From a column in today’s Washington Post:
MacKinnon sent the note Tuesday to House Republican offices and to the offices of GOP Sens. John Ensign (Nev.), Gordon Smith (Ore.) and George Allen (Va.).
“Subject: Looking to fill a position in our office
“Importance: High We need to hire a junior lobbyist/PAC manager. Attached is a job description. Salary is $85-90K. Must be a male with Republican stripes.
“If you know of anyone who might be interested in interviewing for this position, would you please let me know? Thanks so much. Hope everyone has a wonderful holiday.”
Unclear where the stripes are to be located.
Remember, this sort of thing never happens anymore, and hasn’t happened for decades, if you listen to the anti-feminists. That aside, three things are particularly striking about this:
First, Viacom isn’t worried about emailing a request for collusion in breaking anti-discrimination laws to three Republican sentator. Viacom sees no danger anyone in that corner will object, I presume.
Second, a Washington Post columnist reprints the Viacom email and says nothing about the illegal sex discrimination.
And third, this is one hell of a great job, and it’s open to applicants only through back channels. And only if they’re male, of course. It’s the old-boy network in action (in this case a little oddly, since the VP who wrote the request is a woman).
I wonder if the ole dictum “it’s all who ya know and who ya blow” still applies here.
The other irony is that CBS is so often the GOP’s liberal scapegoat, notably in the form of Dan “Wackier than a possum on Aunt Mabel’s crack” Rather.
Note also how the ad’s “must be” attributes neglected “white.” I guess that’s implied, given the audience.
A junior lobbyist earns $85-90K/yr? Shee-it. I’m in the wrong bidness.
And must have the Yellow Republican Stripe down the back.
But remember, if you clerk for the Gummint at the princely sum of $14/hr, you’re hideously overpaid. I know it’s true because Lars Larsen sez so. Oh, and Gummint workers don’t pay taxes, either. Lars wouldn’t lie to us, would he ?
Didn’t that item seem a little journalistically dubious to you? I mean, shouldn’t they have contacted Viacom for comment? Shouldn’t they have contacted the EOC and confirmed that this was, in fact, illegal? Shouldn’t the fact that a major media conglomeration practices blatant discrimination be treated as a real story, not as a funny item in a column?
Remember, this sort of thing never happens anymore, and hasn’t happened for decades, if you listen to the anti-feminists. That aside, three things are particularly striking about this:
First, Viacom isn’t worried about emailing a request for collusion in breaking anti-discrimination laws to three Republican sentator. Viacom sees no danger anyone in that corner will object, I presume.
Second, a Washington Post columnist reprints the Viacom email and says nothing about the illegal sex discrimination.
It sounds like a prank to me. No sane executive would send such a thing in today’s climate; they particularly would not send it as an e-mail to the offices of Congressional leaders, who have large staffs that virtually guarantee a non-quiet handling of such a thing. E-mail is trivial to fake.
If it isn’t a prank, then it’s contemptible. It serves as a good reminder that female executives are equally capable of the kind of misbehavior that male executives used to get up to. (I’d guess it’s the executive in question hiring a boy toy.)
It could well be sheer carelessness on the part of the executive. In face-to-face meetings, men are taken more seriously as suppliants and diplomatic messengers on average by the conservatives , and by almost everyone else.
Pingback: SIVACRACY.NET: Siva Vaidhyanathan's Weblog