The “Crazy” Double Standard
Nearly one month ago, Jessica Grose wrote a thoughtful article for Slate that wondered why “the media treat Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry differently.” More specifically, Grose asked why Perry was more likely to be called “dumb” while Bachmann was more likely to be labeled “crazy.” Candidates may exhibit a range of behaviors and qualities, she argues, but “it matters how those differences are described.”
Two days later, Isaac Chotiner wrote a response piece in The New Republic titled, “It’s Not About Sexism: Bachmann Is Crazier Than Perry.” Chotiner argues in his article that media coverage of these two candidates is not sexist, but rather that “Bachmann is portrayed as crazy rather than stupid because ‘nuts’ is sexier and more interesting than ‘dumb.’” So the terms aren’t sexist, they are just gendered and sexualized when referring to a woman. (Maybe he should look up sexism.)
These same distinctions are still occurring, even as Bachmann’s success in the polls wanes. On October 19, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart had strong words for all of the GOP candidates in the previous night’s debate. However, Bachmann was the only candidate whose critique involved a reference to her clothing and a direct attack on her person, rather than her opinions or behavior:
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who having apparently untangled the arms of her straight jacket, set out to show that even in a tight field, no one puts crazy in a corner.
The usage of the term “crazy” differs when applied to male GOP candidates and Bachmann. Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein wrote in the Washington Post that “Rick Perry’s nomination strategy is to pander to the crazy” while Mitt Romney has “staked out a conservativism without the crazy.” The Huffington Post writes about Perry’s “Crazy Myths He Might Still Believe” while Dana Milbank in a piece for the Post references Karl Rove calling Perry’s views “nutty.” In these articles, the term “crazy” is not used as a description of the candidate. Even the gentler and genderless “nutty” is used to describe Perry’s views, not his person. While their constituency and their politics may be “crazy,” they themselves are not subject to this attack.
Contrast this with the media’s obsession with Bachmann’s “crazy eyes” and then, as Grose highlighted in her Slate article, with bloggers on MSNBC who unashamedly call Bachmann “crazy” and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, who calls her “completely batshit crazy.” Why is this linguistic disparity relevant? As Bernstein puts it in his Post article, “even though Republicans really aren’t going to nominate someone who’s actually crazy, they’ll likely pick someone who has certainly talked a lot of crazy.” This distinction is important. When men say something “crazy,” then they have “crazy” opinions. So how come when women say something “crazy,” they are inherently crazy? That’s sexist.
Written by Madeleine Gyory
Published by support on 10/25/2011