Activist alert! 

If there's one thing I've despised the most so far about the 2008 U.S. election process, it's the blatant sexism and gender hatred that is running rampant in some of our most prominent media outlets. Love her or hate her, some truly unfair - and even cruel - things are being written, said, and reported about her. And for any self-respecting feminist, this should be an outrage.

I haven't exactly been quiet about my support of Hillary Clinton for President. I believe that she is not only the best candidate for the job - but would also represent a huge step forward for the feminist movement: not only across the U.S., but across the globe as well.

It's important, I think, to take this election responsibility completely seriously - and to remember how lucky we are to live in such a free, democratic society. We are not just throwing in a vote - we are hiring someone for a job: the most important job in our country. And I don't know about you, but I want to hire the person with the most experience, the best track record for supporting the rights of women, men, and children - and the one most capable of effectively leading this country toward positive change.

That person, I believe, is Hillary Clinton.

But even if you're an Obama fan, I think it's important to remember: being a champion of Obama does not automatically equate hostility towards his opponent (and vice versa).

Seriously. What is up with all of this hate?!?!

The infamous Maureen Dowd is just one such example. Maureen Dowd clearly can't just stop at simply stating her opinions about the race; she must completely degrade and insult Hillary in the process. She has written numerous truly hateful op-eds about her in recent months.  The latest one (04/02/08), entitled "The Hillary Waltz," is seemingly even more vicious than most:

Hillary's work is done only when she is done, because the best way for Obama to prove he's ready to stare down Ahmadinejad is by putting away someone even tougher.

And March 26th piece, "Hillary or Nobody?" is almost even worse:

It's hard to imagine that after spending her whole life playing second-fiddle to a superstar pol, Hillary wants to do it again. She's been vice president.

(Emphasis mine.) Yeah. I know. I can't believe that was even put to print.

Writing to Maureen Dowd is probably pointless, and arguing about what she says is likely the same, so the latest feminist strategy is to send a brief complaint to:   This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

For example, you could write something like:

Maureen Dowd's nasty op-eds about Hillary Clinton are an embarrassment to the New York Times.  They all say the same thing.  We're sick of them, and disgusted with the New York Times for publishing them. 

But please say it in your own words.

I think it's due time to inquire why it's been months since we've seen any semblance of equal coverage in this race (if at all). Because pieces in support of Hillary - and of feminism - such as this one, by the legendary Gloria Steinem herself - are few and far between. And in a race such as this, when people are voting in record numbers yet are less informed than ever about the actual candidates; when most of our population gets their political information (and, therefore, influence) through the media; we need to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.

Please tell the New York Times what you think of their treatment of Hillary Clinton. E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it   to send a few words of your own. 

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment