Posted by Jeff Fecke at Friday, January 25, 2008
Dana Goldstein at TAPPED has noticed something that's been bugging me lately as well. Andrew Sullivan, ur-blogger, reflector of conventional wisdom, and former New Republic editor he, has taken to denouncing Hillary Clinton as an anti-feminist.
Sully calls Hillary's candidacy a "corruption of feminism," and says that ads recorded by Bill to support Hillary are a "sad, final betrayal of feminism."
Certainly, Sullivan shows a great respect for feminism. Looking at his site right now, he's running a letter from an unnamed reader that compares her unfavorably to Eva Perón. Another correspondent says she's got big balls. Yet another worries that Bill Clinton will be a corrupt freelancer in a Hillary Clinton administration, worries that evidently didn't apply to Hillary, or, for that matter, Laura. Certainly all these correspondents are pro-feminist, right?
But let's not stop there -- let's look at all of King Andrew's fine contributions to women's rights. Sullivan, of course, endorsed the rabidly anti-choice Ron Paul for President. He has referred to differing women's differing opinions on Clinton as "Paglia women vs. Steinem women," in which says he's "long sided with Camille Paglia." He defended Larry Summers from women angry at him for suggesting that women aren't as smart as men, saying "Scientists are finding out more and more about the differences between the male and female brains. One thing that endures across cultures and populations is a male edge at the very top of the bell curve for spatial and mathematical reasoning." And in a 2000 article in the New York Times, Sullivan praised testosterone, and said, "Since most men have at least 10 times as much [testosterone] as most women, it therefore makes sense not to have coed baseball leagues. Equally, it makes sense that women will be under-represented in a high-testosterone environment like military combat or construction. ... [G]ender inequality in these fields is primarily not a function of sexism, merely of common sense."
So clearly, Andrew Sullivan is a feminist, and a strong one.
Of course, one might suggest that Sullivan might not be the best arbiter of what is and is not feminist, given that he's a man, and also, you know, not really connected to the feminist movement in any way. One might even suggest that nobody can really be the sole arbiter of what is feminist and what is not, and that one can support Hillary Clinton without being a feminist, and one can oppose her and be a feminist, and that her candidacy, quite naturally, is a complex event, as one would expect the first major campaign by a woman for the presidency would be.
But that's all just mushy-headed, estrogen-based thinking. That's why I say it's great that Sully has stepped forward to let you women know that Hillary Clinton is a bad feminist. This is why men are such good leaders, you know.
Oh, and yes, Dana's right -- The Onion really is too prescient.