Washington Post Writer Can’t Figure Out Why Trump Supporters Won’t Talk To Her
In corporate media, conservative women are simply presumed to be bigoted, or stupid, or who cares, as long as it’s an opportunity to trivialize them.
By Casey Chalk
JANUARY 3, 2020
Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak is confused. In October 2019 she visited a “Women for Trump†rally in our nation’s capital, trying to figure out why these women support President Trump. Attendants were hesitant to answer Dvorak, particularly when she identified herself as a WaPo employee.
This prompted another question for Dvorak: Why are conservatives so distrustful of her and the mainstream media she represents? Dvorak thinks the answer can be reduced to President Trump’s disparaging of what he calls the “Amazon Washington Post†or the “Failing New York Times,†as if conservative women are mindless lemmings who bow to his every bidding.
I’ll offer a more basic answer: because these outlets, and many others like them, offer such blatantly critical and condescending perspectives on conservative Americans and their values. This is palpable even in Dvorak’s article, which rather than attempting empathy for conservative women who don’t equate feminism with pro-choice politics, simply belittles them. She writes:
Well, when you set it up that way… Dvorak’s approach is akin to a lawyer who asks the defendant when he stopped beating his wife. Conservative women are simply presumed to be bigoted, or stupid, or who cares, as long as it’s an opportunity to trivialize them.
The problem goes far beyond Dvorak and her consistent mockery of conservatives. Monica Hesse, whose WaPo byline describes her as a “columnist writing about gender and its impact on society,†rivals Dvorak in her antipathy for conservatives and their way of life.
Hesse loves to write articles encouraging America to “have a conversation†or “talk about†some gender-related subject she deems important. Yet consider her provocative headlines: “Why do so many dads think it’s their duty to monitor their daughters’ virginity?†“We need to talk about why mass shooters are almost always men,†and “I walked ‘like a man’ for a week, and here’s what I realized.â€
In corporate media, conservative women are simply presumed to be bigoted, or stupid, or who cares, as long as it’s an opportunity to trivialize them.
By Casey Chalk
JANUARY 3, 2020
Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak is confused. In October 2019 she visited a “Women for Trump†rally in our nation’s capital, trying to figure out why these women support President Trump. Attendants were hesitant to answer Dvorak, particularly when she identified herself as a WaPo employee.
“The women on the Capitol lawn approving of him, for the most part, didn’t want to talk to me,†she acknowledged. Those who did answered with vagaries, like one woman who simply explained her support with, “Oh, for many, many reasons.â€
I’ll offer a more basic answer: because these outlets, and many others like them, offer such blatantly critical and condescending perspectives on conservative Americans and their values. This is palpable even in Dvorak’s article, which rather than attempting empathy for conservative women who don’t equate feminism with pro-choice politics, simply belittles them. She writes:
But why, specifically, is he good for American women, I wanted to know. Was there a woman who believes the Equal Rights Amendment is an old idea that’s no longer relevant? Or a woman who believes it was Melania Trump who brought family values and Christmas back to the White House? Or a military mom who is so glad funding for military child care will instead be used to build the wall?
The problem goes far beyond Dvorak and her consistent mockery of conservatives. Monica Hesse, whose WaPo byline describes her as a “columnist writing about gender and its impact on society,†rivals Dvorak in her antipathy for conservatives and their way of life.
Hesse loves to write articles encouraging America to “have a conversation†or “talk about†some gender-related subject she deems important. Yet consider her provocative headlines: “Why do so many dads think it’s their duty to monitor their daughters’ virginity?†“We need to talk about why mass shooters are almost always men,†and “I walked ‘like a man’ for a week, and here’s what I realized.â€
I've read both the columnists mentioned. When they have written about conservatives or conservative women it doesn't seem to describe any conservatives or conservative women that I have ever met. Those writers and many others often read like Medieval bestiaries - fourth hand accounts of exotic animals that are made up equally of folk tales, religious (political) symbolism, and wishful thinking.
The message I have gotten over and over again from journalists describing conservative women is that we are Stepford Wives dutifully programmed by husbands, fathers, Trump, and our Vengeful Sky God (in that order) to forge the chains of our own oppression. It's that or we are beer-swilling trailer park sluts who illegally wear yoga pants to Walmart and have a bail bond place on speed dial.
If we don't agree with ERA, unlimited abortion, the wage gap myth, affirmative action for women, girrrl power at the expense of boys, the disparity in child custody that favors women, or tampons in men's bathrooms, we are traitors to our own sex. If we do believe in limited government, personal responsibility, or favor intact marriages between opposite sexed adults before producing bio kids, we are hopelessly brainwashed by the patriarchy and we don't even know it!
We can't win no matter how principled or articulate we are. The reframing and editing has to fit a specific narrative or bolster a certain predetermined observation. If we talk about specific policies or cultural trends that have negative effects on the wider society, the writer will juxtapose a story about an individual where this is not true. If we point to specific individuals who defy progressive stereotypes, the writer will launch into a contra point involving society as a whole.
Given how vicious both journalists and cancel culture is today, how many would agree to speak?
The Federalist
Comment