Reply #59: Stephanie

[Morgana LaFey]

DON'T qualify your complaint to only apply to the sexist age issue. Please. That's true and valid enough, but believe me, that's only one example of his sexism.

You apparently missed some of his ultra-sexist commentary about Paris Hilton several weeks ago. It was unbelievable, and including vulgar double entendres and such. It was just awful.

In fact, here's the email I sent on Jun 12 (once I FINALLY got the email address):

I've been an Olbermann fan for quite a while. I've never noticed the misogyny before last week's coverage of Paris Hilton, or perhaps just didn't have the occasion to notice it.

There are plenty of things to criticize Hilton about, but gender slurs are not just unnecessary, they are out of place and plain wrong. The sexually explicit ones, the innuendo / double entendres, ANY and ALL gender slurs are beneath the dignity (or should be) of Keith Olbermann and a dreadful discredit to him.

At a time when women are losing ground nearly every day, Olbermann's remarks help that process by making it really, really "okay" for even progressive men to resort to misogynist remarks to criticize women, any woman, all women. Too, this makes him no better than Don Imus. Imus was worse because he was sexist AND racist? Only if sexism is "okay" with you, only if one wants women to stay unequal and disadvantaged and victims of hate crimes simply because they are women does that make any sense. All oppression is wrong, all oppression helps keep all the rest in place. Someone in Keith Olberman's position saying such vulgar sexist/ misogynist things about Paris Hilton really serves to normalize misogyny -- helps keep it firmly in place, and all women the world over firmly at disadvantage.

Well done, Keith. As someone who worked very hard on behalf of women's rights in my life, I'm no longer the fan I used to be. What a hypocrite you appear in the wake of your criticism of Don Imus.