Sexism

Many speculate that if Matthews runs for PA Senate he's going to have a problem with women (especially ex-HRC voters and N.O.W. etc.) because of his "string" of "sexist" comments. The famous one is when he said Hillary is a Senator because her husband "messed around" (I'm paraphrasing) and the rest of the comments are when he compliements pretty guests and women politicians, or asks how Pelosi can be less "grating".

First - why is the comment about Bill "messing around" sexist? It's not a generalization, it's a comment about Hillary in particular. It's just like saying W. is President because his dad was President, Al Gore was VP/Senator because his dad was a Senator, or that Caroline Kennedy is being considered for the NY Senate because her dad was JFK! Or that Jean Carnahan was elected Senator of Missouri because her husband died. These things don't disparage the individual or the sex (W. went to Harvard Business School, Caroline Kennedy is very smart and successful, HRC went to Yale, etc. - they're all incredible people) but these circumstances put people on the map despite their meritorious achievements. To assume that politicians get to where they are is simply because of merit, is rediculous. It's not diparaging to women to acknowledge the fact that when there are only 100 Senators in the country, you need something other than a good GPA to join the club - that goes for men and women. Now, there's a sexism problem if you only mention these external circumstances when it comes to women, and don't when you describe the Gore's, W.'s, etc.

Second - Matthews gets in trouble for complimenting pretty women (which is something that your mom taught you to do ... but forgot to mention that you can't do it in public). It's not surprising that good looking people tend to succeed in poilitics because, like Matthews gets pounced on for pointing out, there's a "cosmetic" side of success. Again, as long as you don't suggest that women are where they are simply because of their looks, I don't see why it's sexist to point out this aspect of the real world. I mean there are a lot of smart women on Fox, but the reason they're all on the same tv channel has nothing to do with their degrees. Additionally, has anyone noticed how gorgeous Jill Biden is? It's a fact. And she has TWO Ph.D's! Brains and beauty can co-exist, people. And when you get talking about the sex-appeal of men politicians you hear it alluded to variously from Cheney/Carl Levin all the way to Mark Udall. Politics is Imaging ... so we shouldn't pretend that a simple comment about someone's appearance means there's no substance underneath. That's its own case by case assessment: hot/smarties (Jill Biden) ... hot/dummies (Sarah Palin) ... ugly/smarties (Madaline Albright) ... ugly/dummies (no comment)

Third - along a similar line - the "grading" comment about Pelosi is the closest thing to a sexist comment, but also the most realistic hurdle for women in the public square - that is: women are easily strewn as "bitchy maternalists" or "empty bimbos." This is undoubtably a sexist interpretation because it's an overgeneralization of women from a male point of view. But it's a real image problem for women in power and - as long as it isn't reinforced - shouldn't be outside the scope of punditry.