Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 06/04/2008 8:45 am

Lesley Stahl, Cynthia McFadden: Sexism Went Unchallenged During Hillary Campaign

© AP

Editor’s Note: wowOwow welcomes Cynthia McFadden to our lineup of wise women who are making this site the gathering place for informed women on the web. Cynthia is at the top of a distinguished career in journalism, currently serving at ABC News on both “Nightline” and “Primetime Live.” Here, one of wowOwow’s founders, Lesley Stahl, interviews Cynthia on the Hillary Clinton campaign in its final days. Welcome, Cynthia! And more on Cynthia to come from our CEO Joni Evans … but we wanted our community to see this on this historic morning.

LESLEY: Cynthia, welcome to wOw — a floating, non-stop ladies’ lunch! I am delighted that your maiden voyage on our site is a conversation with moi! First, because I always love talking to you, but also because you’ve been spending a lot of your time on this campaign, my favorite topic.

Let’s discuss one of the more distressing issues that has reared its head: sexism. Many of the women who support Hillary are deeply upset and angry at what they perceive as the same old “double standard” that you and I have heard about – and maybe lived — for decades now. In your reporting, have you seen what they are talking about? And more personally, have you felt this misogyny in your own career?

CYNTHIA: As for my career, yes, in my first job as a journalist my boss told me I’d be paid half of what the man who preceded me was being paid. Why? He had an ex-wife and child to support. As for the campaign, yes, I think in ways both subtle and direct sexism has played a role. But it is so ingrained in our culture; it goes largely unnoted and unchallenged. The press is very good at pointing out and decrying racism, thank God, but sexism washes over most of us much of the time.

LESLEY: You’ve interviewed Hillary at least five times during the campaign. We can legitimately say you’re a Hillary expert. I’ve seen a lot of criticism that she has “used” sexism as a campaign ploy to whip up her supporters. Is that the way you see it? And – can I ask you to reflect on your own experience? Do you think this is “helpful” for women? I could have been wrong, but I have gone through my career determined never to come off as a “victim” or to even allow myself to think that my falling short was anything but my own fault.

CYNTHIA: "Victim" isn’t a good place to be. And, like you, I have tried very hard not to ask for special anything (even when the guys do) for fear that somehow I will be seen as expecting or wanting special treatment. And I should say that expecting equal treatment, I have, by and large, received it.

But let me be a bit more specific about my observations … Clinton struggled to find the right tone in her candidacy and she found herself either ridiculed after the famous New Hampshire "cry" as manipulative and girly or lambasted as cold and, well, pardon me, but it rhymes with rich. As retired general Tony McPeak (an Obama supporter) said in an interview after New Hampshire, "Obama doesn’t go on television and have crying fits."

An op-ed piece in a Midwestern newspaper referenced her "frequent wearing of dark pantsuits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure." I am unaware of any similar attention focused on the male behinds in the race.

As for her trying to "use" her sex or charges of "sexism" in the campaign, my observation was talking about gender made her very uncomfortable for some of the same reasons I think we avoid it. She knows "whining" isn’t appealing, even if there are legitimate concerns behind it.

At one point, I asked her why she hadn’t given the “gender speech,” as Obama had done with race. She said she didn’t feel she had to give that speech. That every day she was living the gender speech … just by standing up and saying, "I am the best person to be commander in chief."

216 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Renata
Women need to be serious if we want to be taken seriously. The Bush/Cheney last 7 years are also the responsibility of Americans who slept-walked the last two Election cycles — and made decisions based upon media propaganda. The Internet, thankfully, is interrupting traditional media’s ability to continue to misinform Americans. What has occurred — and is occurring in the Democratic Nomination process IS SERIOUS. Women refusing to maturely assess HRC’s performance IS SERIOUS…and dangerous.
By Renata on 06/04/2008 11:49 am
Frank Peterson
Wendy: here’s one man that doesn’t hate, demean, or treat women like crap—and guess what—there’s a lot more like me.
By Frank Peterson on 06/04/2008 11:44 am
E .
What a treat to have Cynthia McFadden join us at WOW. I hope to hear much more from her in the future. Bittersweet. That is how I feel to finally hear intelligent voices join in on the curiously minuscule outcry against the anti-Hillary sexist stratagem. Many are indeed numb, blind or simply ignorant to misogyny when it rears its hateful many-fanged head in an attempt to put down a “threat”. However many stood with eyes open, witnessed the ongoing abuse, recognized it for what it is and chose to stay silent. When you see something wrong unfolding before your very eyes it is cowardly and not good enough to wait until after the event to finally cry out against the crime. Whatever your politics, whichever candidate you choose to support it is shameful to remain silent when you know that hate is being used to weaken any particular candidate. It was such a disappointment to see the very brave Geraldine Ferraro left out there to twist in the wind when she rightfully cried out against the sexism. No one had the balls to stand with her. First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller
By E . on 06/04/2008 11:58 am
Buh- Bye
Well said, Elizabeth.
By Buh- Bye on 06/04/2008 10:43 pm
phyllis Doyle Pepe
Wendy Wilson: I am a woman––I don’t hate other women, I don’t hate myself, the men I know don’t hate women and I am somebody who would be included in your “Everybody hates women” comment. Calm down.
By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 06/04/2008 5:12 pm
Wendy Wilson
There is no doubt in my mind that eveyone hates women, men ate women, and women hate other women and themselves because they are hated in society. Perfect example is the person who posted above and uses “Dr.” before his name. If a woman dares to compete with me, she will be a target for attack. I am amazed that writers who see themselves as Feminists (Anna Quindlan— MaureenDowd) joined in on the mud slinging. I love that Geraldine Ferraro spoke up in such a genuine way. She knows the terrain that Hillary is on (George Bush Sr. once called Ferraro a “nice little peice of ass”). and Gerry has nothing to lose. I thin the fact that Hillary is a wife and mother, her roles have been used against her. It is clear that her daughter is a perfectly lovely and classy young woman. But I think that people see Hillary as a stern “mom” to the world. I give her so much credit for struggling her way through the attacks and distortions. And I hope there will be other women like her who won’t be fraid to run for high office. It sure looks like a forbidden leap.
By Wendy Wilson on 06/04/2008 11:05 am
Renata
Wendy - I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I voted for HRC, as Senator, twice. I didn’t make these decisions based upon subjective criteria (aka like/hate/race/gender). I made the decision based upon their being the best candidates at the time. HRC did not run AS A VICTIM in New York, though there was sympathy/empathy for her White House experience and it did play a part re the Lazio indicent. That works for awhile, but cannot and should not be currency for a Presidential run. HRC has gotten credit and respect. To say otherwise is a false narrative. She got the votes of millions of New Yorkers - twice and despite a vote FOR the Iraq War we did not want and did not/has not made her constituents more safe. HRC has been able to leverage that post for a Presidential run. Bill Clinton’s post Presidency has been beyond PROFITABLE from the NYC business/financial orbit. There is no evidence of the VICTIM narrative being circulated and it should not be used w/out an expectation some of us will challenge it.
By Renata on 06/04/2008 11:58 am
T S
Wendy, Please consider staying open as you decide the perceptions held regarding women today. (Wendy said): “There is no doubt in my mind that everyone hates women, men hate women, and women hate other women and themselves because they are hated in society.” Women are so very capable and are in the process of rapidly evolving away from their own self-limiting beliefs. This is a huge change certain to create a stir. Change can be very threatening. Hold open a place to consider that in many circles women are in fact valued and respected and certainly not hated. Perhaps the more we look for it and think that way, the more it will appear. Ideas are propagated;the good and the bad. Read through the posts here and I’m sure you could support the idea that even women hate women and we do, of course, have our token misogynist who shall remain unnamed. However a substantial case could also be built for the admiration and respect many women (and of course bridge-brained men like Frank and James), have for women. Depends on which place you put your focus. Isn’t life a lot like that?
By T S on 06/04/2008 11:30 am
Frank Peterson
Sassy: bridge-brained? at least it wasn’t bird-brained :-) Thank you kind lady.:-)
By Frank Peterson on 06/04/2008 11:46 am
T S
Taken from a concept I heard about and have since been told is the subject of this book, Frank, What Could He Be Thinking?: How a Man’s Mind Really Works By Michael Gurian Now, when a baby is gendered in utero (around 3 mos. if memory serves), when the baby is male, “damage” is done to the corpus callosum which links the two hemispheres of the brain together. This does not happen with the female fetus. Hence “she” can switch more easily between hemispheres (Think about that Men from Venus, Women from Mars” book to appreciate the ramifications). So there is a subset of men called “bridge brains” that have evolved to a place where they are able to fluidly use both hemispheres. Let me tell you, Frank, the women adore bridge brains because they are more evolved and can interact on a more kindred level. You, Frank are a bridge brain. And that’s a wonderful thing. :)
By T S on 06/04/2008 5:37 pm
Buh- Bye
When I read the headline of this wowOwow article my initial response was “EXACTLY! And why didn’t either of you two talking about it now in a safe postmortem manner take it to task during the campaign!” There is no fire in the belly of journalists anymore because the forces that be will rain down misery on their heads.
By Buh- Bye on 06/04/2008 12:04 pm
Renata
My Alias - I agree. Privilege comes with RISK. Though I do not accept HRC’s VICTIM narrative at all, I would have more respect for elite women in MEDIA if they made this case consistently and powerfully over the last 17 months. I have heard SILENCE in Manhattan — where I live and work. This is WHY traditional media and its veterans are rebuffed as irrevelant by our children. They are very sophisticated information/media consumers. Since I do have some respect for traditional media veterans, I will say this — I think they KNOW the VICTIM narrative is bogus, in their hearts. They cannot, therefore, make this case in their CORPORATE distributions. It cannot be substantiated with FACTS and, as HRC knows — if these wizened media veterans did take her case to the mat via their CORPORATE distributions — that would open up the Pandora’s box of Bill’s last 7 years, gross mismanagement of her Campaign and its flawed strategy, etc. You can’t play a VICTIM successfully if professional journalists ask questions regarding what SHE did to contribute to this loss — which they would have to do. Better to not discuss those pesky details and focus on the VICTIM narrative and a strict interpretation of what that means - self-servingly. No. Professional meda journalists will say off-the-record HRC experienced gender bias. That is also THEIR personal narrative. They will NOT, however, take this case where it would have to be subjected to a more balanced assessment — via their CORPORATE media distributions.
By Renata on 06/04/2008 12:58 pm
Buh- Bye
balderdash. the “victim” narrative is true. sexism is still sanctioned, while racism is not. one must tippy toe around race today. but we all witnessed unbelievable sexism in these primaries. heinous, hideous sexism. much of it perpetrated by the media. and that is only because the strong female voices in the media are not shining a very bright light on it. these successful women run away from the issue for fear of being tainted by its brush. yes, in 2008 you can still make jokes about women, also jokes about gays (especially lesbians - because they’re women) and about the overweight, usually thought of as overweight women. when you think overweight, don’t you automatically think fat girl? (as an aside - did anyone see Boston legal last night? when fat Denny Krane fired a fat woman for being… fat) the double standard. sexism is readily accepted. and women who have experienced some success will throw other women under the bus to save their own derrieres. it’s the fear of being labeled strident themselves. anyone who has been in an executive position knows exactly of whence I speak. although they may be loathe to admit it.
By Buh- Bye on 06/04/2008 6:00 pm
Renata
Charlie Rangel (NY-D) - to Andrea Mitchell/MSNBC - 1:40pm ET - paraphrase — 1. Hillary Clinton has put the NY delegation in a compromised position because we don’t understand what her statements of last night means. We sponsored her for her Presidential run and — 2. Not endorsing the Democratic Nominee is inconsistent with winning the Presidency this Fall… 3. We have to talk with Hillary to find out what she means…because we don’t know what to do. Nice. New York and its representatives DESERVE BETTER.
By Renata on 06/04/2008 12:45 pm
JJ GB
Here’s a thought and I admit it’s way out in left field. I don’t think our forefathers envisioned elections as they are today and I daydream about better solutions to allow representation of all Americans to have a voice in what happens and how we are governed in our country. What if, we changed to a Parlimentarian type of government with a mediator (Prime Minister) to keep the 3 parties (far left, far right and in the middle) from having food fights across the isle (as we have been known to do here in TX) or one member telling the other to go F—- himself, as McCain is reported to have done. Everyone would have the same power and a single vote and there would be enough seats to represent each state (even a two for one seat as in the Clintons, with each getting a half vote). Everyone would get a chance to vote a favorite player who would have no more power than the next one, so majority rule would be more likely with a raise of the hand and ayes and nays and it would all have to be open to the public, on TV. No behind closed doors decisions and no favoritism, no lobbying allowed by money or favors. Women and men equal with equal voice in all matters and everything out in the open. Like I said, just a thought.
By JJ GB on 06/04/2008 12:45 pm