Phony “outrage” alert:
If the women at the feminist group The New Agenda do not hear an apology soon from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his “sexist” comment, he will be facing more than just a few frowning fems.
At a New York fundraiser hosted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg earlier this week, Reid praised New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for being the “hottest member” in the Senate.
When Politico asked Reid’s office for a clarification, spokesman Jim Manley said, “What can I say, she made The Hill’s ‘Most Beautiful’ list. Of course, he also went on to praise her skill and tenacity and described her as an effective member of the New York delegation as well.”
Amy Siskind, president and co-founder of The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller that if Reid does not promptly voice regret, she and her group will be building a coalition against the senator and demanding a mea culpa.
“We believe Senator Harry Reid needs to issue an apology,” Siskind said. “He had a chance to clarify his comments and instead of clarifying it his spokesperson just said, ‘yeah, that’s basically what he meant,’ and in this day and age if that is the way he is going to refer to one of the seventeen women in the Senate, then you know he should just get back on his dinosaur and go back to Nevada and stay there.”
Mai Shiozaki, spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women (NOW), said that Reid’s comments were inappropriate, but that Republicans are more guilty of sexism.
“Senator Reid should not have said that,” Shiozaki wrote TheDC in an email. “It was inappropriate and sexist. However, to be fair, so was the comment Bruce Blakeman, who was Sen. Gillibrand’s then-Republican challenger, said in a debate when asked to say one nice thing about Gillibrand. Blakeman said she was, ‘an attractive, bright woman who I believe is a good mom.’ And, might I remind people about Bush’s ‘Massage-Gate’ back in 2006 when he infamously rubbed German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shoulders. That was equally, if not, worse because that crossed the line of sexual harassment.”
Oh, good GRIEF! Do these feminitwits not understand that for a comment or action to be considered “sexual harassment” that there has to be a sexual intent behind the it? From the EEOC’s website:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Now, raise your hand if you believe that there was a sexual intent behind Bush’s brief shoulder rub of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Right. Didn’t think so. In retrospect, he probably wishes he hadn’t done it if for no other reason than to get the perpetually outraged on the left off his back, but as we all know – and as the world knew at the time – Bush was not exactly skilled in social graces and he likely gave her the quick shoulder rub in the same way he would to a male colleague. That said, to my knowledge, this is not something he ever did again.
Back to Reid, none of us are fans of his and we all would love to see him exit stage left in the fall elections, but for “feminist leaders” to suggest that Reid was being “sexist” with his remarks about Gillibrand defies all logic and cheapens the commonly understood definition of “sexism” which is to judge a man or woman solely based on their looks/sex. A recap of Reid’s remarks suggests that in addition to calling Gillibrand “hot” he also extensively praised her on policy matters. As I wrote back in June in response to the faux liberal “concern” that conservative women were being “objectified” by conservative men, the heart of the issue really wasn’t concern over “objectification” at all:
Even more so than the so-called “objectifying,” I think at the heart of all this as far as liberal complaints are concerned is an uncomfortableness with gender compliments. Gender feminists in particular are particularly so because they want to erase gender lines and differences all together – an impossible task but shhh! we won’t tell them that. It’s so much fun watching them spinning around in circles trying to explain why women are “no different” than men – while at the same time hypocritically attempting to not only be the dominant sex (“if it a woman was in charge there’d be no wars!”) but also demanding special treatment for women in many fields, especially those specifically geared for the rough and tumble that men are accustomed to (like serving on the front lines, etc). The apparently don’t stop to think that the very fact that they have to ask for the special treatment (aka a “modification” in requirements) is because women are indeed different than men.
And thank God for it, right? How boring would this world be if there were no differences between the two sexes?
And how boring would it be if we let the uber-left wing feministas dictate every syllable a man utters about a woman based on the left’s watered down definitions of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny? Do we really want “sexism” to be defined as anything complimentary a man says about a woman? I sure as heck don’t!
Unfortunately, there are always liberal feminist activist groups on standby ready to become outraged, and ready to launch “demand apologies!!” campaigns for any perceived slight, whether the alleged “slight” comes from a politician, pundit, journalist, etc. I just think it would be a better use of their time to, instead of wasting time on non-issues like Reid’s “hottest” comment, they stand up en masse when real sexism takes place, as it has for the last two-plus years with Sarah Palin and the obsession the far left has with her looks, and their belief that she is nothing more than a pretty face.
Won’t hold my breath on that one, though, because – even though you might see a small scattering of liberal feminists decrying the rampant sexism over Sarah Palin coming from the so-called “tolerant” left – the vast majority of them will ignore it because Sarah Palin, to them, is not “pro-woman” so that means she is not a “real woman” and as a result is, to them, not really worthy of defending.
No bigs. Conservatives don’t really need nor want the help of far left so-called “women’s rights advocates” in dealing with sexist attacks against conservative women like Sarah Palin. But that sure as heck won’t stop us from pointing out their hypocrisy on the issue – not to mention their pettiness on non-issues like the Gillibrand compliment – time and time again.