|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I can't decide whether this passage, from a Patrick Healy/Adam Nagourney story on Hillary Clinton and the so-called gender card, is the result of shoddy editing or a laughable assumption on the part of the authors:
In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.
Right, as if the virtually total domination of presidential politics by white men for the past 200+ years suggests that race and sex have been absent from that domain. Rather than completely and overwhelmingly present. Unbelievable.
Condensation by editors often drains nuance from writers' copy, but this seems way beyond that. Thoughts?
!
What's interesting to me is why does the writer feel that this question is "inevitable?" Hillary herself has never given any indication that she feels she should be treated differently than any one else in the race.
There is a (still marginal) movement out there to make "men's issues" front and center, and a lot of the people it attracts are kooky and embittered.
As an aside, that may be because everyone dissuades cooler heads from discussing "men's issues" in the context of how our society treats gender in general. I've noticed that a lot of feminists actually actively deride the idea that there are 'men's issues' that are pressing and worth discussing.
I assume this means legislating an end to the designated hitter rule?