"I'm fine with women in power, just not this one specific woman currently in power"

[spooky3]

Great snark (satire, sarcasm) by Alexandra Petri of WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/11/16/im-fine-with-women-in-power-just-not-this-one-specific-woman-currently-in-power/?utm_term=.186e468eea82

"The first thing I need to make clear is that I love and support women. I am eager to see more women rise to positions of power. Hashtag pink wave! Hashtag pink hat!

But I have to say, I’m a little frustrated that we keep putting forward this specific woman who really grinds my gears. Not because she’s a woman. I would know if that were why. It is not that. It’s just — ugh, her, you know? She just doesn’t excite me, and I feel that she is too compromised. That’s not a woman thing, though. It’s just a her thing. I would have that issue with anyone who had her baggage, that same difficult-to-pin-down sense that something about her was fundamentally tainted.

But it is just this one woman in particular. And can I say how glad I am that we are at a point when we are able to judge women on their merits, as people, and find them inexplicably, inevitably wanting, as people? But definitely all women do not do this. There are plenty of women who do not make my teeth go on edge in the way this one lady does. My mother, for instance. My daughter, for another instance. And others I could name! Oprah, in her current capacity, though I hope she stays in her lane.

In general, I am excited to vote for a woman, maybe even in 2020, though I do, I have to say, worry that maybe other Americans are not so ready, and we wouldn’t want to make that mistake in a year with such high stakes. Not me — I was born ready! I was given birth to by a woman. So it’s clear where I stand..."

snip

[eleny]

1. Right wing talking points freeze my blood

[spooky3]

2. mine too--but you are aware that this column is satire, right?

[eleny]

5. Nope

Given that it's from the Wash Post. Nevertheless, I'm not in the mood for jokes - unless I'm telling them!

[spooky3]

8. I noted in the OP that it was snark--but you may want to check out Petri's other columns

I think you would like them, when you feel in the mood. Seriously, I hope that things are ok.

I edited the OP to make this clearer (see bolded part).

[eleny]

17. Well, we're on pins and needles anticipating shoes to drop

It's all good. You're the real deal!

[mcar]

3. These are things said by Democrats

now about Pelosi, in 2016, about HRC.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211436805

[2naSalit]

12. That's what I've been pointing out.

It's thinly veiled sexism.

[mcar]

28. It sure is

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Indeed

Nothing new under the sun.

[marybourg]

4. Not impressed. Her "you know". ???

[unblock]

9. it's sarcasm, and well done.

[marybourg]

10. Well then I must be very stupid. I didn't catch even a whiff

of sarcasm in the excerpt.

[spooky3]

14. I added more emphasis in the OP. If you can check out the comments to the WaPo

original article, I think you would like a lot of them.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. Man, what a load of bogus culture in that Petri dish.

[still_one]

7. This was rampant in 2016, and the illustrious media were part of it. "Hillary is angry all the time.

Hillary never smiles, Hillary is shrill", and other not so subtle slurs that would never be applied to men.

yup, no sexism going on here

[libdem4life]

11. I am reminded of a well-known passage...Edited

On Edit...as per response...some satire is too real to qualify as such. But thanks for the head's up. We women get so used to this, as I said...not much satire in reality on this subject today.

"There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth".

Go for it, girl ! Ha. And you were "born" a woman" and "given birth by a woman" Wow...amazing information coming from The Post. Anything else Ms. Captain Obvious would like to add to our knowledge base?

The rest of it was patently uninspiring and misogynist...hard as she tried to hide it.

[spooky3]

15. IT IS SATIRE.

She is making fun of all the lame, sexist things said by people about both Clinton and Pelosi, and that they will likely say about ANY woman in power.

[libdem4life]

19. Did not know the history. Too close for comfort...that's all. n/t

[mr_lebowski]

27. How the 'point' here is not obvious to all ... is really a bit mind-blowing ...

I'd expect it to go over the heads of plenty on FR, but I do find it surprising here on DU that anyone misses what the author is getting at.

Esp. when the author's name is Alexandra.

But, then again I'm pretty much a sarcastic shithead to the bone, so I instantly recognize both satire and sarcasm ... maybe that's the disconnect.

[lunamagica]

13. I heard that about Hillary over and over again. "I'd love to have a woman president, just not THIS

woman"

[karynnj]

20. For some, that was NOT a sexist comment any more than it was anti semitic to not want Lieberman 2004

In the primaries, many did prefer someone other than Clinton, even if they did not want Sanders either. All had there reasons. You might not find them valid, but I trust that what they said they were motivated by was what motivated them. Obviously when the choice was Trump or Clinton -- there is NO excuse for not voting for Clinton if you were on the left side. (On the right side there were cynical votes for a man they should have at least suspected was not morally fit to be President for their own agenda - whether a RW anti abortion Supreme Court Justice, deregulation or lower taxes.)

While there IS sexism, not all negative response to Hillary Clinton is sexism. Just as I know few Jews in 2004 in the reconstructionist synagogue I was in then who supported Joe Lieberman. This, though there was intense excitement when Gore had put him on the ticket. Were we inadequately loyal to our identity group that we were not in his camp? Not to mention were all people who favored someone other than Clinton in 2008, sexist ... and all people who favored someone other than Obama, racist?

I seriously think that had Hillary not run and Biden stayed out, we might have elected a woman ... and without the baggage (even if undeserved) that Hillary carried. What was absolutely unique to 2016 was that BOTH candidates were significantly underwater in their favorabity. I would agree that there was a lot of false equating failings of Clinton with the enormously more serious failings of Trump. However, I also think that the two biggest negatives I heard - the Goldman Sachs talks (completely legal, but tone deaf when she intends to run and did not need the money) and her terrible handling of the email problem, which made her look like she was hiding something - even as the released emails showed nothing nefarious.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. This thread is hilarious.

[bigtree]

21. this is bullshit

...a load of hate, wrapped up in self-righteous claptrap.

[mcar]

29. It's satire

[peggysue2]

22. Petri has been writing some very . . .

biting columns of late. This is a good one and would remind one of comments made about another woman, back in the day. Hummmm. You know, that Hillary person.

Now Nancy Pelosi is on the burner as a leader among woman but not . . . quite right.

Petri nails it!

And Oprah? Please girl, stay in your lane. LOL!

[LanternWaste]

23. Brilliant, on-spot satire!

The Five Standard Arguments I've been reading over the past week...

"We need new blood" = I don't know what the objective cut off age is, but women getting old creeps me out.

"She plays into the GOP narrative" = I don't have anything of substance to argue, so I'll continue with the vague, diaphanous one-liners.

"She's unpopular" = Regardless that all members of congress have historic low ratings, I'm going to imply that it's specific only to her, and argue that only she motivates their base.

"We should at least give the chance for a debate and not shout down others" = I'm ignoring that there will be numerous debates and inter-party votes on this so I have a bumper-sticker to yell, and any opinions different than mine are oppressive and shouting me down.

"I'm not a sexist, but..." = I'll argue for Fudge when it's convenient, but should she actually get it, I'll immediately argue against her. Here, hold my beer.

[lilactime]

24. I love Alexandra Petri's satire, and the way she is SKEWERING

Nancy Pelosi's double-talking hyporitical detractors.

[Hekate]

25. Do you remember when Obama had a SCOTUS vacancy to fill? The same argument went on here...

Gods it was disgusting. The reasoning went: Obama had to choose the absolute best person in the country. There could be only one best person. So IF a woman was was the best person, fine. But to set out looking for a woman or a POC was rank injustice. Because since there could be only one best qualified person...

On and on it went, the snake eating its tail. Oddly, the most vehement arguers were male.

Same with Hillary -- Sure we want a woman. Some day. And just not this woman. Has to be the very best woman in all the world. And that would exclude men. Rinse, repeat.

[wryter2000]

26. Bingo

We've been hearing a lot of this crap right here at DU. "It's too important to risk this election on anyone but a white male." I also have to presume anyone who's not Christian.

[maxrandb]

30. Is this supposed to be anti-Pelosi, or anti-Hillary?

Because I recall hearing that exact same argument over and over again in 2016.

How'd that turn out for our country?

[borgesian]

31. It is supposed to be satire.

The first sentence of the op literally tells you this in boldface text. Good grief.

[JHan]

32. folks it's satire. and very good satire.

[Jim Lane]

33. It's satire, and pretty pedestrian satire.

I'm fine with women in power. I'm just not fine with Michele Bachmann in power, and I'm glad she's gone. I'm not fine with Pam Bondi being in power in Florida and I'll be a lot less fine if Trump makes her AG. In 2016, I would've voted for any of the Democrats, male or female, over Carly Fiorina if she had won the Republican nomination.

If the author thinks that my attitude is hypocritical, well, we'll just have to disagree.

[JHan]

34. Those are definitive reasons for disliking someone...

because ideologically you disagree with those women.

What Alexandra is pointing to is the often meandering reasons some give to not support someone, or not give room to them the way they would a guy, "Grind my gears".

When she mentioned mothers, daughters.. relatives it's sor of like the dudes who say "I am not sexist, I love my wife" or "i have a daughter, I cannot be sexist". Or hey, I like this famous woman ( Oprah) who has some power so I cannot be sexist!

The point isn't that you must support women whose views are diametrically opposite to your own.

Of course if it's satire not to your taste, ... up to you. I enjoyed it.

[Jim Lane]

35. Unfortunately, not everyone understands the distinction you draw

There is a definite tendency toward a knee-jerk reaction: "You are criticizing a woman with whom I agree, therefore you're a misogynist."

Some people understand your point about ideological disagreement perfectly well -- but only if they also disagree with that particular woman's ideology.

[JHan]

36. what i thought about when I read it is when there is ideological agreement..

or the reasons offered don't make sense...or the person in question wants to make an assurance that "Yeah it's not that she's a woman .. but.."....yet hemming and hawing and reasons invented for dislike they may not apply to a man. Or their standards are not consistent. I think that merits interrogation.
If solid reasons are offered for disagreement I can't think why that should be a problem. If there are double standards, it's problematic.