is it just me or, in recent weeks, has the NYT been publishing an amazing amount of ignorant, sexist blather? First it was girls keeping boys out of college. Then it was a paen to the word "slut" and the way that it used to keep women in line. Then it was the fault of the women's movement that there are (suddenly! this is a totally new phenomenon!) some men who don't care too much for work. Today, it's the picky women refusing to marry nice men without college degrees. And, of course, it's Hillary Clinton.
I'm probably going to wear out my keyboard typing this between now and the '08 election, but I am sick and fucking tired of Hillary Clinton getting bashed for the very things that, in a man, would be praised as skillful statesmanship. So the same media that keeps telling us that Dems will die unless they hew a patch down the center, manages, without even blushing, to assert that Hillary Clinton's centrist politics will, they're not sure how, but they're sure SOMEHOW, be a huge detriment to her political ambitions.
That's not the worst of it though. WTF is this all about: As a woman, she could be subjected to especially intensive scrutiny of her suitability as commander in chief, making her position on the war central to her 2008 prospects. Why, NYT? Why? What is it about being a woman that will subject her to "especially intensive scrutiny of her suitability as commander in chief? Tell me why a woman can't be commander in chief? Women have led armies and navies from Boedica to Joan of Arc to Elizabeth I to Margaret Thatcher. When they're not hinting sotto voce that being a woman will make Clinton either too scared to use the army or will have her pushing the nuclear button on days when she's having hot flashes, the media is busy criticizing Hillary for being a ballbuster, a tough cookie, a steely-nerved dame. Talk about heads she wins and tails she loses. If you don't have a penis, ANY excuse is a good one to beat you with, regardless of how consistent or inconsistent it may be with the other excuses they beat you with. After all, you're a girl. You can't play.
If you're going to make sexist assertions, back them up or at least admit that they're sexist. Would a black candidate be subject to especially intensive scrutiny of his or her suitability to do anything? Were there components of the job that being a male subjected George Bush to especially intensive scrutiny over? Just stating this kind of bullshit as if it's completely understandable common wisdom gives it power. It's total bullshit. Shame on the NYT.
2 comments:
Hecate,
Great blog. But I wonder why you read a statement that Clinton could be subject to "especially intensive scrutiny of her suitability as commander in chief" as a sexist statement by the NYT. I read that as the NYT pointing-out the sexist double-standard in the American Press, and population. She will be subjected to unfair examination and criticism, as the NYT has pointed out.
Um, how many of those currently holding political power actually served in the military? Just sayin' If being a chicken hawk hasn't been a problem for Rove, Darth Cheney, and their little monkey-boy Dubya, why should lack of military service be a problem? Particularly given that both Gore and Kerry served honorably, and look what it got them - Diebold, the Swift Boat Liars Club, and defeat.
Post a Comment