Carly Fiorina and Cokie Roberts attempt to talk about sexism, get cut off by Sam Donaldson
January 25, 2009 by Sheryl Lee
This:
reminds me of this:
BLOG
22 comments on “Carly Fiorina and Cokie Roberts attempt to talk about sexism, get cut off by Sam Donaldson”
Leave a Reply
UPCOMING EVENTS
-
April 4, 2013A Girlfriends' Guide to Making it in the Real World!
Rutgers UniversityApril 10, 2013A Girlfriends' Guide to Making it in the Real World!
Villanova UniversityJune 4, 2013National Girlfriend's Networking Day
New York, NYBuild Your Network
We’re in the media
Sheryl,
You are the best. Thanks for the laugh. I think Naomi Wolf has been trying to grab me by the arm and drag me out of the dinner party at CNN for a couple of weeks now!
On a more serious note – Hooray! There is a national dialogue happening and if all the wonderful bloggers, public spokespeople, media writers, etc. can continue to keep the door open, we will all be able to advance the rights and place of the women in this country,
I had heard about this press show and now after seeing it, I didn’t think it was a horrible as it’s been made out to be. These shows tend to move along at a rapid pace because they have a lot to cover. I simply saw each panelist trying to make their points and if Donaldson shifted the focus away from female represenatation in government, then I don’t think he was any more in the wrong or right than for Ms. Roberts or Ms. Fiorina to have shifted the focus to gender parity.
I do tend to hear men speak with a tone of authority that drives me nuts and which was evidenced in this interview. And, yes, Donaldson cut off Fiorina. Too bad she didn’t assert herself to finish her thought and/or the host could have intervened to ensure that she was able to finish. But, truth be told, I’ve also seen snippets of these kinds of shows where women jump the gun, as well, and interupt a fellow panelist.
If anyone tries to cut us off, don’t let ‘em! By stating your desire to complete your thought you not only give yourself the deserved time and space to do so, but you simultaneously point out the other person’s rudeness (something a lot of folks probably don’t even notice cause they’re so used to it). A win-win situation! I would have loved to have seen Amy’s former Wall Street colleague (sorry, forgot her name) in a situation like this. I think she would have called Donaldson out and finished what she had to say.
OK. All of that said, the other video on this post is beyond hilariious!!!! (in that laugh/cry sort of a way)
PS Yes, Amy, I agree that it is good news that a national dialogue has begun on the issue of parity.
Sexism doesn’t exist. The men say so.
Does anybody else see the resemblance between our beloved Amy Siskind and the woman in the second video?
Sans the makeup and hairdo, I mean, and the breathy voice, the ultra-girly affectation, and the love of kittens (though, I dunno – maybe Amy likes kittens).
Sheryl – that is sooo funny! Where do you all find these gems?
I have not seen the Stephanopoulos roundtable discussion yet but, with reference to Anna’s point, it seems rare, in general, to find people with good manners on the current political chat shows. It seems to be the ‘style’ of political discourse to over speak, interrupt constantly, and generally out-shout everyone else, regardless of the sex of the participants. The McLaughlin group was one I distinctly remember as being a waste of time trying to hear what people were saying. Now others seem to have adopted this talkfest MO. Too bad.
Yes, as women, many of us have to learn to be effectively assertive and garner the respect we deserve.
What struck me was Donaldson’s trashing of Governor Paterson, as they discussed the NY Senate appointment. He couldn’t say anything good about Kirsten Gillibrand
Sheryl,
I am allergic to cats – quite a plight as you can imagine
Sheryl, enjoyed the u-tube. so hilarious. thanks. since I have stopped watching Stephanopoulos last year, I will have to look it up now. Very curious what Cookie Roberts and Carli Fiorina managed to voice. And I remember Sam Donaldson always opining with self assuredness as if he had the final say on each topic.
Maybe calling them out will raise their standing on a sensitivity meter to gender issues. Still nothing besides ratification of the ERA would be more effective to bring color to the many blind spots of these media men.
Glad to see there is more discussion happening regarding women taking our 51% of leadership positions. Clearly men don’t like it but tough. It would be nice if women stepping up could be seen as a win/win situation but that is surly not necessary. With many of the MSM outlets failing such as newspapers and TV channels the blogs which really reflect how people believe take on new importance. And I still think every women’s group should actively promote teaching women to download only specific TV shows they want and cut the MSM cable feed into your home. This cuts the subsidy to the MSM for much of their unwanted misogynist crap (including Oxygen network) as well as helping women save money that could be better spent.
Amy, that is simply tragic. I’ll have to do a decon if I come to your house. Cat hair is practically a wardrobe accessory for me.
Constance: You mean, I could live the rest of my life without ever seeing reference to the tv show “MANswers” again? Sweet!
I was thinking Amy might wear something from the “Hello Kitty” line for her next interview. Sends all the right messages.
Sheryl, all I could picture after reading your last post was that scene in Monsters Inc when one of the monsters is caught with a single child’s sock on his back and warning signals go off, lights flash and a virtual Hazmat team descend upon the poor creature! It is hilarious!
Sheryl, just wear a HAZMAT suit. You’ll be good to go.
That’s a great idea, Violet. Then I could just wear the cats underneath the suit.
Do you think Amy’s dogs will notice?
I need a Hamat suit too.
That video still cracks me up, even though I’ve seen it multiple times!
The first time I saw it was on a blog of a women who had come out of the Vision Forum cult (“Biblical” patriarchy). I’m afraid I just can’t now my place!
Reminds me of that old New Yorker cartoon (back in the New Yorker’s better days) with the middle aged white guys sitting around a table with one woman, unable to hear the woman’s proposal until one of the guys voices it.
I think this is one where the Sojourner Truth motto, and what Anna said above, are instructive. Playing the game when the game doesn’t seem to be about to change, until one is in a position to change it. Which translates to talking longer and louder than the men at the table.
I have had a tough time with this and only recently, having turned 40, have started doing it successfully. After having had coffee thrown in my face at Ford, being pushed into the peanut gallery at IBM, and sexually harrassed at a major law firm, I tend to talk very quickly out of fear that my sentences will be cut off. Slowing it down, raising the decibel level and not shutting up has been an exercise. That said, it’s a tough one because it often requires more privilege for women than it does for men — being in a position where people don’t want to antagonize us.
Did Donaldson really cut them off on the topic of men, the disparate amount of white men, by saying “Thanks very much. Please try to continue to do it without us”
WOW
Kiuku – Glad you brought up WHAT Donaldson said. I thought I heard something to that effect as well and was stunned. Yes: WOW. I must have gone into immediate denial.
Yea it’s the typical reaction. This is the defense and retort they are accustomed to using with, for instance, their wives. It’s a version of the “it’s natural” argument; the superiority of white men like Baumeister’s “men’s sphere”. The fact that he burst in with this retort is evidence that this discussion veered off the acceptable path. This wasn’t supposed to happen, and as I dissect this discussion I believe what was supposed to happen is that they were supposed to discuss how Feminism or something like that ruined Caroline Kennedy. And the women on the panel simply did not go along with the plan. You see they have two women for a reason. If one gets out of hand they can petition the other woman to disagree with that one, making it look like the one woman does not represent all women, and it is disputable, if for instance, she says something too uppity or Feminist.
The men rely on perceived social reward factor in getting one woman to say what they want. But the women knew what was going on, and neither of them fell for it and neither of the women acted according to plan…which is awesome.
Good job guys.
Also notice how none of the men agree that there need to be more women or should be more women. The only time they mention sexism is to question it’s existence. They also have nothing to say about the woman who was appointed.