Is It Sexist to Say Clinton "Scolded" Obama?

no pasaran:

"Scolding is something most definetely attributed to women."

I could say to you "no it's not", but I suppose that wouldn't accomplish much. Maybe we come from different places. Where I come from, "scolding" is attributed to parents / elders / moral superiors. It is not gender-specific in my world. Fathers scold as well as mothers. Maybe I had a really mean dad, or maybe you had a really nice one. Or maybe you didn't have one at all when you were growing up. That would explain why you think only mothers scold. I don't know your background, and you don't know mine. So let's just say we disagree about whether or not it's "definetely (sp) attributed to women".

But there's another component. Even if we were to agree that "scolding" is attributable to women primarily, that still doesn't make it sexist automatically. Referring to Clinton as a woman is not prejudiced or discriminatory. Being a woman is not criminal, offensive or even regrettable. If you refer to someone as stupid, ugly, lazy, greedy or immoral -- yeah, that's derogatory. Referring to someone as a woman? Not derogatory. Unless you say something like "he throws like a girl" -- okay, I'll give you that one. That's pretty sexist.

Saying that a woman scolded someone -- and maybe somehow reminding the readers that she is, after all, a woman -- isn't offensive to me. Does it bother you to be reminded that Clinton is a woman?

I'm a pro-Obama blogger who found the use of the word "scold" sexist, if accurate. As long as we repeat the aphorism that the pen is mightier than the sword, we must admit that words have great power and must be used judicially in the public marketplace. The fact that you've used the word before to describe the speech of men and that you've done so here with premeditation and considered the matter DOES count for something, at least with me.

well, i think its fine to say that Hillary "scolded" Obama.
But I think "shrill" is certainly a sexist adjective.

Not only was Clinton's term "scolding" it was a blatant guilt trip typical of a bad parent not a good one. In fact if one were to be perfectly honest "shame on you" it is really a very castrating sexist phrase in and of it self. Obama used extremely good judgement in keeping his dignity and cool in the face of such and ugly and primitive attack.

Why is anyone shocked Hillary talked to Obama in that manner? She has essentially talked down to plenty of voters, as well. Don't forget if you are in a red state you are a "second class" delegate and so far she has claimed Obama has not really won any states that matter. Sadly, she makes these beds for herself and seems shocked when the voters giver her the okay to sleep in them.....

Yes, it is sexist. Scolding is something most definetely attributed to women. As per Webster's: "implies rebuking in irritation or ill temper justly or unjustly". Take a look at one of the headlines today; "Obama blasts McCain..." (Huffington Post). I don't think you're likely to see "Obama scolds McCain...".

Rebuke would be a better term.

I appreciate that you are thinking about this.

What I thought was the worst part was "meet me in ohio" phrase - sounded like a school bully asking someone to meet him behind the school. Kinda like the bush's - bring it on after 9/11!

When you choose to use condescending phrases like "shame on you", you are implying to your audience that you are a parent, and your target is a child. This is known as "scolding". The use of the term "scolding" in this case is very accurate. Yes, because Clinton is a woman, the word "scolding" implies she is behaving like a mother (not a father) and therefore does have gender-specific implications. But it's not sexist; there is no prejudice or discrimination in the use of that word, whether implicit or explicit. I consider it hypersensitive to cry foul at the use of "scolding" in this instance.

But it's a worthy question, and good that we think about it. The reality is that journalists can be very prone to slanting a story with the word choices they make, so they must be mindful.

Honestly, Clinton backers can't complain of the use of the term "scolding" in this case. She chose those words for theatrical effect ("shame on you!"); they were chosen specifically to infantilize and condescend, to introduce an element of moral judgment. You can't say "shame on you" and then deny that it's scolding.

Okay, I'm a woman & what Clinton did was scold him like a child. Shame on You? My mother in-law says that stuff to my husband. In my office neither my boss or any of my peers would get away with that language even if they deserved a reprimand. Look, she's running to be the leader of the free world...if this is how she reacts over fliers how is she going to handle rouge dictators of the world.

Also, inexperienced or not Obama is a grown man. Hillary says shame on you, Bill calls him a kid...46 yrs old? I wonder why?

No.

NO, it's NOT sexist and for someone to accuse you of being sexist for using that word is waaaaay beyond nit-picking....it's petty. Hillary DID "scold" Mr. Hope and he deserved it. He's a liar. I'm glad she called him o it.

The problem with her complaining like she did is that she was complaining about fliers that were out for a long time. People have been debating those fliers since the beginning of February. So her pretending like she's all outraged was just some lame attempt to get air time.

Someone ought to scold her for acting like a child and stop blaming her losses on everyone else.

One of the problems with ABC and other American news organizations is the lack of diversity on the air and in decision-making roles. Broadcast news is dominated by 30-50 year old white men, and thus your organization and broadcast news in general suffer from the lack of diverse viewpoints. I don't imagine you'd have been forced into wrestling with these questions at this point if your broadcast world wasn't so homogeneous. As it is, you only see and hear from a limited number of people in a very, very narrow insular world

Blah, blah, blah
More pathetic Clinton tactics.
-----------------
What an ungraceful way to go out.

Al, you are SO WRONG. Mr. Jake Tapper is very much an excellent journalist. (And, he's good-looking, too : ) ).
Mr. Jake Tapper has courage, that some of you men don't.....allows blog posts that are good about Hillary.

Thank You, Mr. Jake Tapper. I think you are a fantastic journalist. Don't listen to those other people......

No, she should scold him, because he has been a bad little boy-----he got caught doing wrong and needs to be straightened out by a wiser, older, more experienced person. Hopefully he will listen.

Obama by the way would be a laughing stock in the pressif he were a woman. A state senator, with little or no voting record after one year in the US senate launching a Presidential bid with no substance and only rhetoric.

She would never have been considered a legitimate candidate. And if she were good looking as Mr. Obama is, she would be considered a piece of fluff or candy by the press. If she dressed well people would talk about her shoes rather than what she had to say. They would dendgrate her for it not admire her for it.

Mr Obama is not qualified for the job. His entire candidacy is based on mysoginy winning the day.

Eight years ago George W. Bush was elected president not because he was the better fit for president. He wasn’t elected because he could have done a better job than Al Gore. It was a popularity contest. Americans viewed him as the guy that they could have a beer with. I see Barack Obama playing the same card. Stadiums full of people chanting his slogans, hailing him as if he were a golden calf. But when the honeymoon is over is his experience going to produce results or just more of the same? I feel that we need to prove to the American people that we are about more than just popularity. We need to show them that as democrats we are not only about social improvements for Americans, but we want to provide them with a government that the republican party cannot, which is efficient, candid, and most importantly competent.

I think your categorization of Hillary's comments as a scolding is accurate! Sound like something a grandmother would say, "Shame on you, Johnny, for saying those nasty things about your mother...."

But that brings to mind another quote: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I think the latter is more descriptve of where Hillary finds herself these days.

If Obama is nominated I will vote for McCain, and if MaCain does not win this election it will be the medias fault they will have to shoulder the blame for the monster they created.

The sure seem to make a fuss over every statement that comes out of the Hillary camp, but am sure under President Obama they will have to cross their "I" and dot their "T".

Every word they write, every word a media person speaks will then be under the looking glass, for waiting in the wings will be the likes of men like Sharpton, Gregory and Jackson, just waiting for when the media drops the ball, the media honeymoon will soon be over and the daily observance of what they say or do will be a hot topic, sometimes in life person love to create their own downfalls.

Mr. media be very careful of what you are instrumental in designing because the same trap you want to set for others you may well fall into it.