Why Attacks on Broadwell's Clothes Are OK
Her 'skimpy' outfits make a statement: Ruth Marcus
By Matt Cantor, Newser User
Posted Nov 22, 2012 9:06 AM CST
A screen grab from Broadwell's interview with Jon Stewart.   (TheDailyShow.com)

(Newser) – Ruth Marcus has received a flurry of criticism for attacking Paula Broadwell's wardrobe. "Beware the woman who goes on The Daily Show wearing a black silk halter top and flaunting her toned triceps," Marcus wrote earlier this month in the Washington Post. A reader hit back: "Dumping on Broadwell because of how she dresses does a disservice to all women." Another called the comment "dangerously close to the mind-set that suggests women who are raped are somehow responsible because of the way they dress." But Marcus isn't apologizing.

"For women in the public eye, all fashion choices are high-wire," she writes in her latest column. Case in point: Hillary Clinton once faced chiding for Senate-floor cleavage, while John Edwards teased her for wearing pink at a debate. "So when Broadwell shows up—repeatedly—in skimpy, form-fitting, attention-grabbing outfits, she is making a fashion statement: Look at me! Pay attention to my body!" While Petraeus must be held accountable for his actions, women "are asking for sexist treatment when we dress like sex objects," Marcus writes. "If you want to be taken seriously, dress the part." Click through for the full piece.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Why Attacks on Broadwell's Clothes Are OK is...
36%
5%
7%
4%
48%
1%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 17 comments
hypatia
Nov 28, 2012 12:26 AM CST
Hilarious that such a "strong, smart" leader of the military can't control his own genitalia and then many - esp the moronic bloggers publishing idiocy about her wardrobe - they blame it on the female. It is highly normal/regular to find adulterous activities among DEPLOYED military. This is why there are so many UCMJ regulations to block/control the issues - several reg's detailing & defining fraternization among various ranks and the specific consequences for such. One such detail is the SUPERIOR OFFICER holds the responsibility and blame for any consensual adulterous activity. Broadwell was not active duty when it occurred thus the UCMJ reg's do not bind her judgements. Petraeus was, and they do. Additionally, the CIA requires reporting any such close relations. Regardless of who has the "better morals" (they equally failed), Petraeus broke laws in both the military and the CIA. When Petraeus took accountability ONLY WHEN CAUGHT, that showed IMMENSE failure as a soldier - let alone a General. He should have admitted & reported the affair (in secret to those who need to know), and continued on with his work. Instead, after seemingly decades of his "spotless reputation" in work, he now oddly makes repeated violations to the UCMJ and civil (CIA) laws/requirements. Petraeus' is only human. Most of us understand adult temptations and can't judge on his moral choices. But the LAWS are there for a reason - and he knowingly avoided accountability UNTIL CAUGHT. This shows a very dishonorable, disrespectful, man lacking courage and integrity. Considering his poor behavior and reaction when caught (he didn't need to quit the CIA...hmmm.... unless an investigation would have found more..??..)... i.e., if you think this is Petraeus' first affair, you're a moron. He's a human male, who's immersed in the "boy's club" mentality, has an EXTREMELY lonely job position that tends to attract attention from various females & males, and has deployed MANY MANY MANY times. According to the high majority of males in his situation(s), and unless he's a eunuch, this is not his first. Again, I'm not judging Petraeus' moral choices. It's the UCMJ & other laws he KNOWINGLY violated and avoided accountability. So it's quite odd how the focus has continued to be on Broadwell & many opinions of her choice of clothing.... (really?! "claw sinking"?!! like anyone could force Petraeus to do anything?!) Why has his violations and avoidance of accountability been repeatedly overlooked and covered up? Why has the media focus been "blaming" Broadwell for violations that were only Petraeus' responsibility alone (as defined by UCMJ & CIA?). Why are these FACTS ignored? If the focus could simply be that important core issue - all this nauseating BS social commentary would FINALLY leave the news pages for NEWS. Petraeus CLEARLY made huge mistakes/violations in addition to this little one he reported, and that is why he is working so hard to avoid further investigations and media attention (shifting it to Broadwell). Only a coward avoids accountability while blaming others for your own faults. If Petraeus has/had the qualities many have attributed to him for decades (e.g., honor, integrity, etc.) why the HUGE repeated failures now? Clearly, the more important issue for that "journalist" is whether or not a female is baring her shoulders. Our military's leaders (GEN Allen too) can't seem to follow the laws for which we all have to follow, and the more media worthy issue is shoulder baring? Grow up.
right2dave
Nov 25, 2012 8:41 AM CST
Looks good to me.I wouldn't commit treason for her though.
HANKHILL
Nov 24, 2012 11:34 AM CST
better for security if she is nude!!!!!!!!!