Tuesday, May 30, 2006
OHMYFUCKINGGOD! Women Might Be Powerful! That Is A Situation Up With Which Our MSM Will No Longer Put!
Two articles today, one in the WaPo about Hillary Clinton and one in the NYT about Nancy Pelosi -- both written by men. Common conclusion: We don't want any girls in our treehouse -- girls have cooties!
Using unflattering photos of Clinton and Pelosi, because, hey, come on, we all know that an ugly woman is a woman who can be completely discounted, both articles do their best to sound impartial while making clear that female politicians are somehow defective.
Pelosi is described as "teeter[ing] on a fine line" (you know, the way all women walk when they wear heels), having "vulnerabilities," (you know, those women, they're soft and vulnerable), "struggl[ing] at times to give the air of gravitas," (unlike say, Santorum or Frist), "appear[ing] tentative and overscripted," (because, we all know, girls get scared and need someone to write out what they should say and hand it to them) and as having "a tight smile and large, expressive eyes that can leave an impression of nervousness" (no comment necessary). She, unlike, I guess, say, John Kerry (Flip Flopper!) or Al Gore (Liar!) or Democratic men in general, "lends herself to easy caricature by Republicans."
So surely a more confident woman, one who has even been described as such a tough broad that her husband understandably seeks out less threatening sexual partners, would receive a flattering portrait; right? Wrong. While Clinton, too, is "vulnerable"; she is subject to the charge that "she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy." In fact, she's "a polarizing force." It's a bit confusing how she can be both polarizing and, as the article argues, "a politician not easily defined," in fact, one about whom the article can claim: "Yet for all her fame, there are missing pieces to the Clinton puzzle: What does she stand for? And where would she try to take the country if elected?"
WaPo tries desperately to discount the fact that "Clinton's roles as senator, first lady, governor's wife, lawyer, and children's advocate have given her a depth of experience that few national politicians can match," (and conveniently forgets all of her foreign travel and proven experience relating to world leaders the globe over) by insisting that "she is still trying to demonstrate whether these yielded a coherent governing philosophy." WaPo also has to admit that Clinton has recently clarified her "agenda with major speeches on the economy and energy."
In the end, even WaPo has to admit that "there are clear patterns." They then quickly do what they claim can't be done: describe Clinton's governing philosophy: she's for the use of force abroad and for combating terrorism. Domestically, she believes in the power of government to solve problems and has some traditional, "even moralistic" instincts concerning family policy. She believes that "our most important obligations is to take care of our children," and that "government is an essential partner in a three-sided relationship that also includes the free market, and a 'civil society' . . . ."
WaPo's main problem seems to be that Clinton hasn't come up with a cute phrase to describe her politics; no equivalent to Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" -- of course, we all know how well that label helped us to gauge what kind of president Bush would be. Even when Clinton explains that she prefers to approach each issue individually based upon a combination of her beliefs and ideals "with a search for practical solutions," and that this approach doesn't "fit into a preexisting box," because "many of the problems we face as a nation don't either," WaPo insists that this allows everyone to have a different label for her. (Go on, someone make my day and tell me that a man who said the same thing wouldn't be described as "refreshingly practical" and "just what America is looking for after years of Bush's ideological stance -- an independent politician who makes up his own mind." Do it; just do it; because I'm looking for an excuse to go postal today.)
One is left with the inescapable conclusion that women simply don't belong in major leadership positions -- Speaker of the House or President. They're either too tentative, or too polarizing. Their eyes are too expressive or they are subject to being caricatured by Republicans (!). If they consider each issue on its merits they must not have a guiding political philosophy, even if the very same article can lay out their political philosophy with no trouble at all.
Fuck it. I've fucking had it with sexism. This nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop now. Don't make me bring in the flying monkeys.