MARIELENA ZUNIGA’S OP-ED IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
2009 July 9
Our own Marielena Zuniga continues her recent run of journalistic success with the publication on Thursday, July 9, 2009 of her Op-Ed article titled “Palin Bashing is Women Bashing” in the prestigious Christian Science Monitor.
Go to the link under “Our Published Articles” to read Marielena’s hard-hitting piece.
RSS - Posts
I wasn’t aware that George W. Bush got a sex change. He must be a woman. After all, the media lampooned him after his brilliant handling of Katrina. Let’s face it: Sarah Palin, like W., is a detached, snotty dunce and she deserves the same level of scrutiny from the media. We as a nation lived through eight years of W. I’m not sure we would survive eight, or even four years, of Palin.
So by your rationale, if I hate Jerry Seinfeld, that means I hate Jews.
The Jews have been put down more than women have. Does that mean they are above reproach?
If I bash Chris Rock, does that mean I hate all black people, who have had their fair share of problems in the past?
Just because an idiot falls into a certain demographic, it doesn’t make them un-touchable. If you are bad at your job, you deserve to be called out on it. Sarah Palin is a nitwit, “you betcha”, airhead.
Just because she is a woman, it doesn’t mean you have to be on her side. You should look at her objectively, and fairly. Not based on her gender. And based on all that (excluding gender) She’s a damned lunatic. If she ever got elected to presidency (or VP) I would deport myself.
Judging by the other comments in this section, it appears that Marielena draws thicker and more devisive lines than the media would ever dare. Personally, I think the world has heard enough of this.
FYI- Everyone always feels singled out, and “It’s always someone else’s fault.”
While I agree with the premise of the argument in Zuniga’s piece, I believe she relies on one or more straw man arguments a little too heavily. By downplaying the negative stereotypes of men in television (I am assuming she is considering evening mainstream television, an atmosphere itself that attributes much of its success to finding the humor in common current stereotypes regardless of gender), she weakens her own stance. Homer Simpson, Al Bundy…the list of bumbling, lazy or generally imbecilic males is just as damaging to the image of men as is the list of ditzy, airheaded, blonde or other stereotypical primetime characters is to women. And need we touch on the damage that stereotypes have done to people of all races and ethnicities, to include African Americans, Caucasians and Latinos??? However, I think that when she wanders into the idea that featured attractive and scantily clad women are much more prevalent than their male counterparts, she is on to something, especially when she considers the damage that said trend does to both young males and young females.
And while women politicians do generally get a bad rap in the media, I believe that the negative portrayal of the events of the last three years dealing with Hillary Clinton’s political career, as well as that of Sarah Palin, can be just as easily attributed to the raw political preferences of the mainstream, male-dominated media than an accusation of explicit sexism; note that in many cases, it is women who are doing the woman-bashing. It was more important to them to see a person of ethnicity come to power as president than to see a female become president, so they jumped on the Barack bandwagon and strove to derail Hillary (or maybe Hillary was too moderate and pragmatic for them). And in the case of Sarah Palin, the generally left of center bent of the media was the primary catalyst to its rapid transformation into a troupe of ravenous piranhas, not her gender. The media spends nearly as much time bashing Rush Limbaugh as it does her. It is a political thing. Had the recent general election been between Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich (insert ANY other conservative or moderately conservative politician, male or female of any ethnicity), I contend that Gingrich would have been the one trashed in the media and that Hillary bashing would have ceased immediately upon the defeat of her ethnically diverse opponent in the primaries.
Finally, I liken Hillary’s “shrewish” demeanor to the blatantly condescending demeanor of Al Gore around the time that he was defeated in the electoral during the 2000 general election. But then, maybe I am making Marielena Zuniga’s point. Maybe the media should have spent more time prodding Al Gore over his outwardly contemptuous appearance.
Nevertheless, her piece depends a little too heavily on arguments that downplay or ignore applicable and relevant counter arguments. The premise is right, but the axe that she is grinding is just too obvious after noting her reliance on straw man arguments.
Sarah Palin is wacky. George W. Bush and Dick Chenery are also wacky. How is that sexist?