Skip to main content

tv   2018 Miami Book Festival Saturday  CSPAN  November 17, 2018 5:06pm-6:23pm EST

5:06 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
5:07 pm
. >> hello. welcome to the 35th edition of the miami book fair. welcome to this session my name is patrick i work at the colleg college. how many of you have been to previous sessions today? we could probably do this together in a chant. [laughter] like that miranda rights. we will think our premier
5:08 pm
foundation sponsors without which we cannot hold the fair. friends of miami book fair any in the crowd? give them a big round of applause. [applause] please consider being a friend of the book fair i hope you are hoping you are enjoying your time at miami-dade college we have 165,000 students and we welcome you to come to learn new things and with that we will move to our podcast we are hosting it live here in my one - - miami. the cohost of npr and noreen
5:09 pm
is the features editor of "new york" magazine and christine is a staff writer at slate covering gender politics and culture. please come onstage. [applause] the. >> thank you for coming it's great to see such a big audience. we will do a little introduction that will repeat that was just done but because it is our podcast our listeners at home will hear for the first time welcome to the wave on thursday november 2d
5:10 pm
i am kister lund - - christina home of this late podcast here with me in beautiful miami florida recording life at the miami book fair. also "new york" magazine. it was her first time in miami. >> i want to say a lot longer than i'm supposed to. >> a lot more than miami for the tour so we'll talk about sheryl sandberg i'm sure you've heard of her facebook ceo whose dubious political
5:11 pm
dealings with ed we will try and talk to celeste ng we will talk about her novel and then finally rebecca traister to talk about her new book getting mad so we are excited to take questions from the audience you will have that entire episode to think about may or may not be the sexiest and come up to the mic in the middle and to make a scientific judgment whether or not our sexist. should be get into it quick. >> spirit that has never
5:12 pm
happened at a live show. . >> a thank you to people to ask if you are sexist. >> so sheryl sandberg became a household name in 2013 with her manifesto lean in this week "the new york times" expose dealing with russian interference and political challenges and came out looking like a mastermind of this profoundly unethical corporate operation. she smeared facebook critics as george soros funded protesters and to minimize the extent that operatives used facebook to get information in front of users and worried that republicans would be
5:13 pm
angry at facebook if they revealed the many pages of these pro trompe facebook pages. so what do you think of these revelations? how relation to leaning in and if women occupy. >> as you are given the but we last said if christina was sexy in her introduction but what stood out to me as i was reading this expose is am i surprise? and if so, why? she writes one of the biggest companies in america what she
5:14 pm
did was utterly standard capitalist to take down your competitors in pretty insidious ways, but the profits before decency and specific duty i should not say hide but to delay what would get her company and trouble is this billet this or what i capitalist does every day so than the actual next question so is that compatible or not but it was never about structural changes for women but how can you operate?
5:15 pm
and that we could focus but what good would that do that would be better to focus on what we can do to change it. so take a seat at the table. so many years she was like you go girl. but from the very beginning people were critical lies the one - - criticizing the feminist matchup is this what we want from our feminist how to more effectively spend our lives at work? and found the very beginning that actually it isn't different from what she said in lean in because even before that came out she had hired a fancy firm and wrap one - -
5:16 pm
ruffled a lot of feathers when she left google and hired an executive that was against normal practices so she was ruthless from the very beginning but they were hungry for someone to give them the individual playbook. i am not always been a shift sheryl sandberg fan but it is always rubbed me the wrong way i don't want to be the executive of a company that seems so foreign just to be a human being.
5:17 pm
you can also just expect them to get up at 5:00 a.m. and check their e-mail with cross solidarity that people telling them what to do. >> do we want more women to have power crack. >> yes. [laughter] but with what having more power looks like. that they behave like the benevolent socialist, is that realistic crack. >> but they are not exclusive also a capitalist so the way that capitalism operates that for corporate boards with gender equity at the top and more good governance what the ethical company to do that is not the argument we want to make because that's true and
5:18 pm
then was sheryl sandberg what is the say about women's leadership? that it is a disservice to place within the context of feminism that i don't think she wanted in the first place. . >> she put herself there. as an inspiration many people are nodding in the audience. sheryl sandberg was an inspiration. i do a lot of home exchanges and i remember i open the closet door of the woman's
5:19 pm
house like you switch houses with people. >> for fun? [laughter] . >> in a different city. it is free and we get a car and everything. [laughter] so into closets they had cut out leaned in and had that there is they are points of inspiration. . >> but it is self-help using the language of feminism and when people go to the workplace they don't think how can i make it structurally better for women? you try not to be a jerk or just to be a good force you
5:20 pm
probably cannot solve feminism in your own office. >> why not? and to position yourself and that protect the profits of that company or could you spend your capital like a slightly more generous but if you are 33 years old to get promoted at work complaining about women's benefits day in and day out you may not get that one - - promoted. if you think of the cause it
5:21 pm
just might not be as applicable to your daily life if you think about mentor ship. . >> in conclusion of this conversation that feminism is a mistake quick. >> that is like a category air. like a movement of solidarity. sure it could operate within feminism but. >> also what you are empowered to do but the title of her movement doesn't tell us that we are supposed to leave it alone - - lean into and that
5:22 pm
is destabilizing democracy and questionable practices that our bad for women in the end. not that facebook would have been a feminist company had she acted differently but when you talk about your own life there is an easy step of how you operate your business i'm also curious if those that are fan that would cut out leaned in every morning is inclined to defend her or be disillusioned? if she is just another leader and that's the way they do things? . >> some people say this is what you do.
5:23 pm
one of the most powerful businesswomen ever with a tremendous amount of power and so to turn this that one possible interpretation is that it is a little bit sexist that we put women in a trap by being surprised when they have a tremendous amount of power to put in a situation so there is this pressure she was the mommy he was the baby. and he was all prepared. ask mommy the question. but that's not the way we rolled out the story. she has a certain ethical responsibility but i think
5:24 pm
because she has a whole other side of her persona how women should conduct themselves we are forced to interpret her action which is ironic because her whole idea is do what's right for you. people have created lean in circles to mentor each other so it's not just about her but there is an overall blind spot of how actions affect others. >> to talk about the lean in circles? how many have been there? that as the alternative this is what i have done, ask your male friends how they would go about asking for a raise or conduct themselves that is so much more helpful.
5:25 pm
if your eyes are open if you copy them and then copy the men. i suggest that everyone do this. i have someone more in my workplace he doesn't know who he is literally before i go to ask for a raise or advocate i say what would this person do? he has a little bit of unearned privilege and i become a little more confident. >> maybe it was written a little bit this way but are we
5:26 pm
treating her with more harshly than mark sucker berg because she is a woman? . >> but who who hired him? so yes there is some sexism the way that suck - - zuckerberg is allowed to be a child and sandberg was hired at 38 to be the adult but her job is to be the manager of the company. it falls under her purview he hired her because he is bad at this. and she was to be pretty effectively and to be checked
5:27 pm
out at certain points but she was supposed to prevent this all happening and she held it off and she went to congress and wrote thank you notes to every congressman and was very prepared. that is what makes her so good. there is no evidence that she is super charming or funny but she is very correct she remembers everyone's name. but that is her approach. >> also traveling with an entourage of ten or 12 people people are whispering in her ear.
5:28 pm
that is all we have time for sheryl sandberg i'm curious to hear from the listeners if anybody is involved in the lead in circles if you are listening we are excited to welcome celeste ng the 2014 novel everything i never told you and little fires everywhere in 2017 i recommended that a few weeks back it is brilliant please welcome to the wave, celeste ng. [applause] . >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me on. . >> we read your book. i loved your book and in
5:29 pm
particular the way you write about motherhood. one of my favorite plot lines is the young chinese immigrant who gives birth to a baby girl and then she leaves the baby at a fire station a white couple tries to adopt them and she takes them to court but my sympathies were drawn in multiple directions and there wasn't an easy answer to these questions had you engage your readers sympathies quick. >> i'm glad you said that because that is what i wanted. i have an eight year old now and what i was writing the book he was about five so talking about good guys and bad guys when he was playing. and i felt it was important to talk to him that bad guys
5:30 pm
don't always think they are the bad guys generally they think they are good at what they are doing is important but that we have to understand how they see the world. i really didn't want there to be a villain but i don't think i have the answers that maybe this person has a point? . >> one represents? she is the journalist. cultivating curiosity. not like the stepford wife but
5:31 pm
she has wonderful children. but but three spirits pay the price and i have thought a lot about as a writer if you think of that star archetypal because they were extreme. and to take that real life situation and that's where we start to see the contrast but people have asked me which mother are you? but the answer is i have both i like things being in order.
5:32 pm
but then i also think of myself as a creative person and want to be flexible but most women have to manage especially if they come here to say how much do i enforce or break those rules? so for me if you follow all the way around to come out the other side and hearing from a lot of readers she's doing everything wrong. but she is rigid in her own way. and to take hard-line. >> for readers who have not yet read - - read your book give a summary but then i want to ask you that her older sister was in my class.
5:33 pm
that what you thought of the political identity theme? . >> so the suburb of cleveland it is a pretty small town and it was a great place very progressive with racial diversity that's one of the reasons my parents moved there when i was in high school that was 50/50 black and white and in comparison the town to the east was 93 percent white and to the south was 97 percent black.
5:34 pm
and it was we talk about race so one of the families at the heart of the book one of the journalist they had this archetypal nuclear family. so they come to town they are not the most stable profession and are at odds with the family and they get mixed up with each other. over this adoption battle this asian baby is adopted by a white couple and they are on opposite sides and that is when the secrets are to come out. . >> so what about those blind spots?
5:35 pm
talking about diversity or what that could bring as an imperfect thing. so it makes a conscious effort so i went to college and said you had a race relations group at your high school? yes it was a cool club to join and then you talk to kids in elementary school so we are talking about these issues of diversity i did not realize that was not the case and after i was away for ten years i started to look back for perspective. i can see all the things that were good that i appreciated and that that was weird or
5:36 pm
quirky. . >> so if it was doing things relatively well to be conscious but yet that what goes wrong is racial tension and it does that we talk about unconscious bias white privilege that we shine the spotlight on what motivated you to said it there? . >> that is what i wanted to see where good intentions could take you if that was a substitute for results.
5:37 pm
even if i was there staying until college there was a that they would self segregate themselves. if you went to the ap classes a lot of them were of color and and even with all of the efforts there is still a divide even with the best of intentions that isn't always enough. >>. >> i was really nervous because that was the last stop
5:38 pm
on the book tour before that every reading somebody said what do people in shaker heights think about your book? and i think it is a story with a happy ending that that they had a lot of interest so we moved it to the auditorium which was my middle school. the last time i was there with the orchestra and had to play a whole new world from aladdin. [laughter] and backstage they had the desks and i was feeling like i was in middle school.
5:39 pm
but then behind me was a shelf of all of the old textbooks that i remember reading. that they have was a loving portrait that shaped me but also honest that even though we try we are human. but we don't get it right but we will keep trying. . >> i know you're catholic but. >> that it is the shakers. >> i went into this rabbit hole the research that anybody
5:40 pm
could spend a lot of time researching things and then working its way into the final product but the shakers never lived in shaker heights because one of the main tenets is celibacy so after a while they died out. [laughter] and shaker heights was built on the land they use to live but a lot of them would shake that philosophy that they were communist gender equality and uptight. and that is how i think about the shakers. . >> i know a lot of people have read the book so what do you
5:41 pm
think it is that makes groups of people or women want to discuss it? what makes a book interesting? do you have any theories? . >> i think books that start conversation seemed to be the main thing. it is that they could map their own experience because i hated that character does everybody care about it that touches a nerve and what makes a good mother and that is the
5:42 pm
electrified question but that we put a lot of weight on class immigration and there is just so much in that book to think about. . >> were you working through some questions yourself? . >> yes that is what happens in all of my work not that i'm directly but to mothers one who takes a well-traveled path and then another mother who is sacrificing a lot of her child's future for her art so maybe i should stop going on book tour or festivals maybe i
5:43 pm
should be at home making his lunch and making cookies. it is that push and pull i am still working out probably on the next project as well. >> outside your novel you waited about asian women and white men so could you talk of course, i waited into that and then large waves came so i have learned to my dismay to asian men who are very angry at a lot of asian women authentically because they are married to non- asian men.
5:44 pm
i am married to a white man. they periodically come at me on tweeter - - on twitter or elsewhere to call the terrible names or a race traitor or my son will be mentally imbalanced and horrible stuff. they sporadically pop into my website and this we are startled by this because i don't think of myself as hating asian men. but that wasn't something that i expected to deal with and i was frustrated and i put it on twitter if the goal was to make me be quiet i did not feel like being quiet
5:45 pm
anymore. a lot of asian said we have been harassed in similar ways. and with this dynamic in the black community and similar. so i ended up writing this piece for "new york" magazine because it seemed like nothing anybody wanted to talk about like i must've done something wrong. and then the roots are misogynistic. that these are women and you are taking them from us. like we owe them because interestingly they are totally fine dating white women but they have complicated theories why that is okay but not okay for asian women to date white men. and going into the resources
5:46 pm
and to do this with the small subgroup of asian men but using language from racial purity referring to whitewashing your jeans and that seems to be in the water right now. . >> with genetic purity like fear of being erased. . >> but there is a fear to read
5:47 pm
an interesting article recently and that maps very neatly with the exodus of women for economic reasons for that is the far right part and then to separate the gender from all of these questions. . >> i think that is all the time we had please read little fires everywhere. thank you for your time great to talk to you. [applause] . >> up next we have your
5:48 pm
colleague rebecca traister a writer at large at the "new york" magazine and contributing editor author of big girls don't cry and all the single ladies. we are so psyched to have her on the show please welcome rebecca traister. [applause] . >>. >> your book is about women's anger. i have been feeling a little bit about that lately but it made me think i was a part of something some days i won't feel as angry about trump some days i do some days i talk
5:49 pm
about me too so it doesn't always feel powerful it is not cheating and paralyzing sometimes energizing and vital but not a fun feeling and you tell us it could be a fertilizer of seasonal and political chang change. so how do they take that nauseating part? . >> that is the intensity of the feeling. it isn't that it that to lead you to the forefront but it is more like considering my guess coming at a personal or psychological perspective to
5:50 pm
have this individual feeling but in part is tied up with the way that women's anger often at inequity or injustice you know, that what you are feeling it will undermine you because you cannot express it because then you are the angry woman you cannot do anything with it so that is that notion of paralysis because they are discouraged and made marginal and threatening that we cannot take that and express that the code be healthy and human i am
5:51 pm
incredibly pest off then to have people listen to you to take it seriously and say why? and then treated as diagnostic that we are more likely to treat the anger of white men that is politically diagnostic. so that the anger of working-class white women were something politicians needed to take seriously. this is true because it told us about what needed to be addressed, drug addictio addiction, affordable health care, their anger was something political campaigns and candidates had to take it seriously because it pointed us to what was broken but we don't take the anger of other kinds of people to treat that as instructive that same way so if we feel that anger we know will not earn us a story
5:52 pm
on the front of the paper that says why aren't we taking christina's anger seriously pointing us to what is broken that feels corrosive and can make us feel sick to our stomach. >> do you feel the anger has not been taken seriously? . >> i think it has. what i am paying attention to is the fact we are hearing women's anger differently for reasons that are complicated because a lot of that is the anger of white suburban women or wealthy women that is important how the #metoo movement interrupted in the fall of last year of women who had risen to the top and were wealthy angelina jolie and
5:53 pm
alyssa milano and those who told their stories about harvey weinstein. also sheryl sandberg is the notion when you tell women how to navigate through weight - - white patriarchy and then what it means to have that revelation whether it's gwyneth paltrow or doctor ford what we have seen that those women nonetheless are punished or or pressed or attacked. >> that is so interesting. what totally crystallized it for me that they take it seriously they feel like they have to respond to hear what you say about white women but i think it is the collective nature because there was that collective anger so what
5:54 pm
happens like what happened how everyone feels she has to figure out and the mother issues herself in the workplace that it is individual and you are individually judged like this instant collective nature made it impossible not to respond to in some way. >> that is one of the useful things that one of the social and personal messages we are taught from the time we are children outside of a political context is do not speak angrily if we meet one - - raise our voice or aggressive then people will - - will hear you differently you have every right to be angry there are very real
5:55 pm
penalties. or social because people will think you are a bench. we know that if doctor ford would have risen her voice she could have been arrested. [laughter] but in those instances where it is expressed it could be incredibly connective. in addition to being divisive it can also be connected then you become audible to women that they were alone and angry themselves. and i write about that in the book i went to report last summer and many of those that
5:56 pm
were in these conservative communities they voted democratic for a long time because i didn't want to be the skunk at the party. with the neighborhood dynamic everybody was conservative they felt politics was weird and then they screamed or cried that the woman two doors down was angry about the same thing that they had never spoken about it but then they were neighbors for 30 years and started to talk going to an individual meeting now devote every minute of their spare time working for others. and working for stacy - - stacy abrams. .
5:57 pm
>> and how to channel. and with those collective anger coalesce that is not the white working class through which you can direct it or channel it. men are really good at theatrical because when and brett kavanaugh actually lost it that's what we thought. but the people that responded and lindsey graham that supported they were energized. >> he saved brett kavanaugh in that theater of anger. . >> i think it explains and in
5:58 pm
a labor movement is directed at the more powerful with the expansion of opportunity for the anger of the white working class but the actual direction of their anger isn't that republicans are capitalism but about the status that has been challenged. >> i'm just thinking how it is manipulated and that narrative is patronizing that their anger has been taken and
5:59 pm
packaged it's not their own. . >> may be the immigrant has not taken their job but i don't think that is a false narrative. . >> we could make the argument that on behalf of the patriarchy and then to acknowledge women's anger that is the part of yelling and it
6:00 pm
channeled those and with that rhetorical range like doctor ford. but historically the kind of women's anger held up with ferocity is fundamentally conservative or regressive politics those are the mama grizzlies of right we women or fox news anchors. . >> that is the question sometimes right we anger generally is anger. . . . .
6:01 pm
remembering going through her rallies in 2008, and her talking about how obama was going to take the guns and we had to, he's going to come into your house in the night and take your guns away. yes. i think there was anger -- >> you that as fear. >> i would think he was planning on fear. but she was, the way she was saying it, i'm a real american and i'm going to make sure this doesn't happen. >> when you talk about the woman who yelled in the elevator, i had a reaction watching that. that was like oh my gosh, this is so and comfortable for me to watch. i feel all the ways that he told
6:02 pm
me to feel about women. >> you know what we are talking about? i'm so glad to see that. >> the video did go viral. i feel the same way sometimes when i see a solo person. >> in the elevator? >> i think hearing one or two people yelling and then realizing that the subject of their anger is not walking away, they have to think of more things to you. i felt so uncomfortable watching. i love the way you wrote in your book about the anger of me to exploding in unpredictable grace. that can feel very unsafe. as a woman, invested in femini feminism, and also philosophical reasons, where is is going? of people being too angry? should we have -- put names on that list? is that sort of volatility and unpredictability part of the power? is it something that happened
6:03 pm
all of the time when people get angry? i make this argument in the book about how the challenged power is perceived as disruptive, dangerous because it is. power operating in one direction is just power. if somebody's going from the bottom in challenging the top, that's when we get, talked about as a mob. a witchhunt. i feel the same way. >> can you ask that? >> so one of the things that i have become upset with, thinking about how challenge works. or violence works, i actually first started thinking about in 2016 when freddie greg was killed by police in baltimore. he was an african-american taken on a rough ride in a police van and later died from his injuries. there were protests in response. i was writing a column and
6:04 pm
reading this coverage and the coverage said the violence began when protesters threw rocks. that was a big revelatory moment for me. it was the first time i understood how when violence, and this is distinct from anger but i think related, when violence happens in one direction, what is the police who killed a black man in baltimore, it's so normalized, so part of how we understand power and power abuses to work, it's not even discernible as a commencement of violence. it's the throwing of the stone by people who have only power to throw stones. in that scenario. that is comprehensible as disorder. that's how the violence commences -- >> so usa we don't recognize structural, things have happened within a structure as violence. we don't recognize structural violence or violence that -- is that what you're saying? >> we normalize all kinds of things that coming from the top
6:05 pm
down, there are forms of abuse, punishment, we don't that our eyes at them. or if we do, we might be critical about them in newspapers. the ease of characterizing something as violence, chaotic, disruptive, there is another example. recent which is the way that the women screaming as they took the vote on brett kavanaugh, that was the mob. we are all told the backlash to that kind of -- it was a mob. donald trump compared them to arsonists. he wasn't alone. i had all the references a few weeks ago after it happened. i can't break believe everybody but fox news called them screaming animals. this is, it was a mob. that was an instance in which this man who had been alleged to have committed a violent assault as a young man but who was also being pushed through to say on
6:06 pm
the court to have in him is power. the only power that women had in that moment, they were being folded over, they were losing. the only power they had was to you. the very act of yelling was framed by politicians and by many in the media as risky, dishonest, chaotic. and a lot of them saying it's going to create him backlash. angry protesters are going to be viewed negatively. there was a lot of commentary that suggested it might happen. that was the disorder. that was very true of me too. all of the abuse that was being objected to, was something that had just happened normally for as long as there has been people in power. when we started in medical ways to object to it, to yell about it, put people's names on this, it was dangerous because it was a reversal of how power is supposed to work. and it was. it was a witchhunt.
6:07 pm
i get asked is me to gone so far? what has happened to matt damon. people were very critical of him on the internet. they said condescending things about "me too" movement. everywhere i go, not everywhere i go, but people ask about the horrors. >> there goes my next question. >> because the challenge is -- when the people who are, have left power, deploy it in descents. or resistance to the way a power structure typically works. it does create chaos. the answer to the question that you ask, many minutes ago, i do think we need chaos because i think if you want to change the system, actually do think -- and by many measures, i feel like an
6:08 pm
incrementalist within an electoral system. like i'm anxious about things. they lead to sever. i also think that we need -- if we don't create chaos and disorder, that means that the system staying intact. it's the system that is built around all kinds of biases and inequities that many of us are objecting to. >> one of my favorite moments in your book, is when you talk about the fear of backlash. the fear that, you quote caitlin, she is in favor of the "me too" movement, she's afraid of the scenario, the anger will consume it. then this doesn't follow directly from that but you sort of have a friend who calls you up after positive electoral votes. she says maybe we are the backlash. a boat what we are doing is the backlash against this culture. i love that reframing. it helped me think through this a lot. i have been sitting on my hands waiting for its own.
6:09 pm
the key about this way is helpful for me. >> i think we also think of these things as distinct moments. i do this, too. during me too, i was waiting for the moment that me too ended and the backlash started. there was going to be a solid break. the thing, one of the things in learning the history that hired been writing about in the recent years, there is always forward motion and backward pressure at all times. they are also working against each other. we should tell ourselves, lies about distinct periods and distinct victories when in fact, the story of progress and alteration to the country structure, has been one that has been going on for two plus centuries and we are still engaged in the very same fight. even if we don't want to fight and french basement. inequality and participation and representation. we are actually still engaged in these fights that have been going on for centuries. we -- we have told ourselves that those fights have been one.
6:10 pm
>> think that all the time we have. thank you so much. it was so great to have you on. [applause] i hope everyone is fired up now to talk about things that are and are not sexist. the mic is hot, ready for your questions. raise your hand if you have one and if not, okay great. otherwise i was going to come up with one. actually, can this woman go first? i think a lot of times with -- yes. thank you. so glad you came up to the mic. [applause] >> to ask about nancy pelosi. we just had a -- elections to congress.
6:11 pm
it's a great thing. now any of them are opposing the election of nancy pelosi. speaker of the house. now the democrats have the majority. is that sexist? >> you asked us a difficult question. i'm happy we are going to go on record about that. i think nancy pelosi is in a weird pollick -- she's at this imagery that she is like the ultimate -- she has become this easy punching bag. i never understand why anybody knows her name. why somebody in like, why so many in the middle of the country, where she is so far away. she's become a simple. she's the most powerful aquatic women never hillary clinton is gone.
6:12 pm
elite, san francisco -- >> it's all imagery. has nothing to do with her. it's just what she is a symbol of and what the right has made her a symbol of. gender plays a big part of that. she's the school to miami. hillary is the queen and she is a princess. it's a lot of imagery. ass. >> she is being most hardly opposed from the right. by a lot of men. a lot of people have gone on record to say, we have this caucus of people were trying to -- they are coming on for her from the right. there are also people coming at her from the left. her record is more progressive than average. i think the fact that she is in this position of power, she was a speaker of house for a while. i don't get that weird. know who paul ryan is,. >> what if she were a man? >> she is actually incredibly powerful but if it were a guy from san francisco, who in
6:13 pm
opposition, liberal i'm a coastal elite, more liberal voting records than most, would it be any different? when he met be as much of a punching bag? >> take away the cost then you've got out franken. is he a punchingbag on the right? is it sexist? should we do a calculation? or should we just do a thumbs up, thumbs down regulation? >> let me get my calculator. i'm going to say on a scale from one to ten, not sexist to sexist, it's a 6.7. [laughter] i'm going to say seven. you really screwed yourself in the math there. i got a calculator. it's 6.9 sexist. you for a great question. >> so we recently had an
6:14 pm
election in florida -- >> have you heard about it? [. >> a big block of voting was women but specifically, white women. i know trump got 53% of the white women vote, he got six points of the white women vote and scott got four points of the white womenfolk. my question is, i just don't know if this is necessarily on about sexist but -- >> is it racist? >> it's a platform more geared toward specifically white women and if not, is it a pr issue for the democrat platform or is a stuff like nancy pelosi being in power for particularly a long time where you are so far in
6:15 pm
where this years helped become a villain, not due to her own achievement but because she has been there for a while. but you also have people like cortez coming up that she is becoming, not even congress yet. so i would just in general, the democrat platform looking at this? was a gop platform a really a platform for women? >> are you asking whether the democratic party is not attracting enough white women? >> is an advertisement issue? >> i think that it's more like the republican party is doing it really got good job advertising its self to white people. i think about a rights really well about this in her book. the very real price that white women are willing to pay in order to retain, to practice
6:16 pm
their white husbands and brothers and fathers, and also themselves. by voting for a party that is willing to stand up behind somebody like donald trump. >> white women and white men, and that white men have a power structure for keeping that, they still get 70%. >> what there is -- if you wanted to frame this as an sexist question, the question would be, is it the judge women for -- we are not going to answer because we answered two weeks ago. it's super complicated. he did a bright breakdown of the married white women, -- et
6:17 pm
cetera. that's the question. it's the same as the other question. do we have incorrect expectations? we expect, if you are a woman, you must be a democrat. so we judge women were are horrified when they vote republican. the reason they vote republican is because they are republicans. that's, to us is horrifying. maybe the republicans are because they are white. thank you so much for the question. can we do one more? >> last one. >> is a phrase -- expanse -- feminism? >> i don't excel. i don't think white them in his him is feminism. i don't think that the phrase white from in his him applies to f every white feminism -- it applies to a specific brand of feminism that ignores the very real differences -- the different ways that women experience sexism, based on the race. i don't think it is sexism. [applause] that is a great question. thank you for asking.
6:18 pm
that's all the time we have. thank you so much for all the great questions. [applause] we just have a couple minutes. we are going to do our recommendations now. who wants to go first? >> i'm going to recommend because i'm photo, homecoming. it's the amazon show based on a podcast. it has endless characters played by julia roberts. one of the great characters in the show is florida. it's thinks into the shows a bird with somebody flying through the window, the amazing thing with florida, is that florida looks like a government conspiracy. at least they can make florida look like a government conspiracy. the weird play, we don't know where you are and you are some anonymous office park. sorry that's insulting but that's a weird era that rises up
6:19 pm
in the show. it's incredibly effective and critical part of part of that show works. it's really good. >> first, let's give a shout out to our fan jan. thank you for coming. [applause] my recommendation is a new album that is annie's. interstate gospel. the country super. it's miranda lambert in a third woman who -- i cannot remember her name. it's just, if you like casey, in that vein of country music, except casey feels a little tweak to me. annie's is really just down home country. they are singing about their pill addictions. there is -- the country melodrama through a 2018 lens.
6:20 pm
it's just really fun music. especially fun to drive too. if you're driving somewhere that for the holidays, listen. i'm going to recommend an article from the november issue of the sonia magazine. he also asks us it online. becoming anne frank. you've read it. oh, good. i highly recommend it. it's a really sort of challenging piece about how the diary of anne frank became the holocaust narrative that everybody going to. and why it was more appealing to the general public then the holocaust from people who had written about the concentration camps. it was extremely challenging to me as a person who thinks a lot about feminism these days. it seems to be resurgent. the article that did a really good job of complicating the forces that elevated her story above all others.
6:21 pm
i had never read something like that before. also the organization that runs the in denmark. smithsonian magazine becoming anne frank is the name of the article. that's all the time we have. i really want to thank you for coming. [applause] thank you so much the miami book for for having us. thank you rebecca for the time and writing. thank you for listening. [applause]
6:22 pm
[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] that wraps up today's live coverage of the fair. we are back with more offer of ends tomorrow. visit our website. if you miss any of our programming today, watch everything tonight starting at about 9:00 p.m. eastern time.
6:23 pm
>> c-span, history unfolds daily. 1979, c-span was created as a public service. by america's cable television company. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court. and public policy events in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> thank you so much for coming tonight. this is the series security about the book. i'm very pleased to have my friend and former colleague

7 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on