Geraldine Ferraro: Democratic Sexism

When I read Healing the Wounds of Democratic Sexism I tried to give Geraldine Ferraro the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that the title alone is unsubstantiated rhetorical idiocy crafted to present a baseless, biased position and what follows is more of the same. The Op-Ed is full of delightful little tidbits of idiocy each of which could fuel a rant of their own:

"They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening."
-How is it frightening and how is it less frightening that you are playing the gender card?

"It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment."
-Who the fuck writes that sentence?

"They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid."
-I love this sentence.

But the bigger problem and more significant grievance I have is that after reading the article seven times now I do not understand how the fuck someone like Geraldine Ferraro can write these things and believe them. Here's an example:

"They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate."

Ok, Clinton supporters are unable to identify with Obama due to his schooling and spouse. But, wait, Clinton went to Yale...and Clinton married an adulterer. So Clinton supporters can identify with Yale, but not Harvard...and they identify with spousal infidelity moreso than spousal academic prowess? REALLY? You just said "they're not stupid", Geraldine. Come on!

And then she has to bring up her own part in this parade of comedy:

"Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist."

Ok, Geraldine, you said, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." How is that not racist? You said, effectively, that Obama is in this position because of his race. That's the fucking definition of racism you dolt!

And then we have the Pièce de résistance:

In response, a group of women - from corporate executives to academics to members of the media - have requested that the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University and others conduct a study, which we will pay for if necessary, to determine three things.

First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate.

Fuck damn it. Ok.

"whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism"

How do you define and determine sexist or racist behavior? What is the criteria? And, you know, if they use the criteria you've nonverbally laid out in this Op-Ed? I can already tell you what the results will be.

"whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly"

I adore the notion that the media was unfair to Clinton. Ignoring the fact that no criteria by which "fair" can be assessed has been provided I heart the sandbox-esque mentality of the "you're being unfair!" argument. It's precious.

"whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate"

Ok, um, Geraldine? If you are doing a study? Your question needs to be whether or not any members of the media actually did this rather than baselessly assume they did it and then try to figure out whether the unverified action was ethical or not.

And, by the way, at the moment I'm going to ignore the fact that a group of women financing a study to determine whether or not we all ought to have voted for Hillary Clinton is about as objective as Big Tobacco financing a study on lung cancer.

But what pisses me the fuck off most of all is that when people in West Virgina were interviewed about the election they said they were not voting for Obama because he is black. Yet I've never heard anyone say they were not voting for Clinton because she is a woman. My understanding is that people do not vote for Clinton because they do not like Clinton. Maybe it is based upon their views of her husband. Maybe it is based upon her being an opportunistic, unfeeling cretin clinging desperately to a contest she has already lost. I do not know.

But not liking a woman is not sexist. Not liking a black man is not racist. Liking or not liking an individual because of their gender, because of their race? THAT is sexist, racist.

And that is a fact Geraldine Ferraro has obviously missed.