Obama's 'Sweetie' Problem
Reader Comments
Kay, I've handled some of these kinds of cases as a lawyer and you don't know what you are talking about. The reporter-candidate relationship does not come close to resembling a workplace relationship giving rise to that kind of harassment protection. In fact, as a member of the media covering candidates, the reporter enjoys priviledges, freedoms and powers, with respect to the candidate himself (e.g., she can write negatively about him in the papers), as well as with respect to her own "workplace" and career (tomorrow she can and will move on to cover myraids of other stories not involving the candidate) - so that the candidate is nothing like her boss or co-worker. I have been called sweetie and called others sweetie, but I have never used the term in the workplace, and have only used it where I knew no offense would be taken. This is clearly not a Workplace "sweetie" and all the button pushing and huffing won't make it so.
sweetie
I think the problem is why would a professional lawyer/senator still by using cutesy names for women? In my experience in over the last forty years of working in government offices in the states of CA and WA, that behavior has become termed as harassment. Today no man could get a promotion inside a government office if he habitually called women sweetie or honey or whatever. Twenty years ago he could, but in today’s offices it is taboo. So taboo that all government office employees, and I assume any professional office employee, are very, very careful to not say or touch anything or anyone in anyway that could termed sexual harassment. It is just not done – harassment gets reported to supervisors and personnel officials. That accidental behavior does not happen any more. No man is that careless and hasn’t been for the last 20 years. So either Obama does not consider the campaign trail as a work environment which has made him more casual or where has he been working for the last 20 years that he is so out of touch with harassment laws that he could still casually call a stranger/work acquaintance sweetie?
Now for all you guys out there that are saying So what, Big deal, Get over it. Okay, maybe you are coming from a different work environment that a professional government office and for you it is still okay to call co-workers honey and give everyone a big hug before you leave. But is Obama?
Offensive Terms
Whoops, I messed up on the last sentence of my earlier message. I meant to say that is IS NORMALLY meant as sarcasm when someone responds to rudeness with an affectionate name.
Well said Sam of IA. Although I think it more accurate to say it was found inappropriate by many people's standards vs. that it was wrong. I personally don't conclude, based on what I know, one way or another and don't care to. I do, however, find questionable the way many people (including myself sometimes) form their standards and how they apply them, especially to something as fact sensitive as this.
He was wrong. There is no way to defend this as right. Fortunately he did not try to defend it. He appropriately apologized. The thing I like about Obama is that he admits when he's wrong. And everyone will be wrong sometimes. The other thing I like is his way of seeing the better intentions in others and giving the benefit of the doubt. For example when Mrs. Clinton recently in syntax equated "white people" to "hard working people" his campaign response was "She didn't mean it that way." They could have jumped all over that. You could say, by a stretch, that his approach assumes moral superiority. It implies "I'm not going to sink to that level." In that sense you could say it's elitist or sexist. But to me, by admitting and apologizing when you are wrong, by giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good intentions from others--to me that is fair and refreshing. I think anyone can respect that. In fact, it is these qualities--and the possibility that we the people can take back the white house--this has made me interested in our presidential election for the first time. I think the journalist was right to bring this up and bring this into our conscioiusness. I also think that it is right to accept the apology. We needn't be relentlessly unforgiving. We can gain from this by looking at it squarely, acknowledging it, and moving forward with higher awareness.
He was wrong. There is no way to defend this as right. Fortunately he did not try to defend it. He appropriately apologized. The thing I like about Obama is that he admits when he's wrong. And everyone will be wrong sometimes. The other thing I like is his way of seeing the better intentions in others and giving the benefit of the doubt. For example when Mrs. Clinton recently in syntax equated "white people" to "hard working people" his campaign response was "She didn't mean it that way." They could have jumped all over that. You could say, by a stretch, that his approach assumes moral superiority. It implies "I'm not going to sink to that level." In that sense you could say it's elitist or sexist. But to me, by admitting and apologizing when you are wrong, by giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good intentions from others--to me that is fair and refreshing. I think anyone can respect that. In fact, it is these qualities--and the possibility that we the people can take back the white house--this has made me interested in our presidential election for the first time. I think the journalist was right to bring this up and bring this into our conscioiusness. I also think that it is right to accept the apology. We needn't be relentlessly unforgiving. We can gain from this by looking at it squarely, acknowledging it, and moving forward with higher awareness.
You "sweetie" freaks are getting carried away. I'm a forty something male and I get called sweetie, as well as call others sweetie, on a regular basis, and no one takes offense. It's a term of familiarity, nothing more. Now whether someone has earned the right to take a familar tone with another is really a matter of context, and there will be situations where people go too far and indicate a lack of respect or mindfulness. But hello people - Obama is a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and that woman is a reporter, an agent of the media, covering him - this is not your boss 20 years ago in some cigar smoke-infested back office. There are layers upon layers of professional mutual understanding and regard going on in this context that are way beyond your personal experience or mine. So why work yourself into a tizzy over that which you have no clue? Whether he was being too familiar with that reporter so as to be disrespectful - I think you will just have to ask her how she felt at that moment. Otherwise, you're just projecting your own issues.
Offensive Terms
I goofed in my last message. The last sentence should have been "It IS NORMALLY meant as sarcasm."
Offensive Terms
I was a working mother in the 1950's when it was not "the thing to do", even when you needed to work to feed your children. I worked for almost 50 years and was not a part of the women's lib movement, but I can tell you what triggered it. It was not the big things - it was a succession of little things. I worked for men younger than me who referred to me as "my girl" when talking to clients. Strange men called me "dear" and "honey." I grew up in the south, but in my family you did not treat strangers of either sex with that sort of disrespect. I worked in offices where women were not even considered for a supervisor's job, because "everybody knows she will get married, have children, and quit work." I watched one very competent woman train three different supervisors, and when I left that office she was still working under a man she had trained. On the other hand, it infuriates me to see reporters getting in people's faces screaming questions and interrupting speakers. That is about as rude as you can get. But when you hear someone respond to rudeness with an affectionate name, it is not normally meant as sarcasm.
