Giving the Media’s Process a Name: SOB-ing
January 28, 2009
by Dr. Karen H. Kvavik
|Editor’s note: This is an ACTION ALERT for our readers. Please read this post on what Dr. Kvavik calls SOB-ing, and then think about how we can stop the SOB-ing of Kirsten Gillibrand that is going on right now. We need your ideas and your help to stop this thing in its tracks!
What is it about Sen. Gillibrand? What do Sen. Gillibrand, Gov. Palin, and Secretary of State Clinton have in common? Why, they’ve all been SOBed!
The press and mainstream media have Simplified, Objectified, and Bimbo/Bitchified them all: SOB. (I guess we could debate whether it is SOB or SOB/B’ed, leaving the latter term as separate words. And “Battered” could be used for our more restrained public and polite needs, when necessary.) A smart, independent, vibrant, self-made, non-deferential, and attractive woman who is forthright and ambitious ends up being called a “bitch.” She is, to coin a word, “ambitchous.” Alternatively, she may end up labeled a “bimbo.”
We need to name and label the process. It is important that we have a name for this process that happens to these women so that we can better understand it, communicate it to others, and do something about it.
The idea of trying to name the process came out of a discussion with a Co-founder of The New Agenda. She suggested that we have to put a name on what is happening, to make it visible. Then we can deal with the issue and communicate to others about it. Remember the term “borking,” for the failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court? We have to make the SOB behavior identifiable with a concise label.
We are now seeing a pattern of highly visible political women who are being systematically battered (SOBed) by the media and even by people within their own parties.
It is too simplistic to say that it is “just politics.” There is at least a tri-stage process in the SOB attacks on the woman. The stages are really a gradual morphing of the way she is characterized, like the progress of a disease. There is a repetitiveness in the labeling from news piece to news piece too. Of course, some so-called journalists leap to the final stage almost at the beginning, and we see the viciousness of 3rd-stage labeling and demeaning immediately on some website comments.
Here are the stages:
1. Simplify Stage.
Her policies are simplified into sound bites. She as a person is simplified and begins to be characterized regarding appearance, demeanor, family, and personality. This is an initial assessment stage.
2. Objectify Stage.
The objectify stage is a gradual morphing process into criticisms and attacks on her appearance, hair (very important), comments on her as a mother, her body, fashion, “womanliness,” with implications as to her femininity. Being aggressive is not a positive quality for a woman. It’s okay for a man, or he is a wimp. Her image slowly keeps morphing until finally she becomes a tabloid-type object, a stereotype, a figure of ridicule. If she flubs an interview she’s labeled “dumb.” If she hasn’t gone to a prestigious enough university, she’s “not well-educated.” On the other hand, if she’s too brilliant, then she’s an insufferable know-it-all. If she is not deferential and humble enough, if she speaks her mind, if she’s too independent, the pejorative labels will hit her.
Frank Cammuso/The Post-Standard
3. Bimbofy/Bitchify (Batter) Stage:
In this last stage she receives downright vicious attacks and may end up being Photoshopped in a bikini or even in degrading porn or sado-masochistic images. Saturday Night Live satirizes her. Both Clinton and Palin were subjected to degrading images put out on the internet and in magazines. Finally, this stage is when the most offensive labels are applied. Sen. Clinton was labeled a “bitch.” Gov. Palin was called a “bimbo,” and later a “dimbo.” Both were called “c***s.”
The media now shows few qualms about severely denigrating the woman for her appearance, style, fashion, her “womanliness,” even allusions that she might be gay or have affairs. Female members of the press participate gleefully also. If you’re a woman, you don’t want to be like her. Ms. Obama, if she isn’t careful, could end up like an “unpleasant, heavy-handed first lady”…like Hillary Clinton, according to M.K. Ham.
We do not see such egregious behaviors with male candidates, unless they have unsavory restroom activities. Certainly no one writes about the appearance of Al Franken. No one comments on Rep. Murtha’s looks, nor Sen. Schumer’s, nor Gov. Kaine’s. Vice-President Biden takes some jokes about his hair and facial “work.” He does not get a label for that. Does anybody criticize Sen. Norm Coleman’s looks?
Despite the oligarchic and dynastic implications of Caroline Kennedy’s futile bid to be senator, the obvious quid pro quo nature of putting her on the transition team, and the political influence of her family, the media still did not query her much on real issues. Rather, they first simplified and then objectified her. They went after her on her appearance, her personality, her mannerisms, her speech fillers (“you know, uh”), and her lack of experience. There were tabloidish asides about her marriage and her nanny, but, in general, it was personal and remained in the Objectify Stage. She did not reach the Bimbofy/Bitchify Stage with exposés and denigrating images. She dropped out.
The press commentary and blog articles unfavorable to Gillibrand were shallow, with focus on a very few talking points — her gun control stance, her stance on hunting (e.g., Carolyn McCarthy, the gun control advocate, was quoted in many stories as saying that Gillibrand was a “bad choice.”). We were left with “bad” in our mouths. Gillibrand’s liberal positions on many issues were barely covered. She is a securities lawyer who dared to question the bailout issues. It is not just the New York City vs. upstate Republican divisions in play. Gillibrand has made it clear that as Senator she represents the whole state, and as Representative, she represented her upstate constituency.
She is labeled as “Tracy Flick” by some. She is castigated laughingly by Rachel Maddow for not interrupting her introduction by Paterson and the press conference to take Obama’s phone call. As if Gillibrand had control over when Obama called! And the White House knows very well the exact time when it calls someone–that was a small-time power play.
Politico.com simplifies and objectifies her as unpopular among peers, as “Tracy Flick,” and says she
“has never been shy about her political ambitions — or her willingness to vault over older, more experienced politicians. That aggressiveness and self-confidence has endeared her to the powerful politicians who share her impatience to get ahead… “Nobody really likes her,” sniped one New York City-area member, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“She’s smart and capable, but she’s rubbed people the wrong the way,” said another.”
Who specifically made the comments? No sources are identified. She’s the aggressive, confident, assertive, smart, capable woman, but she has annoyed others. Is she not liked because she has these qualities? Because she speaks out? Why then so many accolades from so many people and confidence in her abilities by Sen. Schumer and the Governor?
A number of articles not only criticized Gillibrand, but then accused Governor Paterson of angering the Kennedys and not being astute politically. Even Sen. Schumer has been criticized. It sounds to me as if someone’s P.R. machine is working overtime.
The New Hillary.
Gail Collins of the New York Times says Paterson “ended up sliming Kennedy.” She herself slimes Gillibrand, by calling her “The New Hillary.” Ah, yes, we know how the Times didn’t like Hillary, so this is not a compliment. Sen. Schumer is not put in a good light, as he “believes that doing something silly is a way to reassure voters that he doesn’t think he’s better than they are. ” Collins portrays Gillibrand as someone who’d like to “march in 45 parades,” and thanking everybody “on the planet” in the introductory speech:
“We’re in for the long haul. If you’re a New Yorker with a parade or sausage-eating contest coming up, be sure to invite Senator Gillibrand.
Collin’s doesn’t go after appearance. She belittles Gillibrand’s personality as a woman of “giddy good cheer.” Are men ever called “giddy?”
Maureen Dowd is the Apex (or is it the Nadir?) of Nastiness. She calls the governor a “goofball” who spent 5 weeks “dithering,” vindictively mentions his infidelities and drug use, and claims that he and his aides trashed Caroline Kennedy.
“The 42-year-old Gillibrand, who has been in the House for only two years, is known as opportunistic and sharp-elbowed. Tracy Flick is her nickname among colleagues in the New York delegation, many of whom were M.I.A. at her Albany announcement.
Fellow Democrats were warning Harry Reid on Friday that he was going to have his hands full with the new senator because she’s ‘a pain.’ Carolyn McCarthy…said she may challenge the “N.R.A. poster child” in 2010.”
Gillibrand is the plat du jour now for the press and MSM. And she has just begun her SOB odyssey. Palin mania has died down somewhat, and Clinton so far is enjoying a honeymoon with the State Department. Who will be next?
Finally, there is no need to discuss the opposite process, SOW. I am sure the reader understands this process clearly in the making of the Obama image and how it has functioned in the media and the Democratic Party. Its acronym stands for: Simplify, Objectify, and Worship.
I hope I have simplified, objectified and clarified these processes. I hope our readers write, phone, call out, and explain these behaviors, e.g., “Don’t SOB her” or “She’s being SOBed.”
(I’d like also to thank Jenn, Violet, Freethinker, and Cynthia for their suggestions or exchanges.)
After I finished this, I thought about this process as a form of
verbal violence enacted upon these political candidates.
Is it a type of domestic press violence? Is that too extreme a way of characterizing it?
This is an outstanding piece! Very well written. Thoughtful. Backs up assertions with examples. Avoids undue emotionality so the substance shines through. Bravo and thank you Dr. Kvavik! (And, thanks to Jenn and Freethinker, whoever they may be and whatever their contributions.) Exceptional. This is the sort of work I hope to see more and more of at TNA!!!!
As for ideas on how to stop the process discussed in this piece, I have no new ideas at this time. The old ideas are to bombard the msm with letters. I also contact my elected officials urging them to speak out against this treatment of a colleague. Contacing former elected officials who are women is also important since they may feel more free to speak out. Also, contact the Women’s Media Center and see what they are doing about this.
The msm is a huge hurdle, as they create and fuel this problem, so it is difficult to break into their sphere of influence. Yet, I believe the culture that now appears to be the norm at msm outlets is one that must change if we’re to have any hope of shifting things on a grande scale.
I hope the author if this piece will edit it down to a word count to meet the requirements of mainstream newspapers and submit it as an op-ed piece.
I also think men need to speak out. It is powerful when those who are not in the center of a storm join forces toward a common goal. Without any base broadening those who join with them, the base can easily just look like it’s making a case over something that’s not a big deal…look, see…no one else notices or cares. This may be right, it may be wrong, but I belive it’s how it is. When Christians speak out against anti-Semitism, when white speak out against racism, when heterosexuals speak out against discrimination against homosexuals, etc, the movement expands and the chorus of voices becomes stronger in the diversity.
Last post (at least for a while):
My gut reaction to SOB-ing is that it’s like crying. And when I think of how the media is treating female leaders, crying isn’t the gestalt. It feels more like attack, something more directed and piercing and destructive.
Bravo Karen!
We need to all be vigilant in helping Kirsten Gillibrand – the latest victim of SOBing.
Members – please speak out about what happens to women politicians!
Ah, yes the double standard is alive and well. In the old days there were witch hunts, today we have the “media.” The problem is that that most media outlets are owned by a set of corporate conglomerates; since most people do not have the time, energy or inclination to think, boiling everything down to broad sterotypes makes good business sense.
I am not sure how much righetous indignation will do with these folks. But impacting their bottom line could be attention getting. Or ridicule has always been a good tactic, perhaps a YouTube series of SNL type skits to lambat the buffons?
Jounalism was supposed to be a calling like the priesthood, or teaching or medicine. It was supposed to enlighten and inspire. Now it is simply a tool to get those of us who do not tow the mark to fall in line.
Anna,
I agree. It can’t just be women speaking up about this. Men need to get involved, too. The diversity of a movement is important. When non-Jews reprimand a person who told an anti-semitic joke, when a white person reprimands someone for a racist comment – this is also powerful. It says – don’t get too comfortable with your bigotry. With anyone.
I spoke up during the election and will continue to speak up but honestly, most people just made fun of me. However, I did put the fear of god in some who just won’t dare to say anything sexist around me now. It’s a start.
Fantastic article Karen! We now have a name to call it…SOB-ing!
Ali- It does make a difference to call people out when you hear sexism even if it doesn’t seem to at the time. You are re-training them to think about what they say and how they say it. If we all do that even just in our personal lives, it really does matter.
Ali – Per your last paragraph: Ditto!
General comment – Anyone know anything about this org? It’s called Women’s Policy Inc. I found it while researching something:
http://www.womenspolicy.org/site/PageServer
Re: Ideas on how to stop this process we are calling SOB-ing, what about contacting the Congressional Women’s caucus. Here’s a link to all female members of the House and the Senate, the co-chairs of the caucus, the states and party affiliations, etc:
http://www.womenspolicy.org/si....._women_111
Thank you Dr. Kvavik! I totally agree that we have to NAME THE PROCESS AND MAKE IT VISIBLE.
Possible STRATEGIES:
1. Can we make the word SOB-ing ; SOBed (or a similar name) “branded”, public, and well known. In other words, let’s pick a name/term (i.e. “brand”) for this sexist, misogynist female-bashing behavior. We then bring this name to the public awareness through the media and other venues repeatedly. We jump on every instance of this bad behavior and “out” it, so to speak.
If we have ONE name for this, and use it all over, we may be successful in helping the public recognize what is really going on and lessening the bad behavior. Think of it as a marketing campaign and education campaign.
I would recommend NOT using words like “sexism” or “misogyny” as the “brand”, because people already have attached their own meanings to those words. The use of a NEW word, like SOB-ing/SOBed could be a powerful strategy and would attract attention to the issue.
Future offshoots: SOB-ing Hall of Fame; headlines like “TNA points out SOB-ing by X (name, media outlet) “; “Why does X news outlet allow SOB-ing?” Ban SOBing buttons, etc. Zero tolerance.
2. Another strategy includes, perhaps, turning the table in each instance and giving an analogy with a man being SOBed in place of the woman.
3. What about connecting SOBing to a combined campaign—something like “A return to values; a return to respect for each other.” We could then not only point out the SOB behavior, but could note how those who engage in it are disrespectful, and somehow “lower” human beings. An unusual strategy, I know, but one that may appeal to the human traits in all of us. . . (Think about how we teach our children to respect others, have integrity, etc.).
Dr. Kravik is on point: “We need to name and label the process. It is important that we have a name for this process that happens to these women so that we can better understand it, communicate it to others, and do something about it.”
Keep talking about the problem and make an effort to take down the corporate media. Every womans group should work for the OPTION of cable TV a la carte so women can have some consumer rights to refuse to subsidize channels which participate in this process. And also work to teach women to cut the cable and only down load those programs they actually want to watch. Starving out the medias profits is the only thing they understand.
Thank you Karen.Congratulations on a terrific piece of work!!!!!! We now know what to call it. The strength of building our grassroots organization is that we will have a HUGE voice when SOB situations come up. I agree with Thia and Ali.
An example—I am a Jewish woman walking around with an Italian last name which I have had now for 36 years (hey—-my maiden name was an unpronounceable 12 letters long—-I took the unpronounceable 6 lettered alternative). I also look quite Italian (I think that’s why he married me). People say the darndest anti-Semitic things when they think Jews aren’t around. I ALWAYS challenge it, in a kind way of course. People will be less likely to do it again.
There is also an educational component as well. I don’t think that most people want to be intentionally offensive to other people. Given that premise, we as a women’s movement, stopped calling people out on their sexist expressions sometime back in the 80′s. That of course has proven to be a huge mistake.
If each of us hears this kind of stuff, we need to stand up to it. It will educate people, it will attach some shame to expressing sexism, and it will have a ripple effect.
All the more reason why our grassroots groups across the United States are growing. If you are reading this and want to meet up with people in your area and build our corps of people to combat SOB, please email me at cruccia@aol.com. As The New Agenda grassroots chair along with Thia, we will hook you up. And read my piece that was posted today. “Let’s Do Lunch.”
We start combating this thing by ALWAYS speaking up when we are confronted with it. We need to start somewhere.
Congrats! This is one of the best pieces I’ve read since a lot of time ago. And yes it’s truly important name the process.
ER
“Another strategy includes, perhaps, turning the table in each instance and giving an analogy with a man being SOBed in place of the woman.”
I agree. I think this is a powerful approach. It drives the point home in a way that is concrete and less abstract than talking about these issues with some.
It would be an interesting exercise to take a media piece and literally reverse every single sexist aspect of it so that it was directed toward a man. I think it could prove to be a “What the?!*” moment for some…..As yttik pointed out on the Donaldson interuption post, it appeared that Donaldson not only interupted but said something to the effect of, Well, you try doing it without us (not a direct quote, but that was the gyst.). Can you imagine if a woman made a statement like that? I do believe it would throw people off cause it would be so unexpected and the notion would be so foreign.
Fantastic. Exactly what I wanted. Thank you. I said yesterday that we have to push back against this, and I’m glad to see someone step up to the plate with an idea. I will remember SOB and will cite this article every single time I blog about it happening in the future. And I will blog about it every time I see it. I’m in this for the long haul!
Thank you Karen! I agree with other posters that it would be great to have as a permanent link an “SOB Watch”. However, I’d rather have a more positive name. I know SOB will get attention, but it might cause some people to “tune out”.
Dr. Kvavik
May I integrate parts of your piece into a letter I’m drafting. I don’t want to presume to steal some of your words without asking.
Where’s the Line
I agree that, since SOB, already has an identity (and one that is disrespectful to women), perhaps best to continue brainstorming on another acronym.
I agree as well. We want to use a word – “brand” – that will create curiosity and interest, be memorable, and somehow related to what we mean. SOB does have a negative connotation that may cause people to ignore it.
Perhaps a “contest” (not the right word), a call for possible “brand” names/acronyms?
I like SOB. I am not reading it as “sob” , but as S. O. B. – as in Son of a Bitch.
Yes, that in itself is a misogynistic acronym, but it is angry, and points out the sexism, and also makes the person doing it sound like a jerk.
Re: the brand name
I think the first part: “simplify”, actually happens to all candidates. Lord knows, that was part of the problem with Obama, except that it worked in his favor. I see it as part of the dumbing down of the media. I think what women are subjected to at this stage is more like scrutiny. I came up with SOD (which I don’t think has a good sound) for scrutinize, objectify, dismiss. Will keep thinking about it.
—————————————————————————————
Meanwhile, as part of a laying a foundation idea:
Go to the “contact us” page for your Congressperson and Senators.
Click on “e-mail.”
Check the list of issues to choose from to see if your elected official includes “Women” on the list.
If they do, thank them. If they don’t, e-mail them with a request to include it.
Here’s a sample letter you can use:
I am writing to urge you to add “Women” as a category among your list of issues to choose from for e-mail communication. While women comprise 52% of the population in the United States, we remain woefully underrepresented in government (16% are Governors and 17% hold seats in Congress), only a fraction of the CEO’s for Fortune 500 companies are female, we earn 77 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned for the same job held by a man, and 4 of us are murdered every single day in the United States as a result of domestic violence. In sum, millions of American women continue to live on the fringes of society in terms of having their voices heard and their lives and work respected. If these are not reasons enough to include us as a topic to select as a relevant issue, I don’t know what would be.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my suggestion. I hope that the next time I visit your site I will see “Women” listed as an issue a constituent may select. And, I look forward to the day when we have made headway such that it is no longer necessary.
We were discussing this at lunch (because it is lunch time here now) and one person thought that talk was worthless. Yeah target their profits but she felt violence would be effective and that if SOBing was done to gay men or black men a violent response would happen and that would be enough to make the New York media think before they act on their arrogant misogynist instincts. She suggested dry ice bombs which are frightening but not harmful to start with escalating to what ever is necessary. A little extreem in my book however I think a mix of tactics would be useful and we shouldn’t take any of them completely off the table.
Great idea Anna!
Every step we take can make a difference.
Frankly this is a New York problem as was the sexist and just plain bad news coverage in the election. Here is my west coast solution. You folks are tolerating a toxic culture which wouldn’t be so bad except you are exporting it all over the country and world also. You all talk too much. Do something! You know I wish I could help you but if the Seattle Times behaved in this manner they would pay hell the first time it happened.
I love ER’s idea of having a “contest” or at least continuing to brainstorm this. SOB doesn’t do it for me for 2 reasons:
1. It already has a strong connotation / identity which will just add to confusion.
2. The word sob doesn’t reflect what the media is doing since it’s not like they’re crying.
Maybe the person TNA is consulting with for their own branding can weigh in on this. There are basically two ways to work it:
1. Come up with a short expression that embodies the right feeling and then try to find representative words for each letter.
2. Brainstorm words that reflect what happens to women via media treatment and then rearrange first letters like you would in a scrabble game until you come up with something that works as an acronym.
It ain’t easy to hit all the notes, but if it’s going to work, it needs to capture everything we want and leave out what we don’t.
Here are a handful of ideas. I gotta go. This article has snared me in today cause it’s so great, but the rest of my life is calling….
WORDS
D – Dismiss; Diminish; Deamonize; Discredit; Disregarded
M – Marginalize; Mock
O – Objectify; Ostracize
R – Ridicule; Reviled; Rebuked
S – Scrutinize; Sexualize; Scorn
V – Villify
ACRONYMS
PANN-ed
SOAK-ed
RIPP-ed (problem is that it sounds like rest in peace, but maybe that’s not so bad since it’s like they’re trying to kill the woman off!)
This is very true and very important. But terms like ‘SOB’ and ‘SOW’ are not going to work; they are confusing and easy to attack or ridicule.
‘Borking’ was a great term.
The process was noticed by some BM journalists a couple of months ago, who spoke of ‘the palinizing of CK’ or ‘CK being palinized.’ That’s at least clear (and might even help Sarah’s image get past the damage).
I love your description here: [[ A smart, independent, vibrant, self-made, non-deferential, and attractive woman who is forthright and ambitious ends up being called a “bitch.” .... Alternatively, she may end up labeled a “bimbo.”]]
If she smiles, then either she doesn’t understand the situation (bimbo) or she doesn’t care what you think (bitch).
Anyway, this sounds like the combination of qualities I’ve been calling ‘a HIlllary/Palin type of personalitly.’
[...] a recent article published by The New Agenda, Dr. Kvavik coined a term for the sexist behavior routinely used by [...]
Still talking about the problem? Because the people you need to deal with speak only one language and it isn’t English, It is MONEY which also means power to them. Get their attention by threatening their money. They don’t care if they are being fair or hurtful. Remember the group “act up”? remember no one liked them? Well it is time girls. Sadly you need to teach people how to treat you and all women in terms they can understand. You don’t need to teach a course on the problem.
Constance – Lynette Long seemed to be moving in the direction of the sort that you are talking about. Have you checked out her web site lately? The only thing is that I think she was looking for local (DC area) women for planned actions…..I also feel that an important component that we’re missing at this point in history are the sorts of high visibility actions many of us engaged in back in the 1970′s. The regretable part is that it seems most women are feeling complacent and there isn’t that urgency. In addition, in the ’70′s many of us were young. Now, young women seem to think all’s well. (I realize I’m making gross generalizations here, but I think they hold up as such). I’m struggling to even organize a local chapter, no less march on Washington. Times have changed, and not necessarily for the better on many fronts.
(BTW, re: SOB, if you add “ed” or “ing” then it does need to be SOBB if you’re hearing it with a soft “o”, otherwise it would be pronounced sobed or sobing, with a hard “o” sound.)
ER, come on woman! Where are your brainstorm name ideas?!*
Well I don’t mean to be totally negative but I read S.O.B. and figured you meant “son of a bitch” which has the right sting to it but I am opposed to insulting someones mother because they are acting like a slime ball. For me the acronym needs to have a sleazy or violent ring to it. Sob is passive. We aren’t sad we are pissed. If you can’t demonstrate violently then at least get some women’s sports leagues, soccer, hockey, roller derby, some muscle and yell outside the media headquarters.
Further Obama is not going to do anything to help women’s health care. So I’m guessing there will be some women with health issues who might be willing to do some radical deeds and get arrested in the process so they can get government health care access to a library and 3 square meals a day instead of sitting home HOPING they don’t die from not being treated. Start Yelling, stop talking.
Rather than use any acronym I think it should be a word that is instantly clear, such as ‘bork’ or ‘palinize’. If it’s something we have to explain, we’ve already lost.
‘To bimbo her’ might work in some cases, such as CK. Some people were portraying her as a light-weight female, socialite.
‘To bitchbimbo her’? No, too long and tonguetwisting. Maybe if we started using ‘to bimbo her’, ‘she got bimboed’ etc, then the meaning of ‘bimbo’ could stretch to the meaning we want.
The concept is an Alinsky technique: isolate the target, ridicule, etc. Some people are already familiar with Alinsky’s terms (and it frames the reference as connected to the recent campaigns). Maybe there is a word from Alinsky that we could use, or some variation of it.
ER,
I think a contest is a great idea! A big long contest, that can invite the general public. Letting everyone try to name it, will get everyone thinking about it.
I’ve heard ‘she got Gored’ used also occasionally, as Gore was also frozen into a cartoon figure, of which any accusation was accepted as credible. (So was Quayle, Goldwater, and to some extent Bush Jr.)
But instead of using a victim’s name, what about the name of a perpetrator: some journalist who is often guilty of this? There are so many guilty ones, we could find some name with an appropriate sound.
Or ‘tabloidized’ or some other term referring to the kind of media where it’s often seen. Words like that do get made up and understood instantly: “He got swiftboated”, “she got soundbyted.”, etc.
“She got cartoonized”?
How about “bitchorbimboed” as one word?
Since it is either one or the other- as in “Sen. Gillibrand is already being bitchorbimboed by the media.”
fsteele, I just stole your idea and didn’t even notice! Sorry! Great minds think alike! ha.
Let’s try some journalists’ names. “She got Dowded … Dowding the Clintons didn’t hurt them….” Whether it fits for the cartoon-bimboizing we’re talking about, I bet we can come up with other good meanings for ‘Dowded.’
After “branding” the term for sexist swiftboating of female candidates, how do we get the word out , the concept recognized and the behavior rejected?
Kendall,
Getting it out is easy. We just start using it whenever we post comments, letters to the editor, etc. If the term is good enough and we give some context, it won’t even need defining.
Of course it will be good to have some person’s or blog’s name to ‘anchor’ the term, so others can’t twist it. Riverdaughter and PumaPac served this purpose for ‘PUMA’.
fsteele,
Thank you. How does the branding get people to reject the behavior? I was never a communications major and am not sure how we get to the last step.
Great and unbiased, thank you…for those interested to know Gov Palin has now started a PAC: Sarahpac.com
Anna, I’m thinking, I’m thinking! Actually, I think the process of brainstorming here is going great.
fsteele, I love the idea of “tabloidized” or some other media-related word. Such a ‘brand’ makes clear a lot of the problem is coming from the media. May make them think twice.
I think the word has to show respect for women (that’s why I’m not enamored with SOB or bimboed or bitched, etc). These feel negative and against women to me. ‘Palinized’ brings up so many different opinions. We understand what the media did to Palin, but many don’t.
I think we need a NEW word that people won’t have a lot of opinions already attached to. A word that respects or is neutral toward women. I like the idea of a word that connects the issue to the media– with something like ‘tabloidized’ or another media-related word. Ideas?
I also like the idea of a public contest. It would get everyone thinking about it. When we finally do decide on a word, let’s have a blog here about it that defines the word and rationale for it, so we can link back to it at any time. (Also, this would give visibility to TNA.)
Branding gets people to recognize the behavior, to label it. Then we can fight against it.
I don’t think the focus should be on the woman. The same forces trash certain male politicians. There is an agenda behind the trashing and focusing only on misogyny as a cause distracts us from seeing the real (mundane) cause. It’s a fake out and we’re being duped.
The NYT isn’t trashing Gillibrand because she is woman. They are trashing her because she poses a threat. The NYT doesn’t trash Pelosi. They like her.
They like Pelosi because she is elitist and doesn’t threaten the status quo.
Sarah,
I agree. The same kind of trashing was done to Goldwater, Quayle, and Gore.
It really has two aspects: reducing a person to a caricature, and the nature of the caricature. “They were caricatured as bimbos, bitches, etc”
It would be good to have a new word for the verb also. ‘Caricature’ still shows separation between the truth and the picture. Also it is too common, people don’t see the enormity of it. Also such a phrase is really too long. Also caricature is hard to spell.
“She was reduced to a bimbo” … “She was painted as, portrayed as, treated as”….”She was Dowded as” … “She was Drudged as…”
See also “Gored by the Media Bull”,
http://www.onthemedia.org/tran.....3/01/10/01
This was about Gore being mediaed as a liar or phoney.
“He was newsmaxed as” … “He was huffpoed as” … “He was Washington Posted as”
Why glorify crap with a name? Crap is crap and women should just stop putting up with it.
It’s not glorifying. It is defining the crap in a way that people can see it and recognize it that otherwise wouldn’t.
It is a way to be able to discuss it frequently and with many different kinds of people without going through long explanations and examples every single time.
If people don’t learn to recognize and label the behaviour, they often don’t see it and don’t condemn it.
There are many reason why the Obama campaign kept bringing up race, but one reason is that people have learned how completely destructive racist attacks can be. Had some negative stereotype stuck to Obama and echoed thru the culture it would probably have sunk his campaign.
We need to have that same kind of vigilance when it comes to sexism and female candidates. This article lays it out well and shows the process of attacks that is often followed when it comes to female candidates. Simplify, objectify, and bimbo/bitchify. The last one always gets to me. In the insanity of patriarchy you can be both a bimbo too stupid to walk and chew bubble gum, while simultaneously being so devious and clever you’re a threat to the whole world. I guess it’s called multi-tasking.
I vote for “Palinized”. It gives instant recognition, it’s “cute” (will sell), short, snappy, and gives us some snark back just to mention what was done to Palin.
Dulcy,
I agree. ‘Palinized’ is much the best idea I’ve seen so far. It’s already in use, for one thing. Disputing the action may help repair the damage to Palin. We can say things like “Hillary was Palinized as a bitch” to make the concept more general. Or even “Gore was Palinized as a liar.”
Re: Branding
Ruminated about this overnight. While I think idenitifying what happens and being able to articulate it along with examples is crucial, I think coming up with a new term is needless and could simply create one more challenge re: education as if we don’t already have enough:
1. We know what it is. It’s media bias. It’s sexism. It’s misogyny.
2. Educating the public about a “brand” is a HIGE, MAMMOUTH challenge. We’re a tiny org and women have been struggling to have their voices heard over much bigger issues than this. I say, prioritze our energies.
3. Branding, if not done by a professional, can be a mixed bag. For example: Dowd(ed) is elite. Millions of people don’t read Maureen Dowd, or the NY Times. Palinize, for me, just perpetuates a negative feeling about Palin.
Sarah
A much need voice and great point! I discovered this election year as I dipped my toes into conservative waters (being a far left leaning Dem all my life, had never gone there) that many conservatives reacted to my issues about gender and sexism with “boo hoo, this is what we conservatives have been dealing with all along with the msm.” As someone who had never seen things through that lens before, I didn’t get it. But, now I do. I don’t read the NY Times or WAPO (when I bother) the same way and doubt I ever will again.
One conservative web site that printed a piece I wrote called “Primary Season is Open Season for Beating Up on Women,” many comments gave chilling examples of how Bush was treated by the media, labeled as “stupid”, “a Nazi”, how there was a George Bush voodoo kit for sale just as there was a voodoo kit for Clinton. It made me step back and realize things were not as simple or clear cut as I had made them out to be.
So, long story short, I think it is hard to tease apart. In sum, I do believe there is “media bias” (my brand word since it is easy to understand) in favor of liberal white males and against conservatives and/or women (and probably other demographic groups, as well). Your example of Pelois is interesting because she is liberal, but so is Clinton. So, I think this is also where many factors come into play regarding percpetion and how any given politician winds up branded by the media (even if inadvertently) which the public then consumes like a giant cafe latte given away for free in hard economic times.
I do believe it’s crucial that we can defend out accusations of sexism. It takes more than saying we have a gut feeling. I think it takes examples, comparisons, analysis, historical perspective, identifying themes and patterns. It must be substantive, not emotional, even if emotions are strong.
Anna,
I agree with parts of your post. I do think a term is needed for what was done to Gore, Hillary, and now Palin and Gillibrand. Even Bill Clinton is being treated that way in cartoons now.
I agree that a new term such as an acronym is not prcactical. It needs to be instantly recognizible, not need explainng.
fsteele
I bet you particularly agreed with my description of the task of getting a brand to be like a household word as being HIGE!!! (a new brand for HUGE!)
I’m not joining the “SOB” conversation…what good did it do when we discussed the sadly acronymed TNA and the brass here capitulated and went with the Tits and Ass acronym anyway?
The content here is excellent, but there is a lonnnnnnggggg way to go on the “talent” in coining phrases, names and acronyms.
I’m totally in line with what is being argued here and I wanted to point out that a (more?) common use of the acronym SOB is (excuse my language) Son of a Bitch. Just a thought that a different acronym might be bettered suited to get the point across!
Zee – OMG, I had not even realized that about “TNA”! Damn, now it’s ruined in my head. __ __ __ __ !
FYI: I commented on Salon/Joan Walsh vs. Arney this afternoon, titling the comment, “Palinized”. She was ticked. Her supporters are even now going after me.
BUT: here’s the deal: she and they knew exactly what I was talking about.
I think Palinized is the correct term, it describes an action and rehabilitates a person at the same time
Dulcy,
Good for you! Can you post the url for your comment so I don’t have to read Salon? Or better, quote enough here to fill up the comment box?
Re Salon and “Palinized”: this is what I said, “Hey, Joan! Remember all that stuff that Salon maintained never happened to Hillary? Or Sarah Palin? Welcome to the Palinized Club.” No one wrote “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I know the Arney/Walsh exchange doesn’t meet all the req. for a REAL bitchification, but thought it was important to begin to move the meme into the culture.
I’m not quite easy reveling in another woman’s comeuppance, even an Obamabot like Walsh…when an insufferable gasbag like Arney gets by with that, we’re all down a notch.
Dulcy,
i think what you did was great! As for the requirements of bimbofication, Arney’s comment was in second person rather than third person, but it brought in sex inappropriately (‘married’ / bimbo) and is overall dismissive of her as a person, thus objectification
DPV – Domestic Press Violence
That sums it up for me, reminds me executions as spectator sport, the taunting and jeering and derision and vicious enjoyment of the victim being dispatched, in this case the woman gets shuffled into obscurity and politically neutered
Great ideas are coming up in this discussion. It’s hard to find the right ‘brand’. Are there any marketing, etc type people here who are familiar with how one decides on a ‘brand’ word? Any friends with expertise in this area? Please send them to this thread!
‘Palinized” describes what happened, and some women will get it, but will the general public get it? Also, it may have too much baggage attached (many already have a reaction/opinion/feeling about Palin).
I like goesh’s idea of DPV – Domestic Press Violence. Here are some more ideas:
PV = Press Violence
MA = Media Abuse
RV = Respect Violation
MRV = Media Respect Violation
I like Media Respect Violation as it gets at the issue of respect and the media.
Other ideas?
I think the term should possibly include a known sexist entity such as MSNBC. A better one would include Obama’s name, similar to the term Bushed.
Professional branding consultants are trying to find positives names for their brands. We need a negative name.
hi, Karen…
I agree with you. African Americans have been very successful with identifying code language–we should take a cue from them.
imo the media has done a lot of wagging the dog, and sexist attacks have not been exempt from this tactic. Gillibrand is a great example. she’s already pegged as “Tracy Flick” among her peers, without so much as one of those peers having been identified, which leads me to question whether these peers really exist, or whether some smart-a** so-called journalist used this as a ploy to get an extremely mean spirited (probably clever in that person’s mind) characterization into print.
I think we have to keep that kind of *journalist* from “going viral” on the internet, which is really a tall order. but sites and publications that fancy themselves as being serious political venues pick up on things like “Tracy Flick”, helping the sexist characterizations go viral, and those are the sites/journalists we should approach, because we’ll never get the kings and queens of sexist rhetoric to stop being sexist. but maybe we have a chance to minimize the sexism virus with, say, press releases critical of serious venues for perpetuating the sexist characterizations and rhetoric.
Dulcy,
Until a perfect term turns up, I think your ‘Palinized Club.’ Is a good approach: it puts part of the meaning into a familiar word. We could say “given the Palin treatment”, “the bitchbimbo treatment”, “using the Tracy Flick label”, etc.
QUESTION
Precisely how would this “brand” get diseminated into the general population? Branding is a process that typically involves a LOT of bombardment requiring people power, money, advertising, and most critically, mass exposure. We have none of that. As a result, I fear it will just become an inside kind of thing, which can be extremely alienating and off-putting to those not in the know. I vote for we have bigger fish to fry than to try to create a term to describe what the English language already has words for. I love the creative process of this, but at the end of the day, I think it should not be a priority.
Anna,
I think we’re into second phase brainstorming. Everyone has shared their initial reactions. No perfect choice emerged, so people are relaxing, back-burnering it, doing field-testing and trial runs (like Dulcy’s wonderful posting “Welcome to the Palinized Club.”
That’s how a good term or set of terms may evolve — and get spread — out in the field of non-choir forums etc.
Oh, also wanted to add re: the “stages” discussed in this great post. Likely these will evolve and prove to be an initial phase not unlike Kubler-Ross’s stages of grief (not trying to make an analogy, just talking about stages). It was groundbreaking, and then proved wrong by being too rigid as it was found that people don’t move through those stages in that order, etc, and that instead people grieve in their own personal way, which is not to say many don’t experience some or much of what KR talked about. Similarly, I think that what Dr. K has spelled out here is a start, but should not be treated as something carved in stone.
NEW BRAND IDEA:
After reading KendalJ’s response to John Horning at 2:51 regarding MadamaB’s good piece on “Musings on American Culture”, I thought of another mnemonic / acronym to think about as a ‘brand’ for SOB-like behavior. To preface this: In no way, do I mean to imply or use racism here.
Instead of ‘palinized’ (as denigrating women happens to all women, not just Palin), we could use “n*gger’d”. Such a word would arouse strong feelings, and would inherently give the message that sexism is as bad a racism, which it is. People know what ‘n*gger’ means and has meant in our culture, and would take this ‘brand’ word seriously.
We could think of a good mnemonic for the brand. Possible ideas:
N = Never
I = Ignore
G = Gender
R = Respect
or
Never
Ignore
Giving / great / ? other ideas / or just have 2 Gs for Gender because it’s so important
Gender
Respect
I don’t think the media could ignore the brand of “n*gger”. (Think of a sample headline: “Chris Matthews ‘n*ggers” X in his broadcast. . . “). I think the public would understand the word’s meaning easily. It may be strong, perhaps a bit alarming, but that’s what we need.
Also, I found this 9-minute video when I googled “sexism + n*gger”. It really says a lot. You’ll see Hillary at 6:00 and 7:31 in the video. http://vodpod.com/watch/785070.....-of-sexism
Thoughts? More brainstorming?
ER,
Although I understand your reasoning, and am in no way implying that YOU are racist, I think the media would slant it that direction and we would not be taken seriously. The media takes every opportunity to make groups like ours look like a bunch of disgruntled wacko Hillary/Palin supporters and I’m not sure I want to give them ammo to twist around against us.
Plus, I’m not comfortable with that word in any form. Very interesting video though.
ER,
I’m sorry, but I don’t think your idea would work. True, the best acronyms are those where the initials suggest a meaning of their own greater than the sum of the words they stand for. But “n*igger’ is just too offensive and confuses the issue.
Though ‘palinize’ isn’t perfect and I hope a better word will turn up, still I think it’s better than any acronym.
Anna
As for spreading the word (when we get one), remember how P.U.M.A. spread, just from being brainstormed at Riverdaughter’s blog. A really good term will spread on its own.
.
Okay.
Thia and fsteele, I see your points. Let’s keep brainstorming to find the right ‘brand’ word.
[...] – co-founder Dr. Karen Kvanik wrote a wonderful blog piece this week about how female candidates are Simplified/Objectified and Bimbofied/Bitchified. [...]
While reading this, I thought of “bimbing”, which might be more immediately recognized than “sobing” — just a thought…
The analysis of how female political figures are treated is insightful and accurate. SOB– however, sends the wrong message, invoking the supposed weakness of crying. Something quite simple and direct would work better, a term like “trashing” or “trashed” for example. Though it isn’t an acronym, it it were used consistently, people would recognize it as systematically negative treatment of women in public life.
For a ‘brand’, how about MDV = Media Domestic Violence, or MA = Media Abuse?
ooh. I like Media Domestic Violence, but that assumes that men are never abused… and doesn’t specify this woman only abuse…
the first thing that comes to my mind as an alternative to SOB —
Sexist slandering…
how about
BATtered
bitch-bimboed
Achievements lessened
Treated like an object
I don’t like SOB, sounds like sobbing – which is wimpy woman…
or SOB – son of a bitch
which makes NO sense w/ respect to a woman…
or add an L for Lessens their achievements? and then it would be SLOB-bing..
for dare we say the C word? the we would get something like clobbering…
ask some branding people to think about it?
I like the idea of using the name of one of the media who was more vocal against both Hillary and Palin, be it male or female. There are many to pick from. I don’t like SOB because it shows weakness. Or perhaps something like STONED as in the bible when someone was stoned to death just by accusation.
I would prefer to name the perpetrators rather than the process (although the process as articulated is very astute).
Let’s just allude to what the perps are — overwhelmed by implications of female parity, not what they attempt to do to us, ie:
Poor Chris Matthews is perpetually bamboobled by Hillary Clinton, but it had no effect on her nomination to be Secretary of State (see footage of male-dominated State Dept treating her like a rock star), nor her ability to get the new President and Vice President to attend her performance later that day and stand behind her where they belong.
More thoughts on MDV = Media Domestic Violence. Both women and men are abused by the media, though women more viciously. MDV would point out unacceptable behavior (Domestic Violence) from the Media.
Another thought: MPDV = Media-Perpetuated Domestic Violence. This gets at the perpetrator idea.
Potential headlines: “Chris Matthews guilty of MPDV” etc.
Just some thoughts.
I have a hard time with words like ‘bimbo, bitch, c*nt,”. I cringe every time I hear them. I can also envision the ‘boys’ snickering and saying yes, she was “bimboized” but she’s a bimbo. Those words feel disrespectful of women to me, and I think we need to role model respect for women all of the time (and not remind people of disrespectful terms for women!).
Palinized is a good descriptor, but has too much baggage attached in my opinion. Some will never get it, and see Palin as a ‘bimbo” in their eyes. I also remember the objectification of her; the ‘boys’ were attracted to her but didn’t take her seriously.
The terms MDV = Media Domestic Violence or MPDV = Media-Perpetuated Domestic Violence respect women, clearly articulate inappropriate behavior, and don’t conjure up associations with derogatory views of women. Also, emotional abuse is a big part of domestic violence. MDV / MPDV would allow people to see the issues quickly, and the public could be educated easily on what it means.
I would love to see f a TNA press release titled “Is the Media Guilty of Domestic Violence” that explains and educates professionally about the issues, describes a few incidents, and calls for the end to such Media Violence and for RESPECT for all!
P.S. When I refer to ‘boys’ in the previous post, I mean the misogynist, sexist individuals who play dirty in the media and elsewhere. I’m not referring to the wonderful, feminist men who support us and are part of our cause. I welcome them!
First of all I think that bringing attention to this issue is very important. But, I worry that the acronym S.O.B. will be attributed to the already prominent and somewhat derogatory acronym son-of-a-b****. Therefore many might assume that its use implies calling the media “SOBs” (which in some cases might be fitting) but might detract from its message.
Just a thought.
Regardless, I’ll use the term proudly.
I love the idea of coining a word to describe what happens to women when the media decides to write about them – as we’ve seen, it doesn’t matter what party of politics you espouse. The result is the same. Hillary or Sarah.
I use this word to describe the process –
“Jane” –
She’s been Janed” – They’re Janing her.” For me it stands for: Jerked Around; No Evidence. Janed can mean – Jerked around, no evidence = discrimination. Or perhaps we can make it stand for just what is really happening
- Journalists against news equality.
Imagine the news story our granddaughters might read someday:
The year was 2008 and the election was on everyone’s mind. The first African American man running against a war hero during wartime. Do we pay back a debt of honor owed a former soldier with a four year term – when we know he once gave us 5 years in a prisoner of war camp? Or do we try to erase the stain of slavery of millions by electing the first man of color to the highest office in the land? In the midst of all of this, two women stepped up to the task. Of different parties, with different philosophies. But the journalists saw them for what they were – inextricably tied to the group they know as “women” and in viewing them as such, they only saw them as the same. They applied their social rules of engagement as to women wanting power … they jerked them around on the issues and with no evidence, they were damned. Their goal was to damn them and let them defend. The women were “Janed” and they only defend. Try asking the fox to call the rancher if you’re a sheep being attacked. These women were made little more of a media joke … without any more reason then the ovaries they were born with. They were jerked around, and with no evidence, they were damned. So I ask you this? What principle was that soldier fighting for when he once took an oath to protect and defend? And what lessons about oppression and silencing voices did the man of color learn during his journey to the White House?
Five cabinet positions out of 20 begins to look like business as usual. And 17 senators legislating for over 150 million women is math that can’t be ignored. The JANING in the media has to stop. We have to demand we are no longer DICKED around! (smile).
Ali- I still like SOB-ing but DICK and JANING is definately a close second.
Ali- P.S. I like your whole post. I hadn’t thought about the election from quite that angle. Interesting!
ER, I LOVED your post!
I hope you keep trying, as to the SOB lable. Spelling rules notwithstanding, my first reaction to SOB’ing was to think of sobbing, which goes with weepy female and turns me off. It also opens the door to lots of satire and ridicule based upon its initials. Also, the idea behind SOB takes way too much explaining, as it is a pretty involved acronym. Can someone think of a “reader-friendly” term that will resonate and stick in the minds of all citizens so that it becomes a standard vocabulary term? If so, it will have much more power than an “in-group” term like SOB. Thanks for trying!
If you want to combine bimboed and bitched, bimbitched would be easier to say. “That means either she’s shown as a bimbo or as a bitch, no middle ground, no treating her simply as a human who has certain qualifications, who cannot be reduced to a cartoon or a movie character.”
oops! I meant to say that we have 83 (senate) men legislating for over 150 million women.
And thanks, Thia.
My first reaction to SOB-ing was the one many of you have expressed: that it cant be separated from sobbing, crying, that wimpy stuff associated with women and girls, the media distortions of hillary’s moment in new hampshire, etc…. it’s also soft, and whatever self-explanatory word or acronym you/we come up with, I think needs to be like an arrow, sharp, piercing, violating, done-do, because that is the kind of process we are talking about.
As I was reading this, I thought back to the first attacks on Palin, the first attacks on Kirsten, and “simplify” doesn’t capture them for me. Besides which, simplifying isn’t necessarily bad, it can be terrific–when you take something complex and accurately represent it in a concise way. To capture the essence of someone is a meaningful kind of simplification.
What I think the media and detractors did was to distort these accomplished women in ways that trivialized them, and thereby introduce them to the wider world through a narrow, distorted lens from which it is difficult to recover and takes a lot of work and time.
With Sarah, it was all kinds of lies, calling her the mayor and forgetting to mention highly popular governor, tying the mayoralty to the size of the town (smaller than many high schools), ridiculing beauty queen and forgetting to point out that’s a ticket out for girls who want to get some place. With Kirsten, no mention of terrific on women’s issues, opposed the war, does her own research, stands up against pressure, refused to go along with a bailout that had no accountability and a whole lot of other problems, very accessible to constituents and really listens, posts her schedule, amazing fundraiser, securities lawyer for 15 years and totally at ease with complex economic and financial issues, etc etc… what we heard about was support for hunters’ rights and Carolyn McCarthy might run against her in the primary, and what we didnt hear about was that Kirsten is open to working with McCarthy on reducing gun violence. So I think the first stage of the process of eliminating powerful women who threaten the establishment is to distort, diminish, and discredit.
Does “objectify” carry the punch it needs to? It’s been used a lot. When I think of all that was thrown at Hillary and at Sarah, the word “crucify” comes to mind, or “stone.” Someone else mentioned stoning, and that dreadful process is an apt metaphor: one stone after another thrown until she is dead. Each separate attack or stone is portrayed as small or can be seen as small, but the collective effect can be very destructive, and that is the intent.
Maybe this is a bit lengthy and on the light side but how about:
S/He monster’d
M – media’s
O – obsession
N – never to,
S – show consideration for
T – this
E – elected
R- representative
Really great piece Karen! Thank you for enlarging my vocabulary – I’ll be using SOB-ing in all future blog posts about the media-driven denigration of women pols. I also love ambitchous!
Your post reminds me of what it was like to grow up with sexual harassment as an everyday routine occurrence back in the day before we had a name for it. Since there was no name for it, I grew up thinking of sexual harassment as a fact of life which was as unchallengeable as the bark on trees. The media-driven assault on women feels like sexual harassment to me. For the entire year of 2008, I felt like I was trapped in a hostile work environment and there was no one to sue. Maybe I should have tried filing an EEOC complaint just for the hell of it.
I don’t post much, but I love everything The New Agenda stands for. Thank the Goddess for all of the women who dare to challenge the status quo of misogyny.
egalia,
Very good point about ‘sexual harrassment.’ Imo the current problem needs an equally understandable and serious name.
I agree with the value and benefit of coining a term that effectively describes and “brands” the discrimination that intelligent, assertive, driven women continue to experience every day in the media, at work, at home and in society. Thus, I believe our efforts would be best served to identify a term that is appealing to a large spectrum of women and peaks their enthusiasm for a new energy in the feminist movement. A term that revives this movement in a positive light that all women can relate to.
I am a GenX’er and I recognize that my generation all too often takes for granted the efforts of the many, many women from generations before us. However, we are the ones who now have to get on-board and to carry the torch for the women of generations behind us. Because we were raised with the right to vote, to birthcontrol, to reproductive rights, because of the hard-work and dedication from a phenomenal group of women, the perspective of GenX is not one that fully yet recognizes the discrimination that still exists and that these rights can easily be taken away. Thus, it is my opinion that to build the momentum and to create a larger group of supporters we have to select a term that is appealing generationaly AND that effectively describes this concept. Unfortunately I don’t have any creative suggestions at this time, but I will continue to think about it. Personally I like the term, but I know from organizing women that it would not be appealing to a greater majority. Just something to consider.
NG, I agree! We need a ‘brand’ that will appeal to a wide group of supporters, across generations, a positive term that respects women.
Looks like we might end up with several different terms for several different things.
I don’t think an acronym is strong or memorable enough to describe this despicable process.
Why not just call it “bimbo-izing”? That’s the ultimate result, and the first two steps are just part of the process.
Or how about “dolly-womping”? Turning an intelligent person into a little dolly — and then womping the image you have created.
Any coverage on how Paterson’s administration treated Caroline Kennedy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02.....erson.html
I do not like the term SOB-ing. I think it sounds angery and bitter ~ kind of bitchy. While I agree women in politics (especially Hillary) have been attacked by the press and many when they aggressively pursue the same opportunities open to men. I disagree with the jargon. The term can be easily misconstrued as a group of women “sobbing” over their lost causes or angrily striking out from a victim-like position saying others are SOB-ing them as a gender.
My suggestion would be a term more illustrative of what we are disagreeing with ~ Hillary’s poor treatment during her campaign. I think we could all agree that she was unjustly villified. So why not a term like Hillified. I think that particular term provides a very clear picture of what has happened to many women without the negative impact.
I would not be comfortable participating in an SOB-ing group.
Thank you.
Another thought: what about the process of doing this when the person who is “simplifying and objectifying” purports to support the woman he’s doing it to?
I’m thinking of the “MILF” and similar paraphernalia with regard to Gov. Palin that emphasized her appearance. Or this T-shirt that depicts First Lady Michelle Obama as a “Bond girl.”
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Sorry, wrong link! please replace with
http://www.buffalonews.com/cit.....71083.html
Karen is an expert on SOBing
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...