I have always considered myself a feminist. I spent a lot of time in my working life reading books about breaking the glass ceiling, how to talk so as to be understood and respected by my male counterparts, and looking for ways not to trip myself up from promotions, etc because of sexual bias. I have no doubt in my own mind that such biases against women exist, even if there are rare exceptions.

But, reading Steinem's editorial today, she sounds angry that women, in particular, aren't voting for Clinton and acts as if it's a sexual politics issue that a man wouldn't have to face. Here's what I take exception to.

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama. 

That last is exactly why I don't want Clinton. The dynasty factor. Two more terms of Clintons???? Please, no. Would it matter if, say, it was a SON of the Clintons (if one existed?) No. There are a significant number of us who are tired of Bushes AND Clintons (hello! NAFTA!)  And, please. "No masculinity to prove". For all appearances, Clinton apparently decided long ago that she was going to be seen as tough as any man who DOES have masculinity to prove-does that make such a tactic wrong? No. But she plays the same game as a man who may *have* masculinity to prove.  The 8 years of On-The-Job experience is nonsense; merely because the spouse or other family members live in the White House and may participate in various activities doesn't make them the best person to run the country. Should Betty Ford have stepped up to run for president? How about Nancy Reagan (who, as I recall, most people despised! Remember her designer dinner settings? Her money spent on designer clothing?) Can you imagine having Barbara Bush as president? Or, more currently, Laura Bush-gee, she was put in charge of gangs and does photo-ops with Home Depot-that does NOT give her years of on the job experience that should make her suitable to be president. Steinhem, what about the ISSUES???????

One more comment on the No-Tears rule. I don't get it. If it's anathema for MEN to cry or tear up (except for Bush's croc tears when he visits the wounded he created with his war), then why is there a double standard when Clinton does it? I don't know if the tears were calculated or not, or merely born out of exhaustion, but that was not *courage* to break the No Tears rule. And if a man would be out because of it, then why shouldn't a woman be excoriated too? Or is that another one of those sexual double standards?

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

You can't even compare. Clinton IS divisive. Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann showed a clip of Hillary Clinton playing the Al Qaeda card. Who does that? Well, Rudy G does. Bush does. The Republicans constantly beat that drum, which most Americans are tired of hearing. Tell me how being a fear-mongerer like the Republicans isn't being divisive.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

The Clintons have a history of manipulating the political arena. Clinton does NOT come into the so-called debates with a clean slate. Another woman similiarly saying this might not have been accused of playing that card.  As we've noted here before, Hillary Clinton came into this race with extremely high negatives and she brought up the *gender card* AFTER she had stumbled on some other questions. It looked calculated.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

I guess Steinhem missed all the race talk when Obama won. Yes, the pundits weren't concentrating on whether the people voting for him were *gender* free but RACE free. Don't blacks have the same issues? Should a person of color vote for Obama BECAUSE of his race and not the issues? Will they be disloyal if they don't?

I would actually LIKE to see a female president. It kind of astonishes me sometimes that women haven't even had the vote for 100 years (1920 was the year). That means that, in the history of this country, when the founders said all men are created equal, that's EXACTLY what they meant. All men. Women were sidelined and weren't even able to vote. Think of that!

But wanting to see women take their rightful, equal place in political life doesn't mean that any women coming down the pike has to be the nominee or that I should have to vote for her BECAUSE she's female. By that thinking, I should have voted for Condi Rice if she had run, right? After all, she's a woman even if she's an incompetent, unlikeable neocon wonk who only got the position because she's a suckup to Bush.