Those Bubble-Headed Female Voters
Outspoken left-wing feminist Linda Hirshman (whose ridiculous work has been commented upon on this blog in the past) simply outdoes herself with an op/ed that sounds like little more than a parody of old-time sexist claptrap.
Anyone care to guess why, in Hirshman's view, women may not rise up as one to embrace Hillary Clinton?
In every election, there's a chance that women will be the decisive force that will elect someone who embraces their views. Yet they seem never to have done so . . . My own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors -- they don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in the direction they want it to go. Instead, they vote on impulse, and on elusive factors such as personality. (emphasis added).
Little fuzzy-headed dears, they just pull the lever for the "nicest" candidate with the cutest neckties -- at least in Hirshman's world.
Can you imagine how profoundly insulting such commentary would be if it emanated from a man? One can argue that women are (like men) occasionally misled by some candidates, but it's the height of arrogance and condescension to insist that they either aren't aware of their own "true" interests or are too stupid to vote on that basis.
Given the feminists' history of supporting liberal men over conservative women, this is simply another iteration of the same old left-wing argument: That too much of the hoi polloi are just too dumb to vote for Democrats.
Ponder this: Many women may not support Hillary because they don't believe in a stronger government, a weaker military, more taxes and abortion.
Anyone care to guess why, in Hirshman's view, women may not rise up as one to embrace Hillary Clinton?
In every election, there's a chance that women will be the decisive force that will elect someone who embraces their views. Yet they seem never to have done so . . . My own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors -- they don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in the direction they want it to go. Instead, they vote on impulse, and on elusive factors such as personality. (emphasis added).
Little fuzzy-headed dears, they just pull the lever for the "nicest" candidate with the cutest neckties -- at least in Hirshman's world.
Can you imagine how profoundly insulting such commentary would be if it emanated from a man? One can argue that women are (like men) occasionally misled by some candidates, but it's the height of arrogance and condescension to insist that they either aren't aware of their own "true" interests or are too stupid to vote on that basis.
Given the feminists' history of supporting liberal men over conservative women, this is simply another iteration of the same old left-wing argument: That too much of the hoi polloi are just too dumb to vote for Democrats.
Ponder this: Many women may not support Hillary because they don't believe in a stronger government, a weaker military, more taxes and abortion.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home