I’d prefer not to assume she’s doing this just because she’s mad she doesn’t get attention anymore, since that seems like a pretty sexist idea. Nobody says Manchin does what he does for attention, he’s doing it for money and power, and I think the same standard applies here.
She knows she’s not going to win a primary, so sticking with the Dems doesn’t gain her anything. I think it’s far more likely that this is a calculated move to position herself as the token “reasonable leftist” in the right-wing media ecosystem. She can promote some non-christofascist ideas just to keep her bonafides, but also explain why it would be bad actually for workers if we raised the minimum wage or increased corporate taxes.
Calling attention seeking sociopaths out for attention seeking is not sexist. See commentary here around all the (mostly) male billionaires - I think there is one post here calling Elon an attention-starved sociopath for every dollar the man has. I think we call them as we see them here…
Doesn’t mean she is not also greedy, self enriching, and power hungry
ETA: part of the reason I think this is reasonable is that she has no political or moral goals that are served by her actions. She is not doing what she does to further any political, economic, or policy goal. It is literally just to keep herself in a position of leverage, but she is not using that leverage to accomplish anything other than having leverage
This is a much easier argument to make when you cut the part I wrote immediately after comparing how she’s discussed to Manchin. It might be different if this was the first time she’s been painted as primarily attention-seeking, but it isn’t.
She painted herself that way, in service to those she really represents and as a show of contempt for the doormat Dems.
I’m sure she’s in it for the money and power as much as Manchin is, but she clearly is one of those people (of any gender) who wants attention as well.
I should be more precise, then. She absolutely did that seeking attention, as many politicians do. The difference is that when a male politician does something attention seeking, the assumption is that they’re doing it to froth up their base and/or get in the news for political power. Sinema is being painted as leaving the dems because she’s mad that she won’t get attention in the senate anymore, which carries the idea that the attention itself is the goal, as opposed to being a tool used to get what she really wants.
And that’s entirely consistent with the patriarchal view that men are cold, calculating, and purposeful, while women are vain, emotional, and irrational.
It doesn’t use the word attention, but this took 4 seconds to find. I am sure there are many others, some of which have definitely accused him of attention seeking using those words
Part of the perception issue may be that with Joe Manchin he is directly, obviously, and corruptly profiting from his coal holdings, so it is very easy to go there when criticizing him. Sinema has no such obvious conflict of interest to point to
ETA: oh! Wait! Just scroll up, every post that mentions attention also mentions power and money as additional goals. I’m tired
I haven’t followed either politician especially closely, but I’ve certainly heard more anecdotal examples of unusual antics (besides just voting against the rest of the party) committed by Sinema than Manchin. Maybe that’s purely a function of sexist media coverage as you suggest. But can you provide some prominent examples of Manchin doing similar antics on the floor of the Senate that could be classified as “attention-seeking?” I have no love for either of these guys so this is an honest question.
Again, I’m not arguing that Sinema doesn’t seek attention. I’m objecting to the framing that she does it for the sake of the attention and not as a means to accomplish further goals.
News coverage of how women choose to dress is almost invariably sexist but I guarantee you that if a male politician wore a $13 pink wig onto the senate floor and pointed at himself in a “hey look at me!” sort of gesture in front of the cameras, that would be big news as well.
The example you gave of Manchin doing a fairly normal interview with Fox News to announce that he wasn’t supporting one of Biden’s bills is infuriating but not exactly something that’s groundbreaking for a politician.
Edit to add:
Shortly after her dramatic and disrespectful vote against the minimum wage increase she posted an Instagram photo of herself sipping a drink while prominently displaying a ring that said “Fuck Off.” She’s clearly going out of her way to be disrespectful in public ways to her own constituency.
Sorry, this is just wrong. This is the comment thread I replied to:
No discussion about any further goals, just that she wanted attention. Although later on MindySan did bring it up, but the initial reaction was focused purely on her wanting attention.
To me that really sounds like money and attention, which is what everybody has been saying. Do you believe that she has goals that are associated with her position as senator beyond that? I am asking seriously, because I do not see her doing anything that is not self serving in her position. Putting yourself in a position for a future career in right wing media is attention seeking delayed, it seems to me.
Waiiiit so if I say Donald Trump is just doing this because he’s mad he isn’t getting attention… 1) is the phrase still sexist and 2) am I calling Donald Trump a woman?
Sorry it’s just kind of interesting. I do think women tend to be chastised in the media in feminine coded ways fwiw.
