In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“Diamonds or Pearls?”

Jill

The worst part: It looks like CNN planted the question. So Sen. Clinton gets asked yet another dumb girly question, and all the other candidates get to act indignant about her being tossed softballs at the debates.

I would have loved to see Clinton use the question as an opportunity to say something about the brutal and exploitative diamond industry, but that wouldn’t have been a “fun” answer to a “fun” question. Apparently, the voters want fun.

17 thoughts on “Diamonds or Pearls?”

  1. I think Clinton is at least good humored about the stupidity of the question.

    I also really wish they’d posed the question to the rest of the candidates.

  3. I think Clinton is at least good humored about the stupidity of the question.

    I also really wish they’d posed the question to the rest of the candidates.

    Agreed. She handled it as well as she could have. I’m just annoyed that it as posed in the first place.

  4. I would have loved to see Clinton use the question as an opportunity to say something about the brutal and exploitative diamond industry…

    And, ahem, the exploitative pearl industry. Pearls are an animal product.

  5. And, ahem, the exploitative pearl industry. Pearls are an animal product.

    Fair enough. I don’t actually know a whole lot about the pearl industry. But if the issue is that pearls are an animal product and therefore inherently exploitative, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  6. Here you go, Jill, from Ask Carla:

    Culturing involves surgically opening each oyster shell and inserting an irritant in the oyster. Freshwater pearls are cultured by inserting another oyster’s mantle tissue. Saltwater pearls have beads and another oyster’s mollusk tissue inserted. Fewer than half of the oysters may survive this process.

    Cultivators further stress the oysters by suspending them in water in a cage, washing their shells, moving them around in different waters, and raising and lowering their cages to subject them to changing water temperatures.

    After the pearls are extracted from the oysters, one-third of oysters are “recycled” and put through the culturing process again. The others are killed and discarded.

    For those concerned about the environment, there is another reason to avoid pearls. Aquaculture has contributed to destruction of natural pearl oyster beds from pollution and overharvesting.

    Now I know this is total thread drift, and not everyone is a vegan nutcase. (I mean, in our household we’ve ruled out leather, silk and wool, which makes for some interesting shopping.)

    But to return to the topic, it was an infuriating question. And there was Biden, chiming in that he wanted diamonds. Gotta love irrepressible Joe.

  8. Apparently, the voters want fun.

    That, and CNN took that into account to get high ratings and the ad revenues that come with it.

  9. I suppose this is the female version of “boxers or briefs.”

    I also really wish they’d posed the question to the rest of the candidates.

    That actually bothered me more than the question itself. It sounded like one or two of the men were trying to answer and Wolf blew them off. (Or was Biden jumping in twice?)

    Why not let them answer it?

  10. Ugh, who wants to bet her “I want both” response will be used in about six months as “evidence” of her pandering (see: everything John Kerry ever said, as used in like 80% of mindless articles about John Kerry)?

  11. I had a friend over last night who is from France. She mentioned how she absolutely shocked at the lack of information that these ‘debates’ bring and the lack of participation. She said (and anyone can correct me if her version errs) that in France, there are hours of televised question and answer sessions during most campaigns.

    Funny thing, I was just pondering before she arrived if the American population would engage in such lengthy, detailed discussions or if we are told we won’t because the television industry isn’t interested in having their revenue time reduced.

    Unfortunately, I’m more inclined to believe the former. I also think the ratings wars has television “hosts” pitting the most salacious and prurient issues in the least amount of time to garner viewers, which leads the stations toward exploitive coverage — exploitive of existing tensions and prejudices in order to garner viewers. This has nothing to do with proper ‘coverage’, examination of the issues or critical interaction from the population.

    I guess people would have to be willing to stop watching other more exciting and simple entertainment to watch long, protracted debates or discussions on a large scale. At the same time, advertisers and candidates would have to be convinced that such is a better way.

    I don’t see that happening soon.

  12. She said (and anyone can correct me if her version errs) that in France, there are hours of televised question and answer sessions during most campaigns.

    Yeah, but they still ended up with Sarkozy, who is a bit smarter than Bush, but not much less evil.

  13. Yeah, but they still ended up with Sarkozy, who is a bit smarter than Bush, but not much less evil.

    Really? Really? I am still pretty angry and disgusted with Sarko and the current government for the whole ADN thing (the proposal that immigrants wishing to join their families in France should undergo DNA testing), but after moving to France over the summer and regularly reading a variety of papers here (well, at least the centrist Le Monde and left-leaning Libération— not the far right Le Figaro) and talking to the French people I know, I have come to the conclusion that the equation of Sarkozy with Bush has been greatly exaggerated by the American sources which I read to form my opinion on him. I don’t just mean the mainstream media– most of what I now find hyperbolic has come from liberal sources (online news magazines, blogs) that I generally agree with. (If you’re actually writing from France, or get all of your information on him from French-language media, ignore this part of the comment– I’m just frustrated with talking to people back home who have a lot to say about Sarkozy and the politics here without really understanding the context).

    I mean, I’m not a fan by any means, but when you start using the word evil like that– for people who seem to mean well and want to do good even if their definition of that is questionable and doesn’t necessarily correspond with one’s own–it doesn’t really mean anything. Comments like this, I think are indicative of how the American media’s fondness of sound bites, hyperbole, and oversimplification of politics affects the thinking and rhetoric of even those who criticize it.

    And anyway, just because we don’t like the French electorate’s choice of president doesn’t mean that their system– in which the media seems to still work to inform the voting public, and the public still seems to care– isn’t admirable. While I don’t agree with many of Sarkozy’s policies, I think he and Royal both were far more capable, worthy candidates than our own system ever could have produced.

  14. Well…ok, maybe equating Sarkozy with Bush is a little harsh*–Sarkozy, after all, was smart enough to know better than to get involved in Iraq, but he’s made some pretty obnoxious comments about immigrants (like the one about taking a fire hose to the Bandlieue (spelling?)). And I thought asking the Germans to support the French nuclear effort was pretty brash, given that some of those nukes are probably pointed at them. (Merkel turned him down.) And his policy towards Iran is a little overly aggressive, IMHO. So, ok, I withdraw the equation with Bush. But I still don’t like him or think that he was a great choice. (Of course, if I really want a say in who governs France then I need to get off my butt and work on getting French citizenship**. All current comment should be taken as outsider criticism and ignored if appropriate.)

    And I’m getting my information mostly from French acquaintances, who are almost all academics, so not American media, but not an unbiased source either. My other source is the German press–also not unbiased, but probably with a different bias. I don’t read French well enough to get much out of the French press.

    *Though it is interesting that comparing someone to Bush should be considered so extremely insulting. Shows how low Bush has gotten in most of the world’s opinion.

    **Which I’d take immediately if it were offered to me, but don’t want badly enough to really do much work for it.

  15. Diane: I looked up french citizenship and presently they are taking any new applicants at this time. Basically, their embassy says they’ve got enough of their own problems, enough unemployment and well, they just ain’t got the room.

    They will allow Americans to visit with long-stay Visas, but they caution Americans not to expect that those will magically turn into citizenship.

    I also looked up Canadian citizenship and apparently they have a pretty extensive test and a limited number of professionals and others they’d like to invite. I am self employed. They don’t want entrepreneurs with less than $400,000 petty cash coming with them.

    Looks like I’m stuck here for the long haul.

  16. Don’t be discouraged, Kate. The Canadians need people in the trades as well. It’s a points system. Give it a shot and take the free test for skilled workers.

  17. I was also disappointed she didn’t speak about the human rights abuses in the diamond industry, but I guess she felt she needed to keep it “fun.”
    Why did CNN even waste air time on this?

Comments are currently closed.