The National Post has drawn criticism for its portrayal of women, and so-called women’s issues. J-Source isn’t the place to discuss those issues, but journalists might ask why the mainstream newspaper’s owner, now in bankruptcy protection, tolerates an editorial position that alienates 51 per cent of its potential subscribers or advertisers.
My calendar says it’s 2010. I checked, because exposure to the latest debates about the National Post made me wonder if I’d time-traveled to the 1960s and ’70s.
Early this year the National Post published an enraged editorial
slamming academic women’s studies programs and “radical feminism.” An
excerpt: “a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked
against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that
found it roots and nurture in Women’s Studies.”
The editorial drew intense criticism. For example, UBC law prof Susan B. Boyd accused
it of “gross misrepresentation” and added: “it is hard to believe that
the editorial board of a national newspaper would so thoroughly dismiss
the initiatives that have been taken in our country to redress the
historic inequalities experienced by many women, as well as minority
groups.”
I had forgotten about the fuss about the editorial until today, when John Ivison’s column
began: “Lawrence Cannon will be relieved that the G8 foreign ministers
meeting has wrapped up and Hillary Clinton is back in Washington
haranguing Bill.” Again, just to be sure he really wrote this, here’s
the phrase again: “Clinton is back in Washington haranguing Bill.”
It
doesn’t take an ideological feminist to find offensive the suggestion
that an American Secretary of State’s role is to “harangue” her husband
— or to be surprised the implicit dismissal of a female in Ivison’s
later comment: “… Mr. Cannon was being smacked with the full weight
of the Secretary of State’s purse.”
Expression is free, but it’s
still a surprise to find this stuff in 2010 in a publication that
presents itself as a serious national newspaper of record. For decades
— at least in countries that claim some degree of literacy and a
passing familiarity with basic decency if not a respect for human
rights — blatant misogyny has mostly been isolated on the looney
fringes, along with the white supremacists and the religious and
political fundamentalists.
In keeping with the purpose of this
as a place to discuss journalism, not to debate the issues that
journalism addresses, I have two questions: How do the women who work
at the National Post tolerate its spewing of such embittered tripe? Why does the owner of this newspaper — Canwest, which is under bankruptcy protection — find it acceptable to alienate 51 per cent of its potential subscribers or advertisers?
[node:ad]
Is the National Post misogynist?
The National Post has drawn criticism for its portrayal of women, and so-called women’s issues. J-Source isn’t the place to discuss those issues, but journalists might ask why the mainstream newspaper’s owner, now in bankruptcy protection, tolerates an editorial position that alienates 51 per cent of its potential subscribers or advertisers.
My calendar says it’s 2010. I checked, because exposure to the latest debates about the National Post made me wonder if I’d time-traveled to the 1960s and ’70s.
Early this year the National Post published an enraged editorial
slamming academic women’s studies programs and “radical feminism.” An
excerpt: “a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked
against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that
found it roots and nurture in Women’s Studies.”
The editorial drew intense criticism. For example, UBC law prof Susan B. Boyd accused
it of “gross misrepresentation” and added: “it is hard to believe that
the editorial board of a national newspaper would so thoroughly dismiss
the initiatives that have been taken in our country to redress the
historic inequalities experienced by many women, as well as minority
groups.”
I had forgotten about the fuss about the editorial until today, when John Ivison’s column
began: “Lawrence Cannon will be relieved that the G8 foreign ministers
meeting has wrapped up and Hillary Clinton is back in Washington
haranguing Bill.” Again, just to be sure he really wrote this, here’s
the phrase again: “Clinton is back in Washington haranguing Bill.”
It
doesn’t take an ideological feminist to find offensive the suggestion
that an American Secretary of State’s role is to “harangue” her husband
— or to be surprised the implicit dismissal of a female in Ivison’s
later comment: “… Mr. Cannon was being smacked with the full weight
of the Secretary of State’s purse.”
Expression is free, but it’s
still a surprise to find this stuff in 2010 in a publication that
presents itself as a serious national newspaper of record. For decades
— at least in countries that claim some degree of literacy and a
passing familiarity with basic decency if not a respect for human
rights — blatant misogyny has mostly been isolated on the looney
fringes, along with the white supremacists and the religious and
political fundamentalists.
In keeping with the purpose of this
[node:ad]as a place to discuss journalism, not to debate the issues that
journalism addresses, I have two questions: How do the women who work
at the National Post tolerate its spewing of such embittered tripe? Why does the owner of this newspaper — Canwest, which is under bankruptcy protection — find it acceptable to alienate 51 per cent of its potential subscribers or advertisers?
Deborah Jones
March 31, 2010
Yet another sexist column
Yet another sexist column from the National Post! How does this keep happening? I know a lot of good people who work at the Post, men and women, and I’m surprised no one thought to remove those comments about Hillary Clinton (or the earlier women’s studies column). They really need to be more on guard about this issue from now on.
April 1, 2010
Nothing has changed much in
Nothing has changed much in 50 years. Retired Calgary broadcast journalist Lynne Rach still laughs when recalling that on her first day on the job as the first female reporter in the CFCN newsroom, the news director posted a note on the bulletin board: “Lynne Rach joins us today as a reporter. Please watch your language.”
April 1, 2010
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that any responsible newspaper would espouse such nonsense in 2010. There is a remedy. All men and women of conscience and who believe in equality of the person should stop buying this newspaper.
April 1, 2010
I’m not sure sanitizing
I’m not sure sanitizing newspaper columns, as Laura seems to suggest, is the answer. That will only stir up more debate about censorship, groupthink and political correctness. We don’t need language policing.
Let the marketplace do the work: if enough men and women “who believe in equality” stop buying the paper (as already seems to be happening) this kind of journalism will soon disappear. Otherwise, we’ll just have to suffer the burden of a free, annoying and even offensive press.
April 6, 2010
Just to illustrate that
Just to illustrate that sexism is an equal opportunity game in the Canadian press, the Globe and Mail still has the reigning example, with Ian Brown checking out the “babes of the Black courtroom.” “Two blondes” on the defence team face a “dark Chicagoan antelope” at the prosecution table. I give him credit: somehow he managed to avoid the phrase ‘cat fight.’
Why Lord Black is Loquacious No More:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/why-lord-black-is-loquacious-no-more/article747208/
April 7, 2010
I’m surprised people are
I’m surprised people are surprised at these kinds of comments. They’re merely a reflection of the society in which we live.
I hear sexist comments made about both men and women all the time. On the street, in coffee shops, in the movies, and, well, everywhere.
From the comments I hear, sexism is alive and well and apparently enjoys a serious following among both men and women.
Journalists and others who want to be politically correct might not like it and it may be wrong but it’s out there and it’s really not surprising to me that it finds its way into newspapers.
What would surprise me a great deal is if newspapers who ran such material actually suffered a drop in circulation. My guess is that the average reader likes this stuff. He or she identifies with it. It speaks to them.