Syndicate and Hague

File under: seething, smoke coming out from my ears.

I am so fucking sick of the sexist bile that is spewing forth from people criticizing Clinton in this race. My particular issue is about this (Via Feministing):

This is bad enough in and of itself. Lending credence to gross sexual harassment (calling Clinton “frigid” in high school–and may I point out that we’re a long way away from that era) by bringing it up during a campaign for PRESIDENT?!?!?! This is why Katie Couric annoys the crap out of me.

But it’s worse, of course, because then people grab onto this as if the douchebag assessment of Clinton as “frigid” can translate to some personality flaw–a humorlessness. Because, you know, bitch can’t take a joke. She should have been nicer when I told her she had a nice ass. Frigid whore. (Ah, if only I could say I’ve never heard that construction. Inherently doesn’t make sense. But it doesn’t matter.)

Then HuffPo has some jackass blogging this idiocy:

By asking Hillary on 60 Minutes about being known as Miss Frigidaire in high school, Couric brought out more of the real Hillary:

COURIC: Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?”

CLINTON: Only with some boys,” Clinton said, laughing.

COURIC: I don’t know if I want to hear the back story on that!

CLINTON: Well, you wouldn’t want to know the boys either.

(Apparently, the real story, as reported by Carl Bernstein, is that Hillary’s high school yearbook predicted she would become a nun, and would be known as Sister Frigidaire.)

I am guessing the “some boys” that Clinton thinks Couric would not want to know were normal intelligent people who had a sense of humor and had spotted someone who did not. I don’t remember too many low-lifes working for our high school yearbook.

Awesome. You. Are. Awesome.

I don’t think this needs to be deconstructed or elaborated upon. It just deserves a two word response:

Fuck you.

So back in the yesteryear of the 1990s, Elizabeth Dole ran for the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential election. I remember, at the time, having the discussion: would we (my friends and I) vote for her because it would mean having the first female president?

I said no. Not everyone agreed with me. But I’m still of the opinion that sacrificing my actual beliefs for the chance to see a woman–any woman–in office is a bad idea. It would be great. It would be super great! It would be empowering and it would show what was possible and it would also allow the media to show us its ugly misogyny day in and out as it obsessed over the Lady President’s clothes and how emasculating it must be to be a First Husband.

Oh it would be grand to catch up with the other parts of the world that have already had female leaders. Like, um, India or Pakistan or the UK or Israel or Germany…etc? Sigh.

Anyway, here’s where my issue comes in. The president has to make decisions. So if I’m going to throw my weight behind someone, it has to be someone who will make decisions that represent my values. The New Democrats didn’t and do not represent me.

However, I’m with Rachel Maddow on this: not a Clinton supporter, but WTF media? On what planet is it acceptable for Chris Matthews to pinch a presidential candidate’s cheek? (Really, he shouldn’t be pinching anyone’s cheeks, but let’s stick with how people with power are treated depending on their gender.)

It’s an ongoing problem for women with power. Back on my previous blog, I highlighted Bush’s inappropriate touching of German Chancellor Andrea Merkel (below).

Then there was the creepy way Senator Harry Reid placed his hand on Representative Nancy Pelosi’s shoulder during a press conference to interrupt her and left it there. The Daily Show did a great job covering that one:

Anyway, the below clip is a discussion of the media attacks on Clinton, Maddow’s desire to defend her despite not supporting her, and the strangely surreal world in which Pat Buchanan and I agree on anything at all.

I have always taken particular delight in people calling me names. Even guilt by association delights me — the “Warrior of Satan” brand that was thrust upon Angie for being pro-choice; the uncountable number of times I’ve been called a bitch, dyke, feminazi or what have you for being feminist; the plentiful times I’ve been called a socialist for believing we have an obligation to those around us; even the times the letters/op-ed pieces/blogs have caused my name and location to appear (negatively) on pro-gun websites or garnered me hate mail at my home.

Bring it. Those kinds of responses mean that you can’t engage on the issues, that you have nothing to bring to the table. Intellectual laziness.

I’ve been thinking about my ideological journey — and what it means to be an educated, opinionated woman–this week, in part because of the way NOW and Gloria Steinem have essentially accused young women of not being feminists for not supporting Clinton’s candidacy.

Hillary Clinton will get my vote in a race against a Republican, but she will never get it in a Democratic primary. She is too hawkish, too economically conservative to represent my brand of Democrat regardless of her gender.

However, she and her supporters are entirely correct when they say that she is treated unfairly due to her gender. From the outfit critiques (so many pantsuits! - side note on that: I think my mother is right in saying that if HC wore skirts, the media would insult her legs) to super close-ups of her wrinkles on Drudge to her “cackle” to the media’s repeated use of her first name while using her competitors’ last names to calling her Mrs. instead of Senator.

Even worse is how a woman isn’t allowed to be a tough leader. That this was part of some 20 year, conspiratorial Clinton plan.

The truth is that female leaders can’t have it either way. If you’re not as tough as the boys, you’re a weak woman (Patti Wetterling, Ann Wynia), and if you are, you’re a cold, calculating bitch with a shrill voice. Don’t believe me? Google any female politician with discernible opinions (any political party) with the word “shrill.” I’ll wait.

You could expand this game. Now search men. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s only used when trying to make the man histrionic and womanish?

You could expand this game even further. Replace shrill with bitch or cackle or giggle or clothing or fashion or iron my shirt.

In this, I risk you giving me other anti-feminist monikers: overly serious, humorless, blahdeefrigginblah.

Here’s the deal though, folks. Sexism is alive and well. And even though Steinem and my cohorts on the left sometimes drive me crazy with what they do with the truth, it doesn’t make what they say any less true. Clinton has it rough because she’s a woman. She really is trying to break a glass ceiling.

If you don’t believe me, dig a little and find out what your male peers make. If you don’t work in a male-dominated office/field, ask some women who do what their experiences are. And remember, always remember, that the women who ascend in terms of power and money are almost always regarded as bitches.

As for me, I know the monikers I’ve been given: bitch, know-it-all, bleeding heart, feminazi, socialist, dyke, opinionated, godless, knee-jerk.

Again, I say bring it. I’ve been engaged in ideological battles since I could speak (a benefit of a highly educated and political family and a father who heartily enjoys playing devil’s advocate and forcing me to actually debate) and I’ve been successfully battling the sexism thrown at me for all thirty of my years on this planet (a benefit of having a mother who was determined to have a strong and independent daughter), so let’s go!

God, Sara, where’s your sense of humor? Don’t be such a bitch…