Times-bashing has become America's favorite pastime. Protests have been staged at Times' offices. Congressmen ridicule NYT
reporters in public forums. Web sites like TimesWatch.com catalog the meltdown. Even stand-up comedians are taking pot-shots at
the revered Gray Lady.
In the face of widespread gender bias, we must gasp and
wonder, How did America's Newspaper of Record fall prey to radical feminist orthodoxy?
Remarkably, this transformation occurred at the behest of its owner and publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
Sometime in the 1970s, Mr. Sulzberger became enamored of radical feminist thinking. According to author Nan Robertson,
Sulzberger "considers himself a feminist...is an ardent fan of the writer Marilyn French."
The ascendance of arrogance at the NYT has been vividly documented in William McGowan's "Coloring the News." At a 1992
conference, Mr. Sulzberger explained his new gender philosophy this way: "We can no longer offer our readers a predominantly
white, straight male vision of events."
Later, Sulzberger's views would become Teutonically harsh: "If white men were not complaining, it would be an indication we
weren't succeeding and making the inroads that we are."
Not surprisingly, this worldview began to permeate the articles, news analyses, and editorials that appeared daily in the New
York Times.
According to Warren Farrell, author of "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say," the pro-feminist slant first appeared in the
late 1970s. For example, Marilyn French's "The Women's Room" made the defamatory claim that "All men are rapists and that's
all they are."
Knowing that Arthur Sulzberger thought the world of Ms. French, her book garnered rave reviews in the pages of the Times Book
Review Section. And given Ms. French's sweeping denunciation that "all men are rapists," one must wonder if Mr. Sulzberger
thinks of himself as a rapist, too?
On March 11, 1990, a book review proffered this discouraging headline: "Don't Expect Too Much of Men".
At other Times' departments, newly-hired feminist writers made little effort to conceal their disgust of men. Anna Quindlen,
Times' columnist for 17 years, once wrote in her essay, "Some of my best friends are men. It is simply that I think women are
superior to men."
Health reporter Natalie Angier wrote this little gem in a May 17, 1994 article:
"Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the
male. Specifically, why doesn't he just go away?"
On June 21, 1998, Ms. Angier celebrated Father's Day with this comment: "The section you are reading is about women's health.
And so what better place to address the question: Are they worth it?...Do we live better with men or without them?"
Mr. Sulzberger, wasn't there another group that made similarly derisive comments about the Jews?
The NYT antipathy towards men continues to the present era. In a April 10, 2002 column, Maureen Dowd taunted the self-image
of half the U.S. population with the observation that men need to "learn early to protect their eggshell egos from
high-achieving women."
At least Ms. Dowd was honest enough to admit that men find her "too intimidating" to ask out on a date, as if that was
something to brag about.
Over the years, Anna Quindlen, Natalie Angier, Maureen Dowd, and their ilk have written hundreds of articles that taunted and
diminished men.
Misandry is the contempt and disdain that some persons feel towards men. You may not find it in your dictionary, but you will
find it overflowing in the pages of the New York Times.
