Gawker Had a One-Night Stand with Journalism
October 29, 2010
by Kathryn Ciano
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
Christine O'Donnell, Senate candidate for Delaware
This is a story about a young man who comes close to a passionate night with a beautiful young woman but instead turns it into a tittering, mean-spirited tell-all, and in which Gawker has the same experience, but with journalism.
Christine O’Donnell once had a hook-up. Congratulations, America! Your sleuthing skills have really paid off.
But wait! This is no mere hook-up story. This is the oldest story in the book, an attempt to shame women for acting like, well – human beings. Beer-drinking, hair-growing, flawed-but-born-again human beings. This attack stings worse than usual because this time Christine O’Donnell faces fire not only from men and the media, but also from women’s groups who failed so hard to support Ms. O’Donnell that they failed to support women’s rights themselves.
What makes this tell-all extra classy is that it’s not merely an attempt to throw around the word “slut” to belittle women for taking control of their own sexuality. What Gawker published today was an attempt to shame women for not being enough of a slut, while using language like “one night stand” and “born-again virgin.” Objectification is the flaccid backbone of the “slut-shaming” mentality, and it is alive and well on the internet today.
The man responsible for the sordid details of his “one-night stand” with Christine O’Donnell has nothing to gain from discussing O’Donnell’s private life except the prolonged confidence that men are free to humiliate women at will. Here is a man so childish in his approach to intercourse that he prefers “rolling over” to facing a woman whose nether regions are not sufficiently “trendy.” Perhaps the biggest mistake this “cougar” made was spending time with a twenty-five year old man so childlike that he could not possibly approach human interactions in an adult way.
Yet this was not only a sexist narrative from one man. Gawker ran this story because a reputation for journalistic integrity means less to them than a one day stand with web hits. Reporting this pathetic ad hominem attack is demeaning not only to Christine O’Donnell, but to all women.
Stories like this do more than merely separate the men from the boys in the fraternity of misogyny. Today’s responses from organizations founded to support women separated the earnest from the pathetic in the halls of women’s rights.
Rather than support femininity and women’s prerogative to behave like adults, women’s groups turned their back on Christine O’Donnell. Jezebel’s response was terribly disappointing: After posting nothing more than a link to the Gawker story until after office hours, Jezebel’s ultimate response merely ostracized this woman as “ka-razy.”
If only this were an attack on just one woman! Certainly there are occasions when it is appropriate to note someone’s bad behavior, and a private group is free to support that person or not, simply because she is a woman or for other reasons. This story — and Gawker’s decision to run the story — is an attack on all women’s dignity, which, like any person’s dignity, deserves a degree of privacy.
Indeed, the National Organization for Women turned their back on Ms. O’Donnell by refusing to make any statement at all. Why? Because Christine O’Donnell is a conservative woman:
Following gossip website Gawker’s publication of an anonymous story alleging a one-night encounter between the author and Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware Christine O’Donnell, the National Organization for Women has refused comment. “We’re going to pass on this one,” Mai Shiozaki told The Examiner. I asked if this is generally a topic they try to stay away from. “Thanks, we’re passing.”
NOW played a prominent role in demanding Anita Hill’s charges against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas “be heard in a public forum.” But that was politically convenient — after all, one of NOW’s “important missions” is “fighting the right wing.”
Thanks, NOW. First, they demeaned the conservatives, and I was not a conservative . . . what happens when NOW realizes that objectifying women for behaving like women affects all women?*
The problem with responses like this is their suggestion that there is something intrinsically ostracizable about women.
This not a question of sexism versus feminism. What makes this a sexist attack is the attempt to retain sexuality as part of a woman’s performance, in politics, in the workplace, or anywhere else she wishes to go where men are uncomfortable with her presence.
Rather than sack up and behave like adults, insecure people respond to someone they perceive as threatening by degrading that person. Here, the insecure young man behind the tell-all evidently felt threatened by a woman who had an agenda different from his own.
Rather than behave like a man and talk to Christine O’Donnell, he merely saw her off “without much conversation,” then passively ignored her attempts to contact him after that night. Years later his account is riddled with ad hominem attacks designed to humiliate Ms. O’Donnell.
And for what? Because she wouldn’t sleep with him? Because he himself was embarrassed that he could not bring himself to touch her?
This is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage from young men. By publishing this broadside memoir Gawker rewarded him for telling his story.
By permitting this story to rule the weekday news, the message society sends today has been: Don’t get out of line, ladies; keep your heads down or else everyone you know may soon be discussing the most intimate details of your social life. And don’t worry boys: You’re still in control. If you’re unhappy with how the night goes, for whatever reason, we’re happy to drag your former hook-ups through the mud to whatever extent you care to humiliate them.
Feminism is about equal opportunity. When latent sexism remains in the debate, women cannot gain full access to the same opportunities that exist for men. Permitting a jilted young man to broadside a politician with such a humiliating account does not hit her politics or her intelligence, but the simple fact that she is a woman.
By insisting on sexualizing female candidates, society objectives women to the point of repressing them. By stalling on repudiating such blatant sexist behavior, women’s groups fail women and fail to support their purported goal of promoting equal opportunity.
*Edit: Only after The Examiner’s link calling for a NOW statement hit the Drudge Report’s front page 20 hours after Gawker published the story did NOW finally release a statement:
NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O’Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won’t stand for it.
Wow…that’s so disgusting, I can’t believe they would publish that crap. Actually I can, Gawker is pretty consistently sexist and homophobic from what I’ve read from them. Ugh.
I agree with NOW–I wouldn’t vote for any candidate like her (male or female) but tat kind of sexism has to be combatted, whomever it’s directed against.
NOW is a little late in joining the conversation and calling out sexism. There are only a few days left before the election and now NOW calls out sexism toward O’Donnell. My guess is that they are doing it out of either convenience or they see the change in how women are voting. They seem to want to ride the relevance train but bought their tickets after the train left the station.
I guess I should be happy that at least they are trying to sit at the big girl’s table…we shall see. They have disappointed me many times before, so that is my expectation.
Well written perspective, Ms.Ciano.
How cowardly of NOW. It should have been instantaneous – ya know – speaking out against the sexual degradation of a well-known woman. They are pathetic.
That really makes me angry. And no, I’m not happy with NOW’s belated response.
It doesn’t matter what we have accomplished or what we haven’t–we are still defined by our genitals. Sorta Freudian don’t you think? In a biology is destiny kind of way.
“By insisting on sexualizing female candidates, society objectives women to the point of repressing them.” I think that is the whole point–repressing us.
I don’t even like this woman, and I want her to win. If these tactics that destroy women are shown to work, they will get worse.
And yes, that’s an “issue” and it effing counts. So just do not get on my ass about “well, I vote based on issues!” as if the vicious, degrading sexual humiliation of women isn’t an “issue.”
It IS an “issue” and it MATTERS. For me, it matters enough to be the #1 priority issue. For others, they may say it matters, but not enough to calculate it in their voting choices. Yeah, yeah, they care enough to whine a little, but when the time comes to pull the lever, we really see where they prioritize it.
I may disagree with her on some issues, but I disagree with her opponent on the most important issue:
WOMAN HATING.
So sorry, but that’s an issue, too. So I hope she kicks his ass into next week and then turns him into a newt for good measure.
The DNC bogeyman will tell you that if you vote for the likes of HER the earth will stop spinning on its axis and all of the rights of our uteri will spontaneously combust. WHAT A CROCK OF SHITTAKE MUSHROOMS!
What it means if she is elected? It will mean that the Dems will have to actually READ bills before they vote on them. They will have to negotiate and play nice with Republicans if they want anything to get accomplished. The will have to start working for a living again. Republicans too.
What it will mean is that women, against all odds put forth on them by misogynistic entities, CAN WIN!!!
Women will now be promoted to being a winning strategy and that is an issue I can fully support.
“They will have to negotiate and play nice with Republicans if they want anything to get accomplished.”
And they will have to cough up to women if they want our vote. They will be afraid of us. I like that.
Claire, how are they homophobic? Nick Denton, who owns the media empire of which Gawker is a part is out and proud.
Gawker is despicable in all this, but this is nothing new for them. The only politicians Denton covers are women. Draw your own conclusions there…
This is likely also to reinforce the notion that “she’s hot” therefore any success is attributable to that; or don’t vote for her because she’s already getting votes for being hot; “a cutie”
And if they are, how are they any more homophobic than the entire Democratic party?
I have only one word: Disgrace!!!
“The DNC bogeyman will tell you that if you vote for the likes of HER the earth will stop spinning on its axis and all of the rights of our uteri will spontaneously combust.”
You forgot the crops withering in the fields and the milk cows drying up.
If O’Donnell’s successful election is gonna make anything wither and dry up, it ain’t gonna be crops and cows, I’ll tell you that much …
Janis- LOL!!! And I agree…I’m voting for women across the board whenever I can. I wish I could vote in all the elections that have women candidates.
Gender balance/parity is my issue, until we achieve it I’m voting for the woman regardless of any other differences we may. When gender parity/balance is accomplished we can deal with the particulars of my continued support.
Anna–I’ve sometimes seen articles from them saying really negative things about more “effeminate” gay men, so it seems like there’s some internalized homophobia. Sexism is definitely way more prevalent with them, though, as evidenced by this drivel.
I join the choir: to vote out the women haters, the guys defining us by our anatomy, that is my number one issue.
and lets not forget the dems role out their “issues” in september, october of election years. then these issues are forgotten, malpracticed. we all know what happened to preventive care of strictly female diseases. huge groups of women not covered and early detection down the drain. supposedly dems are for healthcare for all by making it affordable. one does not do that by a mandate to buy the product without controlling the price. so many small businesses can’t afford healthcare anymore and as we hear some big companies got bailed out and will not pay fines for not providing healthcare. and this bill was supposed to cover many millions of uninsured, lower insurance and cut the deficit. any reasonable person will have trouble understanding this reasoning. a mandate always raises the price, because people are not allowed to walk away.
the newly insured will be the ones benefiting from the raising the ceiling on medicare. on the other end many previously employer based insured families will lose it. so much for the issues.
issues voting is for gullable people.
and my number one issue is vote the women haters out.
More grist for the mill:
http://helloladies.com/2010/10.....-carolina/
Really. It’s all a bit too much.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
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
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...