The Washington Post went fishing for sexism and put the catch on its front page:
Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Politics?
Kennedy's Withdrawal Illustrates a Double Standard, Some Say
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009; Page A01With her abrupt exit this week from consideration for the Senate, Caroline Kennedy added her name to a growing list: women who have sought the nation's highest offices only to face insurmountable hurdles.
Caroline Kennedy sought a seat that was previously occupied by a woman. The seat was vacant because the woman who held it had been appointed to a higher office. Instead of Kennedy, a different woman will replace the earlier occupant.
How can the "insurmountable hurdles" faced by Kennedy have anything to do with her gender? Not only is it inconceivable, an argument can be made that her gender actually helped her. (I suspect Governor Paterson was under pressure to fill Hillary Clinton's seat with a woman).
So, the thesis of the article is unsupportable. How did it make it onto the front page of a national paper? Is it because even the most spurious claim of discrimination will receive earnest attention from the mainstream media?
Ironically, when the Post publishes unsupportable charges, they undermine the cause of decreasing discrimination by adopting the role of the 'boy who cried wolf'. If the Post were to find actual discrimination, their credibility would be undermined by this piece.
Why would they unwittingly diminish their credibility on sexual discrimination issues? Is it because actual cases of discrimination are harder to find, so they're reduced to blowing the whistle on false claims? Does this piece, by using a ridiculous example to charge that there is a glass ceiling, inadvertently serve as evidence that actual sexual discrimination is almost non-existent?

















