Monday, July 29, 2013

Maureen Dowd, Here's the Delete Key.

So a couple of days after the excruciatingly ridiculous "interview" of Reza Aslan by Lauren Green on Fox News, we have Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, whose column I read religiously and whose book The End of Men I have on my bookshelf, opining about Huma Abedin and why she stays with Anthony Weiner.

And all I can say is "No, no, no."

Here are a few of the offending lines in the column entitled "Time To Hard-Delete Carlos Danger":

WHEN you puzzle over why the elegant Huma Abedin is propping up the eel-like Anthony Weiner, you must remember one thing: Huma was raised in Saudi Arabia, where women are treated worse by men than anywhere else on the planet.

It gets worse: 

Comparatively speaking, the pol from Queens probably seems like a prince.  

Then there's this: 

Huma gained renown, movie star suitors and a Vogue spread as the stylish Muslim Garbo silently and efficiently parting the waves for Hillary.

And finally, before I facepalm myself to death, Dowd quotes a "friend":

“As soon as she stood up to say those words she changed herself from a sophisticated, mysterious guiding intelligence and beauty next to Hillary Clinton to the wife of a tarnished Anthony Weiner.” 

Wa-hey! Racism and sexism in the same column: a two-fer that I wasn't expecting when I slapped down my dollars for the paper. First Dowd mentions Abedin's upbringing in Saudi Arabia as the reason for her Stockholm Syndrome, as if women across all races and cultures haven't stood by philandering men throughout the ages. Where was Hillary Clinton raised? Riyadh? Jeddah? Dammam? Oh, that's right, Illinois. Oops. Then Dowd smears all Arab men by saying that Carlos Danger and his Wandering Penis is princely in comparison to, you know, all of them...

Okay, so it's kind of fashionable to slam Muslims these days. I get that. You just can't help yourself, Maureen, we'll overlook it like it's a disease. An addiction if you prefer. Which is kind of the same thing. But what's this? You then take the "Huma Abedin is a Muslim doormat" rhetoric which Rush Limbaugh stated in his own idiotic radio show and agree with it, by saying that Huma was most effective when she was "silently and efficiently parting the waves" (I'll ignore the "Muslim Garbo" quip, even though I think you've been harping way too much about Huma's religion and cultural background while omitting the fact that she is the daughter of two PhDs. And as if the most important thing about the woman is her religion, not her citizenship, her work, her accomplishments).

And then you reinforce it with the quote from the "friend" (with friends like this, etc. etc.) - Huma standing up to speak for herself ruined her image and brought her down to the level of wronged wife. No more mysterious guiding intelligence! So what are you saying, a silent woman is a smarter woman? Muslim women are best received when they remain closed-mouthed? So they don't have to trouble you with their perfect American accents and, you know, those words coming out of their mouths?

I don't know what kind of image you want Huma Abedin to espouse, but trust me, she's no victim. The woman is a barracuda, well-versed in what it takes to survive in Washington. And yes, Muslim women know how to do this as well as Christian or Jewish or atheist or agnostic or Hindu... okay I'm getting tired now.

God, but I'm disappointed in you, Maureen. I expected better than this. Huma Abedin needs to call up Olivia Pope and convince her to take her on as a client, because clearly her attempt to control all this damage isn't good enough for you. But you need to look for the delete key on your keyboard, and  learn how to use it. Because that's what you should have done before publishing this ridiculous article.

No comments:

Post a Comment