...is how much "subtle" (and not so subtle) sexism I read in the comments here at Salon - which most consider a liberal site.

Not just Broadsheet, either. Walsh blogs and Traister articles draw the fauxgressives in droves. Actually, anything written by a woman. Go figure.

When a woman says that her husband or boyfriend of whoever she is, or was, fucking is a prick does that mean that anything she says can and should be disregarded on the grounds that she hates men?

and one way to look bigger is to make other people look smaller, women of course have agendas regarding men which are similar.

... that institutional sexism, that subtle undercurrent displayed in our language and cultural mannerisms that female characteristics are somehow inferior, is far more damaging than blatant sexism. And I think you can say the exact same thing about institutional racism, particularly with reference to the presidential campaign.

The difficulty with eradicating institutional sexism (like institutional racism) is that most people aren't even aware that they're doing it. It took a serious relationship with a strong feminist for me to realize that a lot of my everyday vocabulary had sexist connotations without me even realizing it. Strong people are ballsy, who wear the pants, and who take it like a man. Weaklings are pussies, who wear skirts, and often bitch about stuff. These are rather obvious examples, but if you ask most people if these cliches are sexist, they'll probably say no.

Also like institutional racism, once you become aware of institutional sexism, you start seeing it everywhere. And I totally agree that this subtle form of sexism is far more damaging than the blatant "iron my shirt" crap you hear coming from the mouths of the more cretinous members of our society.

Yes, that kind of maybe might be discrimination is far worse than the outright version. Because no doubt some of it is in fact explainable, but given the volume, you gotta know a lot of is not, you just never know which. It is exactly the same thing faced by people of colour-- I've often thought that the worst damage done by racism was not so much the denial of opportunity, as the continual nagging of self-doubt and uncertainty and paranoia.

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.

Men and womean are made to feel inferior or somehow flawed by many features of typical Western corporate life. Conduct the same experiment and ask questions that require that an applicant be fine tuned to a particular culture, whether a national or corporate culture, and its worldview and values, and viola--I'll bet you can replicate the same results...half the people will blame themselves...and the more subtle the insult, the more grevious the injury.

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

Harding does not define the word feminism, but apparently its intolerant and exclusive nature prevents women who are anti-abortion from its inner circles. Her subtle anti-religious bigotry -- accusing those opposed to abortion as not doing so out of a pro-life philosophy but rather out of an intention to judge and oppress women -- most certainly hurts the self-esteem of sincere religious people, but I don't see them whining, the way Harding does. As for job rejections, that is a part of life, and no one can pin down the subtle conclusions people draw from interviews. The answer is to honestly appraise oneself and move on. If women are rejected for their answers, when their answers were appropriate, then such an experiment to determine their self-esteem reaction raises serious ethical issues on the part of those conducting such experiments. Harding would feel much better if she stopped seeing reactions she doesn't like as oppression and instead focused on her own behavior that brings about the reactions she does not like.