Interesting that the author, in trying to take these women to task, ultimately cannot resist concluding that in the end, they are merely victims. Victims of the MSM and our culture's biased view of women.

One of the most maddening things about some feminists is their insistence that the kid gloves be put on any time a woman's (or womens') failings are called out.

Most of the "Hillary Harridans" that I've seen on the MSM are far from victims. They often appear to be quite affluent and powerful figures in their own right. They are starting political movements, websites, and other campaigns to support Hillary. They are movers and shakers. They are acting (drumroll please) empowered.

They are also acting like complete twits. Crying over spilled milk and jeopardizing their party's chance at capturing the White House. They are grown women acting irrational, selfish, and childish. Men do the same thing sometimes.

So for the love of god call a spade a spade! Their dumb behavior cannot be excused by some gibberish about our supposedly sexist society. These women are not oppressed, they're just acting stupid. To excuse their behavior as being a result of victimhood is patronizing.

Gender equality is a long way off indeed if womens' own equality movement insists on treating them like children. Please, take women off the pedestal and evaluate them like human beings. People who can achieve, and fail, all on their own.

Agreed. Some people aren't long enough out of grad school (the Gilbert & Gubar reference is a dead giveaway).

Agreed. Nice post, Dude!

I disagree that Lithwick concludes that these women are victims or that their behavior is excused by a sexist society. In fact, she is criticizing them for playing the victim card and using their loss to justify behavior that plays into sexist stereotypes--of the older woman as irrational and vengeful. She's upset because they are feeding a stereotype, and she ends the article by stating that women have political power and should use it.

Kit-Kat:

I disagree that Lithwick concludes that these women are victims or that their behavior is excused by a sexist society.

"...they've now become victims of the same sexist media machine that turned Clinton herself into a parody of a madwoman."

"some of her supporters have willingly embraced this same media image of the irrational madwoman and attached it to themselves. It was sexist when Chris Matthews called Clinton a she-devil. But in allowing themselves to be portrayed—over and over—as petulant harridans, unable to "heal" from the wounds of the primaries, these Clinton supporters are embracing the same she-devil stereotypes they once claimed to resent."

"some disgruntled Hillary fans are willing to pander to the same media sexism they decried in the primary campaign."

"Everyone is entitled to speak and be heard, but there is a cost—a tangible cost—for women who insist on speaking in the irrational, angry, and vengeful voice of an outdated literary archetype."

I think she's saying it's more complicated than victim v. oppressor. "The media have been complicit in lapping up the tales of bitter old women." These women are creating the content, but they are not in control of the story.

Umm...you're both right?

You made some nice points dude. Good read.

"I disagree that Lithwick concludes that these women are victims or that their behavior is excused by a sexist society. In fact, she is criticizing them for playing the victim card and using their loss to justify behavior that plays into sexist stereotypes--of the older woman as irrational and vengeful. She's upset because they are feeding a stereotype, and she ends the article by stating that women have political power and should use it. " Women DO have political power, and they ARE using it. What Dahlia doesn't like is that they aren't using it the way she wants them to - for her candidate. (Not that PUMA is all women, BTW. The media tends to forget that.)