polito.
…if we were to say that Baker’s calling a female reporter sweetheart is “unbecoming”?
Seemed to me like a “dig deeper” moment … He said he was sorry because has respect for her as a journalist … So, if she wasn’t a TV reporter, he could call her sweetheart? Where’s the line in Charlie Baker’s mind above which women shouldn’t be addressed that way? Secretary? Teacher? Waitress? CEO?
My guess is this was less sexism and more general dismissiveness, as in: You are bothering me by asking me questions but I’m going to pretend to be nice by using a term of endearment.
This is just how D-bags navigate the world: They make judgements about everyone on the spot and if they think this person can’t help them in some way, they treat them with disdain and disrespect.
Taken cumulatively with the other missteps, this is clearly not going to do anything to narrow the yawning gender gap he’s facing.
when some dude dismissed someone with “sweatheart.”
Like all the times they called Al Gore a liar. It was crap, but the steady drip of these “gaffes” adds up.
Baker’s tone of voice was also condescending. The descent wasn’t terribly steep, but it was there. He was irritated by the question. Does this make him against women? I don’t think so. Does it draw a stark difference between Coakley and Baker? Yep.
The ad to worry about is the Super Pac ad that ends with the line: ““Okay this is going to be the last one, sweetheart.” I could have a lot of fun with that.
here’s a good take on Baker’s remarks and why they are so damning:
I suppose the Baker side will trot out the Coakley Fenway quote and we’ll see how it goes.
so what is it, Coakley’s fault now.
and that happened how many years ago?
This happened now. And him being dismissive and saying really dumb things is not anything new — and completely undermines his “I’m a government fixer” schtick.
He’s not a fixer, he’s a bumbler, just like his actions with the Big Dig and just like almost every time he opens his mouth when there’s a camera around.
Costs and benefits. You can’t play if you don’t win, and you can’t win if you don’t play. The best a candidate can do is to try to focus on the issues and avoid being negative, but strategy plays out based on the media and public’s interests and what his/her opponent does.
The Baker side, or more likely a SuperPAC, will use the Fenway quote if the costs outweigh the benefits. And the Boston Herald will find a way to forgive Baker before endorsing him and a way to criticize Coakley. Picking on Charlie now gives them not-quite-plausible deniability when it comes to their editorial policy.
Sneer? Gaffe? Campaign? Chance?
Baker is just about the worst politician I have ever seen. This does not mean he would be a bad governor or is a bad person, but he is unqualified to climb the greasy pole.
It’s terribly sweet and endearing and comes from a warm heart.
Charlie Baker’s comment comes from being challenged, by a woman, and not wanting to deal with it and probably feeling like he doesn’t have to because she is a woman. So he touches her on the shoulder, calls her sweetheart, and doesn’t answer the question. It sucks for the reporter who is invested in her job, interested in doing it, in being taken seriously and getting a response. You can’t be a female at any job if this is the response you get when you’re actually just trying to do your job. It is a big f’ing deal.
“comment comes from being challenged, by a woman, and not wanting to deal with it and probably feeling like he doesn’t have to because she is a woman. So he touches her on the shoulder, calls her sweetheart,” I did not catch that.
The 50% female population can’t rise up in professional esteem — whatever that means, corporate board representation, executive status in organizations, or president of the United States — when they are able to be dismissed like this, when it is a cultural norm and thus OK, and they are not taken seriously. If every man, or even every fourth man, treated Sacchetti like this in an interview, she may not be able to get ahead at her job in the same way as her male counterpart. And for sure, this is just a quick, three-second incident and only that. But at the same time, it does offer a glimpse into the world of professional female-male dynamics. And it is why, we all still have a ways to go to equalize it.
at the 53 sec mark. Baker was asked what he thought about calling a reporter sweetheart.
All I have to say, classic. That’s going to stay with him.
I’m waiting to hear the ref blow the whistle for “unnecessary roughness” any time now. I guess the hits just keep coming and coming.
Wow. This guy is coming across as a genuine first-class a-hole.
What are the Republicans thinking? Oh yeah, that’s right. They’re Republicans. They don’t DO that sort of thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdyCJyiEGJs
My kingdom for an embed feature.
with a nice BMG h/t.
have picked up the story. TPM, HuffPost.
Also, some damage control from the Baker campaign. Polito came out with a statement in the herald. But she straddled the line saying that he was right to apologize.
I wish I could say I’m surprised by some of the comments here but I’m not. How’d you like to be that reporter? Tone means nothing. The word itself is condescending. That reporter is not Charlie Baker’s sweetheart. Never in a million years would I call a woman in a professional situation that. It’s far worse than calling a mixed group “you guys.” Why not just “doll” or “little lady” while he’s at it? My wife would have kneed him in the balls.
It’s not an accident there’s no equivalent that you can imagine a woman using to put down a man. It’s not about the term – it’s about who historically has had the power.
Overtly or subconsciously, Baker was using this term to try to establish his power in this situation to shut down the reporter’s line of questioning. Call it sexism or call it bullying – it’s not the way any role model, never mind someone who wants to be governor, should act.
The closest analog is a referring to black man as “boy”.
In today’s world, a white man who does that in the wrong place can expect to pay in his own blood for the “mistake”. Women generally don’t have that option.
He made a split second mistake. I could barely hear it on the video. It was dumb, but this whole election should not turn on a split second.
How about we make it instead about promises with no plans to pay them for? E.g., Baker’s plan to cut taxes for small businesses, and Coakely’s plan to introduce universal K.
We can do so much better!
you comment is a deflection. We can do better.
… Apparently, Charlie Baker can fit a whole lotta stupid in a fraction of a second. Imagine what he could do with a whole minute! We might not survive as a CommonWealth…
An adherent of Freudian analysis might conclude that the “Women for Charlie” push was weighing heavily upon his psyche and his inner, truest, self — for only a split second– rebelled. That’s what a Freudian would say. I would say that it really rankles him to have to appeal to women for… well… anything.
So yeah. This is his ‘macaca’ moment. Where’s George Allen now?
When under pressure Baker channels his inner Humphrey Bogart.
When Bogey said it he had way more class
He’s a Bogey all right.
Both of which play right to Coakley’s strengths. I wouldn’t be surprised if his polls dip a bit. And to MG and Johntmay-this is a big deal.
A) It’s condescending and sexist
There is just no way I would use that word to refer to a woman in a dismissive manner. Perhaps that’s just the way I was raised, but to me it smacks of what men would say in a paneled rec room club during the Mad Men era.
B) Women for Charlie can now count two flip flops and three gaffees
Hobby Lobby gaffe followed by a flip flop, Goodell gaffe followed by a flip flop, and now this gaffe sure to be followed by a flip flop.
… any and all debates betwixt and between Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley will now get, at the least, one question per about sexism and his attitudes towards women. Elizabeth Warren didn’t even actually say anything about her Cherokee heritage — it was a Harvard Student Newspaper article, IIRC — and that became the centerpiece of Scott Browns campaign…
Alls I can say is, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer fella!
When I was working in Boston (Brighton) in the 80’s managers would read Playboy at their desks. At a major professional services firm I was at in the early 90’s it was routine for exotic dancers to surprise partners in the office on their birthdays.
When was a kid growing up near Chicago we didn’t “pig pile”, we “n*gger piled”
Watch the movie Blazing Saddles. Interviewing outlaws: “What are your qualifications?” “Rape, murder, rape.” “You said rape twice” “I like rape.”
People regularly called each other “homo” up until about 10 years ago.
In light of that history “sweetheart” seems pretty mild.
I realize in the 100% PC world these things stick out. Your average female undecided voter is not going to notice unless the Coakley campaign can get the buzz high enough. Right now they’re trying to reinforce a perceived stereotype. We’ll see if it sticks.
… and as a tone it is not a a get out of sexism free card: half a passive aggressive sexist is still all sexist.
It is the very mildness that masks the person who avoids ‘nigger’, ‘homo’ and other vile terms only to avoid social condemnation, not because the use is wrong: absent that social condemnation they would make use of these words –without a moments hesitation — just as they did in the ’80’s. I know. I was there also…
nt
.. Pfft…
nt
…
But I get it. You were showing off.
… nah, I was just standing next to you… that only looks like showing off.
Bitch would be the closer female equivalent to those, but I don’t see one using sweetheart just as a matter of avoiding the other term.
Everything you list was always derogatory. It’s just that in the timeframes you mention, the people being demeaned didn’t have the power to fight back. Charlie Baker is welcome to invent a time machine and run for governor in 1960, but in 2014, sexism like this (backed up by a long list of anti-women policies) is disqualifying.
in the light of his effort to reach women voters, it’s certainly unwise. In the climate of 2014 politics, candidates should have more awareness of what they say, especially one who has run for governor once already. and who spent considerable time at elevated political positions in two prior administrations.
At no point in my life, even back during my childhood in the ’70s, would people have failed to recognize that man dropping a “sweetheart” in the context Baker did to Sacchetti was being a condescending asshole.
It sounds like you missed some experiences along the way.
This is not “100% PC”, this is day-to-day life for working women — and their male colleagues. I suspect that if you got a good HARD knee in the nuts each time you called a female coworker “sweetheart”, you might revise your opinion of how important it is. It sounds to me as though you’ve spent a lifetime tuning out and ignoring the pain you cause the women around you.
I’m guessing that the “major professional services firm” you refer to didn’t have many women working there, especially in executive roles. I wonder, mg, how many times did YOU speak out? How hard did YOU try to recruit qualified female colleagues?
Instead of defending the indefensible, I suggest you instead consider reframing the narrative of your own history. As I suggested upthread to Christopher, perhaps you might ask a woman professional who specializes in gender discrimination (they do exist) to perhaps guide your reconsideration.
With comments like this, you embarrass yourself.
‘It’s okay to be a slightly sexist, racist and anti-gay because once upon a time we were even worse.’
I was born into and grew into adulthood, and then spent my 20’s in a world that probably was much different from yours. This thread has to come to an end sometime so I guess I’ll leave it there.
As a former CEO, Baker should know how to treat people with courtesy and respect. He should know what expressions offend individuals. The fact that he called a female reporter, “sweetheart”, shows that Baker is simply clueless.
In “The Stranger” by Camus, a man is sentenced to death not for murdering an innocent man, but for not crying at his mother’s funeral. Yes, Charlie Baker made a remark in a public forum that did indeed come across as condescending, arrogant, and out of touch with the people, but using this as the keystone of opposition is, to me, a sad commentary on public opinion and our priorities.
… that if Charlie Baker had called a black reporter ‘boy’… even one with whom he was friendly… you’d have the same response?
…but I think boy is historically a more loaded term than sweetheart. At least it would more quickly trigger my own cringe reflex.
I’m sure it would if you were a woman. To me it’s a pretty darn close comparison. I was stunned to see him say “sweetheart.”
The fact is that virtually all of us here already oppose Baker on policy grounds. But there are many voters who don’t follow policy closely but know what’s condescending and disrespectful. And this is. No two ways about it.
…so it’s not about what I am. Boy has a history of being used a lot more harshly and disrespectfully whereas sweetheart is a term of endearment.
Not to a professional in an interview. Would you say it to a principal in school? Should a male attorney say it to a female adversary in negotiations? What if the president said it to Angela Merkel? I call my wife “baby.” I don’t call my bank teller or real estate agent that.
And say using it outside a close personal relationship of affection reflects male entitlement and is inherently demeaning.
He should not have said it in that context, and I personally go out of my way to not say something slightly questionable, but here I was responding specifically to the comparison of boy for a black man.
Coach says “go get’m boys” and there’s a black kid on the team.
Does he take offense?
Both because he’s addressing the entire group and since you said kids I’m going to assume he really is addressing a group of minor males, aka boys.
In your exact hypothetical, no, I think probably no offense would be taken. But if the coach says to that one kid, “go get ’em, boy,” it’s much more dangerous territory – especially if, contrary to Christopher’s assumption, we’re dealing with adults.
Similarly with “sweetheart.” Obviously, “sweetheart” is not an inherently derogatory term like the n-word or the b- or c-word. But when used in the wrong context (as it was by Baker), it takes on a whole lot of baggage.
It was a very stupid mistake by Baker – as the national attention his gaffe has received clearly shows – and one that you’d think someone who has already run a statewide campaign would know how to avoid. Apparently not.
Think of how many politicians in the past would have been out due to gaffes.
It is a direct demonstration of how he treats women in a professional setting. No one “accidentally” calls someone “sweatheart” in such a situation who has not been doing this for years.
“sweetheart” in this instance was deliberate. He wants to play both sides on the gender issue. He wants more support from women, but doesn’t want to lose any of the enthusiasm of his conservative, white male base. On the one hand, in his mind, he’s caving to the liberals on the Roger-Goodell-should- be-fired question. So, he thinks he has to look tough for his base, so he dismisses a female reporter as “sweetheart.” This has to have been thought out beforehand.
n/t
It is if you use it. It is if I use it. Context still matters.
It might be used among some people as a term of familiarity, even affection, but it REMAINS derogatory. It’s like if you called me a douchebag but laughed when you said it (and yes I know that’s an imperfect analogy — any analogy would be).
Context certainly matters, but words matter too.
n/t
Tell you what, Christopher.
The next time you’re in meeting with a male who holds authority over you, try calling him “sweetheart” and “honey” a few times. See if he hears either as a “term of endearment”.
Good lord!
Make no mistake Baker was wrong to use it here. My point was that boy for a black man is always a hostile putdown whereas sweetheart is sometimes OK. If Baker had called her a bitch instead there would be no nuance as that too is always hostile.
You are simply pointing out it’s not a proper word or phrase to use in a professional setting, regardless of gender of the person using it or gender of the person it’s directed towards.
Yet that wasn’t what this post was framed as. It was framed as being used towards a “female reporter”. Would it have been appropriate to use it towards a male? Of course not, and you just said so. It’s not a sexist term, it’s simply a term not used in professional settings.
I invite you to offer a link, cite, or reference to even one situation where Mr. Baker referred to male colleague or subordinate as “sweetheart”. Even one.
It IS a sexist term when used in a professional setting. Men in a professional setting are all too accustomed to using language, gestures, and even physical contact towards women that is sexist and demeaning, and expecting no consequences as a result.
Men do not call their male colleagues or subordinates “honey”. They do not say “LOVE those slacks” (while staring at the crotch) when their male colleague or subordinate arrives for work. They do not stand closely enough for physical contact behind their male colleague or subordinate in an otherwise-empty elevator.
I am astonished at how blind some participants here seem to be. It really isn’t hard to learn how to change:
1. Invite your female colleagues to talk privately about their experiences in your workplace. Assure and respect their privacy in doing so.
2. LISTEN to what they say. Ask them to be specific about words, actions, and behaviors (names don’t matter so much) that offend, hurt, or embarrass them. Don’t defend. Don’t argue. Ask questions only for clarification.
3. LOOK for those same words, actions, and behaviors in your workplace.
4. STOP doing those things yourself. Ask your colleague to let you know if she sees you mistakenly revert (sometimes a keyword helps). Let your male colleagues know that you don’t like their use of those words, actions and behaviors, and ask them to change. Own your request — don’t refer to anybody else.
The fact that we are having these exchanges in a 2014 campaign season is appalling. The fact that a major-party candidate for statewide office is demonstrating these attitudes is shameful. The fact that some are attempting to discount the negative reaction as “politics”, or “PC”, or inconsequential is sad.
Betty Friedan published “The Feminine Mystique” more than FIFTY YEARS ago. Some of the infant daughters that book refers to are now grandmothers.
I am sincerely aghast at all this.
…and did not claim Baker ever actually did call a man that, so you’re not likely to see that citation.
Especially this:
“It’s not a sexist term, it’s simply a term not used in professional settings.”
That isn’t a proposal, and there’s nothing hypothetical about it. He’s making an flagrantly incorrect assertion.
…you asked him to cite an instance when Baker used it the term, whereas bpws simply asked if it WOULD be appropriate. I actually agree sweetheart is not sexist. It can be used appropriately in both directions between significant others, but shouldn’t be used in either direction in a professional context.
We KNOW that Mr. Baker used the term in reference to a woman, in a professional context. We agree that it is not professional.
The assertion is that it is also not sexist. There are both hard and simple tests for that assertion:
Hard: Measure the occurrences of “sweetheart” in a professional setting, and sort them by gender of the speaker and receiver, normalized by population. If the four categories (m->m, m->f, f->f, f->m) are equally represented, then the term is not sexist. If, as I strongly suggest, the “m->f” bin is far and away the largest, then the term IS sexist as well as unprofessional. Instances of the “f->f” could arguably be including in that, so that an easier test might be to compare the frequency of a female recipient to that of a male recipient. If the term is applied more frequently to females, then the term is sexist.
Easy: Show an example where Mr. Baker applies the term to men. If it is an expression he commonly uses (I have worked with women who routinely call EVERY colleague “honey” when they are displeased with that person) and applies to men as well as women, then I agree that it was not sexist.
PLEASE don’t go down the rathole of whether her not he “intended” it to be sexist — motivation and intent have nothing to do with its impact on the victim.
To me it’s very simple:
Between significant others regardless of the gender of either party it is a perfectly acceptable term.
Between colleagues or in other professional contexts regardless of the gender of either party it is not.
Gender is the constant here in that it is a null factor; context is ALL the difference.
What do you mean “Gender is the constant” or that is a “null factor”?
Men are not called “sweetheart” in their professional roles. Women are called “sweetheart” in their professional roles. The term is demeaning in a professional context. The use of the term is both sexist and unprofessional.
Charlie Baker called a female reporter doing her job “sweetheart”. His statement and its context were demeaning. It was unprofessional.
It was sexist.
I don’t get the sophistry and handwaving from you and bpws — it seems as though each of you has some need to defend abhorrently sexist behavior like this.
It’s wrong in a professional context, OK in a relationship. You have also indicated context and said men are not called sweetheart in their PROFESSIONAL roles. Exactly!, and neither should women be. I don’t see any disagreement there. Somewhere the question came up whether the word is per se (ie without context) sexist, which I argue it is not since it is used in both directions in loving relationships.
We have always agreed that the term is inappropriate in a professional setting.
Perhaps you agree that, in that professional setting,
1. It is seldom if ever directed at men
2. It is nearly always directed at women
3. It is demeaning.
So we seem to agree that we are discussing a demeaning term that is applied to women and not men in a professional setting.
It sounds like we agree that its use, in the context we are discussing, is therefore sexist.
How can you possibly say it’s a “flagrantly incorrect assertion” when you said the same thing?
So when you say it it is true but when I say it it is a “flagrantly incorrect assertion?”
And it’s true, it should not be used in a professional setting. By anyone. But men and women do use the term, towards both men and women. It doesn’t become sexist simply because men don’t use it towards other men.
As I originally stated, Baker’s comment would still be offensive (I’d argue more so), if he had instead said “Okay this is going to be the last one, woman.” Or numerous other words.
Not because woman is a sexist term, it obviously isn’t. Just like sweetheart isn’t a sexist term. Tone and context matter far more. The problem is people are failing to acknowledge that and instead are acting like sweetheart is some sinister sexist term.
I have no problem saying Baker’s statement was sexist and condescending, definitely more of the latter. Not because of the word sweetheart, but because of tone and context.
It is both sexist and unprofessional. An important reason why it is unprofessional is because it is sexist.
Jeesh.
It is not necessarily inappropriate to call your spouse “sweatheart” over the phone when it might be overheard in the office. It is *always* inappropriate to call a coworker or subordinate “sweatheart” even if you are at a social event that has nothing to do with work.
This is why this was not a simple gaffe on Baker’s part.
Right. It’s always inappropriate to call a coworker or subordinate sweetheart. Why is that so controversial? It’s not a matter of it being a sexist term, it’s a matter of it being unprofessional.
it is a loaded term used to be dismissive of women.
Is it dismissive when used by females towards males?
Depending on a host of factors. But there’s not the same history of professional women holding pretty much all the power and dismissing most of what any man has to say with a casual wave of the hand. Not to mention that the specific context here was questioning about his callous take just days ago on an issue relating to women’s safety.
If it “can be” dismissive than the issue isn’t the word sweetheart. Which is my point. As you said, context matters. People are arguing that the word sweetheart itself is sexist, that’s ridiculous. There could have been many words used and it still would be a sexist comment. The word, however, is not sexist.
Nobody else is having. By that theory the word “boy” is not racist. Clearly in certain contexts it is.
… that the reason you might see see ‘boy’ as ‘historically a more loaded term’ is precisely because you see racism as a problem and that this is not the view you have of sexism: you’re more serious about the one than the other when, some of us, see them as equally pernicious and harmful problems –both to the victim and the victimizer — and, actually, not all that different.
Women were not kept as slaves, did not suffer Jim Crow, the equivalent of Black Codes, etc. If I had to live through US history and my only choices were to live through it as a white woman or a black man, I’d take the former without hesitation.
… so much. I think you should avoid replying in the heat of the moment…
I know they weren’t equal and there were plenty of problems, but this IS my area of interest and expertise so when it comes to history I generally know what I’m talking about.
… You’d probably straighten yourself out, being interested and expertised, by not replying in the heat of the moment but later when you’ve thought it through.
Your first wrong is trying to equate. They are both wrong. Lynchings and Jim Crow were sharp and immediate pains. So is rape, prostitution and chattel marriage. We no longer have Jim Crow and lynchings are very very rare. Not so rape, prostitution and chattel marriage. These things are a product of the view that sexism isn’t the problem that racism is. If we went after sexism in the way we go after racism we’d end prostitution and rape would be punished for more harshly than it is.
Not being able to catch a cab in NYC is bad. So were girdles and high heels. The economist Thorstein Veblein once did an economic analysis of womens dress and concluded they were designed not only to communicate dependency and the illusions of delicacy but re-enforce dependency and delicacy often to the detriment of womens health.
There is much that is wrong with your statement Christopher. You should examine them closer.
…but just because you disagree doesn’t say anything about the heat of the moment or otherwise my state of mind. I’m right there with you on prostitution and rape, though to be clear those things are already illegal (OK, with a few exceptions for the former) whereas slavery and Jim Crow were not just not illegal, but affirmative protected and sanctified by the laws at one point.
…I am also aware that current laws regarding those things were not always the law and we could do more even now to tighten up the laws that do exist.
Clearly not.
If you were talking about some parts of the country while women weren’t property they had less rights then black men up until recently.
As in, a black man in NYC could vote before 1920 while a woman could, and until divorce laws were modernized they got nothing in divorce, didn’t have the same legal rights, and were restricted in employment.
Note here I am trying to make a point, though I mostly agree with you.
My mother was a professional librarian and library administrator, with an MS in library science and thirty years experience working in and leading a major suburban library system. She also received real estate in LA, inherited from her father.
She was UNABLE to sell the mineral rights to her own property without the notarized signature of my father, her husband, because LA law did not recognize her legal standing in 1974.
“Women as property” is MUCH more than just a casual political phrase.
I meant “LA” as “Louisiana”, by the way.
My father, her husband, was not and had never been a resident of LA. He married her after she left the state, and they were married in Washington DC. The *only* connection my father had to the property in question is that he was married to the woman who owned yet.
Nevertheless, she needed his signature on the deed — her signature, alone, was not legally binding.
In 1974. In America.
if I was taking the deed. Who wants to get caught up in someone else’s divorce proceeding, if it can be avoided so easily?
I want to ask you an honest question — and I’d really like an honest answer.
Do you think that a man, in Louisiana in 1974, needed to get his wife’s signature on a deed if he tried to sell it?
This honest answer will inform us as to whether or not you’re simply diverting the thread to purposely ignore the point.
First because I was in grammar school at that time, and 2nd because Louisiana is a REALLY weird duck, legally speaking.
All I was saying is that under the circumstances described, I would today ask for both signatures– or at least a release from the other spouse. Not because to make some political statement about womens’ rights one way or the other, but specifically to make sure that the transaction is never, ever under any possible circumstances involved in any community property/divorce dispute. Why would someone buying land want anything other than a zero chance of that, when it can be fixed by “Here, sign that.”
My mother was selling mineral rights for her share of the land.
She was not selling the land itself, and there were dozens of other signers. I get that you might want a spouse’s release today — surely you would ask that of any married seller, regardless of gender.
In any case, I’m pretty sure I remember that this was NOT on the contract the attorneys asked her to sign, but was instead on the legal form published by the state. As in “Husband’s signature, if married female”, or something to that effect, on the printed form.
Louisiana was not a common-property state in 1974. As stomv points out, men did not need their wives’ signature to sell property for which they were the sole owner. In this case, the property in question was farmland that had been passed on, through several generations, to the thirty-odd descendants of the original owner. None of the men were required to obtain their spouses’ signature; only each married woman.
Surely you don’t suggest that there is, now, a valid reason for a person to require a spouses’ signature to sell real property that they are the sole owner of.
the Supreme Court heard several cases dealing with similar issues. In Reed v. Reed, the court struck down a sexist Idaho law of the same kind. A divorced couple’s son died young and the local court appointed the father administrator of his estate because state law broke any tie in favor of a male applicant.
In Frontiero v. Richardson, a female Air Force officer sued because her husband was denied spousal benefits while wives of male officers were given such benefits as a matter of course. Prior to the mid-70s there were all sorts of similarly biased laws on the books.
Black men are gunned down by police for being black. Until women start experiencing anything remotely similar I will maintain racism is far far worse than sexism.
At least in Oklahoma, even police are in on that.
Black men are gunned down by police for being black. Until women start experiencing anything remotely similar I will maintain racism is far far worse than sexism.
“The intimately oppressed.” Neither is acceptable today. Ask Sandra Day O’Connor about being top of the class at Stanford Law and being offered only secretarial positions by law firms.
I said historically racism was worse. I would argue presently worse as well. I did NOT say that there was not plenty of sexism to go around.
The question is if the term is unacceptable. I vote “yes” on both and I am urging you to think about “sweetheart” in the context of the sexism that has existed and still exists and do the same.
I let myself follow the tangent regarding boy. I too believe they are both unacceptable.
Oh my, I’m speechless.
I’m happy to provide a list of women professionals at HDS, EDS, and similar local universities and divinity schools.
Let me make just one observation that one of those shared with me more than ten years ago: the data shows that discrimination based on gender is MUCH more fundamental than almost every other form. The various civil rights groups were, nonetheless, profoundly sexist in their executive structure, language, and practices.
You really are WAY OUT there on this one. Way out there.
Maybe my history is off, but I’m pretty sure black women were kept as slaves, and suffered from Jim Crow and Black Codes. Perhaps you meant white women did not experience that?
I was comparing white women to black men. Black women of course got/get it both ways.
Just to be clear … black women have been treated horribly by black men before, during, and after slavery. The pervasive discrimination against women is profound, nearly universal, and has been that way for essentially ALL of written history.
Discrimination against women transcends virtually every human boundary, including boundaries of religion, geography, culture, politics, economics, and even history.
It was nobody’s legitimate business if Mersault had a close relationship with his mother or handled his grief differently. This guy wants to be governor in an age when women are just starting to be treated as equals in the public and professional realm. An indication he’s not capable of doing so is not irrelevant. It speaks volumes about the perspective he’d bring to running the state. One in which the concerns of those who count are important and those of people who can be dismissed are not. How’s he going to run a cabinet meeting?
When black kids are getting killed by cops across America with impunity for no reason, and when internet nerds publicly shame a female gamer for speaking out and threaten Emma Watson with nude pic leaks for making a fairly middle of the road but important speech on internationalizing women’s rights, we got massive problems on both fronts.
It is quite clear that, at least when it comes to personal instincts, Charlie Baker is on the wrong side of the problem. His first instinct is that the Hobby Lobby decision and NFL domestic violence crises weren’t big deals, and the ‘sweetheart’ comment merely confirms that this is a man out of touch with his time on these issues. What sadly still plays well in male dominated boardrooms does not play well in the public.
In one example a person is DEAD. In the other example someone may be embarrassed. It is not even close to equal. Saying that both mean there are “massive problems on both fronts” is ludicrous. You just compared nude photos, birth control and domestic violence to police killing someone. Killing someone and nude photos are not comparable. It boggles my mind that people actually think these types of things are similar.
… that domestic violence can’t involve someone being dead? That’s it’s all about ’embarassment’?
Where would that kind of thinking come from…? One does wonder…
What the heck are you talking about? jconway said posting nude photos of women is as bad as a cop killing a black male. He said it’s not a matter of what is worse. It is. Murder is worse than posting nude photos. Sorry, it just is.
Please state which of the following expressions has the larger answer, and explain your reasoning:
2/0
1,000,000/0
The attempted comparison is literally not meaningful — never mind relevant.
…or was that your point? The comparison is very relevant since on balance racism DOES manifest itself worse than sexism does for exactly the reasons bpws cites and I was trying to explain myself.
I don’t want to get too deep into theory, but I was actually intending to ask whether two infinities can be compared, and I didn’t have the time or html expertise to enter the actual limit equation (2/x in the limit as x approaches 0). I invite comment from our mathematicians.
My point is that even though each is bad, perhaps even infinitely bad, it still doesn’t work to attempt to compare them. I think this is the fallacy behind sophomoric trick questions in theology like “Which mortal sin is more sinful?”.
Racism is bad. Sexism is bad. Our society suffers horrible consequences from both. There is no benefit from attempting to construct a false dichotomy between one and the other.
But you are comparing them. Saying both are bad or neither is worse than the other IS comparing. Saying both are bad is comparing them. Saying society suffers horrible consequences from both is comparing them. Of course they are both bad and there are bad consequences. But jconway compared a dead black kid to nude photos. They are not equals. Never will be.
Too bad I didn’t actually do anything of the sort. But I will compare your arguments on this thread to the fecal matter of the bovine species.
Perhaps you didn’t intend to, but you absolutely did so. The title of your post was “not a question of ‘worse'”. Then you went on about a dead black kid and photos of Emma Watson. You just said neither is worse. Of course one is worse. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that?
Neither “ism” is worse, I was talking about broadly comparing the systems of oppression not the severity of the examples either system employs. The Taliban shooting a feminist activist is worse than 4 chan leaking Watson pics. But both are responses by oppressors to women standing up for themselves, in this case at the same venue. Similarly, lynching is worse than calling a grown man a boy-but both are responses by oppressors to maintain immoral orders.
Both immoral orders need to come down, neither order is worse. And it’s up to those of is who oppose these orders to call out people at every level engaging in this oppression. If Baker used boy to a black reporter or fag to a gay reporter Id still call him out. That’s my point. What the hell is yours again?
You did compare those incidents as equals. Perhaps you meant “systems of oppression” but you specifically mentioned a dead kid and nude photos as neither being worse than the other.
I never said either “-ism” is worse. I don’t recall anybody on here saying such a thing. What should be indisputable is individual incidents can be worse. You denied that. You said both nude photos and dead black kids are massive problems and it’s not about what is worse. That is putting them on equal footing when they obviously should not be.
I’m done giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your line of questioning makes Chris Wallace look like Charlie Rose. I’m out.
I’ll grant as abstract concepts the -isms are equal. Racism is holding prejudicial or hostile attitudes on the basis of race. Sexism is holding prejudicial or hostile attitudes on the basis of sex. Both are completely inappropriate attitudes to have especially when they inform your comments and behavior. However, historically and presently racism has tended to manifest itself in much more harmful ways than sexism has from protected slavery to shooting unarmed suspects. I too think it sounded like you were comparing apples to oranges and stand by my uprates.
The rest of the world defines “sexism” as something like the following:
You relentlessly reject definition (1), yet that is (by convention in dictionaries) the most common use of the word.
I’m right on the edge of joining jconway, I’m resisting the urge to write “a pox on both your houses”.
To “compare” two things is to discuss the similarities between them. To “contrast” two things is to discuss the differences between them. Saying that fish are “pretty” and that a bicycle is “pretty” does NOT compare or contrast a fish with a bicycle.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but not every contrast or comparison is to say two things are “equal”. The word “equal” has a very specific meaning, a meaning that is impossible to draw from a reasonable reading of jconway’s comment.
Is it so hard to just let it drop?
No, it’s characterizing them, not comparing them. It’s an important difference.
The number of grains of sand on Cape Cod is positive, an integer, and rather large. The number of stars in the Milky Way is positive, an integer, and rather large. In no way have I suggested that there are more grains of sand or stars in the galaxy (and, to be honest, I haven’t the foggiest idea which is larger).
Welcome to BMG by the way, a good rule of thumb is not to be a troll or post moronic things to antagonize people. Try following it in future comments. Sad to see Christopher uprate that.
But, I never actually typed “Emma Watson is as bad as Ferguson”, merely rattled off two examples to show that racism and sexism are still pervasive problems in our society that are often linked. Since you either wanted to deliberately misconstrue my argument or are too stupid to understand it-let me be clear. I think racism and sexism are linked problems, and we can see them all over the world from Boko Haram to the Taliban to ISIL killing women who stand up, which is just as bad, not less bad or worse, just as bad as what is going on with blacks in America. Frankly I think any discussion about “who has it worse” is a shameful exercise in blame deflection that tries to silence the voices of the oppressed in either or both categories.
Thanks for the welcome. How about not calling me stupid or saying I post moronic things? Getting a little personal aren’t you?
You said that, not I. I also never claimed you said “Emma Watson is as bad as Ferguson.” In fact, I wasn’t even thinking of Ferguson but life for blacks in general. You made the comparison, not me. You chose to write that “both fronts”, being blacks kids killed by cops and nude photos of Emma Watson are massive problems. They aren’t similar, at all. But, you compared them as both “massive problems.” It’s putting them on equal footing. They aren’t. Would you honestly saying nude photos of Prince Harry are as bad a guy killing his wife? Maybe you would, but I find that idea ludicrous. You just made a similar comparison of black kids and Emma Watson.
I’m not comparing “who has it worse.” I’m comparing individual incidents. A dead black kid (or adult) killed by cops is worse than nude photos. And you did it again, comparing the oppression of blacks kids being killed by cops to the oppression of say, using the word sweetheart or posting nude photos. Not equal.
Seems like you legitimately misread what I wrote.
Both fronts=sexism and racism, in general. Not the specific examples I highlighted since they were on the top of my head and recent headlines.
What caused the leaked pictures? Sexism. What shot Malala in the head? Sexism. What killed Trayvon and Michael. Racism. What’s the deal with tea bagger wanting to see his birth certificate? Racism. The severity of the example doesn’t change the underlying cause. Of course physical violence, death, and harm are worse than words. But words underlie those responses. Calling a grown woman sweetheart or a grown man boy is the first step in dehumanizing a person on the basis of race or gender that leads to future violence. Calling people out who use those terms is the first step in restoring equality and mutualism to these relationships and taking down these bad systems. So, I’m calling Baker out. If you sincerely care about these issues you will join me.
You did no such thing. You compared individual incidents as both being massive problems, NOT sexism and racism. It’s not my fault if you could not put down what you actually believe.
So I guess, using your logic, getting called a boy is worse than Malala getting shot than the Taliban? That’s your logic, not mine. I also am pretty sure, judging by the cavalier way you are approaching issues of sex, that you are the first on the Herald.com saying ‘what about black on black crime’ when it comes to articles about Ferguson. Is your name Daniel and are you a Waltham resident by chance?
Huh? I never said they aren’t both bad. I said individual incidents differ. You are also comparing things in the US and Pakistan. It’s a very lazy comparison. This is a Massachusetts and US based site about something that happened in the US. Yet you feel the need to basically say “what about females in Pakistan.” You very clearly just displayed what you accused me of.
You are also making my point. Shooting someone is worse than calling someone a name. Yet, you, and other people here, fail to grasp that.
At least he didn’t have binders full of sweethearts
Baker’s the one in a bind.
He didn’t just call her sweetheart
He didn’t just give her a command, as though his is word of the ruling class.
He touched her. He put his big hand on her shoulder while saying OK, this is the last one sweetheart just in case she didn’t get who was in charge.
Some of you may criticize this comment as overly sensitive or nit-picking or something else. But it’s not nothing. It’s unprofessional at best. Combined with the command and word sweetheart it’s condescending and sexist.
BTW, did the Globe cover it at all?
Offered without comment
Looks like Obama is 6 years ahead of Charlie Baker on this one.
… nobody is immune, eh?
It’s nothing to sneeze at, either.
Respond to Charlie by making a contribution of $5 or more to Martha. Click here to contribute.
Right now, Martha’s biggest problem is cash. The primary left her with very little money left. Charlie Baker has a huge cash advantage, which he can use to attack Martha.
So, if you don’t want to hear the phrase “Governor Baker”, please contribute and please volunteer to help.
First we have Romney wanting to be president of 53% of the country, and now Baker is showing that he’s running to be governor of 50% of Massachusetts.
Tough to get 50%+1 using these methods.
Five candidates, 20% + 1 is enough to win.
Sure, mathematically that is possible, but realistically I’m sure the winner will get at least 45% and it would not surprise me if the winner got an outright majority.
No, I don’t at all think all candidates are equal. I’m really just reiterating from another thread. These are plurality elections, not majority elections. The more candidates there are the less votes one needs to actually win.
Since 1970 there have only been two gubernatorial races where the winner had less than a majority, 2010 and 2002. Even then it was close.
Kerry won the Democratic Primary for LG in 1982 with 29%.
Anyways, this is obviously off-topic.
Half this thread is off-topic. I think people are arguing about the realities of a hypothetical upthread — I didn’t read closely enough to find out.
A 20% governor would be hilarious. North of the border, the ruling government is changing the country on the basis of less than 40% of the votes.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Nah, this is the 21st century, all that matters is being politically correct.
Nearly any term can be used condescendingly. He could have said ma’m, miss, lady, woman, girl, sweetheart, honey. Even not using any of those terms someone can come off as condescending. Just like saying buddy, guy or man, as well as sweetheart and honey, to refer to males can be used condescendingly. Context is far more important to consider. I can’t stand when female waitstaff say sweetheart or honey to me, not because I think it’s condescending or sexist, but because I view it as insulting. Society simply isn’t conditioned to view things as sexist if done against or to men. Just the way life is here in the US.
None come anywhere close to using the term boy to refer to black men.
Some of the above arguments in the thread show a larger problem with feminism; it desperately wants to view women as always being victims, and it makes absurd comparisons, such as saying women, notably absurd when referring to white women, have had it as bad as black males. It’s ridiculous on the face of it, but it’s still an argument used.
…which probably explains why I can’t quite gin up the outrage as much as some though I do think it was wrong of him to say it and never would have said it myself. Heck, I avoid telling someone she looks nice because I’m afraid it will be taken the wrong way.
…that I also find it more productive to critique Baker’s plans for how he intends to govern, which I know the BMG community is more than capable of doing, rather than pointing and laughing at gaffes.
How Baker treats, or in this case mistreats, women tells us a lot about how he will govern. It’s totally relevant.
….that a comment like this tells us much of anything beyond his reflex at that moment.
The first reaction of people, especially people under stress or time pressure, tends to be most like their underlying belief and value structure. “Reflex” is what our minds do before we have time to think through more sophisticated answers.
In my view, this succession of reflexes tells us a great deal about his underlying belief system.
How does someone suddenly start calling women “sweetheart” when they never did before. They just don’t. Baker was just acting the way he acts. That’s the problem.
…but if the concern from a governing standpoint is his attitude toward women lets talk about how he said the Hobby Lobby decision doesn’t matter. That’s a lot more relevant.
… right now, a women is being forced into prostitution. She’ll do things, to men, that you wouldn’t contemplate in your worst nightmare and the men will do worse to her. If she’s lucky, she’ll get arrested for it and have some chance of escaping, but likely not. If she meets a specific standard of beauty set by men, she’ll be allowed some say in choice of clientele or even offered roles in pornographic movie where the illusion of choice is so much more robust, but it’s fundamentally no different.
Somewhere in America, right now, a man is going out for a pack of cigarettes, never to return, leaving a pack of hungry children and a single mother staring down the mouth of homelessness and despair. He thinks he has right to go, ’cause he’s a man and — fuck it– as soon as he’s gone they’re somebody else’s, or likely nobody else”s, problem.
Somewhere in America, right now, a woman is starving herself… endangering her health… for the sake of what she thinks you and I think about beauty.
Somewhere in America, right now, a woman is preparing to go to a workplace where her boss continually pinches her ass and calls her ‘sweetheart’. She’d look for another job, but she got the present one to rid herself of the last boss who repeatedly made crude and lewd remarks in her presence and so she doesn’t have much hope for the next job and even less hope for advancement in this one.
Somewhere, right now, a women is waiting for a drunk husband to come home, ready to throw herself between the father and the children. She can’t leave, because all of the assets are in his name. She wonders if he’ll kill her before she gets up the courage to suicide.
Somewhere in America, right now, a man is beating a woman. No one will stop him because they are not in an elevator and neither TMZ nor the NFL give a fuck because the man is a nobody, and even if they did there are no videos to record it. So if she reports it to the police, they’ll be dismissive and likely to think either that she did something to deserve it or she’s making the story up out of whole cloth.
Somewhere in America, right now, a man is raping a women. There is no rational basis for rape: it’s just a man wanting to be completely, brutally, in control in the most primal way possible.
All these somewheres rest upon your solid and all too comfortable notion that there really isn’t a problem: that the hierarchy of moral misdeeds you so careful adhere to — placing racism at the top — gives you license to pit your moral rectitude against only the pinnacle and call the account square. Yes, the pain of racism is oft more immediate and often blunt. This does not make racism ‘worse’ than sexism. The pain of sexism is far subtler, but runs just as deep, as you have so amply demonstrated: it relies upon the presumption of no problem; the assumption that things are, more or less, following their natural course; the blythe assurance with which you comfort yourself; that anodyne and the everyday notion that women really are the ‘weaker sex’ and that you — whatever paternalism ‘accidently’ shows itself — are fair and just because you can rank evil.
You are not fair and just. You just adhere to a false hierarchy that runs from egregious and awful to just awful tho’ you treat it as if it runs from the egregious to the normal… The world you inhabit is — by deliberation — not just. The presence of a moral wrong like racism does not excuse, exclude, elide or in any way lessen the moral wrong of sexism. Furthermore, your fight against racism is in vain if you tolerate any sexism: they’re fundamentally the same thing. The very fact that you try to argue that one is worse than the other makes you, in word and deed, sexist and therefore a large part of the problem.
Oh no, I was called sexist. How scary.
Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. From the age of 21+ men are more likely to be the victims of rape and sexual assault than woman. From 1993 to 2012 the number of female victims of rape and sexual assault has decreased by 74%. The number of male victims has gone up 106%. Males make up 54% of all violent crime victims, 57% of serious violent crime, 67% of robbery victims, 57% of aggravated assault victims and 52% of simple assault victims. This despite making up less than 50% of the population. Courtesy of NCVS. Do those numbers show sexism?
Sure, somewhere in America a woman is starving herself. And somewhere a man is taking steroids. All in the name of beauty. Check out men mags some time, the pictures of muscle laden men is no more realistic than the images of beauty girls think they should follow. Remember Scott Brown and his diet of tuna to prepare for his photo shoot? Is that not starving yourself. Is that not sexist?
And somewhere in America a man is being beaten by his wife or girlfriend. The difference? A man knows he can’t defend himself without getting arrested and skewered by people like you. Did you miss Kelly Brook having a good laugh about assaulting her boyfriends? Take a look at the culture around you. Watch TV shows and movies. Count how many times women slap, punch or push men. It is far greater than the times women are assaulted. There would be outrage if a show casually showed women being beaten. No such thing exists when it happens to men.Watch as even kids shows have made a comedic moment of striking a man’s groin.
Your idea that nobody will stop a man from assaulting a women is ridiculous. And police won’t believe a woman? You pretty much have it backwards.
Your final two paragraphs shows your fatal flaw. You think you know what I believe. You don’t. Sure, I believe that murder is worse than posting nude photos or groping. But I live in the real world. I’d much rather be groped (which women have done to me, was that sexual assault?) than gunned down by police. Maybe you would rather be shot and killed, to each his own. So yes, I will definitely use a hierarchy. So do courts. Murder is worse than larceny. You are being dishonest if you think that’s not appropriate.
Some of your examples are just lazy.
Except men are more likely to be the victims of murder and are more likely to commit suicide.
You are making things up when you say I don’t recognize or that I tolerate sexism. I simply refuse to walk your narrow line of what is acceptable to say. I will call out sexism when I see it, it simply doesn’t exist in using the word sweetheart.
Saying I believe women are the weaker sex is quite hilarious.I don’t believe in “never hit a women” or “saving the women and children first.” I believe in not hitting people and saving say the children, sick and elderly first. That’s not because I think women are weak, that’s because I think the opposite.
I also like how all your examples had nothing to do with white women as compared to black males (which is what you responded to), just women vs. men. Then somehow you try to use those examples as justification for my supposed tolerance of sexism as opposed to racism. Sorry, doesn’t work.
Absolutely. Clearly and unequivocally these numbers do show sexism. Male on male sexual violence involves, as the title of this comment clearly shows, a forced sexual predation and assumed degradation based — entirely– upon the relative values placed upon gender identity, social status and biology: the term ‘prison bitch’ would have no meaning at all absent sexism. You don’t want to be my bitch because that means I have complete control over your identity and your body. In short, you don’t want to be treated like a women is treated.
I don’t know why you think this helps you… but the notion of the default behaviour of the male of the species being low down and vicious isn’t bolstering your case that the default behaviour of the male of the species is chivalrous and exemplary…
Again, what the heck are you talking about? You appear to be arguing something entirely in your head, or perhaps what someone else once said to you. You start fine, “Male on male sexual violence involves, as the title of this comment clearly shows, a forced sexual predation and assumed degradation based — entirely– upon the relative values placed upon gender identity, social status and biology”
Males are seen as less valuable in society. That’s why they are killed so often and are the victims of so much violent crime. That’s why they work the most dangerous jobs and die at a younger age. That’s why people say “never hit women” and “save the women and children”; men aren’t seen as valuable as women.
But then you do it again. You compare actual violence (in this case against men) to name calling. Calling someone a prison bitch is not the same as actual violence. It isn’t. No matter how much you want it to be, it isn’t. One IS worse.
Never did I say anything remotely similar to “but the notion of the default behaviour of the male of the species being low down and vicious isn’t bolstering your case that the default behaviour of the male of the species is chivalrous and exemplary…” You are making things up.
I never said anything referring to men as “low down and vicious” and certainly not “chivalrous and exemplary.” The reason? I don’t see men as a monolithic entity, just like I don’t see women as a monolithic entity. You are showing a fair amount of sexism by doing it yourself.
who that will point out there’s a black President, give statistics of black on black crime and the number of blacks convicted of crime in our jails to negate the seriousness of racism in our society.
Certainly the best way to solve a serious problem is to deny it exists and blame the victim. Thank you for doing the same.
Except I don’t deny it exists.
Saying what black males face and what white females face is equal is ridiculous. Calling someone sweetheart and getting shot by a cop is not the same. Calling someone boy and killing a women isn’t the same. It’s a desperate attempt as seeing women as always victims and men as always perpetrators. It’s blatantly sexist towards both males and females, yet it is a very popular ideology that is followed by many feminists. It’s damaging to both genders and it needs to stop.
Would a stipulation identifying all the groups you think have had it “worst” in the USA over the past 2, 20, or 200 years (black men, or maybe just men if I’m reading some comments correctly) suffice? I don’t remember when “other groups have had problems too” was a winning argument in defense of sexist and condescending behavior by a candidate for governor. Your other arguments (getting shot vs. being called “sweetheart,” for one) are just straw men.
Whether you are conscious of it or not, you are playing the ‘which side has it worse game’ which obfuscates the fact that both groups have been oppressed throughout history by the majority, by states, and by government and that this behavior is unacceptable. You are also taking away the right of women to assert their own understanding of what is and isn’t sexist by acting as a goalkeeper determining whether or not their victimhood is valid. I can’t think of anything more sexist than that, its basically blame the victim 101.
No, I’m not. I’m saying it is perfectly reasonable to say one incident is worse than another. That’s not victim blaming, that is stating a pretty obvious fact which escapes so many people here.
Yes, oppression is bad. Sexism is bad. Racism is bad. But they are not all created equally. There are some forms that are worse than others. Killing someone based on gender or race IS worse than calling someone a name based on gender or race. I never said the person called a name isn’t a victim, I said the person that is dead is more of a victim.
If a cop makes a racially motivated stop based on someone being black it is racist. If the cop beats that person for no reason it is racist. If they kill that person for no reason it is racist.
If a male coworker makes lewd comments about a woman it is sexist. If they grope the woman it is sexist. If they rape the woman it is sexist. If they kill the woman it is sexist.
They are all victims, but to varying degrees. Raping someone is worse than a racially motivated traffic stop. A cop beating that man is worse than some lewd comments.
That’s not deciding which “victimhood” is valid. Feel as victimized as you want, just don’t make absurd comparisons by saying all are victims are equal.
own advice.
…nobody ever claimed that all of those things are false. Women face plenty of challenges, but given that you pretty much called those of us who didn’t support Coakley during the primary sexist I’ll have to take those accusations with a grain of salt.
And I have had infamous run ins with petr over his far too liberal flinging of the sexist term. But I honestly do not get where you are coming from in your defense of Baker on either thread Christopher. What he said was clearly sexist, in a sense that even Petr and I can agree on that basic fact, along with the Republican leaning Herald and the Republican leaning reporter who was the victim of these remarks. It was a marginalizing remark, to shut her up, and move the conversation on to a category where he had high ground and prevent her legitimate line of questioning about his defense of an organization that has poorly responded to domestic violence.
It was wrong for Baker to defend Goodell, and it was wrong of him to dismiss and marginalize that reporter using a sexist remark. Context matters, and the context here was clearly sexist and marginalizing. There is no way to debate that, its an objective fact.
And everything else you, merrmack guy, and this byms character are talking about are smokescreens to distract from that fact.
You just summed it up nicely. “Context matters, and the context here was clearly sexist and marginalizing.”
Context. Not the word sweetheart, but context. Yet that escapes people on this thread.
I never argued the comment wasn’t sexist, marginalizing or condescending. I said the word sweetheart isn’t sexist.
it is or it isn’t, depending on context. This is not a new revelation. Nobody ever made your straw man argument that getting killed (by a cop or anyone else) and being called “sweetheart” are equally bad.
Yes, people did make that argument. I didn’t make that straw man argument, other people did. I just tried to drive home how obviously false it is. People said using the term boy and sweetheart are equal. jconway said a black kid being killed by a cop isn’t worse than nude photos of Emma Watson. It’s falsely trying to compare incidents of racism and sexism as equals even when they obviously aren’t.
He said he needed more information.
As for my defending Baker, which I did on the other thread, but have not on this one (Read through the totality of my comments; I have said multiple times he should not have called the reporter sweetheart.) I guess I just have low tolerance for discussing things other than what the candidate would actually do as Governor.
In my view, episodes like this pull away the highly-polished skin that every professional politician learns to build and reveals the person inside.
In my view, knowing that PERSON tells us a great deal about what the candidate would actually do as Governor.
and this “issue” gets over 100 comments in the thread… I don’t care if the NFL whatever he is gets fired or not…I don’t care if martha and Charlie call each other sweetie or bro…what I want is a dialogue in this campaign worthy of the voters who need to decide who will be the next Governor…I want to know what each of them will do to solve the homeless problem and get these kids out of the motels…I want to know how each of them plans to get 200,000 people off of unemployment…I want to know how each of them plans to expand voc-tech schools to accommodate all the students who want to go there…and if they both support preK-12 education, I want to know how they will pay for it…You can call me Ray, or you can call me RayJay, I do not care what you call me, but for heaven’s sake stop the nonsense and get down to some issues!
I should have just let them have their fun and ignored it.
pee pee poo poo head comments your were making earlier.
Please.
Of course I could have just left it alone too. Truth is when I first saw the diary title my thought was “Baker, you idiot!” along with an eye roll and facepalm. Then I decided to weigh in on the nuances of what is appropriate in which contexts and how history factors in and it was downhill from there.
did you know there was an HHS forum today, did you care enough to even pay attention? Did you know what the candidates discussed. No? Shocker. Sorry to be harsh. But this comment is BS.
Feel free to compose a post devoted to the issues you care about.
… I just think it’s not the point you intended to make…
Why in the world would you think that the fact of homeless children is an issue separate and apart from sexism? If we cared about women, we’d care about their children also… or do you think the majority of them come from single parent homes where the single parent is male?
I didn’t think so…
…. you were saying? … Something about ‘nonsense’…
intentionally. The homeless children issue is just one of the many issues that these candidates do not have to be specific about or even discuss in a campaign because we and the media are all spending time getting worked up over what is (in comparison to critical issues) nonsense. Both Baker and Coakley have made gaffes in their careers, all public figures do…but those gaffes pale in comparison to the serious issues they will face as governor…and voters would be better served if candidates were forced to focus on them. (@Petr: so you want me to conclude that Baker does not care about homeless children because he called a reporter sweetheart?…sorry, no can do…that would be like believing Coakley was stupid because she did not know the gas tax…both are not believable leaps of fact)
.. and I’m saying that your concerns and my concerns are not separate and the only nonsensical thing is to assume they are…
First, just because you have something to say on sexism in the professional world (or, as the thread moved into, racism more broadly) does not mean you don’t care about homeless children, unemployment, the future of voc-tech education, or pre K-12. For example, I made two comments earlier, but the last thing I did before turning to this website just now was send an email to a professional acquaintance in order to get some services for a homeless person. I also believe strongly in Voc-Tech education and have supported it in some specific ways that I’m not interested in describing here. So, again, just because I made a comment, and care deeply about sexism in our world and our state, does not mean I don’t care about these other issues.
Second, sexism (and again, racism) are not nonsense — they are important issues and worth discussing. Th number of comments here makes it clear it is a conversation starter, for pete’s sake. They are not the only issues worth discussing nor are the one’s you mention. Don’t flame or shame people just because they find some material worth discussing.
Michael Kinsley defined a gaffe as accidently speaking the truth. Charlie’s ‘sweetheart’ fiasco borders on political malpractice. This latest Republican fiasco reminds me of that ‘Macaca’ debacle when George Allen blew the Virginia Senate race by slandering his immigrant Democratic tracker with a racial slur caught on tape. What a fool.
As progressive intellects we delude ourselves into thinking that elections are decided by lofty policy positions and rational debate on important issues of the day. Well guess what? They’re not.
Meet the ‘new Charlie’ same as the ‘old Charlie’. This 1%er isn’t ready for prime time. The clown show continues.
Please procede, morons.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
P.S. And Neil,my buddy, I can already taste that stuffed lobster 🙂
And when Obama called a reporter “sweetie” in the 2008 campaign the comments here were…?? Absent? Dismissive?
…and I recall it was much commented upon at the time.
By who? I doubt it drew any comments here at all, And it hasn’t today either. Do the words “double standard” apply??
Why don’t you just Google it and find out before putting your foot further into your mouth?
Indeed but no one called Obama’s exactly comparable gaffe the deciding moment in the campaign and I don’t think that NOW issued the same missive that it did against Baker. But, then again, I lack your Google skills. Perhaps you can check for us?
Sarcasm is never as funny as you think it will be.
The onus is on you to be sure of your facts before making blanket accusations. Otherwise you are sure to build a reputation for being wrong.
I am not sure who called this a “deciding moment” in the current campaign, but Baker’s poor continued response to issues like this could well make it at least a significant one when it otherwise would not have been. As I said, Obama handled the same issue much better back in 2008. The difference could just be that Obama was a grown-up about it and was willing to admit to and deal with his own biases rather than to pretend they didn’t exist. It could also be that Obama has now clearly demonstrated that is willing to appoint women to positions of power within his administration. It could also be that the Republican party has established a pretty strong record of sexism that like it or not Baker has inherited.
it got plenty of media play at the time, as I found when I looked it up today.
If it was less of an issue in the race, maybe that’s because it happened in mid-May rather than six weeks before the election.
Maybe it’s because Obama didn’t use the term in the context of brushing off questions about his OTHER callous statement about domestic violence and Goodell from only three days prior.
Maybe it’s because Obama was not perceived as a candidate so out of touch and insensitive to issues of concern to many women that he had to form a special group in the hopes of reducing a 20-point deficit.
All those things said, I don’t like it any better coming from Barack Obama. I wasn’t aware of the Obama incident because I spent much of that month out of the country for work. When I learned of it (here, yesterday) I cringed. I”m younger than Obama by more than a decade and, as I said, would never use any such term to a woman doing her job. I know that much and I’m not running for governor.
I hope you’re now satisfied and can take your six-comment BMG history back to the Tea Party troll cave.
Or maybe it’s because Obama was a Democrat?
And he said something sexist, which excuses Baker for saying something sexist how?
There’s a race to the bottom. It’s okay to be an asshole because someone else was an asshole at one point
I love how this thread brought out the trolls.
Complain about how biased the media, and the whole world, is toward Democrats as you watch John McCain and Lindsey Graham be wrong on national TV every Sunday and Scott DesJarlais and Vance McAllister coast to reelection in their gerrymandered districts.
As much as I don’t like your look-what-a-Democrat-once-did strategy you may have gotten closer than anyone to the elephant in the room. Baker I suspect is being more scrutinized whether fairly or not as a candidate from a party that in recent years consistently botches women’s issues.
And cue the Howie Carr ‘Teddy kennedy record on women’ responses in about 3,2,1. My point is, this statement, uttered by any candidate, for any office, in this context, is 100% sexist. It was sexist for Obama to make the lipstick on pig remarks, the sweetie remarks, and the ‘best looking Attorney General in the country’ remarks and the funny thing is HE DID get called out for it on here, on dailykos, and by progressives around the country.
Its not ok for any candidate for office, particularly a male candidate, to call an adult woman reporter ‘sweetheart’, ‘missy’ or ‘sweetie’ or comment on her looks or otherwise respond to her in a less than professional manner. For any party. Its not hard.
Obama was wrong to do so, and yes it was discussed on this site and he was most definitely not given a pass. Obama did respond to the issue at the time *much* better than Baker has.
Your willingness to assume otherwise without bothering to spend 30 seconds with Google speaks more about your own biases than anything else.
What lousy candidates we have. This was said by someone who is not a skilled politician.
I said over the summer that the campaign would be lost by someone who says or does something stupid in late October.
This was stupid, but it is not late October. So I expect this to be a mini-crisis here, and maybe in the hysterical campaign emails that I am condemned to receive, but otherwise to have little impact. Unless another thing happens that builds on this, in late October.
Inside of a month, Charlie Baker has had to extract his foot from his mouth. I wonder how many strikes he should get before he is counted out. Strike one: the Hobby Lobby decision does not affect women in Mass, so no big deal. I guess women’s rights in other states are not so important. Strike two: Using his daughters as questioners in an ad on his record. Strike three: A very slow response to the NFL’s domestic violence problem on Roger Goodell role. Now we’re up to strike four with this incident. More than the actual words he used or has used, he doesn’t learn. That lack of not absorbing the bigger picture means he should not be leading this state.
I am almost more disturbed by the segment before the unfortunate “sweetheart” comment (starting around 0:56) — Baker is obviously not at all used to hearing pointed criticism and reacts badly. You can tell because he is hesitating, talking in a monotone and barely breathing. If someone is that thin-skinned and intolerant of criticism, I don’t see how he can be effective as governor. You don’t just give orders in that job, it also requires a lot of listening, persuading, and compromising. And I don’t mean just with the legislature–we don’t give Patrick enough credit for the huge amount of “selling” Massachusetts that he has done with businesses, community leaders, and other power brokers.
I don’t know if I’m more befuddled by the “my -ism is worse than your -ism” stuff of the lack of understanding that it is all a part of a bigger picture.
Sexism and racism effectively create and maintain a power structure (man over woman, white over black/Hispanic/etc.). Not all things that are sexist or racist result in physical harm, but all sexist and racist acts help to maintain that structure – and the culprits are often sadly oblivious of that fact.
Baker’s use of “sweetheart” toward Sacchetti did not hurt her more than a white person calling a black man “boy”, but both are supportive acts of the power structure, and brushing off such incidents also helps support that structure.
Helping maintain the status quo means that everything from workplace discrimination to police brutality to rape and, yes, murder will continue.
Every time we call out someone for their indiscretion, no matter how “minor” it would seem, is a step (sometimes very small) in dismantling the unjust power structure.
Comment of the thread in my opinion.
Anyone who brushes this off by saying, for example, “Oh, Charlie was tired, he’s not like that” is supporting police brutality, rape, and murder?
I’m sorry, but that is death panel-level absurdity. This (regrettable) move by Baker has NOTHING to do with the power structure. He made a mistake, he’ll be judged for it.
Suppose in all my dealings with people, I treat African-Americans as I would white people, but in my inner-circle of friends I refer to them by a derogatory name. In effect, I’m telling them not to be confused by my actions, I actually do not feel that way inside. That gives any of them my blessing when they do something a notch beyond that, whether it is not giving the job or the apartment to the black guy or whatever. And it cascades on from there.
The message Baker sent to Sacchetti was, “We’re not on an equal footing here” and is a dog whistle (but apparently a poor one) to those who believe likewise. It IS about the power structure. Someone who doesn’t have that internalized would never have said what Baker said.
…the power structure he may be used to is one where people regardless of gender shut up, listen, and take orders. Similar analysis was applied to Mitt Romney.
A CEO who uses that term towards his female subordinates is sexist.
They are by no means mutually exclusive, but he might find another way to be dismissive of male subordinates.
What is it about this topic that generates such intense disagreement among BMGers?
I don’t care much about the actual trolls.
Because it’s easy to understand. It’s like when President George H. Bush did not know what a supermarket scanner was. People suspected he was out of touch with common folk and that incident summed it up in one action. People suspect that Baker is a misogynistic, arrogant, privileged white guy and what better way to make the point than this statement?
That’s my opinion. This thread went in some crazy directions.
Politically, I think we’re overplaying this. It’s out there, it will have whatever effect it has. Any voter who’s really put off by what Baker did is probably not voting for him.
But blog on, I guess.
This behavior might cost Charlie Baker some votes.
Still, I have a hard time believing that “Vote for me because the other guy is a sexist boor” will prove to be a particularly persuasive way of attracting votes to Martha Coakley.
I think this started a lot of conversation, but Coakley didn’t go after Baker, so I think you are mixing up this blog and what people see outside of political circles.
Baker did something stupid, it was reported, Op Ed wrote columns the following day. That’s what happened. I don’t see where this got overplayed.
… but that doesn’t mean what you think it means, so anyone tempted to use that to pile on to Christopher should think hard about it.
… insofar as this particular intense disagreement centered not around the subject itself but on relative levels of effect upon victims and victimizer and ‘ranking’ of society harm the generation of disagreement stems from frustration, for my part, that such elisions might affect the furtherance of the problem.
Here in this debate, and elsewhere on this blog, Christopher has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be scrupulously fair-minded: he would, I daresay, sooner cut off either arm above the elbow than assume ill intent upon the part of another. That is to say, he prides himself upon taking people at face value. That’s the sense I get of him from reading and interacting these past few years. That’s how he can argue that ‘sweetheart’ doesn’t have to be, per se, sexist. He’s sure that ‘racism is worse’ (his terms) because the weight of historical analysis has ripped away the face value of ‘boy’ in racial context, entirely unmasking the ill intent behind it.
I suppose I occupy the other end of the spectrum, having been accused, more than thrice, of seeing sexism where few others do. There is very few things, and fewer people, whom I do take at a face value. I’m ok with that because I really do think it is an fundamental, largely unconscious but entirely pervasive component of the world in which we dwell: And I don’t regard sexism and racism as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ or, indeed, all that differently because the sexist is just someone who’d easily be a racist if society still sanctioned it. And if it is unconscious and pervasive — of course — few will see it without effort and pain. That is to say if some people can’t see it, and others won’t see it, and still others want to do it without getting called on it, then of course I’ll be accused of manufacturing it… (That doesn’t mean I’m not manufacturing it… Though I don’t throw the accusation around without thinking it through… ) I have seen it, time and again, and I’ve scratched the surface enough to see that taking people at face value doesn’t work for the two-faced.
The dichotomy, and perhaps the source of the friction, is twofold: A) if we ever do get to a post-racist, post-sexist society then it will only be possible to sustain it by — all of us — adopting some form of Christopher’s fair-mindedness and scrupulous presumption of honesty… however 2) the whole and entire mechanism of ‘dog whistles’, political and social oppression and all unconscious biases absolutely rely upon looking harmless while actively being harmful. The very act of excusing “sweetheart” as harmless affects far greater harm by giving Charlie Baker, and those who would support him, a pass to both deny that they do it, and to continue doing it. As long as sexists can give Christopher some plausibly harmless quotes he’ll continue to believe that they are, actually, harmless.
I don’t know how to reconcile this, so I don’t think we can avoid ‘intense disagreement” in the short term… But I hope this has helped to answer your question.
At an activist training several years ago when I was working with an organization lowering the voting age in Cambridge, I was part of a frank discussion on race that distinguished between color blindness and color consciousness. The trainers wanted us to be color conscious-at the time I was color blind and prone to counter no Irish need apply during debates about affirmative action, in part, since my dad was one of those “friend happens to be black” “Cosby show is good for blacks, rap brings them down” and “Draft Colin Powell 1996” kind of moderate liberals.
Since then I’ve become far more color conscious-aware that we haven’t achieved a color blind society yet and we have to call out racism where we see it. Ditto on gender consciousness. I think like my dad, Christopher comes from the more idealistic school that still yearns to find reasonable republicans, fails to recognize dog whistles, and is as self critical of ones own side as another. It’s a healthy perspective to have and one that actually makes for a good debate. There are limits to that perspective which the kind of back and forth probing we had here can engage and hopefully overcome. I think many would recognize I made similar arguments in years past, and have evolved myself. I feel we had that here, and actually am heartened by this thread trying to reconcile the issues of privilege and assess the damage it causes.