Sharp Notes

by digby

Matthews had a body language expert on today. He was only interested in the interplay between Clinton and Obama so they didn’t look at anyone else. In a nutshell, the body language expert basically said that Obama didn’t seem all that comfortable in that format but that Hillary did. He also complimented Obama on being in control and knowing not to make the mistake of being too physically aggressive with Hillary, which Matthews implied was something his handlers had advised him to do, but Obama refused and so looked weak. (He should have walked up to her and screamed right in her face like Matthews does, I guess, and shown everybody what a real man is.) Chris also implied that it was somewhat unfair that Hillary was shorter than the men because it made them look churlish when they loomed over her in a threatening fashion. Whatever.

I would argue that all discussions of their body language are stupid, but we’re apparently going to be treated with this nonsense for as long as Chris Matthews is fixated on this gender issue so we might as well see what it reveals about him, if not the candidates.

This passage shows why some women react with such fury when Matthews and his ilk go on about it:

CM: … Here’s Hillary Clinton reacting to the attacks on her. I hear the sharp notes coming out of her mouth there. Is that bad for her? You know like in piano music, the notes seem a half a note too sharp. Is that gonna hurt?

BLE: There’s a little but of that going on. Whenever she raises her voice there’s a danger that she’ll start to sound a little bit shrill. But her whole body language and tone of voice there were basically saying “give me a break.” That was her basic message there.

CM: Yeah I think it working. Let’s take a look at another one. This is where she glares at the other guys. Look at that posture there John. [She standing with her hands loosely folded low in front of her body, watching Obama speak.] Again it’s the height difference. There’s a certain way of looking up at these guys. I guess there’s no way of avoiding it, but boy it looks … uh … judgmental, let’s put it that way.

Thrashing Through Cyberspace reminded me of an earlier Matthews comment:

We were watching Hillary Clinton earlier tonight and she was giving a campaign barn burner speech, which is harder to give for a women — it can grate on some men when they listen to it….fingernails on a blackboard perhaps….

You’ll notice that he’s talking about all women there, not Hillary Clinton specifically.He believes that when any woman raises her voice — as politicians must do on the stump — they sound like fingernails on a blackboard or a sharp unpleasant noise. He just can’t stand the sound of it. And he just can’t stop talking about it.

Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC varsity club don’t have any self-awareness, so I know they also don’t have a clue about what’s driving this pathetic show of misogyny, but these particular comments are not new to me. I suspect I’m not alone in having been told by men over the years to “correct” my voice — that it’s too strident, too shrill, too grating. That I was being “emotional” and a little bit “hysterical.” “Shhhh”, “Tone it down, you’re hurting my ears.” “Settle down.” I would guess that most opinionated, smart women who’ve worked in corporate America (or had a bad boyfriend) know what I’m talking about.

It took me a long time to realize that it tends to happen when I’m winning an argument and that it’s actually a bit of misdirection which often, depending on your personality and self-confidence, results in either getting spitting mad or wilting. It can be extremely effective at derailing a good point — and infantalizing women, particularly when it’s done in public.

I don’t think Matthews and his posse are necessarily trying to distract Hillary, of course. They’re trying to distract the voters. Their attitude is reflexive and not conscious at all, as far as I can tell. Some of these people obviously have personal issues with women in authority while others are just lazy, I think, and fall back on stereotypes to end an argument or express more complex emotions. (Or maybe they’re just assholes, which is how I usually categorize them in my own life.) They automatically recoil at the sound of a woman’s voice raised in passionate argument (or humor), whether political or personal. I’ve seen it many times.

I wonder if Chris Matthews realizes that every time he or one of his fellow gasbags blithely reveal their sexist lizard brains like this, another little feminist gets her (or his) wings.

Update: Oh Jesus. It’s one thing for some rude McCain supporter to do this. This is quite another:

Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon began his November 16 column by asserting, “The (rhymes with rich) is back.” Simon began his column with that phrase just two days after his colleague, Politico chief political writer Mike Allen, responded to a question about referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a “bitch” by saying, “All right. But what Republican voter hasn’t thought that? What voter in general hasn’t thought that?” Allen made his comment on the November 14 edition of CNN’s American Morning while discussing a recent campaign event in Hilton Head, South Carolina, during which a questioner asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), “How do we beat the bitch?” — presumably referring to Clinton. McCain called the question an “excellent” one, later adding, “I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party.”

Here’s the Mike Allen exchange:

CHETRY: All right Mike, does that hurt McCain?

ALLEN: Oh, give me a break. Of course not. First of all, I think it’s kind of funny. You watch that tape, it’s clear to him who she was referring to. He could have said, whoever were you talking about? Which might have been the deftest way to handle it.

CHETRY: But he said that’s an excellent question.

ALLEN: All right. But what Republican voter hasn’t thought that? What voter in general hasn’t thought that?

And what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor, and if he had folded or buckled under that question, that would have looked ridiculous.

No, straight talking McCain, the war hero, who talks incessantly about honor and sacrifice and patriotism could have politely and humorously said, “Senator Clinton is a colleague of mine and I would never use that word to describe her. Besides, my 95 year old mother would kill me …” Instead, he laughed like a silly schoolboy, just as all these people do, right before they start lecturing us on decorum and civility.

I was inclined to ignore this. Supporters say what they will say and John McCain has long shown a very nasty sense of humor. But clearly, it’s a problem now that the Village little league team is giggling and snorting over it like Beavis and Butthead on steroids, and deciding that it’s perfectly ok to call Hillary Clinton “the bitch.”

As Charles Pierce says:

The other night, talking with my man Olbermann, greasily hiding behind what was the living definition of a s**t-eating grin, Milbank explained his take on the “How do we beat the bitch?” controversy currently plaguing John McCain, who is not, Milbank was quick to point out, running for “knighthood in some order of chivalry.” He further explained that McCain was smart enough to realize that it would “be suicide to quarrel with this phraseology.”

So now it is not only politically permissible — but the very essence of shrewd politics — to go along with calling Senator Hillary Clinton almost anything. Why stop here? Why not just call her a “c**t”? That’d be a brilliant tactical maneuver, wouldn’t it, Dana? Go for the gold, boys.

Yeah, keep it up fellas. The bitches are, like, totally loving it.

.