anythings.org

From Alternet/Huffington Post:

Obama, grave-faced and sympathetic in tone, opined that when Senator Clinton was ‘feeling down,’ she went on the attack to make herself feel better; that is, she committed an error in judgment because she was in a bad mood. That was the moment when I, and other women of a certain age, all over the country, winced.

The change candidate had embraced one of the oldest clichés in the book — that women are held hostage by emotion, that we can’t be trusted with the big decisions because, depending on our age, we’re either on the rag or having a hot flash. The overtly sexist position used to be that you didn’t want to entrust the red phone to a woman because women are unpredictable and irrational; a fit of hormonal pique and kaboom, we all glow in the radioactive dark. The ones who aren’t instantly vaporized, that is.

The kinder, gentler version? A soft-spoken observation about what a female candidate does when she’s “feeling down,” the implication being that Hillary’s distress over the delegate count had impaired her judgment, and that someone who loses her way like that is not strong enough to withstand the rigors of the presidency. If you think that I and the indignant gal friends I’ve polled are overreacting, try the acid test: Imagine any major candidate making that kind of subtle put-down about a man’s psychological fortitude. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to have shock treatment to get us to raise a national eyebrow about his mental health, ending his brief tenure as George McGovern’s running mate. Short of that, we tend to assume that the boys are steady enough to handle the job.

[…] If it wasn’t a spontaneous comment — if someone in Senator Obama’s camp thinks it’s wise to use code to address and exploit our primitive fears about whether women can cope — then whoever came up with it ought to be ashamed of himself, and the man who uttered it needs to rethink the strength of his opponent and her supporters. Beat her on better ideas, or oratory, beat her with passion and energy, but beat her fair and square, if you can. Don’t talk about change and then quote from a 1950s playbook on the battle between the sexes. (Emphasis mine)

Now I’m sure everyone has heard about this but now, but I couldn’t agree more. It was a ridiculous comment to make. While it is not my goal to analyze every single thing that comes out of someone’s mouth in regards to Clinton, this is pretty ridiculous. Relying on the accepted idea that women are out of control and can’t be trusted to make sane decisions, especially if they’re upset. Heaven forbid the leader of our country get emotional or have a menstrual cycle! Maybe, just maybe emotions are what our country needs to fix all of its ridiculous problems.

I don’t feel that this is a personal attack on Barack - although more than one person has told me that my past posts are “personal attacks” rather than legitimate questions regarding his politics and abilities. He said something, he made a mistake, and he’s being scrutinized for it. The same thing has happened time and time again with Hillary - the key difference being her getting “emotional” is suddenly described as a tear-fest and Barack’s words and actions being taken as they are and for what they mean.

How amazing would it be if I could yell at someone and not get the response “geeze, are you PMS-ing” or “it must be that time of the month”?! How delightfully wonderful would it be if I could cry, be in an irritable mood, or just be downright irritated and not have to answer questions regarding my menstrual cycle? I think it would be downright wonderful. But, apparently, Obama does not.