Last week one of my boyfriend's buddies forwarded an article for his reading enjoyment. This friend is a bit of a neo-con and sometimes likes to send reading materials he knows will raise heckles (usually mine). But he's generally a good person, and I enjoy a good debate. So the BF passed me the article and I took a read. It's from MACLEANS magazine, here in Canada, and it's about how Bono (of U2 fame) has moved some of his/the band's assets to another country with a more favourable tax regime. Somewhat dull so far, I agree. The author, Mark Steyn, essentially argues that it is hypocritical of Bono to do this when the tax revenue he would have paid in his native country would have gone a long way to providing aid to other countries, which is something Bono strongly advocates for. While there are probably arguments against Mr. Steyn's tax-related reasoning, I'm no tax expert, so I won't bore anyone with those issues here.
My comment on the article relates to one very small portion (on the second page). Mr. Steyn cites an author and economist named Dambisa Moyo . Ms. Moyo has recently published a book (which I have not read) but which seems to be generating a good deal of controvercy because she argues against aid for African counries. Mr. Steyn seems to rely on her work to support some of his own conclusions. But here is the line that bothers me so much. When he first introduces her, Mr. Steyn writes:
"In her new book, the Zambian economist (actually, more of an econo-babe) Dambisa Moyo takes aim at Sir Bob and Sir Bono beginning with the very title: Dead Aid."
Econo-babe??? Did I read that correctly? According to her website, Ms. Moyo holds four post-secondary degrees: a BA in Chemistry, an MBA in Finance, an Masters degree from Harvard, and a PhD in Economics from Oxford. I won't begin to disucss her professional experience - there isn't enough space. I've seen her on TV - she is exceptionally eloquent. But Mr. Steyn's approach ensures that, even though he is relying on her opinion and expertise to prop up his own arguments, he needs to first, quickly, reduce her to a sex object. Seriously? I'm all for a good, no-holds-barred, intellectual debate on complicated issues, and it seems like a conversation about aid to Africa would be a good discussion to have, but if you feel the need to diminish the female participants in the debate by first reducing them to their bodies, then we have a long way to go yet. Sheesh.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: From Brains to Bod.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13437
From what I have read of Mark Steyn, he quit school at 16 and hasn't matured since. I am always amazed to find men like this to be married with children (do they act like this at home, and HOW do their wives put up with them). Normally, I would be in favor of anyone who criticises Bobo (for those who chastise me for this, look for the famous photo of Bobo and Bush Jr giving the peace symbol), but it's in Macleans. For those outside Canada, Macleans is kind of glossy politicized version of the National Enquirer with a touch of World Weekly News.
It's sad that he feels the need to belittle someone who is clearly much more intelligent and educated than he is, but it's my thinking that this won't Steyn his reputation any more than it already is (cheap shot, I know).
Ugh, Mark Steyn. He's an ass. Pratically all his pieces end up rubbing me the wrong way.
I had that exact same reaction. Then I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he meant babe as in infant (as in newbie). Then I realized Steyn is a bit of an ass (ok, a lot of an ass).
Steyn lost me when he did two consecutive articles about how Canadian men aren't "real men" because no one helped the women during the Polytechnique massacre, and no one helped Tim MacLean.