*grumble*

[ksmith]

The root story about the apparent jockeying for position between 2 CNBC financial reporters is balanced enough at first glance--although I wonder if age differences would be noted so obviously if men were involved. But the Huffington Post headline stating that "CNBC Insists There's No Catfighting Between Its Anchors" just irritates the hell out of me, and not just because it's a standard HuffPo crank-the emotion-up-just-a-little-more headline. Yes, it's the term "catfighting," that handy denigrating catch-all that I've seen used to refer to disagreements between females of all ages and professions, no matter the roots of the disagreement. Because it's all about the hissing and scratching, which makes a lot of entertaining noise, but really doesn't mean anything. No genuine positions of strength. No heartfelt principles being argued. No ambition or ego. It's just girlfighting, and isn't it all one step above jello wrestling anyway?

Yes, I did expect more from a blog/website run by a woman. Guess I expected too much from Ms Huffington.

Update: And now the headline, which is buried on the Media page, reads: "CNBC Insists Burnett, Bartiromo Get Along." I have a feeling it was edited for space, not because of any sudden dawning that maybe they'd made a really lousy choice of words.

Comments

[e-moon60.livejournal.com]

Some writers use those terms because they think them accurate--they think of women as mommy/nanny/bitch. Some use them because this is how everyone says it and cliches are a journalist's best friend--easily recognizable catch-phrases that grab readers and make it clear what the journalist is reporting. Some to please what they think of as their readership...it's the male readership that counts, after all. Some just don't think about it at all.

Similarly charged words are frequently used for anything a writer disapproves of: opponents "yap" and "whine" and "moan"--reducing opponents (male or female) to naughty puppies.

Protesting the use of such emotionally-charged and biased terms will be called an appeal to "political correctness" and ridiculed for that--not for its truth or untruth. Using such terms makes argument easy--you can avoid the issue at hand by characterizing the opponent's tone as yapping/whining and thus dismiss his/her arguments without having to face them. If you can, in your own mind, reduce your opponent to a naughty puppy or spoiled child, you can dismiss what he/she says--it's all beneath your contempt. (Thus Bush, that first Christmas he was in office, saying smugly that the best thing about being President was that he didn't have to listen to those who disagreed with him. They were just 'nay-sayers'.)