.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings
Monday, February 21, 2005
 
Estrich v. Kinsley
Liberal Smackdown at the LA Times

I just ran into this most excellent email slap fight between one of my favorite liberals, Susan Estrich, and one of my least favorite, Michael Kinsley. At issue is Ms. Estrich's contention that women are the victims of editorial discrimination at the Times. I don't read the Times, so it's hard to say if Susan's got a legitimate gripe, but I like her, and tend to take her a little more seriously than others on her side of the political rainbow, and I don't like Kinsley (did I mention that twice?), so I'll sit in the Estrich cheering section on this one... even if she does teach at the wrong university.

Go Susan!! Highly entertaining reading.

(pro forma hat tip to Realclearpolitics.com which is where I scour up most of my political reading)

Excerpt (Susan writing to Michael):
You owe me an apology. NO one tried harder to educate you about Los
Angeles, introduce you to key players in the city, bring to your attention,
quietly, the issues of gender inequality than I did - and you have the arrogance
and audacity to say that you couldn't be bothered reading my emails, spending
time in the city where all of us are raising our families ... and then we should
stop our efforts because you're "pissed off."
Comments:
Couldn't agree. Women are doing more harm than good to their own cause by becoming too hysterical and reinforcing stereotypes.
 
It is nice, however, to see liberals trying to hold other liberals to their same level of nonsense, instead of just doing it to conservatives (and plain ol' middle-of-the-road folk, for that matter).

Reading the email war, I have to say that I would consider Estrich's threat to go public blackmail, too.
 
I don't agree that, in order to enjoy that equality, women need to be more like (or write more like in this case) men. I think both genders bring their own strengths and talents to the table, and each should work to their strengths, rather than capitulating to the strengths of the other.

As for hysterical victim-card players, whatever the nature of the perceived victim, I also tend to react viscerally against them. High-pitched rants about how unfair it all is are, as often as not, attempts to demagogue an issue to the complaintant's advantage, rather than attempts to truly better a group of people. This is particularly the case in 21st Century America, where equality of opportunity is becoming the rule.

However, in recognizing that the equality of opportunity that exists for most groups in our country (not for all yet) is only a fairly recent historical development, I also recognize that the shrill lobbyiests for change, while annoying, are often necessary to bring about positive effects.

Having lived in Ireland, where gender equality is a couple decades behind where it is in the U.S., I've seen first-hand how women, whose loud complaining would annoy me in the U.S., was necessary to bringing about change in their society.

To polish off this ramble, something I noticed last night while out to dinner. I ordered some sushi at a very good local restaurant, and was noting how excellent it was when Mrs. Nomad pointed out that the sushi chef was a woman. It occurred to me then that I had never, in all my years eating at sushi bars, seen a woman sushi chef. I thought it was interesting that I'd never noticed it before. Perhaps it's because there aren't many women who want to be sushi chefs. More likely, it has to do with deeply rooted role-identifications in Japanese culture that mandate certain professions to one gender or the other. So, yeah, the United States has come a long way with respect to gender equality. But, even within our borders, barriers exist... whether those barriers are culturally based or otherwise.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Powered by Blogger