Negligent Sexism

This story has to do with Twitter.

But probably not the way you immediately thought, given the title. 

(Not that Twitter the platform doesn’t have a massive problem with sexism, of course, but that’s really a far more active and aggressive version.  “Negligent” could really only be applicable to the way Twitter the company handles issues on Twitter the platform.  Anyways…)

I’ve noted that journalists have gradually been using Twitter more and more, and I figured that keeping tabs on a few of them would be a good way to see articles I might not otherwise, keep up on breaking news, etc.

Overall, my list of people I was following grew pretty organically, and for specific reasons.  For a while, I was just checking on three people:  1) Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek, due to his work on national security/Russia; 2) Paul Krugman, since I enjoy his blog and he’s doing less blogging and more tweeting now; and 3) David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post, because of his work on Trump’s charitable giving and his general awesomeness.

Over the past few weeks, as things like the AHCA and the Russia investigation have heated up, I started adding a couple more people to the rotation.  They were people who I seemed to see retweeted a lot on those topics, so they also seemed like a good source of info: 4) Bradd Jaffy, of NBC Nightly News, and 5) Robert Costa, also at the Washington Post (although less frequently).

I assume you’re seeing the problem by now.

I wasn’t following any women.  Sure, five is a small sample size; it wouldbe of more concern if that list were bigger.  And the first three had been added for their specific work.  But now that the scope was broadening to general DC politics, there wasn’t one woman who should be included?

Of course there was.  And so I added several to the list (most of whom, I’m pleased to say, I knew to search out by name rather than hunting for retweets in my existing list for ideas): 6) Karen Tumulty, again at the Washington Post; 7) Katy Tur, with NBC News; 8) Maggie Haberman at the New York Times; and 9) Andrea Mitchell, again with NBC News.

(The list is WaPo heavy because I have a subscription there and not the NYTimes, so I’ve got a better chance of being able to read the articles linked; although, to their credit, they’re not shy about linking to each other and other news orgs.  I have no idea why it’s also so NBC-heavy.)

Does it really matter?  On a click-count basis, of course not.  One person out of thousands doesn’t really make a difference.  And I don’t even have a Twitter account, I’m just following them manually, so they don’t even get a follower count bump.  Who I follow on Twitter or don’t isn’t going to change the world.

But, I’ve discovered, it matters to me.  As someone who considers himself a feminist (and feels slightly awkward about saying so because it feels like I’m trying to horn in on something that doesn’t belong to me), it was jarring to realize what had happened and, quite frankly, how easily it had happened.

I just finished reading The Handmaid’s Tale for the first time the other day.  (“For the first time” mostly because until recently I thought it was a medieval-based story.  Which I guess it is in a way, if you feel like being slightly snarky.)  And it just didn’t hit me as strongly, for the most part, as it has others.  

I don’t know if it’s because of desensitization to the political premise: we’ve already got the “blame Islamic terrorism” and attempted/successful sexual subjugation of women (abortion bans, birth control bans, victim blaming, the President, removal of maternity coverage from insurance requirements, etc.), after all, and I can be utterly outraged about those things in real life; the book is just an extension of where it seems some people are trying to take our country anyways.  

Or maybe it’s just not being able to fully relate because I’m not a woman (which, to be completely, utterly, totally clear, is not to suggest I relate in any way to what the men in the story were doing), it didn’t hit me as strongly, for the most part, as I understand it has hit others. 

What did make an impact, though, was the removal of literacy.  As someone who (quite obviously) loves reading and writing (and talking, although generally less than the other two) and language in general, the idea of not even being allowed around written language, to be silenced like that, is… well, it moves beyond horrifying to just a sense of emptiness which I do think the book captured excellently.

And to some extent, that’s what I was doing.  Nowhere near the same scale, certainly.  And not intentionally.  But silencing them nonetheless.  Or at least not giving their voices the same weight that I was giving male voices.

Again, does it matter?  On a global scale, no.  My actions on their own are negligible.  Even sharing this story with you will have a negligible impact on things.

But still, it matters to me.  Equality matters to me.  Supporting women, especially in traditionally male-dominated roles, matters to me.  I’m not always the best person on matters like this, but I have to do what I can.

I’m sure absolutely none of this is foreign to any women reading this.  But I have a couple goals in sharing this:

First, let women know that this sort of thing is seen and recognized by those other than them.  Validation is important.  And no, not “male” validation, although unfortunately male recognition of problems women have to deal with carries outsized weight.  Additionally, men have certainly done plenty of invalidation throughout history, and male invalidation does matter.  As the ones who have generally made ourselves in charge, every dismissal of a problem as "not a big deal", "what does it matter?", "who really cares?"... those make a difference.  Maybe it's an artificial distinction I'm making here to make myself feel better, but I'm not trying to come at this as a man telling women "Yes, this problem really does exist, you're right! How about that", but as a human being going "This thing you've been talking about?  I see it, and I agree that it matters."

And second, provide a reminder of how easily this can happen to even those with the best of intentions.  I’m not trying to guilt anyone, because I don’t feel guilty over this: it’s not something I set out to do, and I corrected it as soon as I noticed it, which was fairly quickly.  Slipups happen; the important thing is noticing them, fixing them, and trying to avoid them in the future.

But again, the first step is noticing, and recognizing that it matters if you fix it.

And FYI: Maggie Haberman’s articles had the most page views of any NYTimes reporter in 2016.  But guess what the context of the article is?