I’m sure most of you have heard about the recent scandal surrounding New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In case you haven’t, the scandal refers to the massive gridlock that happened last September when lanes were closed to the entrance of the George Washington Bridge. The scandal part of this revolves around the fact that there was no real reason for the lanes being closed, therefore, causing a lot avoidable frustration. The blame was immediately directed toward Chris Christie and now, in an attempt to shift that blame, he has attracted some criticism.
The blame was shifted toward Bridget Anne Kelly, who was a staff member to Chris Christie before he fired her. This, in itself, is not necessarily controversial, what is, however, is the way in which Christie has spoken of her and the almost slanderous portrayal of Kelly in the report against her. With phrases like “she seemed emotional” and citing her failed romantic relationships and circumstances regarding a sick relative, it is clear that her personal life was being used to make her seem unstable. Not only is this unprofessional but it also appears to be completely contradictory to the way many people who knew Kelly portrayed her. This, along with the fact that the named co-conspirator to Ms. Kelly in the bridge scandal, a man, did not have his personal life brought up in the report against him. The general consensus regarding this, is one that I share; this was out-rightly sexist and unacceptable.
So, does this mean that the personal lives of women and their emotional states are fair game in the political world? Or was this a fluke? I, unfortunately, am inclined to believe the latter. What do you think?—Jenna Raleigh
You can read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/nyregion/irate-friends-see-sexism-in-report-on-former-christie-aide.html?_r=0