You are here: Home » General » A Tempest Based On A Misquote
Anna Holmes has a very good piece of media criticism, about how an uncharacteristically sloppy piece by Jodi Kantor led to a series of articles criticizing Sheryl Sanberg’s new book (sight unseen) that worked from the assumption that the misquote was accurate.
The backlash to the backlash has also generated some interesting commentary; see Pollitt and Traister.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Sharon Lerner @ TAP fell for the same truncated quote. Kind of reminds me of the brouhaha over Zero Dark Thirty that came mostly from people who hadn’t seen the movie, but still felt comfortable dismissing it as propaganda based on early reviews. Are these “preactions” really getting the clicks that they seem to be after?
How does the full context actually make the quote any better? Also, why do we give a shit about what Sheryl Sandberg’s idea of feminism is? Does anyone actually need to be reminded who her feminist role-model is? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheryl-sandberg/what-larry-summers-has-do_b_142126.html
1. Because the full quote clarifies the term “movement” in a much more humble way that entirely changes the implications of the statement.
2. Because she is a high-profile 1%er who self-identifies as feminist and therefore, by virtue of her privilege, may affect the public perception.
3. No, but if you intend to outflank Katha Pollitt on this subject, you better show some better credentials of your own; and Katha is not damning her with guilt by association.
It might be better to ask whether the book will be helpful to feminism than to hold a tribunal on the author’s associations with people convicted of badthink.
So women aren’t allowed to get ahead until none of their bosses are sexists? Yeah, that’s really workable.
It is weirdly ad hominem from very smart people who usually recognize that particular fallacy.
From the Pollitt link:
That’s funny. Katha Pollitt is just cool.
For people who didn’t click, can you guess which New York Times columnist was, of course, involved in this in a predictably pissy bit of piling on?
as soon as i saw ms. d’s name, immediately was sympathetic to ms. sandberg, who i wouldn’t know from adam. i’ve also not read her book, so i can’t opine on it. apparently, that means i’ll never qualify as a gilded level columnist.
Reading Katha Pollit’s take on this ordeal has left a better taste in my mouth about the book (which, no, I have not read). I was imagining some infuriating tome about women (especially mothers) not “leaning in” enough to please a woman who as a staff at her disposal. Sounds like it’s not that offensive.
And, yeah, there’s going to come a point where women stop asking for stuff and start demanding it. I find that when women wait for men to ask them for admittance to various clubs, they end up waiting forever. At some point, you just have to muscle your way in.