Would a Story About a (Male) Nobel Laureate Begin With What He Wore? Plus: The Wash Post (in 1970) Forbids the Use of ‘Leggy Blonde’
Today the Feminist Peace Network points us to a story in the Corvallis, Ore. Gazzette Times, about a conference featuring Nobel laureate Jody Williams. The headline is harmless enough—“Nobel laureate shares her views on peace”—but instead of beginning the story with what those views might be, the newspaper chose a different approach:
Nobel laureate Jody Williams sat on the stage, wearing a T-shirt, jeans and black cowboy boots with teal stitching. She dangled one leg over the edge, swinging her foot as she spoke to an audience that packed the Memorial Union Ballroom.
It’s a common refrain—using adjectives to describe women in ways that would never be used to describe men; examining the length and color and crop of their clothing—when in reality, perhaps we ought to be paying attention to what this Nobel laureate is saying. Would a male Prize winner have been described in the same way? (We’d guess not.)
But now for the fun part. We dug up a 1970 article from Editor and Publisher, describing new rules mandated by the Washington Post and Washington Evening Star (now defunct) forbidding reporters and copy editors from using words like “pert,” “cute” or “dimpled” to describe women in their stories. The notice, posted by then-managing editors Ben Bradlee and Charles Seib, on the newspapers’ bulletin boards, included the following:
Words like divorcee, grandmother, blonde (or brunette) or housewife should be avoided in all stories where, if a man were involved, the words would be inapplicable.
Please avoid meaningless descriptions like ‘leggy blonde’ and ‘attractive brunette.’ They date back to the days when it was considered titillating to print even a hint that there were two sexes.
Stories involving the achievement of women are often implicitly condescending. They imply, ‘pretty good for a woman.’ [These] stories should be written without condescension.
We’ve come a long way, baby—but clearly not far enough.
