jrjones9933 wrote:
Incorrect, I don't think that a woman should be subjected to particular criticisms that are applied exclusively to women, even if she is a damned CEO. If the journalists making those criticisms provided any evidence of a basis for them, that would be an affirmative defense, but AFAIK they did not.
As far as you know. You didn't read the articles to which your over-sensitive looking-to-be-offended Feminist author was referring.
jrjones9933 wrote:
Being a public figure certainly makes criticism appropriate, but not falsehoods, and especially not falsehoods based on stereotypes about their basic qualities. It's a brief article, and your arguments might make more sense if you actually read it.
You don't know if they were falsehoods. They might have been truehoods.
In the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court basically established that you
can make patently false statements about public figures and get away with it.
Certainly falsehoods based on stereotypes about Jerry Falwell's basic qualities were used in this piece. Why shouldn't female public figures be subject to similar treatment? Because the Feminist Code of Chivalry would be violated?
Fox "News" makes patently false statements all of the time, and they get away with it.