Washington Post Once Again Tries to Divide Women

I really wish I could understand the minds of the editorial page editors of the Washington Post when they picked up this column by Charlotte Allen. But really Charlotte Allen is just a prop for the Washington Post to once again try to start a fight between women. After all, why not elevate a writer who doesn't know what she's talking about as a way to lambast "feminists." So what exact was their thinking?

Makin Hay Out Of Her Breasts

Oh Lord will Clinton’s breasts ever go away? Now both The Washington Post and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are trying to spin this into gold. “Controversy and breasts, boys! That’s what brings in the Sacagaweas!”

Now on some part I can’t blame the continuing coverage entirely on the Post. Apparently more than Ms. Magazine cited the Post story to get attention. The Clinton campaign also used the article in a fundraising letter. That act keeps the angle alive.

So now we have the Post’s Let the Cleavage Conversation Begin

Begin?! I want this story to fucking die a fast crib death!

But have you noticed that whenever the Post get any kind of criticism, when they talk about it in their own pages (or webpages) it always comes out like “we examined the critique and decided our writers are smart people and can’t possible be incorrect or be taken the wrong way.” (They have pure hearts so alternate interpretations don’t factor either).

One week after the piece, by fashion writer Robin Givhan, took note of the Democratic candidate's low neckline during a speech on the Senate floor, senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis urged donors to help fight treatment she termed "insulting." [Hmmm…it’s like only connected people criticized the story? Well only them and one Boston Globe columnist.]

Givhan, who won a Pulitzer Prize last year, [SO SUCK IT CRITICS] said she disagreed "that there was anything in the column that was coarse, insulting or belittling. It was a piece about a public person's appearance on the Senate floor that was surprising because of the location and because of the person. It's disingenuous to think that revealing cleavage, any amount of it, in that kind of situation is a non-issue.

So did you get that? Givhan doesn’t think there was anything wrong with the column…so that’s that I guess.

This article isn’t actually by Givhan, it’s Howard Kurtz with Anne E. Kornblut. I swear I think it was really Howard Kurtz’s article and he probably felt he needed a beard to "co-sign” his column, hence Kornblut’s byline. Without that feminine touch it might just seem…I don’t know ... sexist.

The Washington Post’s editorial voice, even its ombudswoman is always “I can see why you might think that but you are wrong.” I’m not just talking about facts. This wasn’t an issue about facts. It was an issue of coverage. What is appropriate, what is fair, and what is sexist. There is more than one way to view their coverage, but the Post acts as if there’s only way see their stories, their way.

I love how utterly dismissive of all the criticism the last paragraphs are. As if everyone is getting impossibly upset over nothing. Boy what is all the fuss about? No one could possibly fault Givhan (or by extension) the Post for its writing. Well, people can but they'd be just plain mistaken or, even worse, have an agenda for their criticism.

Politicians often rip the media over what they see as unfavorable coverage, hoping to score points against an unpopular institution. But the cleavage letter is undoubtedly a first in the annals of campaign counterpunching.

"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."

See, you haters all were wrong! It wasn’t about breasts at all!

Washington Post: Women Wear Clothes. No! Really?

I think this is going to have to be a regular feature here: Tracking the number of times the Washington Post reporters feel fit to describe what a female politician is wearing but not anyone else. Especially when such descriptions add nothing to the story.

Today’s example, Dana Milbank in his Washington Sketch column. He’s describing the debate in the House about citing Alberto Gonzales with contempt of Congress.

Alternatively, history may choose to focus on the words of Conyers himself, who suspected foul play when Rep. Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), the Democrats' point woman on the contempt matter, discovered that her microphone wasn't working. "We'll have to have that investigated to see if it's pure accident," Conyers proposed to Sanchez, who, resplendent in a black outfit with silver sparkles, shifted to her neighbor's microphone.

Maybe this little nugget seems harmless. But Milbank doesn’t describe any other politician’s dress in the article. He doesn’t write “Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), looking fully Texan in a black suit and wingtips.” Nor does knowing Loretta Sanchez wore black with silver sparkles add anything to “scene” he was setting.

So why did he add that little detail. Other readers can interpret it differently but I think Milbank is demeaning Sanchez. I think some corner of his mind thought her outfit ostentatious and wanted to call attention to it. In doing so he’s attempting, in a small way, to disparage Sanchez. “Look she’s wearing silver sparkles!”

It’s a small thing, but it grates. I doubt Milbank even notices how he treated Sanchez differently from Gohmert or Chairman John Conyers in his column.

UPDATE: I e-mailed the Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell a slightly modified version of this post. (I didn't tell her I was a blogger. She doesn't like bloggers and would probably discount my point if she had known.)

Unexpectedly she wrote me back.

I'll send this to him. He probably did it because her clothing stood out and others did not. -- Deborah

I wrote her back saying:

I'm sure that *is* what he is going to say. But the concept of "male clothing" being unremarkable but female clothing being always a point of interest is a HUGE issue when covering female politicians and tricky onewithout having a double-standard for men and women. Of course men like Milbank probably thinks Conyers clothing is unremarkable. Maybe though another person (say a woman) would have thought Sanchez' clothing wasn't any less unremarkable. Milbank is sort of defining 'normality' of dress inhis mind through his writing. He need to watch it though. Otherwise he willbe putting a double-standard to his subjects by defining what he perceivesis "correct" fashion worth noting.

To which she responded:

I've seen male dress noted in his column on a number of occasions. I watch for that sort of thing.