Re: the issue at hand… Of course I know that societal misogyny affects me as well as everyone else on the planet. But I disagree that putting a woman in a powerful position is guaranteed to help alleviate it. It depends on the woman - as in, what’s in her heart, not what’s between her legs.

So my answer is still the same: To choose someone for public office primarily on the basis of their gender is sexist, period, and as someone who has fought against that all my life, I would feel like a big fat hypocrite if I did it.

I too would have loved to have seen Hillary go to the White House, but not at the expense of someone more qualified - man, woman or unicorn. (Which is not to say I believe Obama IS more qualified. The jury’s still out for me on that, though that hardly matters now.)

And what’s a little head-butting between punks? I wouldn’t have a blog if I couldn’t take hearing others’ opinions. Feel free to comment any time.

(PS: Have you seen LOLXENA?)

To answer your question, I understand ’sexist’ very well.

Watch this clever little 2008 sexism remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8&eurl=http://minx.cc/?post=262764

I mean, doesn’t that cut you? I don’t know how you, or any woman, can observe societal misogyny without pausing to think that it applies to you, too. I don’t know how you can’t see that putting a women in the most powerful position in the country could help alleviate that misogyny.

I’m a Republican, and I have little in common, ideologically, with HRC (other than our both being blonde, female lawyers named Hillary with bad tempers). Still, I would have died to get Hillary in the White House.

Also, I hope you take my butting heads with you a little in the good-natured spirit in which I intend it. I like a little shoving in my everyday conversation, so I hope you know I respect you and enjoy your writings.

(Of course, it was through your blog that I became hooked on ‘I Can Haz Cheeseburger,’ so I guess I should blame you for that, punk.)