Sometimes, I find myself wishing that "journalists" were required to take courses in history, semiotics, theory, and things other than how to write a lede, how to boil down a complicated issue to a sound bite so that your average American, with his/her average reading level can understand.
If journalists had a better understanding of history and theory, for instance, they'd understand exactly why the following sentence is so unbelievably racist and misogynist:
No, I'm not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed.
Let's take apart the sentence, shall we?
"Obama...has been richly endowed."
Kathleen Parker, without explicitly stating it, has just repeated the Mandingo myth. That is, that all African-American men have large penises. It was also understood, both in common parlance and scientific studies, that black men were oversexed, not unlike animals, so in the South, for example, this was one of many reasons why white men didn't want African-American men going near white women. Such "knowledge," frequently got black men lynched, as in the case of the boy, Emmitt Till, who was beaten and lynched for whistling at a white woman.
"Obama may be suffering from a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises"
In other words, just like women, Obama talks too much. Rather than keeping it simple, and speaking in simple declarative sentences, Obama speaks in sentences that make clear that a lot of thought is going into his decision-making process when faced with a crisis.
Personally, I like the fact that we have an intellectual in the White House who feels the need to think about things before whipping out his gun and declaring an easy answer to the problem.
Jamie Kapalko, a writer for Salon's Broadsheet,examines Parker's column by looking through the
same lens that Parker had used. The theory, popularized by intellectuals such as Carol Gilligan, who argued that men and women have different means of communicating. Parker is arguing that, using Gilligan's terms, Obama communicates like a woman and not a man. As Kapalko points out, Parker's entire argument for calling the POTUS a girlie-man is his communication style.
First, Parker says that "Obama displays many tropes of femaleness," but goes on to name just one: his communication style. Obama doesn’t talk like an Alpha male, she says. He is "a chatterbox," like all those ladies who love to babble and prattle and jabber and yak. On top of that, after the Gulf oil spill, he spent time "weighing" and "considering" what to do instead of immediately grunting like a caveman and head-butting Tony Hayward.
Parker acknowledges that she's talking about femininity and masculinity "in the normative sense," which means that she's oversimplifying everything. Shouldn't we all strive to communicate well, regardless of whether a particular strategy is associated with a particular gender? Is anyone's behavior ever 100 percent aligned with gender norms, anyway? No, but Parker shrugs and says that it’s just too hard to separate stereotype from reality. We want our leaders to be "normal." No girlie men in the Oval Office.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
And Amy, I think I might know the answer.
I can't understand why it makes sense to anybody to talk about leadership styles in terms of "strength" and "weakness." Leadership styles are about making the right decisions and getting your program through. That's about skillful use of the resources you have. How is it reasonable to say that anybody is inherently "strong" or "weak"? Can this be related to any realistic sense of human personality at all, much less to political decision-making?
I found Parker's column really...words elude me. She has written anti-woman stuff before - there was one a couple years ago that I flipped over, but I can't remember the specifics now (maybe that women shouldn't have the vote...??)
And what is CNN thinking, giving this person a nightly hour...
And the WP - used to be a great paper. (but then the NYT has Dowd...)
It's too bad columnists apparently (in this TV age) have to be 'controversial' and vivid and superficial, and (I can't find the reference now - you did say it?) not even up to the level of a high school assignment.
And I'm really fed up with that old binary thing - men are this, so women are "the opposite". We're always bothering ourselves about "opposites" that are no such thing...
No doubt media pandering had a role - maybe a leading role - in creating or feeding these perceptions, but it's also true that mainstream media coverage, including commentary, is rarely a leading indicator of popular opinion, and more often is a tad behind in picking up on most trends.
Could Parker have been more sensitive to diversity issues? Of course. Should she have been? I suppose that's more complex, involving her conscience, her audience, her editors and her standard of living.
I am just shaking my head.
Parker always manages to piss me off, but I'll never be able to read her the same way again after *this* dissection, Lorraine!
No. It's not complex at all. Sexism and racism is NEVER acceptable.
.
:blush:
"Parker shrugs and says that it’s just too hard to separate stereotype from reality"
Really? Why is that? That's exactly how you breakdown stereotypes and racist/misogynistic bullshit behavior, by being mature enough to cater to nuance. The fact that loose moving metaphors and female hormones were indicted to make a point, shows how little maturity the author has.
Great piece.
"No, I'm not calling Obama a girlie president. But . . . he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises, with which he has been richly endowed."
"Richly endowed refers" directly to "crises" as the subject.
I'm not defending Parker. I have always thought sound reason and thoughtful discourse was a very masculine thing. Then I read Merlin Stone, Gertrude Stein, and Susan Sontag, and decided it is a "Human" thing.
I do understand that richly endowed refers to crises, but it's the president who has been richly endowed with them. The president is richly endowed with crises, which, as has been pointed out, is just an odd choice of words unless it's meant to remind people of black men being richly endowed. Does that make more sense?
And yes. I broke my own rule. Headache is temporarily coming down.
More recently I was in the Post Office and a black man I didn't know complained that his mail-order pharmaceuticals hadn't arrived yet and that he needed his potassium pills. Without a thought I recommended he eat a banana, which is rich in potassium. Another pregnant time bump as we sized each other up.
Sometimes I think it might be better to keep my damned mouth shut instead of trying to be helpful, but trying to be helpful is more important to me than the chance of being misunderstood.
I even hesitate to say, "Why can't we all just get along," out of concern that something about it might set off an alarm in somebody's hyper-alert head.
While I continue to admire O's thoughtful and reflective demeanor, I wish that he would thoughtfully and with careful consideration arrest Tony Hayward and put him in a pokey where the inmates pick up garbage by the roadside in the hot sun all day.
Jim K
At least on paper, that last one sounds like the best choice for president.
While I’m on it, how manly are Michael Steele or Bobby Jindal? Quien es mas macho?!
By the way, my very first post on Open Salon was about Obama and Emmett Till and the South's desire to protect white womanhood. I think you might appreciate it:
We've Come a Long Way Baby
I'd hate to think that in writing that post I spoke too soon.
This is an inaccurate parable, it is historically wrong. The rumor that Jewish men are "good in bed" is a recent American concoction.
When Parker insinuates that blacks have bigger dicks she is obviously speaking in general. She did NOT say that ALL BLACK MEN ARE HUNG. Plus, whether you like it or not, any man who is hung is very proud that he is hung. To say that this is racist is an overkill. Big dick is good and you know it.
On the other hand, Parker's analysis of Obama's "feminine" side is horse shit. Obama is a slick politician who came into power under false pretenses and is now doing his masters' bidding.
As far as 'richly endowed' .... find it odd, but I didn't think of Obama's dick. Since it has to be, minimally ironic -- a crisis is a problem, whereas an endowment is usually good (people aren't endowed with cancer) -- then is just an odd turn of phrase at minimum. To then go on to explain it as both sexist and racist seems a stretch, but odd -- sure.
As far as the stereotypical gender styles regarding speech, I believe that Obama tends to be rather aloof and analytical, whereas someone like Bill Clinton was able to communicate with more warmth and empathy. Based on that, I would have to [sarcastically] consider Clinton as both the first black and first woman president.
But, whenever political analysis devolves into issues of style and away from policy -- it is a slippery slope.
But employers know that columnists such as Parker have a fairly devoted readership, and, as such, are regarded as rainmakers (moneymakers), much as are certain partners in law firms. Ultimately it comes down to bidness uber alles.
Then, may I suggest you read people like Gavin Langmuir, Diane Owen Hughes, and a large # of historians who have documented the Christian fear of Jews, the origins of first, anti-Judaism, and then anti-Semitism.
As for the rest of your comments. Whatever.
I agree. There are "oops" moments when we're talking, but for an "oops" moment to get past a writer and an editor makes me think that that either they're obtuse, or there was an intent to do what was done.
Matt--I hear what you're saying, but I think that it's the choice of words that create a meaning that not everyone will hear, but some will. After all, for many people, a book is just a book, for others, literary analysis is a career. And I do believe in the author (I take some Foucault but not all parts), and in this case, I'm not sure it was her intent, but it was the result.
One of the amazing things about the way these tropes, or as folklorists would refer to them 'Motifs" float around, we're not even aware of it. I can tell you stories about my encounters with such things, but then i would wind up hijacking my own post. I'm thinking about writing a blog post about such things and how they still operate in our culture.
I will go look at your post on Till. I think of him from time to time, and wrote my own stuff on him when the FBI officially did something with the case. (I can't remember--open it or close it?) I've never forgotten the photos of the open casket of that little boy.
I think, sometimes, that people just want to "wish" racism away, without realizing that while there are overt acts of racism such as we see coming out of the Tea Party, but talk to my African-American friends, and listen to their stories of driving while black. I still think the worst of them is what happened to my brother's friend. He was hit in a crosswalk by a white woman driving an expensive car. he had multiple injuries. The cops put him in handcuffs because they looked at the situation and saw black man, white woman, expensive car, and assumed "car jacking." He was in agony. This was two years ago, in a northern city. Not ancient history.
I have been waiting for an honest post on OS- Thank You!
The comments here merely server to PROVE how institutional racism is in this country specifically and around the world generally.
When they lead with apologetics- and, frankly, that's pretty much all they got- they you know WHITE GUILT is churning away; whether it is conscious or not reflects environment to a lesser degree and intellectual capacity more specifically.
Excellent Work! rated- best post on white hate so far on OS!
Having said that, however, I sometimes want to tell the critics to take a chill pill. Seriously. Let's not overdo the president as Comforter-in-Chief or Father-in-Chief or even Enabler-in-Chief. We elected a "head" guy--a pragmatist, a thinker, a weigher of all options, and yes, a Chicago politician. Frankly, I think it's what the presidency needed and still needs. Let's all get over ourselves, shall we?
As for talking and thinking--if those are "female" attributes, all I can say is, how lovely to be a woman...
The clumsiness of its usage in that context makes it hard to argue against.
I shall be watching Parker on CNN, but I will not be enjoying it.
Why anyone would get upset over this is beyond me.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Anything negative that is said about Obama is "racist". Now I understand.
Be a man!! Cry like one, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
:D
Rated.
Merits less than a raised eyebrow.
But why is no one complaining (leders or otherwise) about this:
"...he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit...."
What does that Mean? Am I missing something? Is it supposed to be "rhetoric/testosterone" or "rhetorical testosterone deficit"? Is it rhetorical that he suffers from a testosterone deficit? WTF does the hyphen mean?
These are the things that plague editors.
That and "it's".
The phrase "rhetorical-testosterone" needs an edit, and until and unless I know what the author meant, I am lost.
Even if insulted. I am lost.
I am not sure why you think it was racist and that she was thinking more of African-American dicks.
Facts are that America does have a lot of racists and these guys must hate Obama, for their racial bias, but then to ascribe every criticism of Obama to racism might sound as bad as ascribing every criticism of Israel to anti-semitism or anti-Jewish.
In the course of these comments, one commenter said he used to think that men were only ones capable of rational argument until he read a few female philosophers and discovered that rational argument is a human characteristic. It's admirable he admitted his mistake, but I find it interesting that he had to discover for himself that women could actually think rationally.
Secondly, I have been told, repeatedly, that I'm making too much of the "well-endowed." Perhaps I am. Perhaps I am, as I have admitted, someone who has spent many, many years parsing speech and seeing that there are ways of saying things that will escape most people but will still tap into a stereotype.
I have criticized Obama myself in my posts. But those criticisms have been based on policy decisions he has made that I disagree with. Salamandar, without knowing anything about me, takes the cheap shot by equating me with those who take any criticism of Israel to mean that that person is an anti-Semite. People who criticize Obama without mentioning race, gender, his ethnic or religious background, where he was educated, etc, I am happy to talk to at any time. People who can't resist throwing in something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and everything to do with stirring the pot of hatred, I'm fed up with. He was elected. He's president. Get over it. If you want to criticize his economic policies or his foreign policy--go for it. Want to talk about him being too feminine in the way he approaches problems? Huh?
If someone can explain to me why someone of Parker's intellect would deliberately choose the words "richly endowed" to describe the set of problems that Obama is faced with, I'm willing to listen to.
I also agree with Connie Mack. I don't even understand what Parker means by rhetorical-testosterone deficit. If rhetorical-testosterone is symbolized by such phrases as "Bring it on," I'm delighted to have a president who thinks before he speaks. If, on the other hand, it's a backhanded way of saying that Obama is articulate, well, that's what we expect, isn't it?
He said he was going to change stuff, then he didn't.
I don't know if it's "girly" or whatever, but it's definitely obvious that he's afraid of something or intoxicated with his own power or feels it's impossible to make a change without causing more harm than good.
Journalists are often silly, but Obama, and our political system in general has proven useless. Lots of silly things will probably be said during this, our decadent period of history.
Sorry if that's how you felt, but that was not my intention, i.e "taking a cheap shot".
I have no time for the likes of Parker, if you really think she meant it as an innuendo, then I am with you.
I'm sorry if I misread your intention. No harm, no foul, okay?
Gabby Abby--I've tried to explain why I found the sentence troubling. But I'll just back this up and be an English professor. The word "endow," just using the Free dictionary on the Web means:
1. To provide with property, income, or a source of income.
2.
a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality: Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
b. To imagine as having a usually favorable trait or quality: endowed the family pet with human intelligence.
And, as if she had known she had chosen the wrong verb and then needed to strengthen it by adding an adverb, she added "richly." In all three of the definitions, to be endowed is seen as a positive. Richly endowed would be even more so. Why would you say that POTUS had been richly endowed with crises?
Endow has another meaning in our culture--it still means to be gifted, but when we say that a man or woman has been "well endowed," most people know that one is either saying that the man has a large penis or a woman has large breasts.
So, if I was editing this, I would circle "richly endowed" and ask, "word choice?"
Perhaps because I spent two semesters out of the year reading students' papers, one of my jobs is to make sure that they have chosen the correct word. Sort of like saying "The Gulf is richly endowed with spilled oil."
Since its proper meaning doesn't fit, I believe that Ms. Parker chose the word intending for a certain portion of the population to see the word with its "vulgar" meaning.
And I think, having said this, I've said just about all I can say about how strange it is that Parker says that Obama has been richly endowed with crises.
Sorry, it's been brought up a few times.
The racism is evident, not just in the wording, but in the sort of double fallacy used to often describe and diminish the African American male by 'gendering' him as feminine. It is a racist device, often used in literature and in other discourse, to as a way to both insult and to rob that person of power of any kind. Of course, that it should diminish both black men and all women shouldn't escape our attention. There are so many things wrong with it, that it is hard to count. She stupidly stupidly insults herself in this piece, as well as the President and all males who are black. Genius! Right?
She's both racist, a misogynist and kind of an idiot.
Thank you for writing the piece.
"He said he was going to change stuff but then he didn't" -- are you kidding? First of all, he did change a LOT of stuff. Lillie Ledbetter and Health Care Reform come to mind immediately. Secondly, it's been only 17 months. Third of all, in case you haven't noticed, it's the Republicans in the Congress who are responsible for blocking much of the change PBO tries to accomplish. They derive some sort of giddy thrill out of stopping everything he wants to do, like the immature basketball fans who wave their arms behind the basket when the opponent is trying to make the free throw. It's spiteful, hateful and counterproductive for the country, but it sure is fun, they seem to think.
FLW, it is fascinating to see the constant Other-ification of this fine President. He is too smart, too deliberative and too caring to be dismissed as the opponents would like to do, so they keep OTHERING him. And he keeps on with his work and his mission, and they just can't stand it! HAHAHAHA. As someone who has been an Other all my life (religion, intellect, gender), it's a kick to see one of us not only rise to the top like cream, but, once there to perform the duties with skill and panache. You can tell he's really enjoying his job. As one of those Facebook pages says, "I love it when I wake up in the morning and Obama is President!"
President Obama has been richly endowed with lots of things. I assume that is why most of you ladies voted for him.
Assisted Living
I have taken to calling the rich who did not earn their wealth through honest work "parasites", and in appropriate situations I declare those who support special privileges to the wealthy as "un-Americans" who "deserve to be stripped of their citizenship". Troll, meet troll.