I don't find it terribly sexist. I think that Frum would have said the same thing about Kennedy.
To the extent that it may be sexist, I think it would be less an issue of Frum being anti-woman and more the somewhat feminized language to describe weakness.
I don't see the sexist part either, or are you saying he calls Kennedy a girly-man?
I'm not sure if it's fair to describe him as anti-woman when 'clueless' may just as well apply.
But then, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of evidence for Miers' susceptibility to (what, exactly, wanting to be liked? or to go to conferences in Italy?) whatever it is that turns Justices liberal other than the fact that she's female.
Of course, if she's that susceptible, perhaps Scalia will be the contagion. Or maybe Frum is just talking out of his ass.
Some of his word choices are odd. "The vapors?" "Sweet little inducements?"
the somewhat feminized language to describe weakness
I don't see this, except in that weakness is pre-associated with feminity. I think he's using fairly gender-neutral terms to describe weakness.
Yeah, actually, having re-read it, he pretty much implies that she's a shrinking violet who will wilt because she wants the boys to like her and if she has a different opinion they won't ask her to homecoming.
Taut and anxious describes most lawyers I know.
Hey, lots of us are squishy and anxious.
And that reads sexist to me, although not particularly unusually so. (Although I don't think I agree with the last sentence. I'm not coming up with appointees, but politicians get dinged for having the wrong personality all the time.)
What I was referring to with the term feminized is "the sweet little inducements--the flattery." That seems to me to be the language of seduction and courtship, where women are supposed to be weak and susceptible.
We're entering the level of scrutiny also known as "Scanning for most objectionable content."
In the twenty-odd years I've been reading political coverage, I can't rememeber even *one* instance of someone opposing any kind of appointment with the claim that the nominee doesn't have the proper personality to handle the pressure.
Really? What about John McCain? Or Howard Dean? Or any number of Democratic presidential candidates thought to be not tough enough to do the job properly?
This particular criticism also seems basically similar to one aspect of the critique levelled against John Kerry w/r/t flip-flopping: that the candidate doesn't believe strongly enough in absolutes to be trusted with office.
Point taken, Tom, but Dean and McCain were a bit different, in that the line was that they would snap, and blow shit up, not that they were weak and fragile and liable to "inducements." But given the reaction here, obviously not everyone reads this as being as sexist as I read it.
I'm glad I wasn't the first to say it.
Oy, if this is a bphd thing, feel free not to explain.
In various profiles, Miers isa described as tough, so Frum's description is surprising. Could conceivably be because of sexism, but Frum is a former insider, so maybe he speaks from personal expreience.
Or maybe Frum is just talking out of his ass.
Indeed, I see no reason why this instance should be different from any other time he opens his, uhh, mouth. I'll bet his breath stinks.
I don't think it's a gendered thing; it's a common right-wing fear about Supreme Court nominees. There's a hilarious conservative postulate that justices trend liberal over time because they want to be liked at all those elite liberal cocktail parties -- and in particular, because they want to get favorable coverage from Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times' Court correspondent. It's known as "The Greenhouse Effect," and it's discussed whenever a nominee lacks a Clarence Thomas–style overarching worldview to supercede little things like the facts of cases.
Oh, the fear isn't gendered; the language of the description ('taut and nervous', the 'vapors', 'the sweet little inducements--the flattery') is a little gendered. It's not all that strong -- I'm surprised it set ogged off to the degree it did.
You meant to say that Ogged is banned.
Unfogged is a B+ blog at finding sexism.
I had a funny comment all typed up, but I can't determine the correct spelling of the hip-hoppian abbreviation for "whores." "Hos" or "hoes"?
I'll split the difference on this. I think the language is gendered and feminized but I also could see Frum using those exact words in an attack on a male candidate to impugn his masculinity.
I do believe that the gentlemen of hip-hop are known to refer to their ladies as "hos," not "hoes."
The second category is obviously digging up on the prolific web sites run by the Urban Amish.
(who frequently cite that "life is nought but bitches and hoes.)
wait, "urban amish" actually returned results, and when couple with "bitches"? That's amazing.
Urban Amish, Amish Urban
I wear a hat, yo, not a turban
Black's my color, these colors donj't run
I'll step to you with a hoe, not a gun
--Thresh 'n FX
Tough. You want to apply prescriptively the rules to all the words, but once you've given the keys to the OED to the people, shouldn't you spell fresh words as they describe? I think "hos," but I also admit that I have no flow/skillz.
In support of me. Also, ho But not hoe. Further.
Michael, no one disputes that one whore is a "ho," the question is whether many whores are "hos" or "hoes". Back to the urban dictionary.
It's my fault others have trouble making plurals.
wait, what about your hilarious comment?
The time has passed (and I only claimed "funny").
It does seem that the "hoes" pluralization is the preferred one, no matter how wrong.
Given the crowd that uses such language, it is likely that the better spellers would be in the minority, and so I claim victory by virtue of unpopularity.
What are you trying to say about urban culture, Bill "Michael" Bennett?
Hey, I know it's like a hog callin a guy "stinky," but them boyZ is creative spellers.