From The New York Times:
By Bari Weiss | January 29, 2018
Imagine this: The author of the most popular book in the country goes on Bill Maher’s show and says the following about President Barack Obama: “There is something in the book that I was absolutely sure of but it was so incendiary that I just didn’t have the ultimate proof,” he says. “I didn’t have the blue dress.”The host pushes the coy writer for a hint. “You just have to read between the lines toward the end of the book,” the writer answers. “When you hit that paragraph you’re going to say, ‘Bingo!’”
Within moments, every person with a copy turns to the last bit. The woman’s name jumps out as if it was printed in boldface: Samantha Power, the United Nations ambassador. “The president has been spending a notable amount of private time,” the book says, with her on Air Force One.
Do I have to tell you what the reaction to this rumor-mongering would be? Heads would explode on every cable channel (except for Fox, of course, which would be calling for a special investigation). Editorials would issue forth condemning this gutter journalism as thinly veiled sexism. Some would insist that it be viewed as a #MeToo moment — unambiguous evidence of the deep discomfort men feel in the face of powerful women.
But when the woman in question is Nikki Haley, the United Nations ambassador appointed by President Trump, and the evidence-free detail is being spread gleefully by Michael Wolff, the author of “Fire and Fury”? Yeah, not so much.
I’d reproduce the entire OpEd piece if I could, but that wouldn’t meet Fair Use standards; you can follow the link to read the whole thing.
Miss Weiss noted that the Grammys had a reading from Mr Wolff’s book, including a ‘surprise’ section by the Woman Who Won’t Go Away, Hillary Clinton. Ambassador Haley tweeted, negatively, about that. But while Miss Weiss thoroughly exposes the sexism and hypocrisy of the left on this, note the title of the Times article. Nowhere in the article does Miss Weiss use the terms ‘slut’ or ‘slut-shaming,’ but the editors of the Times — and headlines are normally written by the editors, not the article writers — put in a big, bold font, ‘The Slut-Shaming of Nikki Haley.’ And, Bam! there it is: the editors of the Times are putting the word ‘slut’ out there, perhaps hoping that the readers would connect the term with her, or even infer that Mrs Haley is, in fact, a slut.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘slut-shaming‘ as “The action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behaviour judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative.” Geek Feminism Wiki notes that the behavior doesn’t have to be true, but simply alleged, “Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”
That’s what Mr Wolff did, offering no evidence other than President Trump and Ambassador Haley frequently conferred on Air Force One, something Mrs Haley says never occurred in private.1 He presumed that something untoward occurred, and, Mr Trump’s attraction to beautiful women being rather well known, it isn’t difficult for anyone to accept the notion that he might be interested. But, Mr Wolff wrote that Mrs Haley “had concluded that Trump’s tenure would last, at best, a single term, and that she, with the requisite submission, could be his heir apparent.”2 In other words, Mr Wolff is saying, pretty much directly, that Mrs Haley, 46, was trading sex with the 71-year-old President for future gain; he has accused her of not just having an affair with the President, but of prostitution, all because the President met with a member of his cabinet on Air Force One. And the editors of The New York Times just helped push that insinuation.
I am never surprised by the hypocrisy on the left.
- Vice President Pence’s policy of never being alone with a woman other than his wife looks wiser every day. ↩
- Quote taken from Miss Weiss’ article; I have not read, nor intend to read, Me Wolff’s book. While I normally link books referred to as being available if the reader wishes, I will not do so with this book; I have no desire to in any way help the sales of this piece of trash. ↩