Here are the first two grafs of Neil Genzlinger's review, with some emphasis provided by Cranky:
Plenty of women accomplished plenty of things in the first century or so of United States history, so it's a little dismaying to think that the country's first female superstar was famous not for her voice or her musicianship or her brain, but for her ability to shoot firearms accurately. Yet tonight's installment of "American Experience" on PBS makes the case that Annie Oakley was the first American woman whose fame and knack for spawning legends (a close cousin of gossip) qualified as superstardom.
Even if her particular talent is not to your liking, it would be difficult to watch this program and not be awed by the woman's life. Oakley, born Phoebe Ann Moses in Ohio in 1860, lived during a remarkable stretch of history that encompassed both the Civil War and World War I, one that began on horseback by lamplight and ended in automobiles under electric bulbs.
I don't even know how to respond to that. First off, "it's a little dismaying" to whom, exactly? Second off, why is it "a little dismaying," exactly? Third off, WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A REVIEW OF A TV SHOW???I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing to find idiotic statements like those on the editorial pages of the Times: you expect that. It's one thing to find slanted "objective" news stories that demonize guns, gun owners, gun rights organizations and/or people who don't have to twist themselves into logical contortions to make the Second Amendment say what they want it to say: you expect that. But what in the name of all that is holy are those sentiments doing in a review of a biography of Annie Oakley?
Oh, and by the way, sexist much, Neil? Got a problem with women who can handle firearms? A little insecure, maybe? Having trouble writing that novel that's gonna make you famous? You know, the one you've been working on for nearly three years, now? Hmmm?
Now I remember why I stopped reading the Times.