Skip to main content

Stand by yore woman--Not!

What I want to know is . . . .

If any of the following

A) Silda Spitzer


B) Wendy Vitter


C) Dana McGreevey


D)Suzanne Craig


E) Or even Hillary Clinton


. . . had been the one to have an affair (with a male prostitute, another woman, or just an intern), would we have press conference photos of Elliott, Craig, Jim, and Bill standing by their women?

I don't think so, and despite the fact that Laura Schlesinger could give moron lessons to Ann Coulter, I think that most people understand that the person guilty of cheating is--wait for it!--the person who actually cheated!

Yet although the apparently baseless charge that John McCain had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman did little to derail his presidential campaign, imagine how quickly Senator Barack Obama's chances for the White House would evaporate if someone made at least superficially credible charges that Michelle had engaged in an affair?

Think about it. We all knew Bubba was a horn-dog, even at the outset, and those perpetual photo galleries of the Girls of Clinton probably brought him more votes (and cost Hillary a significant percentage of the critical credibility she now so desperately needs against Obama) and enhanced his image.

But it doesn't work that way for women, does it?

I'll give you a prime (if fictional) example. Techno-thriller author James H. Cobb has crafted a series of near-future US Navy novels around a modern (but female) Horatio Hornblower character, Amanda Garrett. Garrett has a steady love interest going with a helicopter pilot, but in Target Lock he's half a world away and she engages in purely recreational sex with the suave villain of the piece. In other words, she does exactly what Hornblower, or Richard Sharpe, or God knows any of WEB Griffin's male protagonists would have done: she gets her jollies with the cutest piece of ass around, regardless of what side it's on.

And the readers hated it:

From Publisher's Weekly (as quoted at Amazon.com):

While in pursuit, however, Garrett allows herself to be not only seduced but also kidnapped by Harconan, who takes her to his secret hideout where, coincidentally, the satellite is also stored. Garrett's poor judgment forces the Sea Fighters to turn a simple seek-and-recovery job into a damsel-in-distress rescue mission.


And Booklist (ditto the source):

He is also a classic exemplar of the charisma of the dark side, and Amanda is not unwilling to be seduced by him. Seduced but not turned, and when Harkonon learns that, he kidnaps her and holds her in a durance that, but for the Sea Fighter force, augmented by a moonlight-requisitioned Indonesian warship, might become exceedingly vile.


From one whining reader review (which is representational rather than exceptional):

Now Ms. Garret is reduced to a simpering puppy-love struck school girl who just can't help but fall into bed with her adversary.


Again, I have to note that the novel, as Cobb wrote it and not as these readers apparently experienced it merely turns around the standard romantic thriller gender roles to make Amanda the hero who wants to get laid, even if it's by the villain.

Not only did the readers reject the point, they refused even to see it in print.

Which is precisely why I think we're more ready, as a country, for an African-American male President than we are for a female leader. And ironically, the only public gender role that allows Hillary to appear strong enough to be the Leader of the Free World is to appear as such a bitch-bull-dyke-in-a-yellow-jumpsuit that makes a mockery of a woman running as a woman.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
Harconan? Harconan!?

I have Frank Herbert's estate on line two they say they want to talk to you...

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...