Maureen Dowd on TV Anchor Whitey McMale

http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network

Maureen Dowd’s piece today on TV news’ white-male monopoly alternately pleased me and pissed me off.

It’s important that attention is brought to the lack of diversity in TV news, specifically anchor positions. But Dowd’s contention that feminists just don’t care about this inequity is false and somewhat insulting:

Even if I felt like raising a ruckus about Boys Nation, who would care? Feminism lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted 30 years.

…I checked around for feminist outrage, but couldn't find any.

I’m glad that Dowd notes how pervasive the backlash against feminism is, but saying feminism lasted a nanosecond? What the hell am I doing with myself here then?

I would argue that feminists do care about issues like these, but the problem is that when we express outrage—or even annoyance—over anything other than a few topics generally thought of as “serious” feminist issues like violence or repro rights, we are immediately dismissed as silly girls focusing on trivial issues. It opens the door for anti-feminists to scream, “See! Feminism no longer has anything important to say!”

But when feminists don’t speak out on an issue, it’s supposed to be an indicator that feminism just doesn’t exist anymore or is being remiss somehow.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Jessica - December 02, 2004, at 02:56PM | in News , Sexism , Television

Email post to a friend |

13 Comments

December 2, 2004 3:16 PM

[0+|0-] Abigail said:

Maureen Dowd's columns annoy me in general. She seems to enjoy inventing silly names for whoever is in power (be they democrat or republican) and then comparing them to movie characters.

When I read her column this morning I was upset by her implied solution: women should stop watching men. I don't think that's a solution, or a step in the right direction. I do think that women should be more supportive of other women and of women newscasters.

Somewhat off topic, there was a column in the Guardian yesterday about the straight-white-christian-male perspective and how pervasive it is:(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1363529,00.html).

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 2, 2004 5:17 PM

[0+|0-] Elisa said:

Maureen Dowd's columns also piss me off. This one in particular strives to make a salient point and then ends with a dumb quote "men don't like to watch women but women like to watch men".
uh hello? who are these idiots she's "interviewing"? have they completely missed the hundreds of thousands of tv commercials, movies, advertisements, magazines, websites, etc. that objectivify the female body and use it as a prop to sell everything? I'd say there might be a *little* interest for men in watching women, even if she's just partof the scenery. ugh

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 2, 2004 10:11 PM

[0+|0-] Katha Pollitt said:

You should write to the NY Times! they really need to hear from young feminists like you feministers.

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 2, 2004 10:28 PM

[0+|0-] Jessica said:

Katha, that's so funny that you should suggest that--I'm in the midst of writing one right now!

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 3, 2004 12:12 PM

[0+|0-] Susan said:

I wrote a long post about that here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ofsusan/12145.html

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 3, 2004 11:58 PM

[0+|0-] Voxper said:

Yes, any comment that offers the slightest glimmer of disagreement here must get deleted immediately.

Psychologists use the term "groupthink" to describe a situation where like-minded people get together and wind-up having distorted ideas because there are no alternate viewpoints presented.

Not that anyone cares about that. God forbid that any real comments ever be seen in the 'comment' section.

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 4, 2004 1:08 AM

[0+|0-] Jessica said:

ah, the paranoia. as i've posted recently, certain comments are getting erased because of tech problems, not because of content.

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 7, 2004 1:59 AM

[0+|0-] Martha said:

Running behind in checking online. Katha and Jessica say to write the Times. I agree but think it's bigger than just Dowd's limited, masculine thinking.
Brokaw steps down and Dowd rightly throws stone at NBC for going with another white male. But the New York Times is doing the usual suspects route today.
All the people mentioned to replace Safire are white, male & conservative. My friend Elaine sent me this link http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/safire-wants-out-times-wants-photostat.html
and if anyone has time, they might want to write the Times about this as well. I also like the people who pointed out that Dowd never writes about abortion and "writes like a man."
Martha

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

December 7, 2004 12:18 PM

[0+|0-] Amanda said:

Groupthink is definitely not going on whatsoever in men's rights groups. I can't possibly see where that might be a factor in groups where people get together and say, "Most of the wealthy and powerful are members of our sex, but we're victims!" Men, as we know, are smarter than that.

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

January 13, 2005 7:06 PM

[0+|0-] poker online said:

620 check out the real poker online at this cool site.

I Liked | Disliked this comment | Reply |

January 21, 2005 8:09 PM

[0+|0-] betting said: