- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Amanda:
Speaking as a woman who also works in a culturally male business, and as a Catholic, I must say that I think you are missing the point.
I have not exhaustively reviewed the comments that have been thrown at you, so I cannot and do not validate them in any way. However, your Salon article has a very shrill and bitter tone of victimization, and I think you would do well to step back a bit and consider the following:
1) Any person who works on a political campaign is subject to scrutiny in the forum of public opinion for their published views or actions. The candidate will invariably be associated with such views or actions unless/until they endorse or condemn them. Period. Reality. When you accepted your job, you placed all of your hobbies and your personal life made public (which you had always done willingly) under the microscope.
2) What you wrote was patently offensive to Catholics. I have a doctorate degree, and I think I'm clever enough to identify the satire and play on the Socratic method, etc, etc. It's rather grating that you seem to think that if someone were smart enough to "get" it, they wouldn't be offended. I am both. You, conversely, are also clever enough to know that your words were offensive, notwithstanding your subsequent hollow disclaimer. You took one of the most sacred tenets of Catholicism (more than one, actually) and lowered it to the pornographic. No amount of cleverness or satire affects that in the least.
The issue is really that simple. Wouldn't it be useful to you to view it in that light, rather than to blame it on the misogynist hit machine?
Look - I would fight to the death for your right to say whatever the hell you want on your blog. However, in the business of politics, everyone has baggage. Yours, dear, is considerable.
A Friend
