So I’m catching up on the news after a really hard, busy week, and I find this opinion piece.
What I know for sure:
Even as a moderate-leaning-to-conservative, I definitely wouldn’t vote for O’Donnell and am profoundly grateful that I don’t have to consider her as a candidate. I get the impression that she doesn’t really understand the stuff she says; she parrots the Tea Party screed, but it sounds like she’s speaking phonetically from a phrase book.
But what really kills me about this article, other than the atrocious grammar, spelling, and usage by the author, is the idea that women are supposed to be nicer to each other simply on the grounds that we are all women.
The author is outraged that the National Organization for Women won’t endorse a conservative female candidate after she’s been grievously insulted by her male opponent. News flash, Nance: calling a politician a ‘whore’ is like the third-oldest profession; male politicos have been accused of street-walking Washington since George Washington retired.
So I’d be more disappointed if N.O.W. ignored Whitman’s conservative stance (which no doubt clashes with N.O.W.’s agenda) and endorsed Whitman just because she’s a woman. Because one of the founding principles of N.O.W. was that it’s wrong to do anything to a woman, and that includes supporting or defending her, just because she’s a woman. And that’s one principle of theirs I heartily support.
And why on earth should N.O.W. protest the supposed mistreatment of O’Donnell, which entailed some anonymous idiot claiming to have turned down a chance at sex with her in a wildly uncredible scenario? This is just standard election-cycle mudslinging, and if you can’t take the heat, you shouldn’t insist on standing in the kitchen.
Wait a minute, strike that: Penny Nance might think that putting women in kitchens, even metaphorically, is sexist and might hurt their feelings. So I’ll say: if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. (Now PETA can get pissed off at me.)
Penny Nance is the one who needs to grow up.
© E.S. Evans 2010
Mom, Interrupted 
Journalism has become less and less about current events and more and more about current misdirection. All this talk of bitches, witches, and whores speak more to those doing the name calling than those they seek to denigrate. Since more than just reputations are on the line it might be fascinating to find out if some of these journalist have anything substantive to offer. So we pay it some attention. Too often what we’re left with is more about suggestion and innuendo and less about the reason and motive behind it. Why is so and so a bitch, witch, or whore? Is it because they’re a terrible person or is it because the journalist is?
Perhaps there is nothing new about lower standards of journalism. There’s something marketable about denigrating another human being. It’s like the scourging of a person’s respect bit by bloody bit. It doesn’t take long to realize that those little bits of blood and flesh fly everywhere. The longer you watch the more you get on you. Soon it becomes more about what’s on you.
In a democracy civilized people disagree. This is a marked distinction from less tolerant societies where they shout down and oppress any kind of opposition least it lead to dissension (think Tienanmen Square). Once upon a time voices of opposition were held up as hallmarks of liberty. Do any still remember the classic Liberal mantra: ‘I might disagree with you, but defend with my life your right to say it.’
Maybe Larry Flint cut that high ideal down to a more manageable size.
A free press is supposed to be about more than just name calling and pornography. It’s supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. It should promote tolerance and explore concepts; not denigrate us all down to the lowest common denominator.
As someone who pays attention to current events I’m familiar with the name calling and find it to be baseless distraction. It is the best a discredited establishment propagandistic machine (rather than the free press) can come up with. -HT