Gillibrand ‘brings it’ on Jon Stewart; but is America ready?
January 6, 2011
by Amy Siskind
|You have to watch this video. Honestly.
See all that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has accomplished in her two years in the Senate. She was appointed to take Secretary Clinton’s open senate seat in January 2009. It’s remarkable. No, it’s beyond remarkable. Even Jon Stewart was at a loss for words.
| Kirsten Gillibrand | ||||
|
|
||||
Jon Stewart’s loss for words, is why, in my opinion, he used the term “adorable” towards the end of the clip above. I did receive several emails about that comment – a couple a bit turned off, one outraged. But I disagree. I did not find Stewart’s use of the word to be sexist nor demeaning.
It comes down to context. If you watch the video, you’ll see that Stewart is only in awe of Sen Gillibrand and her accomplishments. This clip would make a great television ad for “Gillibrand 2016.” Stewart’s wording was not in any way meant to belittle Sen Gillibrand.
I cite this in stark contrast to Harold Ford, Jr. who very purposely used words in a loaded way during the 2010 primary season to try to diminish Sen Gillibrand. Take for example, Ford’s appearance on Colbert on which he referred to Sen Gillibrand as “young lady.” Now again, those words in and of themselves are not necessary sexist, but in this case, the words were utilized by Ford as part of a systematic effort to portray Sen Gillibrand as weak. There were so many offenses by Ford that finally Marcia Pappas, President of NOW-NYS and I jointly penned an op-ed over at The Huffington Post, Harold Ford: Get Your Sexism Out of NY. Again, it’s context.
This is not to say that certain words are not always unacceptable when describing women leaders. In episode 2 of Searching for Sexism, we define some of those words which you can see are frequently used against women candidates and leaders: “witch,” “bitch,” “slut,” and “whore.” And, yes, I’ll go on the record here to say how patently wrong both Joan Walsh of Salon (editor-at-large) and CA-NOW were in defending Gov Jerry Brown campaign’s usage of the term “whore.” All of these terms are offensive, sexist and I believe should be banned from usage in describing women leaders and candidates.
But this is only part of the issue. Since our country has so little experience with women running for leadership, I think we struggle with whether terms like “adorable” are sexist. Meaning, which words are fair game for female candidates? Is “likable” offensive? To me, yes. Because of the ingrained way of thinking for many that women in positions of leadership are “money grabbers”, or “power hogs” and therefore not likable. Whereas men in these same positions are strong, smart and qualified. I wonder aloud, what kind of words we can safely use to describe our women? And the dimensions of that answer lay not in the words themselves, but rather in the biases we hold against the female gender.
Which worries me. I’ve gotten to know Sen Gillibrand very well. I met her when she was a Congresswoman and she impressed me from the get-go. Here’s what I told Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post the day then Governor Paterson appointed Sen Gillibrand in January 2009:
Today’s announcement embodies what the new women’s movement looks like in America…This is the right way to turn the page from 2008 to 2009.
Which Sen Gillibrand has fulfilled and then some. I’ve seen the passion with which she fights for issues impacting children, women, mothers, LGBT and other groups who have few outspoken advocates in our Congress and Senate – and almost none who can systematically accomplish things the way Sen Gillibrand has done. And, I’ve seen her in person fighting on women’s issues – for example, taking on Valerie Jarrett at the 2010 Women in the World Summit on why Obama was doing so little to advance women’s issues.
So I worry – will women be ready to get behind a woman? We did in New York in November 2010 when Gillibrand won her senate election by a landslide – but then again, we did that for Hillary Clinton in 2006 senate run before women turned against her in her national run for president.
I wonder if there will EVER be a woman good enough for women? And that is why, I, and the women who volunteer our time day-in/day-out, week-in/week-out, month-in/month-out and year-in/year-out at TNA have devoted ourselves to slowly raising awareness of and changing the way women treat each other. I’d like to think one of our legacies will be getting women like Sen Gillibrand to the White House by virtue of women’s supports. And we hope you will join us in this battle, which, happily, is well under way.
Onward!
I think he called her adorable because her body language was adorable. This sort of thing is easy to study and describe. I remember taking a class on it, I think it was double listed between social psyche and biology. They take students to the zoo and dump them and force you to score animal behavior minutiae for endless hours. Quickly you see that males have some subtle behaviors they do only towards other males and different subtle behaviors they do only towards females. Female animals have some subtle behaviors they do only towards male animals and different subtle behaviors the do with other female animals. It is common knowledge and it is easy to observe. Gillibrand had her female to male behaviors out in full force in this interview and that is why Stewart described her as adorable (hardly a compliment), Women are not used to seeing these behaviors from other women and in fact if Gillibrand had been talking to a woman she would have had different subtle behaviors or else she would have been perceived by her female audience as fake or somehow “off”.
This is an example of seeing women through male eyes and women find the view repulsive on a primal level even if they can’t articulate why. In fact it is a large reason why male dominated media has such a problem connecting with a female audience, being male they accentuate female to male only behaviors and women audience experience the result as “off” or strange and unnatural. I think it would be prudent of Gillibrand to tone down her female to male behaviors in a mixed audience because it is important to remember that women are the majority and they can vote.
No, Senator Reid, she is the smart Senator.
Who knows why he said “adorable”! All I know is that Jon Stewart has only recently started interviewing women on his shows on a somewhat more regular basis … night after night, in the recent past, we (the viewers – me!) were subjected to one male guest after another! Boring! And only very recently do we get to see a female comedian on his show – once in a rare moment! There is only one female comedian on his show! The fact that his Rally for Sanity was stacked with male on-stage performers – while probably more than 50% of audience were women – was pretty INSANE for a Rally that billed itself as being so sane! Is he adorably sexist or adorably stupid? Or just a bad comedian that the only thing he could come up with was … adorable! I don’t think that the New Agenda really has to come to Jon Stewart’s defense! He’s a big boy, with a lot of supporters!
@Mary Jane – I have to be honest – this was the first time I watched his show, and I only did to watch Kirsten.
The piece isn’t intended to defend him. This issue of what is sexist and what not comes up all the time and TNA has become a arbiter of sorts. So I guess I was expressing our view that context is important – and in our opinion, the word itself is not sexist in and of itself.
And our longer term concern with how words CAN hurt women candidates.
Anne E- forgot that one!
Bes – interesting theory. What came through to me was the content of her accomplishments. But I can see in retrospect that Stewart seems almost uncomfortable interviewing her.
I am many years out of school and I can’t remember specifically the behaviors to watch for/score but… head tilt, head wagging, voice tone, smile, eye blinking, length of eye contact, pace of speech etc. Increasing these female to male behaviors would not make a successful woman politician in Washington State because we are used to female power but it is conceivable that these are the very behaviors necessary for women politicians to be successful in New York which is far more backward regarding women in politics and in power. Her “adorable” behaviors signal she is not a direct threat to his power. It is also likely that since Stewart doesn’t interview women very often it is only women who show an increase in these “adorable” behaviors who would get any air time.
I don’t watch Jon Stewart but I find some of the clips I occasionally watch of him on Youtube very funny.
If what people are saying here is true – that Stewart has a very low percentage of female guests and performers, then he should be held accountable for that, seeing that his is the King of Liberal Dude Nation and all! He should set precedent with a entertainment policy of equal inclusiveness…
Bes, it’s taken me over 40 years to realize that a lot of the reason why men say they are “scared” of me or look at me fish-eyed upon meeting me (before I’ve done anything but smile) is because, for some strange reason impenetrable to modern science, I just don’t use those head-tilt cues. They seem to wait for me to, and I don’t do it, and the dissonance makes them itchy.
It’s not a conscious decision on my part, either. I’ve just carried myself like that for 44 years, and it makes their balls itch. The problem is that when you DO use those behaviors to “get ahead,” it always ends up at a brick wall. You can get a ways up by being cute, or at least keep the shark from eating you, but you will never get to the brass ring by evincing physical tics and gestures associated with submission. Period. There is no way to make that work for you. You will ALWAYS be the seal, and he will ALWAYS be the shark. You can’t become the shark by learning how to act like the most ingratiating seal possible.
When it all comes down to it, the physical gestures that make men comfortable around women are gestures associated with submissiveness. And acting submissive better than anyone else will never get you to the head of the line. The whole thing is a massive Catch-22. Only very young women think it’s not, or think that they alone will be the one to work out that tangle. They never are.
I should say that their balls don’t always itch, and haven’t always. Speaking cynically, part of that is my appearance. I look like what they are told to want, so I get forgiven for acting like a human for about seven milliseconds before it sinks in that yes, I’m actually like this.
Anyway, they are often fascinated by me, proclaim themselves so, and say out loud how much they like the idea that there’s a woman someplace who can snark and converse with them without twirling her hair around her fingers and talking about nail polish 24/7. (Whoops! Better watch myself, when Hillary snarked about baking cookies, she got hated on for it for two decades! I’d better pop off an apology letter to the American Association of Nail Polish Manufacturers and Concerned Ladies for Nail Polish Advocacy stat.)
The problem is that, after they become fascinated by it, their flirt subroutine engages … and that subroutine cannot function without those cues. The whole thing is a massive paradox, guaranteed to flop. It’s really weird.
However, I agree with Amy… the adorable thing in this context was fine and I like the focus in the article about context.
I don’t really care if there was a female/ male dynamic going on here. What I do appreciate is that Gillibrand was very professional and affirmative and that Stewart gave her loads of kudos and respect.
I do think he was in awe of her, as Amy suggests. I don’t think many liberal men allow themselves to be in the presence of a liberal woman with natural leaderships skills and guts. Gillibrand is also very attractive and the important thing here is that this is not used against her. Gillibrand also loaded on the compliments to Stewart and I think he was shyly embarrassed by this. But overall, I though Stewart was gracious and respectful toward Gillibrand so I have no complaints with this interview!
Yes, Janis is right the mannerisms that women exhibit to men and not women are, for the most part signaling submissiveness. And she is right in that you can groom yourself to be the best seal possible but that won’t ever make you a shark. In the zoo if a female exhibits these mannerisms to another female she will get her head slammed into the wall and will be at the bottom of the female pecking order, certainly not a leader of anyone. Also this sort of mannerisms towards men might be acceptable in New York a place that only recently got themselves a female public schools superintendent but it will not sell to women voters in places like Alaska, Washington and Oregon where women expect women who are in leadership positions to act more powerful by acting gender neutral.
“Stewart gave her loads of kudos and respect.”
Actually I would say Stewart found Gillibrand engaging and if he didn’t find her engaging she would not have been on his show. I think a more likely way to a nation wide power position for women on the east coast would be to channel the Benevolent Wise Grandmother persona. I don’t know how to do this but I do know when I yell “BOYS” in a crowded room 60 year old men reflexively yell “I didn’t do it” and “Yes Ma’am”.
Bes,
I know what you are saying in terms of the submissive mannerisms that many woman automatically throw on when they are speaking with men. Women can really throw there power away when they act this way and I believe this is why too many dem women supported Obama over Hillary. I believe too many were being submissive to LDN and that many were also sexually attracted to Obama.
In this video of Gillibrand I think she shows her femininity but is professional and strong. It also appears at times that Jon Stewart is crushin’ on Gillibrand. There is sexuality that sometimes is just there and I’m not sure we need to pretend that it doesn’t exist. Men do not act gender neutral. They exert their sexuality all the time. Obama and Bill Clinton both exerted their masculinity/ sexuality while running for Prez and while Prez. And I don’t think powerful women need to act gender neutral either.
In this case esp. I do not mind any of the femininity/ masculinity in the mannerisms and conversation between Gillibrand and Stewart because Gillibrand shows herself to be impressive and Stewart gives her ample credit for everything she has done. So I believe Gillibrand leaves the stage in this interview empowered versus “empowerfulated”.
Bes, I wonder if Gov Palin were on that same show would she exhibit the same mannerisms as the Senator or would she be more gender neutral as your post might suggest.
Cultural anthropology interests me and I have studied gender differences for years as part of my nightclubs which of course catered to women and as such we needed to provide male behavior that women wanted to see and participate with as opposed to mimicking women at a strip club-but the differences Janis and Bes suggests are very real
Bruce: I would say that Gov. Palin projects the Benevolent Grandma/Earth Mother/common good promoter persona especially during her TV show (everyone I know who watches it, loves it). Palin is also a very beautiful youngish woman and she doesn’t try to hide that but I see an eye to eye with men body language from her which is probably what offends male “progressives” on a primal level and they clearly are offended on a primal level. So she can appeal to men as “the good partner” and appeal to women as strong and genuine.
“Obama and Bill Clinton both exerted their masculinity/ sexuality while running for Prez and while Prez. And I don’t think powerful women need to act gender neutral either.”
The problem is, in media culture straight men have poorly defined female sexuality as being in the service of male sexuality via pornography. Gay men have defined female sexuality and tried to control it via ridiculous unwearable fashion. There is no authentic female voice defining female sexuality. A true definition of female sexuality needs quite a bit of depth since motherhood and grand-motherhood etc are encompassed in female sexuality. So if a woman is projecting a media approved female sexuality she is projecting something is is not authentic and women voters will notice. It is different when male candidates project a standard media male sexuality because men have been in control of the media message for a long time and the medias definition of male sexuality is a fairly authentic definition which has a much better chance of being accepted by voters. Women who toss out male to female body language non stop are perceived as not authentic by women and that is not a good thing if you are seeking votes.
well I looked at this u-tube many times and consistently feel offended by the “adorable”.
I know he is a comedian and they are not to be taken seriously. he was touched by her mentioning his involvement in the 9/11 bill. maybe he needed to get away from emotions by finishing off traditional “women need to be adored”. besides the joke, who possibly wants to be adored? you are made superhuman, the pedestal to fall down. women need respect even when they are not perfect. reminds me of the catholic adoration for virgin Mary. but utter disrespect for the generic woman. or adored are cute little girls, adorable but not powerful or competent or skilled. small cute non threatening. all these things are contrary to what you want a female senator to be associated with.
now did Gillebrand bring it on herself? I believe not, although Bes and Janis theories are interesting.
I think a good way for a female politician is to be non threatening, of service and applaud others more than yourself, to get votes. and that is exactly what she does. in such interviews they always focus on the persona and try to get unknown details, something personal. very successfully Gillebrand kept talking issues praising everyone including the host involved and be non-bragging about herself. with her strategy she kept the host at distance.
of course it would be nice to see a powerful woman. being asked about her accomplishments to slam her hands on the table. see what I can do. I got these two nasty republicans get the bill moving again. send all the stuck bills (remember the womens history museum) to me and I will show my powers…
there would be no female male kudos, but could she achieve anything?
Marille: Well I think Gillibrand can be effective in New York with this set of mannerisms but I don’t see her as a nation wide office holder. So is she being groomed for national office because I kind of get that impression. I hope not as Obama’s VP in 2012 because if that is the case my initial response is “who is the puppet master” which is the first thing I thought about Obama too. Democrats are going to have a hard time putting any electable women on the ticket if their first priority has to be that women candidates don’t threaten LDN. So I think what we see in this clip, which some women find offensive and most women find unappealing although they can’t articulate why, is what we can expect to see from east coast corporate media interviews with Democrat women candidates in 2012. This POS interview is Corporate Media’s impression of a “new and improved” attitude toward women in politics. From this I foresee Democrat women candidates who kow tow with submissive body language to male presence and of course a continuation of Corporate Media contempt, mockery and distortion towards women Republican candidates who at least aren’t burdened by their party with requirements for submissive body language. The thing is people (voters) don’t have to be able to verbalize their body language read on a person to incorporate that information into their over all impression. So the fact that no one talks about this doesn’t mean it isn’t important.
My opinion on adorable:
Any word you’d use to describe a puppy that steps on its ears is an insult when used to describe an adult. In every circumstance. And the people who use those words know it.
I don’t find the word adorable here to be sexist. Let me back up by saying anyone who knows me knows that I have a finely tuned sense of what is demeaning or not regarding women. I’m not saying anyone here who finds it demeaning is wrong, just that I don’t. I find Kirsten Gillibrand to be adorable myself -
adorable in the “disarmingly charming” sense of the word, not in the “worthy of adoration” sense.
Bes brings up really interesting points regarding behavior between and among the sexes, as well as regional differences in acceptable mannerisms and appearance. Janis (who I hope is the same Janis from the blogs during the 2008 primary) adds to the discussion when she describes “the massive paradox” with which we all live, unfortunately.
I read every comment here and am gratified by the level of thought, which I’ve missed since Hillary’s run for the presidency ended. Thank you all for that.I intend to visit more frequently in 2011.
Ultimately, I agree with Amy regarding his language. I think, too, that Stewart’s reaction to Kirsten is a small step forward for women in politics. She took an inordinate amount of abuse in the New York media when she was named to the senate seat and Jon Stewart – whom Henrietta calls “King of Liberal Cool Dude Nation” (love that and I’m appropriating it) is, in a way, making up for that by openly admiring her, as opposed to being snide in a way I think we all know all too well.
I do wonder if this reaction is “regional” due to the fact that I’m a New Yorker and so is Amy and that might make us respond differently. We had to read all the crap about Kirsten in our local papers for the longest time. I know I find Kirsten hitting the ball out of the park in this interview, on a hugely popular national show, incredibly vindicating. I’m thinking “nyah nyah” to all the sexist pigs in our local media who damned her with faint praise, or worse, just damned her.
Well I am from Washington State. We have two women Senators, a woman Governor, and half of our Supreme Court are women none of them are legacies. The Seattle Times was edited by a woman for many years and the local papers cover women politicians like they are regular politicians. My take away from watching the clip is she looks like an A student reciting her credentials for the approval of a professor she has the hots for. I am not blaming her I am saying I don’t see the her appeal as a national candidate and as long as it is necessary for Democrat women candidates to please LDN like Stewart your women candidates will not appeal to anyone who doesn’t reflexively apologize for men like Democrat women are used to doing. I am an Independent. For Gods sake hire a person who studies female to male body language and learn to act normal. Because the New York female to male thing is 1950′s and not in a cool way.
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...