i’m not really interested in debating the implications of obama calling a detroit (woot woot) television reporter “sweetie” (i think it’s a political nonstarter, except for maybe this), but dismissing the whole thing as media hysteria isn’t fair either. since i figured someone else has probably already better articulated my general feeling of “this ain’t right,” i scoured the interwebs for the best defense of “why the sweetie thing is sort of a big deal.”

susan ager from the detroit free press likens his sweetie “bad habit” (his words) to his now-defeated smoking addiction.

This guy can give up nicotine but not silly nicknames for women he doesn’t know? …
You’ve got to wonder where a 46-year-old Harvard-educated attorney picked up such a bad habit and why he has not yet set it aside.

rebecca traister from salon argues it best though. i basically copy/pasted the entire thing, but you should read it yourself anyway.

Surely many women have enjoyed being called sweetie by someone they care about, just as many women have enjoyed being called “honey” or “babe.”

But that does not mean that those same women would enjoy being called any of those things by a presidential candidate, especially one they’d not met before, especially in response to a question about the economic future of the autoworkers, and especially when the word is a fundamental part of a larger professional brushoff.

Yes, there are places in the country where “sweetie” is used to address strangers of both sexes; a waitress, for instance, might call both male and female customers “sweetie,” as a conversational address, rather than an indication of personal familiarity. But that’s pretty clearly not what was happening at the Chrysler plant, in part because the waitress doesn’t often have a power dynamic with her customers that resembles the relationship between a male presidential candidate and a female reporter.

Is it the be all end all? No. Is it the most sexist thing a man could say to a woman? Certainly not.

But one of the odd qualities about the questions applied to this story has been the focus on whether Obama’s intentions were premeditated, or stranger still, malevolent. Surely they were neither. As Goldberg said, the senator likely “meant … no disrespect.” Obama is an excellent candidate on women’s issues, and has won the often controversial support of feminists who might otherwise have fallen in behind Hillary Clinton. But having good intentions, and good policies, does not mean that anyone is incapable of offense, disrespect or condescension.

So it is troubling that ABC’s report was headlined “Obama’s Sweetie: Spontaneous or Sexist?” and “Good Morning America’s” “workplace contributor” Tory Johnson averred that anyone offended by someone’s use of “sweetie” should speak up but “not assume that their intentions are bad.” Johnson went on to warm of the dangers of “policing spontaneity … we should let people be themselves.”

These kinds of arguments suggest that words cannot be both spontaneous and sexist, as they often are. … Also troubling is the perception that “sexist” must equal “ill-willed” if it is to be deemed offensive. … But just because a word is not meant as an offense, does not mean that it isn’t diminishing, paternalistic and disrespectful.

traister also takes issue with the dismissive response that some people (and more frustratingly, women) have had to the whole thing.

As tempting as it is to project the cool-girl post-feminist attitude of not caring at all, it’s also important to note that just because a small exchange doesn’t mean everything, we don’t have to pretend that it doesn’t mean anything.

The point is not that Obama should have, or could have, known Agar’s name. It’s that had her name been Alan, Tom or John, he would not have called her “sweetie.” That is true. It may not be evil or intentional or even that big of a deal. But it is fundamental and true. And what it tells us, in a small way, is that even in the year in which Obama’s most serious competition has come from a woman running for what has historically been a man’s job, gender still matters.

the ending to traister’s argument was a little anticlimactic (nothing new), but it’s worth repeating because it’s one of those things that really gets me going.
and, if by some act of god, you haven’t seen the video yet …

Tags: detroit, feminism, obama | Comments (1)