Image 01 Image 03

MSNBC panel struggles to characterize attacks on Wendy Davis as gendered and sexist

MSNBC panel struggles to characterize attacks on Wendy Davis as gendered and sexist

No fire in the belly to defend Wendy Davis’ failed personal narrative.

Melissa Harris-Perry hosted a panel on the question: “Are attacks against Wendy Davis sexist or standard political fare?

Harris-Perry gave a pretty good intro, pointing out that narrative failures are political problems for women and for men. And she did highlight that Wendy Davis’ narrative is not quite as portrayed in her campaign.

But were the attacks “gendered” if not outright “sexist.”

Watch the video below. Does it strike you, as it did me, that the panelists could not generate any visible indignation over the supposedly sexist treatment of Davis? They mouthed the words, but seemed a bit shy about it after listening to Harris-Perry’s intro about the discrepancies in Davis’ narrative.

Davis’ parenting and maternal commitment were an express part of her narrative — when that narrative failed, it was not gendered or sexist, it just was what it was.

There was no dissent among the panelists. Jonathan Capehart particularly dropped the ball by suggesting that Newt Gingrich is an example of a man leaving his first wife and kids behind who did not pay a price. But in fact, Newt has been excoriated for it and it was a damaging blow to his presidential ambitions, as I explained to Kirsten Powers.

This should have been a panel that breathed “sexism” fire. That all they could muster were a few glowing embers of “sexism” tells you something right there.

There doesn’t appear to be any fire in the belly even at MSNBC to defend Wendy Davis’ failed personal narrative.

Here’s the video, in two parts:

Part I

Part II


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Would Ted Kennedy running on his reputation for sobriety and fidelity work?


So, why would “Mommy Dearest” Davis be permitted to tell whoppers about her persona with impunity?

Because she’s a “girl”…???

Who’s being the misogynist?

I’ll believe the criticisms of Wendy Davis are sexist when conservatives pose in shirts reading “Wendy Davis is a c**t”

It is sexist that female Democrats are held to a higher standard than male Democrats.

Both can still get away with things that would have a Republican in front of a Grand Jury!

So it’s sexist to call her a liar for lying?

After all is said and done we will still make our judgments based on the content of their character as measured by the content of our own character rather than by externalities. And vain tigers will still chase each other around the tree and they will still become melted butter.

Seems like she should be called “The Single UnMom.” She was never truly single and now not a mom, either.

In Wendy Davis’s 1996 campaign SHE criticized her FEMALE opponent Cathy Hirt for misrepresenting Hirt’s resume’ now Davis is claiming the same scrutiny is sexist

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | January 27, 2014 at 6:20 pm

Why does any sentient person pay attention to anything that MHP says about anything! MHP is just another loud mouthed MSNBC hack, maybe as capable as Ed Schultz is on a good day, which happens every 27 years!

OBTW: Personally, Ed Schultz couldn’t give water to a thirsty horse.

Who made this “sexist” first?

Wendy Davis.

She trumpeted herself, not as a Harvard lawyer who has run a business, accomplished this or that, etc., etc., etc., but as a “single mother” implying that she struggled alone to both raise and support children while also accomplishing career goals.

    janitor in reply to janitor. | January 27, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    Actually, the more I think about this media meme, the more it irritates me.

    “Sexism” is when a woman attempts to stand on her record of gender-neutral accomplishments, and the response then disses her in a way that focuses on her negatively not as a politician or a lawyer or even a “parent”, but as a “woman”. “Sexism” is how Sarah Palin was treated. Not Wendy Davis.

I still think Obama proved that no narrative is necessary. The only thing you need is a stereotype. If you don’t like Obama (doesn’t matter if his grandpa had 14 wives), you are racist. If you don’t like Davis (no personal narrative matters), you are a male chauvinistic pig as they used to say. Yes, the defense could be tepid today, but wait until they go on the offense. Any opponent will have a terrible reputation, and at the same time Davis becomes an answer to a prayer. Even Ted Kennedy could have been president, but he wanted to die of natural causes.

It is quite a comment on “diversity” to note the panel consists of 4 women and a black man. Something is missing. I wonder what it could be.