Letters to the Editor
-
Reverse Sexism
We've all heard a lot about "reverse sexism" or "reverse discrimination." If you want a textbook example of it, read this article.
Early in this campaign cycle, a number of pundits and citizens expressed the idea that many women would vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Anyone expressing that idea was called a sexist and accused of presuming women do not think about issues. Here we go again, only this time the sexism is wearing drag.
Men will vote for McCain over Hillary simply because he's got the same sex organs (i.e. men do not think). Men do not care about issues (i.e. men do not think). Men who are ideologically aligned with Clinton will vote for McCain simply to keep a woman out of the White House (i.e. men do not think).
Of course the facile article misses one thing about us dudes: we brag, full of male bluster, that we will do things which, faced with the actual choice, we will not.
Many of us who emphatically will not vote for the deceitful, Bush-enabling, anti-Constitution Hillary Clinton are so angered by the obvious presumption of so many that she somehow deserves the nomination - based on her "experience," which again amounts wholly to enabling the current regime - that we sometimes say, "I'll vote for John McCain before I vote for Hillary Clinton."
In reality, should Hillary manage to receive the nomination and shut-out the inspiring Barack Obama, we probably won't vote for John McCain. We just won't vote.
And of course, that's what Hillary's supporters really want. Witness (in this week alone) her unflinching turn toward negative campaigning, her dive into the gutter, her wholesale embrace of the politics of division.
For Hillary Clinton and her people, you are either with them or against them. And if you're against them, well... you must be a stupid sexist pig, or just a Hillary hater.
Now - where have we all heard that before?