The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

In a scathing review of Tina Brown’s re-launch of Newsweek, Slate’s editor-at-large Jack Shafer betrayed himself as another in a long list of journalists and pundits who find women bring little of use to the table.  While I have had reason to fault Newsweek in the past for their biased coverage negating qualified female political candidates, it is ironic that in the reinvented Newsweek, a complimentary cover story about Hillary Clinton gets trashed by Shafer.  He derides Clinton as the “Queen of Cold.”  With one turn of phrase, she is dismissed.  Her accomplishments, soaring national popularity, years of work on behalf of children’s development, womens’ reproductive rights, foster care, adoption, first responders, veterans, and the rights of women and girls around the world all amount to nothing in Mr. Shafer’s eyes.  She is not hot, according to him.

How do we define hot as a society?  And what is our focus where women are concerned?  Here are examples of topics to which we devote scads of news copy:  Lindsay Lohan’s drug and legal problems.  Discussing whether Jessica Simpson’s curves will hurt her career.   Offering a feature story, as Playboy did, entitled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate F–k”?

Yet a Secretary of State who years ago began a vocal crusade on behalf of women and girls is not hot.  In 1995, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton stood on a podium in Beijing in defiance of the State Department and the Chinese government.  She delivered a groundbreaking speech declaring that “women’s rights are human rights once and for all” while many women in the audience pounded on tables, cheering their approval.

When women thrive, the society thrives.  Some of us are still not getting the picture.

Shafer accuses Tina Brown of filling the cover article on Clinton with “hagiography.”  Yet the article to which he refers, entitled “the Hillary Doctrine,” by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/06/the-hillary-doctrine.html is less about bestowing sainthood on Secretary Clinton than reporting on a powerful woman’s legitimate accomplishments.  Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask if that makes Shafer uncomfortable.  In Secretary Clinton’s case, it is near impossible to find any American press outlet that celebrates or indeed acknowledge her many achievements and accolades.  Most people in this country have no idea that she was recently awarded the Roosevelt Four Freedoms medal, an honor shared by only a few presidents, Coretta Scott King, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

Young girls need to celebrate the achievements of women as they learn to celebrate their own accomplishments.  You can’t celebrate what you’ve never heard of.

In honor of Women’s History Month, Tina Brown also featured a story entitled “150 Women Who Shake the World:”

“They are heads of state and heads of household. Angry protesters in the city square and sly iconoclasts in remote villages. With a fiery new energy, women are building schools. Starting businesses. Fighting corruption. Harnessing new technologies and breaking down old prejudices. Whenever a woman or girl gains control of her destiny, the local standard of living goes up and the values of human rights spread. So this year, and every year, NEWSWEEK will honor local heroes, and the growing network of powerful women who support their efforts.”

It appears Shafer found no use for this either.  Is focusing on the struggles or empowerment of women in societies here and around the world somehow less worthy?  He states Brown is “nuts for saluting Melinda Gates for her attempts to eradicate polio.”  However, in his article, he does find time to offer a plug to other writers who operate from his same paradigm.

The Hillary Doctrine shares Clinton’s dedication to holding webchats, conferences and “townterviews” anywhere and everywhere to advance American values while she is also referred to as “the advocate in chief for women worldwide.”  As well, her insistence on including substantial monies in the State Department’s 2012 budget to programs that assist and empower women.

While she believes that “the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century” Clinton appeals to foreign governments by emphasizing that women’s progress makes economic sense and assists in national security.  This is not hagiography but a critical issue that affects all of us.  Secretary Clinton’s unflinching dedication to this cause has inspired many women worldwide to enter politics themselves to fight for the very rights she champions.  Until we stop looking at the travails and victories of women as second class subject matter, we will continue the type of callous media bias, double standards and violence against women and girls we seem all too anxious as a society to pretend no longer exist.

As Ms. Lemmon also noted,

“Clinton’s knack for personalizing foreign policy was evident last month, when she convened the annual gathering of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. It’s another issue she began working on in the mid-1990s, and in a borderless world with instant communication, sexual slavery has exploded into an epidemic; the State Department estimates there are now 12.3 million adults and children worldwide in “forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution.”

Squeezed in elbow to elbow around a long wooden table in the State Department’s Jefferson Room was a virtual cabinet gathering, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As host of the meeting, which began so promptly that several attendees sheepishly slid in late, Clinton asked each of the officials to share their team’s progress. She moved briskly around the table, then stopped to make a frank appeal. “One thing I would urge, if you do get a chance, is to visit a shelter, a site where trafficking victims have been rescued and are being rehabilitated,” she said to a room that had suddenly gone silent. “I recently was in Cambodia, and it is just so overwhelmingly heartbreaking and inspiring to see these young girls. One girl lost her eyes—to punish her, the owner of the brothel had stabbed her in the eye with a nail,” Clinton continued. “She was the most optimistic, cheerful young woman, just a tremendous spirit. What she wants to do when she grows up is help other victims of trafficking, so there is just an enormous amount of work to be done.”

Perhaps this is not “hot” to Mr. Shafer either.  Shame on him.  Is he anxious to look away from these issues?   Does fair and full coverage interfere with the post-feminist myth that misogyny is a thing of the past?

Only via the work of committed activists will we make that post-feminist myth a reality.  That, to me, is hot.