Terms are powerful things; labels, in particular, stick to people. This is something the left knows very well. When Barack Obama was running for President, everyone who criticized him was labeled “racist.” It didn’t matter if your disapproval stemmed from legitimate policy disagreement, you were still a racist—and that dead horse has been beaten for the last six years.
Now that Hillary Clinton is running for President, sexism will be the new racism. Any critique of Clinton will be smacked with a giant red “SEXIST” stamp, which will automatically discredit it.
Speaking to this point, in a recent interview with Rachel Maddow, retiring (thank God) Senator Harry Reid said the following about women in the Senate:
“…the Senate is a better place because of women. Men and women are different. I’m so impressed with how women appear to me to be more patient. They are less…inclined to do things like war…I wish I could articulate the way I really feel about how much better the Senate is because of women…who are just so dynamic…the country is ready for a woman to become president.”
Harry Reid just defined individual female Senators as a collective based entirely on perceived gender-based qualities. Is that not sexism? They are less inclined to go to war, they are more patient, they are dynamic. Reid has lumped female Senators into a category based only on their gender—positively, yes, but that simply masks the sexism.
It’s ok to make generalizations as long as they’re positive—yay, women!
Let’s reverse the situation. If Reid had said that the Senate was better off because of men, that they were stronger, and more level-headed than women, what do you think the reaction would be? No one needs a crystal ball—or MSNBC’s Krystal Ball—to tell them that the world would burn, and Xena: Warrior Princess cries would be heard throughout the land.
Why is it that you’re allowed to acknowledge gender differences as long as they’re supportive of women, but if they’re not, you have to shut up—for example, military, and police strength standards.
The military has been called sexist for their long standing “Combat Exclusion Policy,” which was recently lifted in an effort to aid inclusivity.
However, The Washington Post reports:
“Last week, the Marine Corps announced the scheduled end of an 18-month experiment to vet females through its Infantry Officer Course. The results were bleak: 0 of 29 women made it past the three-month course.”
There are certain criteria that must be met in order to serve in a field in which physical strength is key. That’s just a fact of life. If a woman is comparable to a man in that regard, she should certainly be allowed to enter those fields. However, if her strength is not comparable, we cannot water down standards with the sole intent of inclusivity. In these cases, political correctness could cost lives.
Strength standards (which could save lives) are sexist, but Harry Reid can generalize women in a positive way, and that’s cool.
Men and women are different; generally speaking, we have different assets and flaws. I know–it sounds crazy. But we’ve been beaten into accepting the notion that any “negative” gender differences (meaning ones that exclude in some way) are unacceptable, and any “positive” gender differences are totally fine to talk about. Because empowerment and stuff.
The PC crowd will give Harry Reid a free pass because what he said was positive, but what he said could actually be seen as pat-your-dumb-kid-on-the-head condescension—not to mention he implied that all male Senators are impatient, and more bloodthirsty. Oh, and regarding that, nine out of thirteen female Senators (including Hillary Clinton) voted for the Iraq War Resolution.
But…yay, women! So…whatever.