Bob Herbert’s editorial today in the Times says that the candidates should be addressing rampant misogyny in the United States. In less than 800 words, he takes on rape, sexual harassment, prostitution, sexualized advertising, sports, pornography, paparazzi, the military, and violence. He says the candidates should too:
If we’ve opened the door to the issue of sexism in the presidential campaign, then let’s have at it. It’s a big and important issue that deserves much more than lip service.
– David S. Cohen
It’s an odd contrast to his claim in this column http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html that: “… the Clintons seem to be forgiven every sin while Mr. Obama’s margin of error is tiny at best.” He seems to want to separate sexism from the way Clinton has been treated by the media, as if the two are independent.
I think Herbert’s point is that unlike the statements made by Gloria Steinem last week, sexism and misogyny are much bigger than HRC’s candidacy. Those of us who care about these issues shouldn’t trot them them out just as a weapon in a presidential campaign. Instead, we should be committed to the broader issues and questions. I’m just glad that Herbert is taking a step beyond the typical identity politics being engaged in by the national media, i.e. black men speaking out about issues of racism and Obama and white women speaking out about issues of sexism and Clinton. I believe Herbert is the first back male columnist I’ve sen in recent days call for the end of sexism. I am glad he decided to step beyond this tired construct.
Which “statements made by Gloria Steinem last week” do you think he’s refering to?