Misogyny and Women in Politics - New York Times
SHEILA CASE BENNER
CINCINNATI
To the Editor:
Hillary Clinton and Kellyanne Conway may both be “ambitious, assertive women,” but the similarities end there.
Mrs. Clinton has devoted her entire life to public service — as first lady, senator and secretary of state, fighting relentlessly for women’s rights and human rights worldwide. No small accomplishments, considering that she entered the work force in the 1970s, a time when women were often expected to stay home, take care of the kids and bake chocolate chip cookies.
Ms. Conway, however hardworking she has proved to be in the past year, has devoted herself to one task — defending Donald Trump. The attacks against her may be offensively sexist, but they are not rooted in the “persistent anger toward women who step outside conventional roles.”
Her role is as conventional as could be — that of the loyal assistant protecting her often embarrassing and profligate boss.
CATHY BERNARD, NEW YORK
To the Editor:
For years, I have decried the irrelevant remarks about appearance that turned up in the media and in casual conversation about powerful women such as Hillary Clinton.
After reading your article focusing on this issue with regard to Kellyanne Conway, I realized that despite my efforts to assess our female leaders based on the performance of their duties, I was guilty of maligning Ms. Conway for her looks.
Many thanks to Susan Chira for making me aware that I was as guilty as the meanspirited critics who undermined Mrs. Clinton with their comments about her pantsuits.
SUSAN SCHAALMAN YOUDOVIN
CHICAGO
To the Editor:
I’m no fan of Kellyanne Conway’s politics, but in the aftermath of the hoopla surrounding the photo of her kneeling on the Oval Office couch, I have to wonder: Would Steve Bannon, also an adviser to the president, have been asked to step back and take a snapshot of a roomful of distinguished men?
VIRGINIA HUTCH
SANDY HOOK, CONN.
To the Editor:
Most people probably tuck their feet under their bodies on their sofas at home. But as Emily Post advises houseguests, “Don’t put your feet on furniture.”
The White House is not Kellyanne Conway’s home. It is the People’s House, and she is a guest/employee in it. She should understand that it was inappropriate for any adult, male or female, to strike such an informal pose at an Oval Office reception.
GAIL MINTHORN, WILTON, CONN.
To the Editor:
I agree with Susan Chira in her derision of over-the-top misogynistic jabs aimed at powerful women in politics that appear in tweets, Facebook and on comedy programs such as “Saturday Night Live.” However, it may be worth noting that the three tweets used as examples in the article were written by women.
The term “misogynist” usually connotes a male bias against women. So when the mocking or hateful missiles are thrown by women against women, do we call this misogyny? No, perhaps not. Perhaps it just comes with the territory.
After all, we have always heard or seen comical caricatures of male politicians — jokes about John Boehner’s tan; or cartoons of Barack Obama accentuating his ears; or pratfalls performed as imitations of Gerald Ford. Perhaps we are merely experiencing the rise of women to powerful positions that put them in the limelight. Bravo for them!
ROBERT BIGSBY
VALPARAISO, IND.
To the Editor:
I’m sorry that our current president expects female White House employees to “dress like women” — clones of news anchors in their constraining sleeveless shift dresses. I’m sorry that Kellyanne Conway had to contort her body while wearing these binding clothes in order to take photos. I’m sorry that I will not accept an accusation of being sexist for being put off when any ill-mannered person, male or female, puts his or her dirty shoes on the president’s couch.
It’s 2017, female White House staffers. If you need to do acrobatics to do your job, be a little bold, and consider wearing trousers to work. I promise it won’t turn you into a Democrat. You just might be able to move and even breathe a bit more comfortably. A little more blood flowing to brains in the White House will always be a fashionable choice.
SHARON G. FORMAN
SCARSDALE, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Susan Chira’s article tries the “evenhanded” approach that The New York Times and other media adopted during the 2016 campaign. Yes, Kellyanne Conway has drawn some misogynistic attacks; she has also invited such attacks through behavior (and, yes, appearance) that would be considered flatly unacceptable from a man in her position. Your story also does a disservice to the many other women who have represented administrations — and for that matter covered news — in equally charged situations.
The criticism of Kellyanne Conway is all about Ms. Conway’s conduct and demeanor. To call her out using misogynistic terms is impolite, impolitic and wrong, but to say that she lies, disrespects the United States and needs to look in the mirror before looking into the camera are all within bounds.
So, other than an overdose of political correctness, what justified putting this article on your front page?
CHRISTOPHER BARNETT
LEXINGTON, MASS.
To the Editor:
While I agree that discomfort exists surrounding ambitious, successful women, I don’t believe that this is why women are subjected to sexist criticism. Rather, the sexist language being used reflects the extent to which the language of misogyny has infused our culture such that we find it challenging to criticize any woman without targeting her appearance, intelligence or sexual morals.
ANDREA B. HALE, NEW YORK
To the Editor:
Why is it that when there is constructive criticism against a woman it is called sexist, or even worse, misogynist. Men get criticized all the time — by both men and women. If women are going to be successful in these high political jobs, they’ll have to take the “constructive” criticism.
There are women in public life who are not criticized, and it is because they are good at their jobs, but when someone criticizes a Sarah Palin, or a Kellyanne Conway, it is usually justified and it shouldn’t be misconstrued as sexist, or misogynist. Criticism can be constructive — and that’s not an alternative fact.
DOUGLAS CORNISH, OTTAWA
Continue reading the main storyUncategorized
#Uncategorized
No comments: