You really should read this opinion piece by Paul Waldman published in the Washington Post. And not because you’re an Elizabeth Warren fan. The author is agnostic about who will make the best Democratic Party presidential candidate. But he sees how the press can focus on something that has nothing to do with the capacity to fill that spot and beat it to death — ruining a candidate’s chances.
In this case, Elizabeth Warren’s DNA testing is being treated by some members of the press as a fatal flaw. Waldman argues that this is equivalent to the Hilary Clinton email fiasco. Hence, the opinion piece is entitled, “Welcome to ‘But her emails!’, version 2020.”
Latching on to small, irrelevant actions or traits and making them appear to be major faults is how women, in particular, are made to look inferior. It’s a clever way of keeping them out of high-level positions in organizations and politics.
We should all look up “idiosyncrasy credits.” Some people get to be complete jerks and we stay their friend or vote for them. They have more social “credits” to spend, so to speak. “Oh, that’s just Joe. He does that all the time. It doesn’t mean anything.” But along comes Mary doing something far less offensive or idiotic and it sticks to her despite all she has going for her.
This doesn’t happen only to women. But it happens to them a lot.
In The Secret Handshake, I’ve written about how damning comments can be cleverly inserted among seeming compliments. “Julia is very smart. She gets a lot done. I don’t get why so many people dislike her.”
The press needs to police itself with regard to hammering a candidate on largely irrelevant issues — especially women and minorities who tend to lack extensive idiosyncrasy credits. What are the up to? If they’re taking advantage on purpose, shame on them. If they’re not, they should WAKE UP!!
1 Response to Are Some in the Press Guilty of Covert Sexism? Again?