Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 5
-
This does remind me of all the other discussions
[Read the article: What's so bad about "sweetie," anyway?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know why the same people (for the most part) see the term and the subject as innocuous or not worth bothering about, and others think it's something serious to be discussed. I'll get to the actual sweetie comment at the end.
Essentially, what the letters in the articles on sexist language in or out of the campaigns seem have down to is this:
There are people who believe that there isn't anything you can say to a woman that is sexist anymore. Apparently they've never actually experienced it, or they use the words in such a way that they no longer believe these words mean what some of us have experienced. For example, they've used certain words to refer to men. Unless, of course, the person who says or writes the words is a Republican - then we might or probably will believe they are sexist. Because they are a Republican, so they must be.
But, if those words are uttered or written by anyone we actually support or might want to support and feel is progressive then no words are sexist. And if you don't get it, you're just bitter and claiming victimhood. The fact that you've actually been called b*tch, c*nt, etc., in your working life, in professional settings by people who meant it the way we would (or should) all recognize as sexist, then you should just get over it and forget it. Because nothing, nothing, could ever be sexist. We're past that, unless a Republican says the words.
Then, there are people who believe that there are words that are still sexist, no matter who uses them, or what the siutation. I'm not completely sure I'd go that far, however, I can say this, I've been called both b*tch and c*nt over the years in professional settings, and I know what they meant, at least to me. It's hard for me to imagine that people who call women that mean anything other than something sexist and demeaning and that they not telling these women to sit down, shut up and take a back seat.
As for sweetie, it's not anything I would ever call someone I didn't know very, very well. It's a personal endearment and that's where it belongs, in personal relationships. It was not sexist, per se, it was unprofessional. Extremely unprofessional. And, even if Obama had never, ever said it, if John McCain had said it to a female reporter, I just wonder whether there would be a 'sweetie tracker' on here with a bunch of people who are swearing that this is not big deal with Obama, screaming as to why it isn't being covered because, of course, he's a Republican and it means something different when he says it.
And yes, I'm still voting for the Democrat in November, so don't tell me I'm a Republican. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Are there more important things in the world than whether Obama has a 'sweetie' issue? Yes, absolutely. But this the kind of thing that comes up in a campaign. I've worked in business for a very long time and he was unprofessional. That's why he apologized. And he should have. When you are unprofessional in situations where you are supposed to be professional, you apologize. Now, although I see the point of having an article on it, it should not be an issue going forward.
-
It was a lousy op-ed
[Read the article: High standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ill-informed, just bad on the historical facts, etc.
That's on top of all the other stuff everyone already mentioned.
However, a few points. First, how many of you were this incensed when Anne Coulter and some of the other right-wing media were using this sort of stuff against Edwards during his campaign? I just don't remember the same level of outrage. So, why now? Is it just because it's the WaPo, or because Obama's been lumped in with Edwards, or what? Because this is nothing new under the sun. Edwards was pretty much called all this stuff before by the same kind of people - it's just that there wasn't nearly this much outrage before.
Second, I'll say the same thing I said about the "Women are Stupid" op-ed the WaPo had earlier this year by another female, conservative writer, although they tried to pass it off as satire...and it just didn't work as satire. Her satire skills needed work. Anyway, she had every right to write it, if the WP wants, it has every right to publish it, and you, as people who feel strongly about it can do the following: either stop getting the paper or stop visiting the website and let them know you are doing so and why. Also, boycott their advertisers. That's your right. I suggest, if you feel this strongly, that you do so.
-
@sysprog and google
[Read the article: High standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should have added - I remember that Glenn did cover it. I just didn't recall that it evoked this much reaction, people simply did not believe it was as awful when it was only Edwards getting slammed. Possibly because he was not going to win, even at that time (in May 2007, it was expected Clinton would be the nominee and Edwards was still an afterthought). It just appears to me that the response to the issue raised is much more serious, now (you can see the letters on WP). Edwards was considerd expendable. But the message was the same. So, why is this NEW? It's not. It's just that it's the WaPo and Obama is there, as well. Is that why there is more concern, now, and more reaction?