The Brett Kavanaugh saga has really lit a feminist fire at New York magazine, whose “Women in Power” series of interviews with prominent women (liberal activists, liberal politicians, and liberal journalist Andrea Mitchell) was published in an online series and compiled in the October 15-29 print issue. Unsurprisingly Anita Hill held the lead slot of the massive feature. The headline trumpeted “Anita Hill Won, Even Though She Lost.” Linda Sarsour, the media-celebrated Muslim “feminist."
The October 1-14 issue of New York Magazine issued 10 pages of anti-Kavanaugh bile under the heading “Her and Him -- The hearing that broke America.” It’s a collection of brief essays on the September 27 Senate Judiciary committee testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh: Ten pages of inchoate liberal rage, from liberals including Jonathan Chait, Frank Rich, Rebecca Traister (preserved in amber at the moment after the testimony and before Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote), all shamelessly junking any pretense of due process while loudly assuming Kavanaugh’s guilt.
CBS This Morning on Tuesday amplified the network’s one-sided narrative when it comes to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The show’s co-hosts wondered “what message” any kind of support for Kavanaugh sends to women. They also pushed the idea that women simply aren’t allowed to get angry.
“Summer of Rage,” feminist author Rebecca Traister’s entry for New York magazine, actually attacked the Democratic Party and journalists from the left while defending harassment of Trump officials in public. The online subhead set the tone: “White men are the minority in the United States -- no wonder they get uncomfortable when their power is challenged.”
In the midst of all the sexual harassment shockers emerging from the media, Hollywood, and politics, the Left is still hailing Anita Hill as the patron saint of sexual harassment. An especially egregious case unfolded on Thursday afternoon, as the NPR show Fresh Air with Terry Gross spent a half-hour re-litigating Clarence Thomas as a harasser with his old journalistic nemesis Jane Mayer (now with The New Yorker) and feminist author Rebecca Traister.The online summary was headlined “For Years, Anita Hill Was A 'Canary In The Coal Mine' For Women Speaking Out.” Only after they’d exhausted two-thirds of the hour on Hill-Thomas, did they turn to the harassment controversies that are not 26 years old.
The appearance of Hillary Clinton’s campaign autobiography instigated yet another round of sexism excuses for her loss to Donald Trump. In the Sept. 18 issue of New York magazine, feminist author Rebecca Traister not-so-subtly suggests American just can’t handle an (angry) powerful woman: “Hillary, Heated – She’s finally expressing some righteous anger. Why does that make everyone else so mad?” Traister, writer-at-large for the magazine, laments Hillary Clinton’s inability to express her justified anger in public.
The Associated Press, PolitiFact, CNN, Snopes and all of the other "fact-checkers" should be busy this weekend and well into next week vetting the howlers contained in Rebecca Traister's New York Magazine Friday afternoon interview of a politician who has been in the public eye for decades. But it's a virtual lock that they won't bother, because the person Traister interviewed was Hillary Clinton.
Liberals like to allege that Donald Trump turns the bigoted subtext of longstanding Republican ideas into text that’s about as subtle as a whoopee cushion. As Rebecca Traister put it in a Monday article, the GOP traditionally has been “covert” about “the very biases that [Trump] makes coarse and plain.” Regarding the uproar over the Access Hollywood audio, Traister wrote, "Trump…is not distinct from Republican nature or motivation; he is its slightly more unruly twin. At the debate on Sunday, two days after being revealed talking about grabbing pussies, he claimed that 'nobody has more respect for women than I do.' And there it was: the giant Republican lie about an interest in gender equality exposed as pure snake oil by their front man."
They’re calling it the feel-good romantic hit of the summer, or at least of the Democratic convention. Bill Clinton’s long, granular tribute to Hillary Rodham Clinton had several liberal pundits swooning. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate wrote that it was during this speech that “for the first time…most of us met” Hillary, whom “we have all been following and misunderstanding and cartooning for decades now.” Rebecca Traister of New York magazine gave Bill big props for reminiscing about how Hillary turned him on: "One of the roadblocks for women is objectification and sexualization, but when it comes to Hillary Clinton, whose ambition and brains have long rendered her bloodless in the American imagination, hearing her described as an object of desire could feel corrective and bizarrely just. So he did it."
As many NewsBusters readers know, a fairly common talking point on the left is that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have consistently gotten a raw deal from the national media. Unsurprisingly, New York Magazine’s Rebecca Traister raised the issue in an 8,200-word piece on Hillary and her campaign that appears in the magazine’s May 30 issue. “If Clinton suffers from a kind of political PTSD that makes her overly cautious and scripted and closed-off, then its primary trigger is the press corps that trails her everywhere she goes. Clinton hates the press,” wrote Traister.
The current election campaign pits the forces of backlash (“the old and angry”) against the forces of frontlash (“the new and different”), and November’s vote will be “a referendum on the existence and civic participation of Americans who are not white men,” contended Traister in a Wednesday piece for New York magazine.
Traister posited that “Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton…represent an altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead,” but warned, “While the resistance may be symptomatic of death throes, a rage at the dying of the white male light, it nonetheless presents a very real threat…Imagine Ted Cruz or Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in office with a Republican Congress and Supreme Court seats to fill. Voting: restricted. Immigration: halted. Abortion: banned. Equal pay: unprotected. Same-sex marriage: overturned.”
From her years at Yale Law School until early in her Senate career, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s liberal credentials rarely were questioned. Since then, many on the left have come to doubt that Hillary is one of them, for reasons that include her support for the Iraq war and her alleged coziness with Wall Street.
Rebecca Traister believes that it’s been twenty-five, not fifteen, years since Clinton started backing away from liberalism, but in any event Traister’s message to the doubters is that Classic Hillary is back. In a Sunday TNR piece, Traister rejoiced that Hillary the presidential candidate seems to have abandoned “power-appeasing, over-careful politics” in favor of “leftward shifts toward sanity.”
Given that Hillary is “recalibrating to the left,” Traister contended, America is “facing a test: How much more—if at all—tolerant is this nation of difficult, disruptive liberal women, and how willing is Hillary to really commit to being one again? These answers will matter a lot to those American[s] who liked original Hillary—and haven't much cared for the revised versions.”