If recent polls and rumors are correct, two of America's most prominent women are about to go down in flames, conceivably at virtually the same moment in history.
Predictably, the left and their media minions seem destined to blame it all on men.
Think that's sexist of me?
Well, before I'm relegated to the sexist pigsty, consider Sunday's New York Post article written by Vanity Fair contributing editor Leslie Bennetts entitled "Hillary and Katie: Two Women Pioneers...Driven Off A Cliff" (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer ThisnThat):
With Sen. Barack Obama poised to seize the Democratic nomination and Couric's ratings so low that her program is practically on life-support, all that's left to settle are the departure dates for two of America's most prominent women.
The mostly male punditocracy is deconstructing the twin debacles with unseemly glee, and both Couric and Clinton have been widely excoriated for the misjudgments that contributed to their front-page flame-outs. But there's plenty of blame to go around, much of which belongs to the male advisors whose catastrophic advice helped steer both women to defeat.
I'm surprised it took until the third paragraph for that statement. Aren't you?
Sadly, Bennetts was just getting warmed up, for now that the object of her disaffection had been accused, next on the docket was sealing an indictment (indigestion alert...consider yourself warned!!!):
At CBS, Couric was the $60 million talent, but the suits who run the network were the geniuses who decided that one of the toughest interviewers in television should be reduced to a nauseating female caricature whose main contribution to her new role was girlish fatuousness.
Umm, Leslie: Did you ever watch Couric in her previous role as a nauseating female caricature whose main contribution was girlish fatuousness? Were you aware that she was on television before being hired by CBS, and that what you believe the suits who run the network reduced her to was exactly what she had been doing at NBC from 1991 to 2006?
And, when you write that she's one of the toughest interviewers in television, are you being serious, or is this your impersonation of girlish fatuousness?
Regardless of the answers, Bennetts next blamed Katie's fate on -- wait for it -- her clothing:
Couric's denuded gams were accorded such prominence that the male honchos masterminding her show seemed to believe that sexy legs in stilettoes were all that viewers cared about.
Fascinating feminist revisionism going on here, dontcha think? Can't you hear Helen Reddy proudly singing, "I am woman, watch me let men dress me?"
So, Leslie: Do you actually believe Couric had no say in her attire? And, do you think she dressed more demurely and/or less femininely when on the "Today" show?
Furthermore, isn't this how most women dress in the workplace, and, in particular, on television? Have you seen what female anchors on CNBC, CNN, FNC, and MSNBC wear?
Yet, an exquisitely delicious irony concerning Bennetts' carping and whining over Katie's exposed gams is indeed the masculine, largely non-sexual pantsuits favored by Hillary. Oddly, Bennetts mostly ignored Clinton's wardrobe, and, instead, focused her -- and, sickeningly, our! -- attention elsewhere:
But all it takes to rivet attention on the reproductive organs of female politicians is the biological accident of gender. During this campaign, Sen. Clinton had to endure such breathtakingly malevolent excrescences of misogynist popular culture as the South Park episode about terrorists secreting a bomb in her vagina.
My goodness. Such banality. But there was more as Bennetts crescendoed to a disgraceful conclusion:
It's too early to know whether the failure of Clinton's campaign and Couric's anchordom will actually set back women's progress, although my guess is that no major television network will rush to install a new female anchor any time soon.
For now, anyway, the women themselves will shoulder most of the responsibility for having bungled their grab at the brass ring. Yes, Clinton and Couric made mistakes, but America only forgives such human failings in male icons.
Women have to be perfect - and as long as we keep enforcing a standard like that, it's going to be a long time before we truly reach the highest levels of success.
Honestly, when's the last time you read such unbelievable nonsense? Women have to be perfect? Really?
Well, Leslie, you should be proud of yourself, for what you've offered your readers here is perfect drivel as for nowhere in this article did you address how unqualified both of these women are, and why they are in the positions they currently hold.
After all, Katie Couric was INDEED offered this position by CBS BECAUSE she's a woman. Period. And, Hillary Clinton was elected senator of New York BECAUSE she's Bill Clinton's wife. Period.
But, and please listen closely, Leslie: neither was qualified for the positions they attained, and have now become a perfect example of the Peter Principle, as they both have risen to their personal level of incompetence.
However, potentially more important is what most folks ignore about this principle: once enough people within a given organization reach this level, the organization will fail.
With this in mind, Hillary and Katie's career difficulties -- contrary to Bennetts' assertions -- might be more of an explanation for the current state of both the Democrat Party and the media than emblematic of the modern state of women and the women's movement.
Think about it.