Maureen Dowd's explanation for her sexist comments (and Yes, they are sexist; that should be pretty obvious, even if you don't mind her sexism) is that, hey, she writes this way about Every candidate and President out there, and always has.

The problem with Dowd's defense is that sexism is an unfair system that simply Cannot (as she maintains) be fairly applying to Everyone.

Sexism is used to target and suppress women, not men. When you write a very influential column in a well-respected newspaper, about a female politician, and you employ descriptions that conjure up the likes of witches, failed Miss America contestants and female monsters, you can't honestly say that your barbs against men are just as damaging.

Not in this culture, in which a female Presidential candidate is still seen as an oddity and a novelty. Of all the Presidents we've had, none have been women (or African American).

So, sorry, Dowd, it's just Not a fair playing ground (or insulting ground).

Of course, Dowd's term for Obama ("Obambi") is pretty nasty, too.

Apparently Dowd is a mean-spirited person who uses hatred to defeat those she has decided are not fit to run our country.

The real problem, then, is not sexism, it's hostility, (of which sexism definitely employs, of course). One cannot truly see the candidates for who they are when people like Dowd, and other extremely influential, political commentators are busily smearing globs of mud over all the other guy (or woman).

The carefully and cleverly crafted barb has come to be understood equal to, and even more important than discourse of depth and substance.

Why don't we learn to understand this hateful business for what it Really is: the rampant and common nastiness of an election-year, used to take a candidate down, however unfair, sexist or dishonest it is.

That's one of the core problems. News media are competing for your attention, and inflammatory language, hostile characterizations, and pejorative writing commands attention. And even if your attention's been captured because you feel indignant about the content, the frame(s) presented have been reinforced.

Reform of the unfortunately relaxed media ownership laws should be one of the key points this election.

That it's not makes me very nervous: tasty poison fruit, and all that.

Fielding, I totally agree with you that media consolidation should be a big concern for everyone. Blogs do not substitute.

I think the OP has it completely right that the main problem is the core of nastiness and hostility. When that is a dominant mode of communication, people tend to grab whatever tropes are handy. Clinton being a woman means that insults in her direction will generally use sexist forms. Personally I think that means the insulter is more lazy than sexist.

Dowd hates everyone equally. The issue with the New York Times isn't Maureen Dowd - it's the NYT. They have moved from being the most dysfunctional family in America into pure schietzophrenia. First we have the editorial page. I appreciate differing viewpoints, but from Krugman's boot licking, to Dowd's outright hostility to Frank Rich's paens to the op-ed panels shifts to Kristol's idiocy and outright errors (and the fact that the paper didn't have the integrity to identify him as a McCain advisor), it lost all credibility. Then we have half the reporters - who don't report, they editorialize - they find one line of news, and instead of either researching an issue or trying to show both sides, they jump right in with some really bad editorial writing. As if that is not assinine enough, we have a "public editor" who contradicts what the writers of his own paper say - in this case without any credence. I idolized the NYT growing up. I believed everything they published. Now I don't believe a thing I read. The least they could do is find some real reporters - who give us the news and let us form our own opinions.

Sweet nostalgia.

Fielding:

Funny!:):)

Dowd is as sharp as a pound of wet leather. The common thread between calling Hillary a witch and Obama a girl is that being a girl is the presumed insult. I'm as paternalistic as they get and even I can see that is insulting to women. I understand why Dowd doesn't get it, even as I can't understand why she's had a public platform from which to spew her drivel for so long. I can't understand why the XX Factor women don't it. If you call me a girl, and I feel diminished as a result, what does that say about my feelings about girls?

That said, I'm a big fan of gender difference and manliness. But then, I'm not a dumb girl like Maureen Dowd.

you know what - i missed that part - dowd does do that. she loves hillary when she's being a tough broad - and has gone after obama when he seems too soft. and that is sexist. i guess some people would say that my opinion is sexist. i don't have anything against tough women - but using "girl" as an insult is not okay

i'm badly informed on this part - "media laws" - is this because of the Brennan decision in the 60s (which was needed at the time) or sme change in federal law under Reagan? I think most Americans are fed up with the media.

"I idolized the NYT growing up. I believed everything they published. Now I don't believe a thing I read. The least they could do is find some real reporters - who give us the news and let us form our own opinions."

This is absolutely true. I so wish that reporters would go back to the days where they dug for a story, had to have three corroborating sources, and then just wrote the story. The readers took it from there. Leave the opinion for the op-ed page editors.

It's all trash and flash now. But, hey, all we seem to have at this point are huge media conglomerates that care about making a buck. Some journalists can't stand it, my local TV news 'reporter' actually rolls his eyes and makes faces at the camera when he's forced to 'report' on wether or not Britney went out wearing underwear. You can tell he's just dying to say 'what in the hell am I doing here???'