Warren Announces Run and the Sexism Police are Back on the Case

It’s only been a few days since Sen. Elizabeth Warren announced her exploratory bid for the presidency, and already the media is drumming up the same failed narrative they ran with Hillary Clinton. Because one outlet – Politico – dared to mention the obvious fact that a lot of Americans simply don’t like Pocahontas, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many, many others have circled the wagons around their Indian princess and declared any criticism of her to fall under the umbrella of sexism.

In a country where it is supposedly so tough to make it in politics as a woman or as a person of color, boy do these people benefit from this impenetrable forcefield, where anything you say about them can be construed – at will – as some form of racism or sexism. How very convenient.

“Just hours after Elizabeth Warren announced her plans to run for president, a question began surfacing about a possible weakness. It wasn’t derived from opposition research into some facet of her life. It had nothing to do with her policy ideas,” wrote the Washington Post on Friday. “It was the question often asked of female candidates and rarely of men: Is she ‘likable’ enough to be president? Others put it another, potentially more devastating, way: Is she too much like Hillary Clinton to be the nominee?”

We could phrase our critique of this paragraph the way the media so loves to phrase their critiques of President Trump: Washington Post claims, without evidence, that male politicians are never challenged on their likability.

If feminists really want to stop the comparisons between Warren and Clinton, they might start by putting away the playbook they used ad nauseum during the 2016 election. The one where, every time any Clinton critic said anything about the way she looked, the way she talked, the way people felt about her, how she handled the email scandal, how she debated, how she campaigned, etc., it was always always always about sexism and misogyny. Here was a woman campaigning on a platform that included, in no small part, an alert to the American public: Vote for me because I’m a woman! But then, on the other hand, she didn’t want anyone to notice that she was, in fact, a woman.

How is it that “being a woman” can be used endlessly as a positive attribute, but never ever EVER as a negative? Doesn’t that seem a little odd, just from a logical standpoint?

Alas, get ready to hear it again and again for the next year as Warren uses her femaleness to recommend herself for the White House and her protectors use it as a shield to guard against any criticism, no matter how little it actually has to do with her being a woman. It won’t get tiresome at all, we’re sure.


Comments are closed.