(no subject)
Mar. 5th, 2008 07:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oselleFollowing up on my post about that loathsome "Women are stupid" article from The Washington Post, the Post's Outlook editor, John Pomfret, today issued...no, not a retraction or an apology, but a defense of the piece, saying that it was meant to be tounge-in-cheek.
Mr. Pomfret? No it was not. There was absolutely nothing in that article even to suggest that the author was writing satire. It was a scandalous, shameful pile of misogynistic bullshit that no respectable newspaper should ever have allowed to disgrace its pages and no, the author being a woman does not excuse it, mitigate it or make it "tongue-in-cheek."
The mere fact that anyone on the Post's staff thought this was acceptable shows how deeply sexism is ingrained in America. A similar article about any other group besides women would never have made it into The Washington Post or any other major paper. Could you ever imagine a media outlet as big as The Washington Post publishing an article about how African-Americans or Jews or Latinos should just shut up, sit down and stick to their "innate abilities?" Or one that attempted to make sweeping claims about the natural intelligence of any racial or cultural group based on what music they liked or books they read? The only reason this article was considered acceptable was because it was about women. And apparently, even in 2008, it's perfectly all right to shit on us, to pass judgment on us, and to educate us on what we "should" do with our lives based on some repressive and horrifyingly antiquated notion of what nature has made us for.
I know there are many parts of the world where women have it a lot worse but America is supposedly part of the modern, educated, civilized world. I don't think this article would have seen the light of day in most of Western Europe where, by the way, the media doesn't try to turn the idea of a woman running the country into a national joke. This is un-fucking-acceptable on every level.
Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, her campaign has brought out a thick vein of sexism in the country that is deeper and far uglier than I ever imagined. Just as one example, a Republican nutcase named Roger Stone recently formed an anti-Hillary political group called "Citizens United Not Timid" (C.U.N.T. -- get it?) and this demi-human recently appeared on MSNBC, one of our major cable news networks. Do you think anyone who represented an anti-Obama group called N.I.G.G.E.R. would have received similar treatment? In New Hampshire, two assholes heckled "Iron my shirts!" at Hillary Clinton, and practically the only place anyone talked about it was on the blogs. Would it have been a similar non-event if someone had shouted to Obama, "Shine my shoes!"
And here's a hilarious joke that Penn Gillette's been getting some serious mileage out of:
"The joke goes: 'Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it's not fair, because they're being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there's no White Bitch Month.'"
I'm not saying that racism isn't also a huge problem in America but the majority of people, including our media, at least pretend that it's unacceptable, and probably do consider it a lot more unacceptable than sexism. Sexism somehow seems to be considered the "natural" order of things, and blatant bias of the sort that's been brandished against Hillary Clinton (and ALL women in that Washington Post article) is somehow normal or, at worst, just good fun. And if anyone complains, it's because we just don't get the joke.
I get the joke. It's on me. And I'm not laughing.
Are you?
Mr. Pomfret? No it was not. There was absolutely nothing in that article even to suggest that the author was writing satire. It was a scandalous, shameful pile of misogynistic bullshit that no respectable newspaper should ever have allowed to disgrace its pages and no, the author being a woman does not excuse it, mitigate it or make it "tongue-in-cheek."
The mere fact that anyone on the Post's staff thought this was acceptable shows how deeply sexism is ingrained in America. A similar article about any other group besides women would never have made it into The Washington Post or any other major paper. Could you ever imagine a media outlet as big as The Washington Post publishing an article about how African-Americans or Jews or Latinos should just shut up, sit down and stick to their "innate abilities?" Or one that attempted to make sweeping claims about the natural intelligence of any racial or cultural group based on what music they liked or books they read? The only reason this article was considered acceptable was because it was about women. And apparently, even in 2008, it's perfectly all right to shit on us, to pass judgment on us, and to educate us on what we "should" do with our lives based on some repressive and horrifyingly antiquated notion of what nature has made us for.
I know there are many parts of the world where women have it a lot worse but America is supposedly part of the modern, educated, civilized world. I don't think this article would have seen the light of day in most of Western Europe where, by the way, the media doesn't try to turn the idea of a woman running the country into a national joke. This is un-fucking-acceptable on every level.
Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, her campaign has brought out a thick vein of sexism in the country that is deeper and far uglier than I ever imagined. Just as one example, a Republican nutcase named Roger Stone recently formed an anti-Hillary political group called "Citizens United Not Timid" (C.U.N.T. -- get it?) and this demi-human recently appeared on MSNBC, one of our major cable news networks. Do you think anyone who represented an anti-Obama group called N.I.G.G.E.R. would have received similar treatment? In New Hampshire, two assholes heckled "Iron my shirts!" at Hillary Clinton, and practically the only place anyone talked about it was on the blogs. Would it have been a similar non-event if someone had shouted to Obama, "Shine my shoes!"
And here's a hilarious joke that Penn Gillette's been getting some serious mileage out of:
"The joke goes: 'Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it's not fair, because they're being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there's no White Bitch Month.'"
I'm not saying that racism isn't also a huge problem in America but the majority of people, including our media, at least pretend that it's unacceptable, and probably do consider it a lot more unacceptable than sexism. Sexism somehow seems to be considered the "natural" order of things, and blatant bias of the sort that's been brandished against Hillary Clinton (and ALL women in that Washington Post article) is somehow normal or, at worst, just good fun. And if anyone complains, it's because we just don't get the joke.
I get the joke. It's on me. And I'm not laughing.
Are you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-06 04:08 am (UTC)And if, as Media Matters points out, they're worried about losing women readers, the publishing of her article tells me the reason should be staring them in the face.
And don't get me started on the sexist talk that's been making me ill ever since Hillary started campaigning.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-06 04:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-06 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 01:37 am (UTC)Agree? Disagree? Think this article should never have been published? Send a response to outlook@washpost.com and put "Smarter Than You Think" in the subject line. See here for several letters to the editor about it. Click here to read a rebuttal. And click here to read a transcript of a Q&A with Charlotte Allen about this article.
They've been deluged with emails about this (and deservedly so). I don't see a snail-mail address for reader responses.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 11:54 pm (UTC)