We wanted to bring your attention to New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt's column in which he examined his paper's record on sexism and Hillary Clinton. While mostly an examination of all the sexist things Maureen Dowd has said about Clinton (and way in which she insulted Obama by calling him girly), Hoyt did agree with criticisms of the Times' coverage of Hillary's laugh and its incessant need to specify that she was wearing pants. Jason Zengerle of The New Republic strongly disagrees that calling attention to Clinton's attire is sexist. Um, the whole point of calling it a pantsuit instead of a "suit" is to call attention to the fact that the supposed norm for a woman is a skirt. Because, you know, a woman's place is in a skirt or something. [NY Times, The New Republic]
"Our coverage was kinda sexist... except when we illustrated our point with sexist language. That totally wasn't sexist. You're a sexist. Sexistsayswhat?"
@Master.And.Everyone: You can call attention to her femaleness without treating this particular fact as something she had to overcome not JUST in the external world (which, of course, was against her) but in the intrinsic. Like being a female is like having cancer and you have to beat it if you want to succeed. I think THIs was the problem.