Maureen Dowd breaks record for sexist journalism

The record is for the winner in the category of “those who do know better.”  Here’s how she did it:

What is the environment for the woman who is the first ever to do such-and-such?  Well, she’s often one woman in a hitherto exclusively male club.  Feminism has made us aware of the temptation to describe the significance of her actions in terms of their (conjectured) gendered impact on the guys.   To do so is more than belittling; if people take you at all seriously, it is damaging in a way that goes beyond what the actions alone merit.   It strengthens  the  biases that  give her an unfair extra burden.

Here are things you might be tempted to think. But to do so is really to once again position a woman as a kind of sex object.

If she is tough, she’s their dominatrix.  
If she puts one of them down, she may be just like his wife. 
If she swears,  you should described it as directed now and in the past at the men.

The following should be an easy question on the “do you have any grasp of your own biases” test:

True or false:  Women’s actions are significant in so far as they are part of a continuing struggle between the sexes. 

False.  To publish such a view of Hillary Clinton  in the New York Times  is unconscionable.  And Maureen Dowd has done it.

4 thoughts on “Maureen Dowd breaks record for sexist journalism

  1. Not to mention the basic underlying assumption that being a dominatrix or having a wife who takes some power in the relationship is an inherently terrible, terrible thing. This kind of fear mongering only works if the relevance of women in the “battle of the sexes” is somehow causing the “right” side to be losing.

  2. Nice point,purtex. The deeper message is not just that power is gendered, but also that power in a woman’s hands is pretty awful and destructuve. Mind you, it’s not clear that Dowd can identify a “right” side.

Comments are closed.