How The Wall Street Journal Doubled Down On Its Sexism
By: Toni Hargis
Tags: Jill Biden, Equality, Sexism, Feminism, Gender

How The Wall Street Journal Doubled Down On Its Sexism

How dare women call it out?

Courtesy: Dr Biden’s public Facebook page.

I won’t spend too much time talking about the sexist who advised Dr. Jill Biden to do the wifely thing now that her husband’s landed the Big Job — drop the Doctor title and pay homage to his accomplishments by calling herself Mrs. Biden or First Lady. That an eighty-three-year-old documented homophobe (not linking) thinks his unsolicited advice would be welcome to a younger woman with more credentials is almost sad.

Almost.

The outrage was justifiably swift and loud, directed both at the author and the Wall Street Journal for publishing such insulting tripe in the first place. But it seems the WSJ wasn’t finished. It was when Opinions Editor, Paul A. Gigot, mounted the inevitable defence that the WSJ showed its true colours.

Over and over —

His main tenet was that women the world over couldn’t possibly have been outraged off their own bats. Not little old us. It was all a ploy of the Democrats; they whipped us up and made us do it. “The complaints began as a trickle but became a torrent after the Biden media team elevated Mr. Epstein’s work in what was clearly a political strategy.”

Apparently, we would never have picked the sexism up if not for the Biden team. Despite having lived with this and worse for eons, we still need a big ole’ media team to point it out. Amusingly, calling it a “political strategy” isn’t the indictment Gigot was going for either. It means that Biden’s team gets it.

Women shouldn’t be advised or expected to downplay their accomplishments. Ever. Thank you, team Biden!

Gigot then dismissed women as an aggrieved sub-group, deploying “identity politics” to do so. The sub-title to his ‘blame-the-victim’ piece whined that “Its [Biden’s team] strategists promote an identity politics campaign against an op-ed on Jill Biden’s use of ‘Dr.’”

Merriam-Webster defines identity politics as, “… politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.” While yes, we have a specific identity and interests, and hell yes we promote those interests, women make up just over fifty percent of the USA’s population, thank you very much.

Sounds to me like the “larger political group” we’re disregarding is — checks notes — ah yes, men. Also sounds like this was yet another throw-away term to shut us up. Newsflash, even if something is identity politics, it doesn’t make the original offence magically disappear.

And, look, this is not the first time the identity politics trope has been raised to shut down debate. As recently as this month it was used in a race issue, decrying Biden’s pick for Health and Human Services (December 7, again, not linking) — “The Democratic identity politics crowd has been clamoring for Mr. Biden to appoint another Hispanic to his cabinet in addition to Alejandro Mayorkas at Homeland Security.”

Anyone else get the impression this accusation is lobbed when they don’t have much else in their arsenal?

Still harping on about the Biden team — “Why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue?” Perhaps because that dastardly Biden team realises that half the population being told to play down their accomplishments is not a “relatively minor issue.” Okay, so compared to the horrors women are enduring all over the world, it’s a microaggression, but as I’ve said before, these are not “nothing.” Gaslighting Gigot is suggesting that if we object to having to dim our lights to big up a man, we can’t possibly care about what he considers ‘major’ issues.

It’s time to a) stop telling women what we can and can’t be concerned about, and b)learn that women can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Next up, “There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism,” says the guy trying to stifle criticism. This one is trotted out by sexists objecting to their sexism being called out. Here “playing the gender card” is Gigot-speak for “you’re seeing sexism where there is none.” Popular alternatives include “You’re being too sensitive” and “You need to lighten up.”

Telling a woman to shut up about her achievements while her husband takes up his new job, isn’t sexism apparently. Because that happens to men all the time…. (Don’t even bother Googling this one. You’ll be there a long time.) Like I said, Wall Street Journal, true colours.

Gigot ends with more projecting, accusing Dr Biden of holding herself “off limits for commentary” while seeking to shut down any criticism of one of his writers. “Mrs. Biden is now America’s most prominent doctorate holder and is taking a leading role in education policy. She can’t be off-limits for commentary.”

Anyone note the very pointed omission of “Doctor” in that last quote?

Loud and clear, WSJ.

Loud and clear.