Maureen Dowd and Gender Stereotypes

[jsteele]

Many Hillary supporters understandably protested repeated displays of sexism in the media during the primary. Yesterday, the NYT Public Editor took at look at the Time's coverage. I found his focus on Maureen Dowd's columns interesting. He nailed her for several comments directed at Clinton and concluded that Dowd, "by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season."

What was interesting is Dowd's defense, "I’ve been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years." I'd suggest that Dowd really should say "exploiting" or "perpetuating" rather than "twisting". After all, in Clinton's case she applied masculine imagery to Clinton, but also engaged in more typical gender stereotyping (saying Clinton was "playing the female victim). Moreover, what she terms "twisting" when applied to Democratic male candidates such as John Edwards and Barack Obama is simply insulting. She has called Obama "Obambi" and said he has a "feminine" management style. She has also described him as "an anorexic starlet". She called Edwards "Breck Girl" and wrote an entire column about his haircut. She actually cites this as justification for her gender stereotyping of Clinton, apparently believing that two (or more) wrongs do make a right.

I think the Public Editor should have objected to Dowd's sissifying of Democratic males in the same vein that he criticized her stereotyping of Clinton. This also touches on another pet peeve of mine. Why is it that that conservative columnists are often sensible and capable of making compelling arguments -- even if I don't agree with them -- (George Will and William Safire come to mind), while the so-called liberal columnists such as Dowd and Richard Cohen are complete wastes of space who spend more time tearing down Democrats than anything else? Would it kill the times to find a columnist who is capable of presenting a liberal perspective without engaging in gender stereotyping and basically making a mockery of herself?

[Anonymous]

JSteele, I have disagreed with you many times, but I am with you 100% on this one.

[Anonymous]

And ironically, I'm one who invariably agrees with JSteele, but on this I'm having to think hard and process what he's saying because I normally love and look forward to Dowd's columns.

[Anonymous]

I agree. I think Maureen Dowd is clever rather than perceptive. I really miss the late Marjorie Williams, who used to write op ed pieces in the Post (and Vanity Fair). Now SHE was really insightful and perceptive, without the cattiness. She died tragically young, but her columns are compiled in "The Woman at the Washington Zoo." Great read.

[Anonymous]

Dowd's columns this primary cycle have been beyond the pale, IMO. I read Clark Hoyt's piece and agree with Jeff that he should have gone further in decrying Dowd's treatment of Obama, and most especially her treatment of Michelle Obama, whom she constantly refers to as "emasculating" Barack.

I agree with the Public Editor's contention that no man could have gotten away with Dowd's language re: Hillary. Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, is more interested in protecting the Dowd franchise than in a balanced point of view. Frank Rich is another example of an acerbic liberal Times columnist (a jumped-up theater critic!) who contributes nothing to the progressive cause. And Richard Cohen really, again IMO, adds nothing to the Post's op-ed page. I can't stand him.

[Anonymous]

I've been wanting to complain about Maureen Dowd for so long. I'm glad Jeff was able to articulate it.