Just to clarify from the outset - I'm not a big fan of Sen. Hillary Clinton, for policy reasons. She seems like a great person - very confident, competent and capable - but when it comes to her actual beliefs and voting record, we're not on the same page. I find it increasingly irritating that I have to repeatedly refute the apparently unbelievable idea that I, as a female, am not automatically voting for the female candidate. Not only that, but I constantly find myself having to defend a candidate I'm not even planning on voting for because no one seems to be able to get over the fact that she's a woman, she's running for president and she's a woman. Insert a series of stereotypes and blatantly sexist comments here. Reverse the above and use one of the males running - how ridiculous does it sound? Do we have conversations about our male candidates' style of laughter, hair, clothing choice or "boy parts"? If not, why are these acceptable topics for Clinton coverage? It would be one thing if this was confined solely to Fox News, which has a political agenda to push and a history of playing dirty without shame or apology. But two of the above topics were covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post - so much for objectivity and balanced viewpoints. Even more condescending and infuriating, the ever-omniscient politicos, mostly males, keep pointing out with increasing paranoia that female voters will vote for the female candidate, claiming sexism and unfairness. Rest assured, you need not worry about voter sexism coming from the ladies. Personally, I'm over the fact that Clinton is female. It's the male pundits who keep having a hysterical nervous breakdown over the fact that a candidate for President has "girl parts." Some of the comments, however, reveal a blatantly violent and deeply disturbing attitude toward women that is still seeping through the background of our society. Sen. John McCain laughed off an overzealous supporter's cry of "How do we beat the bitch?" without rebuke, and a Web site that sells homemade T-shirts that read: "Life's a bitch, so don't vote for one," a level of disrespect and gender-specific degradation I have never heard of used for a male candidate. Other homemade T-shirts are downright violent - from "Club Hillary - No really, club Hillary" over two spiked clubs, to a disgusting text-only shirt reading: "I Wish Hillary Had Married OJ." Pundits wonder why women are defensive and supportive of Clinton, even if, as in my case, they do not plan on voting for her. This is why: Women and girls are confronted by this ugly undercurrent every day in their individual lives, and it's hard not to sympathize with someone enduring it so publicly. The fact is, there's a difference between criticizing Clinton's politics and criticizing her sex, and it's not as difficult as the pundits and political wonks declaim. Those who can't distinguish between the two are merely pretending for a convenient excuse to spout off some insidious sexist comment ... which is deeply disturbing because these blatant commentators are also going to vote. And if these extreme blowhards were content to take their prejudices to the ballot box alone, that might be acceptable, if repulsive. But they repeatedly try to convince others to take their prejudices and hatred in too. Comments about Clinton that boil down to her sex tell us less about Clinton than they do about the speaker - and his or her inherent insecurities and prejudice.
-Ruthie Kelly is a journalism junior.
-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed - include your full name, major and year in school.
Be the first to comment on this article!