Dallas, Texas – I’m sure by now you have read or at least have ‘heard’ the response to an opinion piece by WSJ contributor, Joseph Epstein entitled, “Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D.”. If you haven’t had the chance, go read it. I’m not going to re-hash that piece here.

What I am going to write about however is the equally tone deaf response from WSJ’s chief ‘opinionist’ himself, Paul. A. Gigot.

Mr. Gigot wrote the response piece, “The Biden Team Strikes Back”. For reading of that piece, you can click here.

In Gigot’s piece, he tries to lambast the Biden team for making this a ‘minor’ issue and he even says so at the beginning of the eighth graph with: “Why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue? My guess is that the Biden team concluded it was a chance to use the big gun of identity politics to send a message to critics as it prepares to take power. There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism. It’s the left’s version of Donald Trump’s “enemy of the people” tweets.”.

At the ninth graph, Gigot tries to tie back to how President Trump rails against the press.

Here’s the problem with both Gigot’s ‘explanation’ and Epstein’s original ‘crime’: they both sound misogynistic and unrelenting in diminishing the accomplishment of a woman.

Let me point this out in plain English: The old, AP style of proper titles for individuals is as passe as calling a person “kiddo” and you’re in your 80s.

If that last paragraph seems like there is some ageism in it, it does and that’s on purpose.

To combat the nonsense that the likes of Gigot and Epstein push requires a brashness to remind them that the English language, as we know it today, has evolved. To hold onto the AP Stylebook like it is the journalist’s ‘bible’ shows why many in the media industry look for new leadership to begin with; because the ‘old’ guard is set in their way and they will not budge one iota.

Am I looking to offend both of these gentlemen? No. They just happen to be the sacrificial offering of why opinion columnists need to have more breadth in their writings and why compassion and flexibility is needed to maintain readership. The problem with the WSJ opinion pieces and the fact that paper stands behind the pieces is that when you look at the demographic profile, you would think it is more ‘forgiving’ than what these two contributors portray. According to the Dow Jones, the paper has demographics where the average reader is 43 years of age, the average household net worth is about $1.5m with an average household income of $242,000 annually. But HERE is where I can see why the two pieces strike the nerve of many. Average readership breakdown between the sexes, according to the Dow Jones profile is a men/women percentage ratio of 62/38.

I can see why Gigot thinks Epstein’s piece was okay to publish but I think Mr. Gigot might want to re-evaluate his audience because there are men who are just as ‘peeved’ by the slight as there are women; if not more.

What Mr. Epstein and Mr. Gigot ceremoniously fail to realize is that many men who are married to very successful women saw the slight and they have a right to be angry.

Forget about the Biden camp gentlemen. Your problem is actually those 62% of your readership who probably have spouses who have post graduate degrees in the Ph.D realm. That means, at least by my simple math, the probability that you offended 19% of your female readership. And if you offended 19% of that demographic, you better believe you have just offended 100% of that 62% of the male population.

Maybe Mr. Epstein and Mr. Gigot do not understand why so many people are upset about this slight. I get it.

As the son of a woman who, like Dr. Biden, spent the time to raise two children, she put her own educational pursuits on the back burner. And like many women before and after her, she went and got her post graduate letters after her kids were gone. And I know many women outside of my mother who have pursued and achieved the Ph.D letters; not for just self fulfillment but to ensure they are counted as an equal in their career fields.

And THAT is why this is a big deal.

Unlike a man, a woman does have to work twice as hard to prove something in this society and to this day they are not treated equally. We live in a society that still thinks its okay to pay women at the 60 – 70% salary threshold while their male counterparts are getting 100%; many with less experience and educational credentials mind you.

Is that fair?

No.

Did either of these gentlemen bring that to light?

Hell no.

One mocked the fact that a successful woman went out and has made a career in a tough field where money is not always there and the other, his boss, decided to not only double down on said mockery and call it identity politics.

I’m sorry but that’s so far from anything truthful in this reality.

But again, many are not surprised by this action.

After all, we’re talking about nitpicking modern day grammaticism as a substantive diatribe about a First Lady’s title; not her policy or future policy but her “informal” title when a person addresses her either verbally or in written prose.

And the two opinion writers think the Biden camp was coming down harsh?

I mean if one is going to be old fashioned and unwilling to change with the times, then I guess these two gentlemen are the modern day version of the muppets up in the peanut gallery.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Gregory Moore is a former syndicated columnist and managing editor of a weekly newspaper in San Antonio, Texas. Now residing in the DFW area, he occasionally dusts off the typewriter and espouses his views of just society at large.