Does basketball make Obama sexist?

In an interview with NBC about women’s issues, President Obama went out of his way to say all the right things about gender roles and how women sometimes get the short stick in family power dynamics. Men “are a little obtuse about this stuff” he said. Then he demonstrated some obtuseness when asked about his men’s-only pickup basketball games, and whether they might exclude women from access:

“I think this is bunk,” Obama said. He explained that he invited the regular House of Representatives pick-up basketball players. “I don’t know if there are women who— were Members of Congress who play basketball on a regular basis,” Obama said. “I don’t think there are. You know, I don’t think sends any kind of message or signal whatsoever.”

It is admittedly difficult to see Nancy Pelosi lacing them up and taking the ball to the hoop. OK, it’s impossible. But by getting defensive with his “this is bunk” comment, the president seems to signal a certain thoughtlessness about the issue.

News for Obama: All those congressmen and staffers who play baskeball with you do not do so because they really love playing basketball with you. You’re the president, you love basketball — so they play basketball for access, to get a little face time. And maybe that access gets them a little bit of an edge next time they’re looking for support on a vote, or have an idea they want to see implemented.

And the “boys-only” basketball games excludes women from an opportunity to have that same acccess, to get that same support and to make the same kind of difference within government.

I’m not suggesting Obama give up basketball, or try to get Sonia Sotomayor playing defense on him. But if the president is smart and thoughtful enough to recognize the burdens that women in his own family carry so he can pursue his career, maybe he should be smart and thoughtful enough to recognize the basketball dynamic. Calling it “bunk” signals that his heart might not be quite so feminist as he claims.

Not politics: “Meh” is not only a word, it’s a great word!

At the risk of aggravating our frienemies over at City Paper, I have to take issue with Molly Eichel’s rant about the inclusion of the word “meh” in the new Collins English Dictionary.

Eichel writes:

But here’s the deal: Meh isn’t a word. It’s a sound effect. There are other onomatopoetic words in the dictionary like bam, pop or bang but those have more real world applications then the expression of fuck-if-I-care used when commenting on the Internet.

Collins English Dictionary, thanks for ruining the English language for the sake of an AP article.

She’s wrong, of course.

“Meh” isn’t onomatopoetic, first of all. Unless Eichel knows what apathy actually sounds like.

But when you use the word “meh,” you’re actually communicating. It’s a very short way of saying something like “I don’t think I agree with the statement you just made, but I don’t care enough about it (or maybe I just don’t care enough about your opinion) to make a sustained or impassioned counterargument.”

(Which, come to think of it, would probably be the smarter response to Eichel than the one I’m writing.)

So if somebody comes to you and says “I think Mayor Nutter isn’t going far enough — Philly should close ALL its libraries,” the correct response isn’t, “Pop!” It’s, “I agree.” Or “I disagree.”

Or “meh.” They’ll know exactly what you mean. “Meh” is a great word.”