Conservative women neither want nor need a gender card, yet some seem hell-bent on forcing one upon us. It is one thing to correctly point out blatant sexism and the outright misogyny of the Left, particularly that of the so-called feminist Left. But it’s quite another to make up sexism out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what has happened recently, in regards to Christine O’Donnell.
The first to enter the “let’s invent an -ism where none actually exists” fray was The New Agenda. At least they are honest enough to admit that their entire goal is a new form of gender identity politics. Anna Belle Pfau wrote:
Delaware has never elected a female senator. The state is among seven of the original thirteen states that have never been represented in the Senate by a woman. Delaware may get its first real shot at correcting this oversight should polls bear out in the primary between Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle today.
This oversight? Yes, because that is the entire basis of what we should look for in a candidate: a “historic” first. That’s worked out so well in the presidency, hasn’t it? She then went on finding things “fishy” and magically discerning that phrases like “Perspective, Boys, Perspective”and “My mistake, fellas.” were “typical insider boys’ club-style of talking over a woman’s head.” I hate to inform Miss Pfau, but those aren’t very big words and aren’t over my head, girly as it is.
Next, upon O’Donnell’s primary win, Karl Rove, whose job is to politically opine, pointed out some things regarding O’Donnell’s candidacy that might cause a bit of a strategic problem garnering a win. Everything he said, while I may not agree, was arguably valid. The gender card was immediately played and he was accused of sexism. Sadly, it was played not by the usual suspects: the professional grievance mongering, victimhood reveling Feminist Left. It was played by the Right, with Jeri Thompson being the first to go all-in. That surprised me because I’m generally in agreement with Jeri Thompson, who is clever as all get-out, 99% of the time.
The difference here is that once the primary was over, the political elites in Washington stood by their men. Why won’t they do it for the woman?
Gee, I do seem to remember them standing by Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore, a man. And Meg Whitman over Poizner, also a man. It also should not have to be explained that merely disagreeing with someone and thinking she’s a lousy candidate is not sexist. Why even consider gender? Why is that the first thing to latch onto? Considering her gender as a factor actually IS sexist.
It got worse from there, which I found infuriating. The more I read, the more I scowled which is totally not cute. This time it’s personal and for that, they must pay. Moreover, the last thing we should want or need is a new form of gender identity politics. But, it kept coming. Day after day.