Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 20:38     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.


I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?


You don’t have to be a woman to have issues related to women as part of your campaign. She’s running a campaign that is largely based on the notion that people should vote for her in the primary merely because she is a female POC. Look at all her “seat at the table” materials.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 20:34     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.


I’m not arguing that she doesn’t have the experience, but please read the endorsement. There was maybe a sentence each about the 2 other white male candidates’ weaknesses. They decided to write an addition section at the end pointing out multiple flaws for her. Why not the other candidates? I don’t care what you think of her or her campaign - it was an attack on just one candidate (a female POC) when there are 2 other challengers in the race.


That’s ridiculous. The Post basically ignored the other two candidates altogether. It hardly gave them preferential treatment.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 20:29     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.


I’m not arguing that she doesn’t have the experience, but please read the endorsement. There was maybe a sentence each about the 2 other white male candidates’ weaknesses. They decided to write an addition section at the end pointing out multiple flaws for her. Why not the other candidates? I don’t care what you think of her or her campaign - it was an attack on just one candidate (a female POC) when there are 2 other challengers in the race.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 20:24     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.


I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 19:17     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.


That's how Mary Cheh got her political start. Entered a primary against 5 men and got enough female votes to win.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 19:03     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.


Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:59     Subject: Re:The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Women should not be asked such questions. They are patronizing and imply that the woman doesn't have the intelligence to balance her own personal life and public life. When I was starting out in my career, I interviewed for a rotation that involved a lot of international travel. The older man asked how my husband felt about be being away all the time. He also asked if I would be able to do the job if I had children. My dear friend (a male, married around the same time as I was) interviewed for the same position, and was asked none of these questions.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:51     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:I find the rush to judgment that this question was asked only of women to be disturbing and mob like. This theme has been blasted all over my FB newsfeed today and no one has alleged that it was asked only of women. Even if some thinkniy is a stupid question, they shouldn’t jump to sexism right away. Just like not endorsing any women doesn’t automatically equal sexism.


I disagree. In 2019, no one, male or female, needs to be asked questions about how they can do a local government job while also raising children. And anyone with a brain knows it's a loaded question with a lot of sexist baggage.
https://qz.com/work/1174454/nobody-ever-asks-my-husband-how-do-you-do-it-all/
And while it is possible that the 5 males endorsed by the WaPo were the most qualified, it is also likely that the WaPo board member, a white male named Lee Hockstader, who according to Google graduated from Choate in 1977 (i.e. almost in his 60s) has some biases about the role of women as political candidates that played into his endorsements.


Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:40     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
I find the rush to judgment that this question was asked only of women to be disturbing and mob like. This theme has been blasted all over my FB newsfeed today and no one has alleged that it was asked only of women. Even if some thinkniy is a stupid question, they shouldn’t jump to sexism right away. Just like not endorsing any women doesn’t automatically equal sexism.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:37     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:I still don’t think anyone knows if they asked male candidates that same question.


Irrespective of whether they did (and somehow I doubt they did), it isn't a good question to ask anyone. Women can be trusted to manage both their personal and professional affairs without patronizing questions from the WaPo.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:36     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Why is the Washington Post endorsing candidates? Isn't the media neutral?


And here is a great example of why democracy is flawed — it depends on an educated electorate.


+1 I hope that poster was being sarcastic.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:31     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
I still don’t think anyone knows if they asked male candidates that same question.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:29     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:Why is the Washington Post endorsing candidates? Isn't the media neutral?


And here is a great example of why democracy is flawed — it depends on an educated electorate.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 18:23     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.
Anonymous
Post 05/28/2019 17:51     Subject: The sexist nature of Washington Post endorsements
Anonymous wrote:That question was terrible but it was also baffling (and related) that they endorsed only men.

WaPo endorsement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/endorsements-for-the-fairfax-county-board-of-supervisors/2019/05/27/03133fc0-7b38-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.a70d692d291d

Article about it: https://bluevirginia.us/2019/05/wapo-endorses-all-men-in-fairfax-county-reportedly-asked-female-candidate-how-will-you-be-chairman-with-two-young-children?fbclid=IwAR1WfASkoRWx3R1e6nLvEGaCevR1xxtVQGmB4lAddnMZLkRuAuAKnXSWjh8


Is it really just one guy who determines the endorsements at the WaPo? You would think they'd have more than just Lee Hockstader to review candidates.


I’m not disputing that the Washington Post’s endorsed candidates for Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (James Walkinshaw in Braddock District, Rodney Lusk in Lee District, Walter Alcorn in Hunter Mill District, Phil Niedzelski-Eichner in Providence District, Jeff McKay for Chair) are all well qualified. However…it *is* striking that as we’re seeing – and for good reasons – a surge in female candidates here in Virginia and across the country, the WaPo’s editorial page (ok, yeah, it’s basically one guy, Lee Hockstader) decided to endorse an all-male slate in the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors’ Democratic primaries on June 11 (just two weeks from now).

But even leaving that aside, the reported comments made by Hockstader et al to two of the female candidates – assuming Alicia Plerhoples’ and Larysa Kautz’s accounts are accurate (and I have no reason to doubt that they are) – are simply appalling. Check it out:

Plerhoples reports that they asked her, “how will you be Chairman with two young children?”
Kautz says that they lectured her about how “there are no women with young children on the Board of Supervisors…because ‘there are late night meetings, and it’s hard work’.”