I got this email from a family friend. She forwarded me a letter from
Ms. Magazine regarding a recent
Washington Post article about the subtle implications of HRC's cleavage.
After reading the offending article, which I DID find offensive, I used a link provided here to e-mail, "The Washington Post". Hillary Clinton is not the candidate I support for President of the United States. This issue isn't about who should be president.
"Katherine Spillar, Ms. Executive Editor" <
[email protected]> wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:26:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Katherine Spillar, Ms. Executive Editor" <
[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]Subject: Clinton's Cleavage -- Outrageous Washington Post Article
Take Action!
Protest the Washington Post's sexist coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton.
The Post's recent article analyzing Clinton's cleavage is a new low!
Read Post article Dear Annette,
Mainstream media coverage of women politicians has hit a new, unbelievable low. On Friday, the Washington Post ran a prominent article analyzing Senator Hillary Clinton's cleavage.
Let the Post know that this kind of demeaning coverage will not be tolerated. Senator Clinton is a distinguished member of the Senate and quite possibly the next president of the United States. Instead of writing about her strategy to end the war in Iraq or her plans to reform the health care system in this country, the Post devoted a feature story to analyzing her breasts.
Let's stop this ridiculous coverage now, in the early stages of the campaign, and demand that Senator Clinton is treated with the same dignity and respect as her male competitors.
In her article in the Style section of the Post, staff writer Robin Givhan calls Clinton's décolletage "a provocation" and declares that "showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way." Never does she consider that Clinton's minimally revealing neckline might have been the result of the 90 degree Washington, D.C. heat.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The media has rabidly attacked Sen. Clinton for years for her appearance. For example, in his April 26 coverage of the first Democratic presidential debate, MSNBC host Chris Matthews commented repeatedly on Clinton's jewelry and outfit, saying he believed viewers "like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in appearance." In early June, speculation on whether or not Hillary had gotten botox injections rippled through prominent newspapers and television programs.
Women politicians' clothes, hairdos, weight, and other physical characteristics have been the obsessive focus of journalists ever since women first began holding public office in this country. We've had it!
Let the Washington Post know that sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton or any women politician is unacceptable.
For Equality,
Katherine Spillar
Executive Editor
After a vigorous eye roll about the Post doing this, I replied, and decided to post the whole thing on the DU. What the hell, right?
Oy, vey.... *bangs head on wall*
I'm sure HRC has breasts, and I'm sure she has cleavage, and since she had pretty good skin, it's probably pretty nice cleavage. However, I'm also pretty sure that my viewpoints on this subject are not newspaper-worthy, anymore than Ann Coulter looking for meaning in how much chest hair was sticking out of John Edwards' polo shirt. Is Faux News going to start looking for panty lines in HRC's slacks next?
"A Treatise on the Impact of Thong-Wearing Personalities on Domestic and International Policies in early 21st Century America", by George Will... I can see it now
How about the Washington Times doing an analysis of whether Obama is wearing tight jockeys to make is privates bulge in a more attractive manner, much like a WonderBra, but lower????
================
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Si Hoc Legere Scis, Nimium Eruditionis Habes