Green Room

No, Thank You. I Don’t Want A Gender Card.

posted at 10:27 pm on September 22, 2010 by

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal:

Conservative women neither want nor need a gender card, yet  some seem hell-bent on forcing one upon us. It is one thing to correctly point out blatant sexism and the outright misogyny of the Left, particularly that of the so-called feminist Left. But it’s quite another to make up sexism out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what has happened recently, in regards to Christine O’Donnell.

The first to enter the “let’s invent an -ism where none actually exists” fray was The New Agenda. At least they are honest enough to admit that their entire goal is a new form of gender identity politics. Anna Belle Pfau wrote:

Delaware has never elected a female senator. The state is among seven of the original thirteen states that have never been represented in the Senate by a woman. Delaware may get its first real shot at correcting this oversight should polls bear out in the primary between Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle today.

This oversight? Yes, because that is the entire basis of what we should look for in a candidate: a “historic” first. That’s worked out so well in the presidency, hasn’t it? She then went on finding things “fishy” and magically discerning that phrases like “Perspective, Boys, Perspective”and “My mistake, fellas.” were “typical insider boys’ club-style of talking over a woman’s head.” I hate to inform Miss Pfau, but those aren’t very big words and aren’t over my head, girly as it is.

Next, upon O’Donnell’s primary win, Karl Rove, whose job is to politically opine, pointed out some things regarding O’Donnell’s candidacy that might cause a bit of a strategic problem garnering a win. Everything he said, while I may not agree, was arguably valid. The gender card was immediately played and he was accused of sexism. Sadly, it was played not by the usual suspects: the professional grievance mongering, victimhood reveling Feminist Left. It was played by the Right, with Jeri Thompson being the first to go all-in. That surprised me because I’m generally in agreement with Jeri Thompson, who is clever as all get-out, 99% of the time.

The difference here is that once the primary was over, the political elites in Washington stood by their men. Why won’t they do it for the woman?

Gee, I do seem to remember them standing by Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore, a man. And Meg Whitman over Poizner, also a man. It also should not have to be explained that merely disagreeing with someone and thinking she’s a lousy candidate is not sexist. Why even consider gender? Why is that the first thing to latch onto? Considering her gender as a factor actually IS sexist.

It got worse from there, which I found infuriating. The more I read, the more I scowled which is totally not cute. This time it’s personal and for that, they must pay. Moreover, the last thing we should want or need is a new form of gender identity politics. But, it kept coming. Day after day.

After Jeri Thompson, came Peggy Nance at AOL.com telling GOP men to grow up. Yes, she sunk so low as to basically accuse anyone – with external genitalia, natch – who isn’t particularly fond of O’Donnell of thinking that girls are icky and have cooties. You’ve come a long way, baby!

The delusional whingeing was topped off yesterday when Orrin Hatch himself pulled a gender card right out of his frightened of the tea partiers pocket. He said:

I think women have got to start getting mad about the way they’re treating her,” Hatch says. “It’s been pretty darn rude and vicious, I’ll tell you. There are some legitimate questions that can naturally come up, but to bring up an eleven-year-old quote? Give me a break.

Oh, really? Why women? Is it because you think that women must automatically think that a man is the bad guy and run to swing our purses at him in uterine solidarity?

Listen, actual sexism should, and does, get pointed out. Deciding to discuss if Sarah Palin had a boob job the day after primaries, as a way to diminish the primary wins of candidates she endorsed? Sexist. The Palin Newsweek cover and “humorous poems“? Sexist.  Journolist’s planned attacks on Palin? Sexist. A democrat congresswoman suggesting that GOP women need to lift their skirts before voting to check to see if they are female? Yes, that’s all sexist.

However, trying to compare those things to strategic opining by Karl Rove is asinine. Nothing he said was sexist. I may not agree with the time or place wherein he said them, but they were in no way sexist. To claim so, is acting like Eleanor Clift or, worse, Amanda Marcotte (only minus the “edgy” F words), for cripes sake. Acting stupidly (strategically) gets you a beer summit, maybe. But it does not equal sexism.

The Left clearly has disdain for women, which is why I write so often about that. But conservatives are usually the ones who understand that we are equal, yet different, and that’s a good thing. We don’t need to differentiate between women and everyone else. We’ve been correctly saying for the last three decades that affirmative action is insulting to minorities. It is. There is no reason at all that we should now embrace a slightly modified form of it ourselves. The racism card has been over-played and one of the worst results of that is that actual racist acts are now diminished by all the Boy Who Cried Wolf calling. The same will happen here. By inventing sexism where none exists, it harmfully diminishes real acts of sexism. Because, if everything is sexist, then nothing is.

We do not need our own Sexist Card. Conservative women are rising to the top due to the people they are, the beliefs for which they stand, and the convictions that they hold. It is not, nor should it be, because they have a rack and girly bits. Peggy Nance inadvertently and unintentionally belied her own argument in the article referenced earlier, when she said this:

As anyone in public life knows, there are times when people wish they could have been more eloquent or said things differently for a quote here or there.

Exactly. And someone pointing those things out is not doing so out of sexism. That’s politics, baby. When Ines Sainz claimed sexual harassment after entering a male locker room dressed in an outfit so tight that she wouldn’t need to walk through an airport scanner,  I said that the Teachable Moment ™ is that if you truly don’t want to be ogled and whistled at, don’t, you know, go into a male locker room sporting a camel toe. The same applies here. If you truly don’t wish to have your policies and your background questioned, don’t enter politics. And for goodness sake, don’t blame it on your estrogen if you do.

————–

Cross-posted from NewsReal

Follow Lori on Twitter

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yeah, I get a little tired of any given ism being the default. Eons ago my dad’s boss hired a black guy because he’d been getting grief about not having any in the shop. The guy turned out to be a horrible employee, so he was fired. He called the boss a racist and that he’d only been fired because he was black. The boss told him that no, he was HIRED because he was black. He was fired because he sucked.

That was long before the race card had been invented, but it was obviously in the development stages.

Bob's Kid on September 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM

You can’t tell us that Christine O’Donnell is not a victim of sexism and then come out with this:

Listen, actual sexism should, and does, get pointed out. Deciding to discuss if Sarah Palin had a boob job the day after primaries, as a way to diminish the primary wins of candidates she endorsed? Sexist. The Palin Newsweek cover and “humorous poems“? Sexist. Journolist’s planned attacks on Palin? Sexist. A democrat congresswoman suggesting that GOP women need to lift their skirts before voting to check to see if they are female? Yes, that’s all sexist.

Her boobs were…um…adjusted is said photos. That’s a fact. It’s just that logical people assume it’s a trip to Victoria’s Secret.

How is a picture of her in running shorts and a moronic poem sexist? That’s a serious stretch, one that make no sense to me whatsoever.

The JournoList members hated women? Something tells me they do not.

The “lift their skirts” moron is prejudice, not sexist, unless she’s a self-hating sexist, but that’s just weird.

Common theme? Not sexism, it’s the Left trying to destroy someone they KNOW is a huge threat to their very existance. Just like the GOP Establishment is trying to destroy someone they KNOW is a huge threat to their very existance.

Sarah Palin is just as much a victim of sexism from the people she scares as Christine O’Donnell is, which is virtually none.

Tread these waters carefully before you become the very thing you rail about.

uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2010 at 12:06 AM

uknowmorethanme on September 23, 2010 at 12:06 AM

One doesn’t have to hate women to be sexist. That’s why sexist and misogynist aren’t synonyms. There’s lots of sexist behavior that goes on by people who ostensibly “like” women, as well as sexist behavior by women. We all live in the same society and it has some pretty solid gender biases. It’s silly to assume there is no such thing as sexism like it’s silly to assume racism is gone. It’s not.

But people aren’t assigned to “good” or “bad” bins based on whether they are “sexist”/”racist” or not. It’s a spectrum and we should all work to move toward the positive end of the spectrum no matter where we start.

alwaysfiredup on September 23, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Good post, Lori.

Abby Adams on September 23, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Maybe not sexism, but Rove had no class, and has forever lost my respect for him. He did not do his homework on O’Donnell, which shocked me. Repeating the talking points of the opposition, at the VERY MOMENT she was giving her acceptence speech, and THEN it is revealed that he worked actively to get Castle elected–shows me that he was compromised.

I just have never heard him speak that way about a “male” candidate…on the VERY NIGHT of their victory before…

lovingmyUSA on September 23, 2010 at 1:20 PM