Sexism and Clinton
An editor at the American Prospect should really make Garance Franke-Ruta apologize for this.
Let me begin with an anecdote. A bunch of us Tappers went for drinks the other day, and Hillary Clinton came up. It was a mixed crowd, but, reflecting the magazine’s writing employees, mainly men. As the conversation turned to ‘08, a young woman spoke up softly. “I like Hillary,” she said. Very quickly, several men raised their voices against her, expounding, at great length, on everything that was wrong with Hillary, and why she couldn’t win, and why no one should support her. The young woman said nothing in reply, and, in fact, said nothing more for the remainder of the evening. But I’m not sure that her mind was changed.
Today, the Gallup Poll reported that “Clinton’s highest level of support is among 18- to 49-year-old women; her lowest, among 18- to 49-year-old men.” And so, with all due respect to Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark, their views on this site must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics, as well as their judgment, as are the differing views of Dana and J. Goodrich and, well, me.
Two questions remain in my mind.
1. Why are the sexist male writers at TAP, who criticize Clinton strongly, unanimous in their praise for Pelosi’s leadership in Congress? Somebody should tell them Pelosi’s a woman! It’s almost as if there were some other difference between Clinton and Pelosi, but I can’t imagine what that might be.
2. Why are the prominent self-proclaimed feminists in the blog world equally unsupportive of Clinton? Shakespeare’s Sister, Feministe, Majikthise…. are these all self-hating women for supporting more progressive candidates for President?
Franke-Ruta seems to have run out of defenses for her uninspiring right-wing candidate and has nothing left but “you just think that because you’re a man!”