Originally Posted by Mellowicious
And this article isn't controversial - it's the sexist, print equivalent of Amos 'n' Andy.
Not to defend the drivel in question, but let's be cl;ear on what it is and is not.

Amos and Andy is a case of whites having fun with racist stereotypes... and doing so in disregard of any negative impact their action may cause.

This is a case of a woman expressing sexist stereotypes, a woman who, apparently, lives her life within those assumed stereotypes. If Amos and Andy were Black( like Chris Rock) and saying such things, or calling people "Niggah"... then it is not so racist as a bunch of white guys doing the same. And so it is relevant that the piece was written by a woman who apparently held the views she expressed.

IMO this writer has expressed opinions of a sizable number of women who are committed to "traditional values" (Note-when I say a "sizable number of women", I am thinking that Bush's support never went below 25 percent at the worst, so there is plenty of room for people to hold opinions that I find perplexing stupid and contrary to any vestige of common sense.)

I am not sure why the editors decided to publish this piece. I am pretty sure they have generated a lot of discussion about sexism that has made people more aware of the issue. I doubt that they have in any way strengthened sexism or it's stereotypes. And in the mean time they have likely got a lot of eyeballs to increase their ad revenue. So I am guessing that if they had it to do over, they likely would publish again.


"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel