Letters to the Editor
-
Enough of weak and insincere apologies. We want a change of behavior, Keith.
I view the treatment of Hillary Clinton by much of the mainstream press over the last year as similar to the treatment accorded to many women victims of spousal abuse. Such violence often starts with random critical comments that graduate into more regular and profane ones. Over time anger escalates. The abuse becomes physical with a slap or punch, and then more frequent assaults take place, resulting all too often in injury or death. Approximately 2000 women die each year at the hands of abusive men, usually ones they know. Many more are seriously injured. Homicide used to be the second leading cause of death among pregnant women, but I recently heard that it has become the leading cause.
As someone who has been involved in working with victims of such abuse, I am alarmed about the what has been "dished out" to Hillary over the last several months. I have watched the hostility steadily mount and then become much more intense when she defied the odds to win in Pennsylvania. Since that win I've read several “hit pieces” aimed at her. In one of them, a former governor of Virginia derided her for her "hissy fits," "weeping and crying," etc. the day after the election, and her stubbornness and unwillingness to quit were derided by others. That same night Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman took the matter to new heights with insinuations of a need for “retribution” and a suggestion of taking her into a room from which she would not emerge, etc.
Over the last year probably thousands of posts on the Internet have referred to Hillary Clinton as an “f-----ing bitch” or worse or have lauded someone else for hurling profanities at her. A radio broadcaster called her an “f—ing whore” onstage in San Francisco and when criticized, was defended by so-called “progressives” as merely exercising her “freedom of speech.” Since when, I want to know, did hate speech become defensible? Or progressive?
There are certain words that most of us no longer use or find acceptable in civil discourse--racial epithets, anti-gay expressions, etc. Somehow, though it is still OK to refer to Hillary, and by extension, her whole gender as “whores, bitches, f----ing bitches, c---ts.” What makes such profane and dehumanizing words, when applied to Hillary or me or other women, OK? What kind of people condone, defend and try to justify such expressions of hate? How is that progressive or right? Why is anyone, but especially a woman, with whom we disagree, an acceptable target for trashing and abuse? How does that help us build unity and peace among people? Or simply to think clearly in the course of an election campaign?
Sadly, I am not really surprised by this. Hillary is, after all, a strong, smart and outspoken woman, and that alone will bring her grief. Most important, though, is that she is a threat to some of the powers that be who are obviously going all out to bully her out of the race. Now a few broadcasters have come to the point of not just trashing her but actually insinuating that some kind of "retribution" is in order. I find that alarming.
There are angry people in this increasingly turbulent world looking for a target for their rage. Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman are surely aware of that. They must also know that, as broadcasters, they have a responsibility to refrain from inciting such people with their comments.
Olbermann offered an incomplete and rather weak apology for something that I and thousands of women found extremely irresponsible and offensive. He and Fineman, too, need to make more than apologies. They need to make amends by examining and changing their behavior.