Rantz: Lazy, dishonest claim that Seattle’s mayoral race is sexist

In a ridiculous column in The Seattle Times this week, columnist Nicole Brodeur lazily stumbles through an absurd claim that the Seattle mayoral election is dealing with “sexist nonsense” from the voters. Her proof? One Reddit user – ONE – asked about candidate Jenny Durkan’s stance on single-family housing during a discussion about the candidate’s stances on housing issues. I’m not making this up.

According to Brodeur, who refused to chat with me about her column:

On Reddit, someone asked, “What experience does Durkan have? Has she ever had elected office?” [Author’s note: the question was asked in a discussion about housing; Brodeur doesn’t explain this to you.]

Another Redditor graciously obliged, posting Durkan’s résumé, which spans decades, involves every level of government and touches on issues like police reform, consumer privacy, and civil rights. The thing’s as long as your arm and has plenty of muscle, political and otherwise.

“OK … but … will she fight for a lot more housing in the exclusive single-family neighborhoods in Seattle?”

This triggered Brodeur. The term “OK… but…” is somehow an indication that sexism is at play here. She continues:

There you have it: voters who are not willing to put the time or keystrokes into learning the basics on the candidates. And even when they do, they’re only focused on their pet issues.

Brodeur then continues her rant by completely making up sexist conversations that didn’t actually take place.

It would be true progress to never again hear the phrase, “OK … but” — two words that are at the start of so many sentences addressed to women who dare to state their opinion or stake their claim in the world.

OK … but you have kids. OK … but your husband has a big job. OK … but we’ve never had a woman president/CEO/mechanic/lawyer/window-washer/fill in the blank.

This is actually more than just lazy. It’s dishonest and unhinged, and I even suspect a bit nefarious. Sexism is rampant in the campaign and “…this is what happens when women run for office”, yet she can only provide one Reddit user quote that had nothing to do with gender whatsoever?

And let’s further explore the one example she uses to illustrate “sexist nonsense.” It doesn’t hold up.

For the obvious reason that it doesn’t fit her narrative, Brodeur complains that the one Reddit user she can find is only focused on an issue that they care about; a pet issue. Has she never participated in an election? We all have issues that are more important to us than others, and we ask questions about candidate’s stances. And the conversation is on Reddit – a medium fueled by conversations and question.

Beyond that, Brodeur neglects to tell you that the very topic of conversation the user was having was about housing! So, we don’t even know if the user’s pet issue is housing; we just know that they were talking about a specific issue. And none of Durkan’s experience has to do with housing, leading the user to ask “but…” does she have experience in housing. Oh, how sexist!

Brodeur continues:

They [female candidates] are forced to face impossible standards about their appearance, their qualifications, their temperaments. Too prepared, and they’re wooden and rehearsed. Too tough, and they’re cold.

She provides not a single iota of evidence to suggest either Durkan or Cary Moon have been faced with impossible standards about their looks, qualifications or temperament. If it exists, it can’t be that difficult to find. But Brodeur clearly doesn’t want to back up her statement; she believes it, so it must be so.

And, I should ask, why isn’t Brodeur showing any evidence of Moon facing “sexist nonsense”? The very first question on the Reddit discussion is “Did I hear correctly that Moon wants to make landlords prove they aren’t being discriminatory?” Since Brodeur implies not knowing every position a candidate holds on an issue is evidence of sexism, why didn’t she use this as an example? Is it no less stupid than her Durkan example? And why not tell us Moon’s resume, only Durkans? Perhaps this was also an excuse for Brodeur to use the Times to give some free press to the candidate she may support?

Sexism undoubtedly exists. But in a race where a number of well-qualified men were booted and it was a three-way race between all female candidates? In a race where Brodeur can’t provide a single instance of even a vaguely sexist remark being made? Perhaps she’s overstating the issue.

This is an embarrassment, and I don’t say that lightly. I read the Times and, even when I disagree with a point, the columnist at least attempts to make a coherent argument. Brodeur? Not so much. Brodeur, who always turns down my interview requests, would likely say that I just don’t understand; I’m a man and she’s a woman and she knows. I’m mansplaining, even! Or… this is a convenient way for her to make a baseless point.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz