History of Feminism
Related: About this forumWashington Post Reporter is Amazed When Krysten Sinema Doesn't Like His Labels
The sub-head of Manuel Roig-Franzias Washington Post story on newly elected Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is that her story cant be told with labels. Except that Roig-Franzia has a lot of labels for Sinema: hectoring, pouty, huffy. Its clear Roig-Franzia first conceived of his story as Sinema: Congresss First Bisexual and she didnt want to play ball with his framing of her work. So she disagreed and suddenly Roig-Franzia has a whole lot of labels to put on her.
Lecturing, hectoring, pouty. Thats a lot of sexist labeling because she didnt want to be defined as the Bisexual Congresswoman. But Roig-Franzia wants his readers to know that Sinema talks, a lot. Not that he cares about her point, in fact her vehemence just proves hes the one whos right.
Not only does Roig-Franzia categorize Sinema with a series of insulting descriptions, he also tags her as a lover of designer clothes and that she owns more than 100 pairs of shoes, and that shes asked how she does her blond hair. Not to mention the fact that Prada is name-dropped twice in the story. Has any reporter at the Washington Post asked the male freshman Congressmen how much they love clothing and what brands they wear?
If Roig-Franzia had chosen to look, he might have seen some sexism in how some other have tried to define Sinema. He has a quote from Arizona activist, Randy Parraz, in his story, which reads pretty sexist.
http://www.nameitchangeit.org/blog/entry/washington-post-reporter-is-amazed-when-kyrsten-sinema-doesnt-like-his-labe
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)That many men get really grumpy (and rather confounded) when women are anything other than passive and agreeable all the time.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He was planning a story about the hawt bisexual lady.
(speculation.)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)didnt even think of that, but, ya.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)He wanted to make her sexuality the focus of the interview... why, exactly?
And when she wouldn't cooperate, he of course derided her, and insisted that by not agreeing to make her sexuality an acceptable topic, she was thereby practically *forcing* people to talk about it.
Sterling logic there, buddy.