Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Tempest In A Teapot? I Think Not
Anne Applebaum, MSM columnist and blogger, writes in the Washington Post today about a seemingly obscure kerfuffle that has vast consequences. As a little background, outspoken and often hysterical feminist Susan Estrich has accused Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, the liberal Michael Kinsley, of not publishing enough columns by women. This Estrich vs. Kinsley brawl was leaked to the blogosphere, and we were "treated" to a rather sickening display over the last month or so. (Heather MacDonald links to the many installments of the fight, and provides excellent commentary, in a must-read City Journal piece.)
So Applebaum, with over 20 years in the business, makes the obvious point that counting female columnists, and crying "discrimination" at the disparity in numbers between male and female practitioners, is poison for those women that have actually made their way in this profession.
Scott Johnson (aka Big Trunk) at Powerline (h/t to them, by the way, for the link to the Applebaum piece) wonders if Applebaum is willing to extend the analogy of the negative consequences of this kind of bean counting to other situations, specifically affirmative action for minorities. I don't think Applebaum is under any obligation to extend it. Nor does Johnson avoid, by his choice of language, making the connection himself. Rather, I think it is perfectly obvious to all but the mortgaged (to affirmative action political spoils) and the insane that the analogy is nearly a perfect one. Have not rational opponents of affirmative action been making the case for years that legislating equal outcomes has the most pernicious effects on those who succeed by their own efforts? Applebaum's informal survey is just the latest bit of evidence, as if more were needed, that the costs are borne by those who make their own way.
It is only fear and intimidation that prevents a reasoned debate about this effect. Having been granted by feel-good liberals an impenetrable political fortress, race hustlers, and now gender hustlers, snipe with impunity at all comers. But maybe they've gone too far: if saner heads can prevail in knocking down this Estrich atrocity, maybe the entire equal outcome fortress can be exposed as the malignant relic that it is.
So Applebaum, with over 20 years in the business, makes the obvious point that counting female columnists, and crying "discrimination" at the disparity in numbers between male and female practitioners, is poison for those women that have actually made their way in this profession.
Possibly because I see so many excellent women around me at the newspaper, possibly because so many of The Post's best-known journalists are women, possibly because I've never thought of myself as a "female journalist" in any case, I hadn't felt especially lonely. But now that I know -- according to widely cited statistics, which I cannot verify -- that only 10.4 percent of articles on this newspaper's op-ed page in the first two months of this year were written by women, 16.9 percent of the New York Times's op-ed articles were by women, and 19.5 percent of the Los Angeles Times's op-eds were by women, lonely is how I feel. Or perhaps the right phrase is "self-conscious and vaguely embarrassed."
This conversation was sparked, as media junkies will know, by a bizarre attack launched on Michael Kinsley, now the editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, by Susan Estrich, a self-styled feminist. In a ranting, raving series of e-mails last month, all of which were leaked, naturally, Estrich accused Kinsley of failing to print enough articles by women, most notably herself, and of resorting instead to the use of articles by men, as well as by women who don't count as women because they don't write with "women's voices."
[E}strich.... just launched a conversation that is seriously bad for female columnists and writers. None of the ones I know -- and, yes, I conducted an informal survey -- want to think of themselves as beans to be counted, or as "female journalists" with a special obligation to write about "women's issues." Most of them got where they are by having clear views, knowing their subjects, writing well and learning to ignore the ad hominem attacks that go with the job. But now, thanks to Estrich, every woman who gets her article accepted will have to wonder whether it was her knowledge of Irish politics, her willingness to court controversy or just her gender that won the editor over.
Scott Johnson (aka Big Trunk) at Powerline (h/t to them, by the way, for the link to the Applebaum piece) wonders if Applebaum is willing to extend the analogy of the negative consequences of this kind of bean counting to other situations, specifically affirmative action for minorities. I don't think Applebaum is under any obligation to extend it. Nor does Johnson avoid, by his choice of language, making the connection himself. Rather, I think it is perfectly obvious to all but the mortgaged (to affirmative action political spoils) and the insane that the analogy is nearly a perfect one. Have not rational opponents of affirmative action been making the case for years that legislating equal outcomes has the most pernicious effects on those who succeed by their own efforts? Applebaum's informal survey is just the latest bit of evidence, as if more were needed, that the costs are borne by those who make their own way.
It is only fear and intimidation that prevents a reasoned debate about this effect. Having been granted by feel-good liberals an impenetrable political fortress, race hustlers, and now gender hustlers, snipe with impunity at all comers. But maybe they've gone too far: if saner heads can prevail in knocking down this Estrich atrocity, maybe the entire equal outcome fortress can be exposed as the malignant relic that it is.
# posted by mds : 9:44 AM
