I had my next post all thought out and I was about to write it when I came across an example that was too telling to pass up. Living Single readers know that I like to compare media reports of, say, scientific studies, with the actual versions in the journals to show what gets distorted or omitted. Same for biographical sketches of people in the news - they don't always reflect the bigger picture of what could have been said about the person. Sometimes, though, you don't need to look beyond just those observations reported in the story itself to wonder what the reporters were thinking. So it is with an article that just appeared in the Washington Post.
The story is about a high-profile person in the news. You may realize who she is right away, though I'll wait until later to reveal her identity. There is a lot that you may already know about her, or could find out with a quick Google search, but here are a few of the facts about her life that were included in the story:
You may want to skim that bulleted list once more before reading the Washington Post's summary of its story:
"Kagan has many achievements, but her world has been relatively narrow."
Maybe the condemnation of Kagan's world as "narrow" has nothing to do with the fact that she has always been single and has no children. When I was writing Singled Out, though, I found that Condoleezza Rice got the same dismissive treatment about supposedly having no life, despite an impressive array of interests and talents. At the same time, high profile married men, who - based on their biographical records - really could have been described as having no life outside of work - were never belittled in that way.