Are the guys at TPM trying to spark a revolution? It would certainly seem so from reading
this:
Linda Hirshman here. I just got the boot from TPM Café, where I have been blogging for more than a year. Back story: I published a piece on the cover of the Outlook section of the Washington Post last Sunday, March 2, on the class divide in Hillary Clinton's female supporters. Since I criticized the scribbling females of the blogosphere, the article elicited the predictable onslaught of response from them. But when I sent Andrew Golis, my normal contact at TPM Café, my response to post, I got an email telling me TPM had pulled my posting privileges ...
Linda to Andrew: "So why did I not make the cut? Is writing for the times and the Post not good enough for TPM?"
Andrew: "It's not a matter of prestigious clippings, Linda. We're trying to both keep long-standing contributers [sic] around and flesh out the discussion by involving people who are covering things we're not yet addressing."
Linda: "And do you have a lot of contributors covering the female voters, who are likely to determine the outcome of the election of the President of the United States? I am assuming it's not that you don't want anyone who's not already in the tank for Obama. I am serious, here, Andrew. I think this is a real mistake; I have a point of view you don't have much of, I am getting increasingly prestigious opportunities to write and opine, and this is the moment you should capitalize on your relationship with me, not drop me."
Andrew: "I'm not sure the accusation of bias is particularly helpful. For now, like I said, we're focusing on getting our long-standing regulars and folks covering things we don't on the blog. I recognize that you think female voters should be one of those things, we disagree." [emphasis mine]
So. Either the dozen guys who run TPM do not think female voting behavior is worthy of their coverage or, dare I say it, they don't want to run material that might result in readers supporting a candidate other than the one they favor. They do not appear to have deacquisitioned Ruth Rosen, who is one of the Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!™ which of course only supports my most paranoid thoughts.
Good grief!
Are the guys at TPM trying to spark a revolution? It would certainly seem so from reading this:
4 comments:
I saw this at Taylor's and was planning on adding it to a post for tomorrow. I'm so sick of the sexism in this election that's getting ignored. I saw something about Obama fueling some more racist accusations against Hillary in Mississippi today. Ridiculous.
It's gotten to the point that I can't tell the difference between some of these blogs like TPM, AmericaBlog and Huffpost and Fox News. It's bizarre.
I agree, Mary Ellen. I'm afraid this primary has shown has far we still have to go in this country. I can't believe some of the comments I have read about Hillary Clinton at those blogs you mention. Supposed to be liberal? Open minded? Ha! Sure it's great we have an African American running for president. But it's still o.k. to say blatantly sexist things about women?
We've got a long way to go, baby!
We certainly do, SueJ ... but that's why it's so important that we continue blogging. It's no time to be silent.
BAC
This just makes me so mad--and so sad. I really like TPM, but this is just such blatant sexism that I just can't in good conscience go to that site anymore.
Why the hell do men hate women so damned much, BAC? ME? Sue J? It's all around us, so much so that many women have internalized it as well (like the women at my work who won't vote for Hillary because 1. she'd be "too emotional" and 2. she didn't leave her cheatin' hubby, so she's an idiot).
Women have been fighting for equality for so effing long... and yet this election has shown us just how far we still have to go. It's disheartening!
Post a Comment