Let's parse this in really logical terms. You admit that the reason that 'subtle sexism' hurts women more is precisely because they are more inclined to see it as a 'problem with themselves'. The other way to phrase that is that it hurts more precisely because they are not sure whether it's even sexism in the first place. So here is the circular argument you make:

1. Sometimes women encounter obstacles that may or may not be sexism and experience self-doubt as a result of the possibility that they may be personal flaws rather than unfair gender bias.

2. This hurts women and makes them feel bad about themselves.

3. Therefore, it's sexism.

So basically you are dismissing out of hand the possibility that anyone can ever have a problem with a woman or a legitimate reason for not hiring one (or not voting for one) based on personal characteristics rather than gender.

The larger point is what you think accusations of 'sexism' or 'racism' mean. By the traditional conception, it should mean that you believe that the person you are accusing actually harbors biases regarding race and gender which are both scientifically incorrect and socially unjust, as they punish people for factors beyond their control. But in modern politically correct-speak, it's being redefined as "anything that makes a woman [or minority] feel bad about themselves, whether it has the intent of sexism/racism or not." I shouldn't have to explain the danger of this kind of thinking. The bottom line is that it denies that anyone can ever be wrong or mistaken.

The whole point is that you don't get to make this problem go away. No matter how much you may want us all to hold hands and be equal, for any given criterion or characteristic, there are going to be people who are simply superior to others. And some of those superior people will be men, and some of the inferior people will be women, and vice versa. Any ideology that fails to acknowledge and allow this will never gain traction. So it is the responsibility of everyone, but especially feminists, to pay attention and be able to distinguish between someone who is unfairly being held back because of unjustified gender biases, and someone who is either intellectually or competitively inferior trying to exploit political correctness. For a perfect example of the latter, see here:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/06/professor-sues-students-for-anti.html

P.S. To other commenters: feel free to pigeonhole me as some regressive conservative and attribute to me associated views that you think I might have but are nowhere to be found in my comment.

...Are you saying that it's impossible for a woman to actually have personal flaws?

Well, that's more of a review than a reply, don't you think? Thanks for taking the advice in my disclaimer. I'm tempted to mimic the sort of bizarre dance that's taken place on this page and go "Why do you feel I'm sexist? What do you fear will happen if I'm sexist?" But that would be trolling.

Careful, though. I say "let's parse this in logical terms" and you immediately translate it into "women aren't logical". Hmm, maybe one of us is being sexist here. And obviously "Ayn Randites" are the only ones who think that it's possible for some people to be legitimately superior to others. I guess I should go read some Ayn Rand, then. Thanks for enlightening me.

I'd tell you to read my statement again, but hell, your inability to understand it is probably because of some social injustice, not your own arrogant stupidity. So let's break it down again. for everyone:

1) There is real sexism in the world and in the workplace.

2) There are fake allegations of sexism.

3) Is sexism an attitude you accuse someone of having or is it simply anything that makes a woman feel bad?

4) It is important to distinguish between 1) and 2)

5) It is possible to assert both 1) and 2) without diminishing the importance of either.

I realize that most people do not argue logically. Instead, they try to take a shortcut and fit the person they are arguing with into a particular worldview familiar to them. So I'm sure that Bob here looked at my post, picked out the words "political correctness", decided "oh this guy is just another Randite reactionary," and then proceeded to actually read the post and find things to tear apart. But it's futile - no matter how far you go out of your way to appear neutral, people will always read whatever they want into your posts.

The whole article misses the point. It's not that women are hurt by subtle sexism - it's that women are hurt when they think that there is no sexism at all and that the failure is wholly theirs. Of course some posters on this board think that to merely point out the possibility of such a perception actually being true is sexist. Go figure.