Susan Rice and double standards
The model of female leader has morphed from Iron Lady to soft power. And the controversy over Rice stems in part from the fact that she does not fit comfortably into this model of collegial, nurturing, division-healing woman.
The adjectives used to describe her are fraught with sexist undertones. Blunt. Sharp-elbowed. Driven. Egotistical. Some of these terms come from her friends. No one thinks she would win Miss Congeniality. …
It goes too far to say pure sexism, but I think gender plays a role, however subconscious. My analysis assumes that the Rice critique does not stem solely from her comments on a single Sunday morning of talk-show rounds.
Something more is going on here: A touch of chummy old-boy (and old-girl, for that matter) networkism in support of Senate colleague John Kerry. A residue of bristling over previous encounters (see Rice’s tart 2008 comments about then-GOP presidential nominee John McCain). …
And also sexism, albeit of a modern, less overt variety. Let’s face it: Society has more tolerance for men behaving badly than for women.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Puhleeze
cmsinaz on November 30, 2012 at 8:11 AM
“Blunt” is now sexist code? Hey Ruth, when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. These people haven’t had an original thought in my more-than-40 years of paying attention.
DaydreamBeliever on November 30, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Good grief, shut up.
forest on November 30, 2012 at 8:23 AM
How about Susan Rice and no standards?
tom daschle concerned on November 30, 2012 at 8:26 AM
The pubs already had their Rice as SofS, who is black and female. In that light, this article is desperately trying to play the race and sex card. When will their hypocrisy stop? Probably never.
tommy71 on November 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM
My annalists goes on her track record that is consistently incompetent. A person who should have never been in her prior positions in the Clinton Administration much less the one she holds now. Lets not even get off into considering her for a promotion.
Then we have the good old investment portfolio.
Does anyone remember Halliburton and how Dick Cheney was vilified for an investment he no long held at the time of office.
I say go for it Mr. President. It cant be positive for you…
Tilly on November 30, 2012 at 8:33 AM
So no one ever uses those terms to describe men? It’s only sexist terms.
Every day I think I understand how stupid the left is, and every day they show me how much I underestimate the limits of their stupidity.
makattak on November 30, 2012 at 8:42 AM
Rice is a liar. Marcus is a moron. Are we clear?
Basilsbest on November 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM
This will work with the majority of the public. You just ‘blunt’ all criticism by calling everyone names based on physical characteristics.
Unless you stand in the way of Party Power then you are slimed by names based on physical characteristics.
But the left controls the media and we roll over and die.
We better start brainstorming ideas to fight the media now or we get destroyed.
GardenGnome on November 30, 2012 at 8:59 AM
I thought it was because of race. Hey let’s play the race card and the vajayjay card?
vcferlita on November 30, 2012 at 9:00 AM
The dichotomy between a) recognizing that women are equal with men in getting the job done, b) sensitivity to middle eastern cultural issues and wanting to treat them as equals, while c) nominating a woman to the Secretary of State position to negotiate with countries who do not support item a) seems very strange to me. The only conclusion I can make is that in reality, the U.S. does not want to engender respect from those nations. In no way am I trying to put down women. It just seems the liberal ideas against purported racism and sexism plus supposed respect for other cultures falls flat when it goes against the liberal agenda.
nitram on November 30, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Wasn’t John Bolton considered every bit of these and thus the opposition to making him UN ambassador?
Mitoch55 on November 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Her temperament – and truthfulness – are highly relevant to her suitability for the job. Not necessarily disqualifying, but certainly relevant.
Seth Halpern on November 30, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Those are almost the exact same adjectives used by Dems to object to John Bolton against being approved as Abassador to the UN for Bush.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 9:50 AM
LOL. Guess i should have read down a bit farther before making the exact same comment at 9:50 AM.
tommyboy on November 30, 2012 at 9:52 AM
And here we have the heart of the matter. If Marcus doesn’t make this assumption, her whole thesis is pure manure. Actually it is pure manure anyway.
Cecil on November 30, 2012 at 10:26 AM
IMO if women expect to be treated as equals they really have to stop whining and boo hooing about how mean all those men are. Feminists sound like the whiney girls in junior high who cried to their mommies about the popular girls picking on them.
katiejane on November 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM