New York Times

Why We Are Skeptical of Hillary Clinton

2017-08-18T13:19:58-04:00October 22nd, 2007|Dare Dream Do, Personal|

When I read Katharine Seelye's NY Times article titled, Women Supportive of Clinton, But Skeptical, I found myself wondering....Why? Why do so many want to want to vote for Hillary Clinton, but won't? Is it a question of competence? Most would agree she's quite capable. So -- No. Is it because we don't agree with her politics? Within a few seconds, I rattled off the names of several women for whom I would vote despite our differing political views. So again -- No. If it's neither a question of competence, nor of political views, then why are we skeptical? Because of an archetype mismatch. Let me explain.

Now the News: Couric Still Isn’t One of the Boys

2017-08-18T13:19:59-04:00July 16th, 2007|Dare Dream Do, Personal|

The NY Times recently published an article by Bill Carter titled "Now the News: Couric Still Isn't One of the Boys", analyzing why Katie Couric's gig on CBS hasn't lived up to expectations. Using the 'dare to dream' lens, let's analyze this further. Shall we? 1. Archetype mis-match -- When you look at Todd Heisler's above photograph, Ms. Couric looks isolated, almost forlorn. I can't help but think of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory's definition of femininity: Girls are only considered feminine within the context of a relationship and when they are giving something to someone else. The images of Ms. Couric on The Today Show are in sync with our society's view of femininity. The CBS News images are not. Contrast the above with those Carter describes as "swashbuckling correspondents [e.g. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather] who became cool doing hard news". This swashbuckler image foots with what we consider masculine: the solitary man (think Johnny Depp in Pirates and Pierce Brosnan as James Bond) slays the dragon, returns a hero, tells the tale. And, telling the tale is what news anchors do. In other words, our conscious mind may want to support a Ms. Couric...