soc.women

The New York Times' Assault on Working Women
By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, February 25, 2008
Send an email to Carol Platt Liebau
Email It
Print It
Take Action
Read Article & Comments (1) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

For once, liberals and conservatives can agree on something: The New
York Times acted shamefully in publishing a story in part suggesting
that John McCain might have had an extramarital affair. The piece,
laced with little more than rumor and innuendo, was obviously designed
to strangle the McCain campaign in its cradle. As lefty blogger Greg
Sargent put it, "The suggestion that the relationship might have been
sexual, which is made at the top and towards the end of the story,
basically amounts to an allegation that anonymous sources said there
was concern that the relationship might have become romantic." In
other words, the report is a big bunch of nothing - a piece that
"offered readers no proof" of any wrongful conduct, in the words of
the Times' own public editor.

But the damage inflicted by gossipy stories like this is real - not
just to the reputation of a newspaper clearly riddled with
partisanship, or the peace of mind of the families of John McCain and
Vicki Iseman (both of whom have denied any improper relationship). The
repercussions of such innuendo-filled and irresponsible reporting
spread far beyond politics.


Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., talks to
reporters in flight from Indianapolis to Washington Friday, Feb. 22,
2008. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Every feminist - and every working woman in America - should be
denouncing The New York Times for this reason: Whenever unsupported
allegations like those spotlighted in the McCain hit piece come to
national prominence, it becomes more difficult for young women to
attain true equality in the workplace. What readers know is that Vicki
Iseman worked successfully with John McCain. They spent some time
together, shared some air flights. From this, unnamed staffers have
speculated about the possibility of an affair - and the Times went
ahead and published the speculation.

Clearly, had Vicki Iseman been a man (or even an older, less
attractive woman), such speculation would never have existed, and
certainly wouldn't have been dignified with a lengthy page-one, four-
reporter splash in the "paper of record." Looking at the lack of
evidence in the Times piece reporting unspecified (and
unsubstantiated) "concerns" about an affair, who can blame senior male
employees from concluding that such rumors can be the price of
associating - even professionally - with an attractive, younger woman?

All across America, there are young women attempting to advance at
work by being just as smart, just as prepared, and just as diligent as
their male counterparts. But if the senior (most often male) employees
they need to impress are hyper-sensitive about the reputational damage
that can result from spending time with them, female workers going to
be deprived of opportunities they need to showcase their talent. Young
female associates at law firms aren't going to have the chance to work
with older, married male partners conducting important trials away
from home - too risky to be staying in a hotel with a woman for that
long. Junior businesswomen of all stripes may be deprived of their
turns at closing deals with male senior executives, lest doing so
elicit whispers. And the list goes on.

When Anita Hill launched her still-unproven assault on Clarence
Thomas' character seventeen years ago, men all over America discovered
that their reputations could be threatened by a simple accusation from
a woman, offered without even a scintilla of evidence (in fact,
Justice Thomas' character was trashed despite evidence that he had
actually helped and mentored Hill). Now, it seems that their fidelity
to their wives can be publicly questioned for nothing more than
spending time in the company of an attractive, young professional
woman.

Given the double standards of liberal feminists - who were willing to
condemn Justice Thomas without evidence, yet refused to chastise
President Bill Clinton for behavior that was both proven and
infinitely worse - it's unlikely that they'll speak up in defense of a
Republican like John McCain. But the next time that they deplore the
existence of a "glass ceiling" in the workplace, they might want to
consider the impact on young, professional women of the kind of
unsubstantiated rumor-mongering so gleefully undertaken by The New
York Times last week.