Opinion

Time for a ‘Summit’ — on Sexism

NOW that we’ve had a beer summit on race, how about a wine sum mit on sexism?

In the latest edition of an online feature called “Mouthpiece Theater,” Washington Post political reporter Dana Milbank attempted a joke about what kind of beer Hillary Clinton would drink at the “beer summit.” Clad in a Hugh Hefner-style silk bathrobe, he smirks to viewers, “We won’t tell you who’s getting a bottle of ‘Mad Bitch’ beer.” A photo of the secretary of state then appears.

Hilarious.

This isn’t some random blogger or even an opinion columnist expressing vile views. This is a reporter at one of the nation’s top newspapers making a sexist joke about a woman he covered during the presidential race.

After criticism from the Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post took the video down, saying it was “satirical” but that a section of the video went too far.

If Milbank made a “satirical” race-based joke about Obama, he’d be fired. But that’s not going to happen here.

After all, calling Hillary Clinton the b-word is practically mainstream behavior. During the ’08 campaign, a (female) questioner at a McCain event asked “How can we beat the bitch?” McCain laughed. Conservative commentator Alex Castellanos defended this on CNN saying that Clinton deserves to be called a “bitch.”

For what? Running for president? How dare she!

The only thing worse would be running for vice president. Just ask Sarah Palin.

I’m no fan of the former governor of Alaska, but as a life-long feminist I can’t ignore the endless stream of sexism directed at her.

Friday on MSNBC, guest host Donny Deutsch asked, “If Palin wasn’t hot, would we be talking about her?” His two female guests — one Republican and one Democrat — were united in their disagreement with this assertion.

But Deutsch was adamant: “The only reason we are so fascinated, the American public has never seen a woman that looks like this in power. That’s where the fascination starts.”

Where was this insightful analysis when the vapid JFK-wannabe John Edwards and his silky hair ended up as the Dems choice for VP in 2004? Or was everyone too dazzled by his completely undistinguished one term as a senator?

In reality, being a “hot” female politician is more likely to result in accusations that you’re a bimbo than public acceptance. If Palin didn’t have other qualities — like charisma and an ability to connect with the average American — she’d never have risen as far as she has.

If all it took to become a rising political star were great cheekbones and nice legs, Victoria’s Secret models would be on every presidential ticket.

There is something profoundly juvenile about adult men in the media grouping powerful women by crude stereotypes like “bitch” or “hot chick.”

When Wimbledon organizers admitted last month that “physical attractiveness is taken into consideration” in deciding which (female, not male) players end up on Centre Court, LZ Granderson, a senior writer at ESPN, defended their desire to have “hot chicks on display during prime time.”

Acknowledging that, “yes, it’s sexist” to relegate the less babelicious but more talented Serena and Venus Williams to lesser courts, he says: “Sometimes people like what they like, and accepting that also requires a certain degree of tolerance.”

You heard that right: He’s arguing for tolerance for sexism. What if the Wimbledon organizers discovered that people like to watch white people play tennis more than black people? Would he argue for “tolerance” for that view? People “like what they like,” right?

Wrong. Racism is wrong and so is sexism.

Somebody just needs to tell our boys in the media. kirstenpowers@aol.com