"We, the women of the press, will be held to feel guilty, responsible, nostalgic, elitist. We will somehow have to explain ourselves."

How about being less defensive and really looking at how the press has covered all the candidates and not just whining like a high schooler who was just told her term paper is below standard.

Your profession's self-righteousness is unbearable and lack of objectivity reprehensible. Read Eric Alterman or Bob Somerby for specifics.

Thank you, female_engineer. I stopped reading the XX bloggers with any regularity a couple of months ago because none of them was able to address gender issues in anything but the most trivial and often mean-spirited fashion.

Just for starters: Why couldn't a blog supposedly addressed to gender even begin to address the fact that what was important about Clinton's work in Northern Ireland was that she supported a women's peace coalition with enough political smarts to work a very, very complicated electorial process and get a seat at the peace negotiations, where they played an important role as a coalition party (Unionists and Republicans) committed above all to peace (which sharply distinguished them from the other parties with old axes to grind and positions to vindicate). Without them, the Accords might not have taken place. That unconventional and successful peace movement (like those in a number of African countries) had important roots in the Beijing international women's conference -- where Clinton made an important speech. The Irish women (and plenty of the men) thought Clinton's role hugely important. But Clinton's work was derided in the press (and on this blog) because it *wasn't* playing the conventional game with the big boys. Just look at what was said by the man adopted by Obama supporters (and by Anne Appelbaum on this blog) as the poster boy for Clinton's irrelevance: Hers was a "classic women's politicky sort of role." What was important here was not *just* that Clinton was female (all the silly glass ceiling stuff) but that she brought something to foreign affairs that no one else did. There is, for instance, a comparable Palestinian/Israeli women's peace initiative that has been recognized by the UN Security Council. What might it mean in the Middle East if we had a president who could see that as a possible resource?

Why is it that this kind of work (and there's more) did not get at least the same mentions as Obama's very brief work as a community organizer? It had a *lot* more results.

It's pretty undisputed that sexism is much, much more acceptable than racism. Clinton was hardly breaking new ground in saying that. What remains to be discussed is the many, many substantive ways the press -- and certainly the XX bloggers here, so terrified were they of being branded feminists -- distorted this race because of sexism they don't even begin to recognize.

"It's pretty undisputed that sexism is much, much more acceptable than racism."

No its not. Neither one is acceptable.

I would say that at least 95% of the people know at least one strong, independent, stereotype defying woman. We have become far more comfortable with successful women and as they have become more familiar we have treated them with greater equality. The corollary is that you can't cry foul every time a woman gets dinged.

No its not. Neither one is acceptable.

Your reading comprehension skills need work. The poster was not claiming that sexism should be more acceptable, only that it is looked at that way by society. Which is without question the case.

Even as an Obama supporter I recognize that a lot of nasty sexist talk is tossed around about Hillary that would not be tolerated if it were racial against Obama.

No, I understand exactly what the poster said and disagree.

I'm saying that the success of women in our society and the fact they make up over half the population leads to a greater casualness and familiarity. So its not that society is accepting sexism, its that they are accepting that women are tough too. Basically, I'm saying that a less touchy society is really a sign of progress.

As I've said elsewhere, there is real sexism and it should be called out or even better ridiculed.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. There IS real sexism, and often it is NOT called out, precisely because sexism is considered more tolerable.

Glenn Beck said on CNN for chrissake "She's the stereotypical bitch." What do you you think would be the reaction if he'd said "typical nigger" or "typical coon" or even "typical negro" about Obama? This isn't an isolated incident -- it happens again and again and again, even in polite company.

So its not that society is accepting sexism, its that they are accepting that women are tough too.

Wow, you are completely off the rails. Orbitting some other planet, apparently. "Bitch" is used precisely by people, mainly men, who are uncomfortable with strong women.

Ok, let me first say that any kind of "who has it worse" conversation is foolish, but I'm in it now anyway.

markci:

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. There IS real sexism, and often it is NOT called out, precisely because sexism is considered more tolerable.

I did not deny that sexism is real and sometimes subtle or ignored.

Its the unsupported statement that sexism is obviously worse (in our society) than racism that upsets me.

Glenn Beck said on CNN for chrissake "She's the stereotypical bitch."

Well hes a conservative blowhard, so not a very good example. I watched the clip and yes it was sexist. The guys a jerk.

Then again, Tina Fey can call Hillary a Bitch and its pretty obviously about empowerment.

What do you you think would be the reaction if he'd said "typical nigger" or "typical coon" or even "typical negro" about Obama?

A lot of people would be pissed off. I was frankly speculating on basically this point.

Lets take another example. Do most people get upset about depictions of the Irish as pugnacious drunks? No, because they have been fully integrated into society.

The sheer prevalence of women in our society at all levels changes the context.

Finally, if you look at the exit polls people that cared about gender voted for Hillary, and people that cared about race voted for Hillary. So how can you see that sexism is obviously worse?