![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
NY Times? What's up with this?
Aug. 31st, 2008 12:49 pmI know everyone has their own personalized definition of mysogyny and of course hatred of women because they're women is horrible.
But something in today's NY Times really struck me as bizarre.
Kate Zernike wrote a piece in the Week in Review section entitled "Can you cross out 'Hillary' and write 'Sarah'?"
And the print version highlighted the following:
Oh, is it really? Basically, she's saying that the options in the presidential election are: vote for the pair that's pro-choice, or vote for the pair that's anti-misogyny.
In other words, McCain/Palin is anti-pro-choice, or anti-choice, and Obama/Biden is anti-anti-misogyny, or pro-misogyny.
What?
Obama/Biden is pro-misogyny because there's no woman on the ticket? Despite their long record of support for women's rights including equal pay for equal work, child-care support and a woman's right to control her body? And somehow, the McCain/Palin support of a platform that says that their goal is to make all abortion illegal even in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother is "anti-misogynistic."
Um, that's bizarre.
The choice is definitely not pro-choice or anti-misogyny, and any woman who votes for McCain/Palin because she believes they are anti-misogyny clearly has not read their position papers or analysis of same, because they'd learn that McCain has opposed legislation that would ensure equal pay for equal work, as explained here. Hell, how hard would it be for the Republicans to reinstate something from their 1896 platform in which they espoused support for equal pay for equal work. It's only been 112 years, guys - let's try and get it back in there next time, please.
I am off to ask the NY Times Public Editor why those sentences - "pro-choice or anti-misogyny" - made it into the paper, but never made it online.
I'd also love to hear Ms Zernike's explanation of why she thinks a website showing photos of Governor Palin as a Miss Alaska contestent hints of misogyny. Personally, although I am sure others would disagree with me, there's nothing misogynistic about saying "Sarah Palin ... Kind of a Babe." I think Barack is kind of hot. I also think my own governor, Charlie Crist, is kind of cute (I know, I'm weird. And I'm also wondering if his engagement is off but that's a topic for another day). And I think Sarah is very pretty and Tina Fey-ish, and I definitely do not hate women. But I'm not going to support her because I like her hair and smile, and I don't think it's reasonable to define misogyny as including any positive commentary about a woman's looks. Calling someone ugly, or saying "she's too sexy to be VP" could, of course, cross that line, but simply admiring someone's looks, even in the bare-shouldered photos she took when she was in abeauty pagent scholarship program is weird.
ETA: Damn, dailykos has a block on diaries by new registrants for a week.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hedwig_snowy, I know you have an account there, and I would guess others of you do, too. Does anyone want to take this topic onto a diary there? Off to create an account there, finally, anyway... Will use it eventually.
I know, I have catch-up posts on how much fun I had at Dragon*Con and how terrific it was to see so many friends and just bump into people at random, and why I ended up teaching Nathan Fillion how to make Doctor Horrible ringtones for his iphone but that will have to wait for another day. We have to stock in water and other non-perishables in case Hannah comes towards us in hurricane mode, and also send good thoughts and prayers to everyone along the gulf coast, especially New Orleans. Maybe later today, maybe tomorrow... Hugs and "I miss you!" to everyone still in Atlanta!
But something in today's NY Times really struck me as bizarre.
Kate Zernike wrote a piece in the Week in Review section entitled "Can you cross out 'Hillary' and write 'Sarah'?"
And the print version highlighted the following:
To vote pro-choice or anti-misogyny. It's, um, complicated.
Oh, is it really? Basically, she's saying that the options in the presidential election are: vote for the pair that's pro-choice, or vote for the pair that's anti-misogyny.
In other words, McCain/Palin is anti-pro-choice, or anti-choice, and Obama/Biden is anti-anti-misogyny, or pro-misogyny.
What?
Obama/Biden is pro-misogyny because there's no woman on the ticket? Despite their long record of support for women's rights including equal pay for equal work, child-care support and a woman's right to control her body? And somehow, the McCain/Palin support of a platform that says that their goal is to make all abortion illegal even in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother is "anti-misogynistic."
Um, that's bizarre.
The choice is definitely not pro-choice or anti-misogyny, and any woman who votes for McCain/Palin because she believes they are anti-misogyny clearly has not read their position papers or analysis of same, because they'd learn that McCain has opposed legislation that would ensure equal pay for equal work, as explained here. Hell, how hard would it be for the Republicans to reinstate something from their 1896 platform in which they espoused support for equal pay for equal work. It's only been 112 years, guys - let's try and get it back in there next time, please.
I am off to ask the NY Times Public Editor why those sentences - "pro-choice or anti-misogyny" - made it into the paper, but never made it online.
I'd also love to hear Ms Zernike's explanation of why she thinks a website showing photos of Governor Palin as a Miss Alaska contestent hints of misogyny. Personally, although I am sure others would disagree with me, there's nothing misogynistic about saying "Sarah Palin ... Kind of a Babe." I think Barack is kind of hot. I also think my own governor, Charlie Crist, is kind of cute (I know, I'm weird. And I'm also wondering if his engagement is off but that's a topic for another day). And I think Sarah is very pretty and Tina Fey-ish, and I definitely do not hate women. But I'm not going to support her because I like her hair and smile, and I don't think it's reasonable to define misogyny as including any positive commentary about a woman's looks. Calling someone ugly, or saying "she's too sexy to be VP" could, of course, cross that line, but simply admiring someone's looks, even in the bare-shouldered photos she took when she was in a
ETA: Damn, dailykos has a block on diaries by new registrants for a week.
hedwig_snowy, I know you have an account there, and I would guess others of you do, too. Does anyone want to take this topic onto a diary there? Off to create an account there, finally, anyway... Will use it eventually.I know, I have catch-up posts on how much fun I had at Dragon*Con and how terrific it was to see so many friends and just bump into people at random, and why I ended up teaching Nathan Fillion how to make Doctor Horrible ringtones for his iphone but that will have to wait for another day. We have to stock in water and other non-perishables in case Hannah comes towards us in hurricane mode, and also send good thoughts and prayers to everyone along the gulf coast, especially New Orleans. Maybe later today, maybe tomorrow... Hugs and "I miss you!" to everyone still in Atlanta!
