This week's news featured many examples of the way successful women are characterized in the media by people who think it is humorous to poke fun at any woman at all.
Consider these statements by Joe McGinnis in his critique of Sarah Palin in The Slatest:
Palin's candidacy in 2008 was necessary because the "nation needed a laugh."As mayor, Palin hired a male "to do her work for her." (What is most interesting about hiring a male to do her work is that no one can name any male elected official who does not have at least a team of women taking care of his work.) Palin's candidacy in 2012 "might have been the greatest threat our republic has ever faced."
If that isn't enough ridicule to satisfy those who despise Palin, McGinnis also claimed now is the time "for grownups to get on with the serious business of 2011." The final insult is the worst: McGinnis mentioned the Civil War as history's competing threatening event with Palin's potential candidacy in 2012.
McGinnis is unconsciously displaying his absolute fear of women candidates by his description of Sarah Palin. What he actually is reporting here is the ridiculous attitude toward women as inferior humans established in the earliest days of history by Greek philosophers and religious icons. As a result, there is a lack of accurate information and an absence of perspective about women's abilities today.
McGinnis may have followed historical protocol in his article (and book) about Sarah Palin. For those who have studied history, it is plainly relevant that women were left out of the official historical report because they were seen as inferior to men. Sexist and misogynistic comments are currently expected by a public still wondering if women can cut the mustard and lead. Proving their competency has not been easy when they are ridiculed and expected to never rock the boat. But look at those who have succeeded anyway, in spite of the odds, such as Hillary Clinton.