Sexism Rife within the Democratic Party

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

That sexist remark, made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in a 2001 speech, should have triggered a round of red-faced apologies and promises to do endless hours of community service.

But instead of denouncing the comment, this past weekend Democratic pols rushed to the nominee's defense. Sen. Arlen Specter invoked the diversity mantra, remarking somewhat ungrammatically, "The diversity and the point of view of Latina women is significant." Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California claimed to enjoy preternatural mind-reading abilities, saying "I understand what she meant by it."

And all the media commentators oozed about the jurist's "compelling personal story." (Funny, I don't remember Dan Rather raving about nominee Clarence Thomas' compelling life story.)

Even President Obama came to Sotomayor's rescue, saying "I'm sure she would have restated it." But that clarification only opened another can of worms, because Obama didn't choose to explain why she would have wanted to say it differently.

Was it because her intemperate remark would become the flashpoint for public outcry following decades of judicial activism? Or was it because the case would underscore the fact that all four finalists for the Supreme Court nomination were women, exposing a plan to conform to an artificial sex quota?

The reason, of course, for all the semantic two-steps is that sexism has become endemic in the Democratic Party. Under the guise of promoting female empowerment, Democratic meetings routinely feature programs with chauvinistic titles like "Women Taking Charge," "Women in Power," or "Putting Dead White Males out to Pasture."

Sadly, Democrats have become sold on the use of anti-male clichés as their short-sighted strategy to ballot-box success.

Here's Hillary Clinton in 2005: "Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption." Remember the quip she made about "evil and bad men" made at an Iowa campaign stop? And in New Hampshire, she commented, "I don't know about you, but I like seeing women in charge." (Just imagine the ruckus if candidate John McCain had proclaimed, "I don't know about you, but I like seeing white men in charge.")

Consider Democratic pols like Nancy Pelosi who express misandrist put-downs that range from the haughty ("I didn't come to Congress to change the attitudes of men.") to the imperious ("By electing a woman Speaker, my colleagues turned the old system upside down.")

Let's call to mind former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers who tried to resuscitate a stalled career with her book, Why Women Should Rule the World. In the book Myers recalls an incident involving Alexis Herman, former Secretary of Labor, who once grabbed a labor negotiator by the lapels and threated him, "Don't f_ck with me." Myers highlights that episode to prove how peace-minded women surpass men in forging sensible compromise.

There's the famous quip by former Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas, who claimed, "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have...He's just incapable of it."

And then the gazillions of liberal women's organizations that pound the feminist tom-tom, making logic-defying claims like this one from Women's Action for New Directions: "change will come when women take the lead."

The reason for all this, of course, is the Democratic Party has morphed into the political arm of the National Organization for Women. Democratic candidates casually make sham claims that paint men as ogres and tyrants: "women in the workplace are victims of wage discrimination," "wives suffer from an epidemic of domestic violence," "females were routinely excluded from medical research," and so forth.

Across the pond in England, Labor Party's deputy leader Harriet Harman recently ridiculed her nation's financial institutions as "testosterone-fueled." Then she vowed to mandate that banks appoint more women on their boards, admitting "Sometimes we have to take scary methods in order to achieve worthwhile results."

For years, such gender-baiting claims suited the grievance agenda of the feminists to a 'T.' But now, the liberal orgy of new-school sexism disguised as female empowerment has come back to haunt the Democrats as they work to reshape the High Court.

How has Democrat sexism come back to haunt them in this case? The jury is still out, but he GOP would have to exercise some serious backbone in opposing her nomination that has not been in evidence lately.

How has Democrat sexism come back to haunt them in this case? The jury is still out, but the GOP would have to exercise some serious backbone in opposing her nomination that has not been in evidence lately.

Sorry for the double post. I somehow posted my spell check version before the real thing.

Used to be somewhat of a Feminist. Truly understood Feminism when the Feminists refused to hold Clintoon responsible for his misogyny. Feminists are just bitter women who are want to ‘out-man’ any man who gets in the way. Feminists are just Left-wing women who want to push the Left-wing agenda regardless of how it will actually affect women. If Feminists were actually for women's rights they would be supporting our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Military has liberated millions of women who can now go to school, walk outside without a male escort, etc., etc. Phonies all of them.

Yep, that “richness of her experiences” sounded like a “you people” thing as soon as I heard it. She stereotyped herself.

Here's Hillary Clinton in 2005: "Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption."

Judging by her performances in Little Rock and Washington, the exact opposite must be true - or she's actually not a woman.

Here’s the way it works with liberals - “You’re the oppressor, we’re the defenders of the oppressed, and whatever it is, it’s bad when you do it, it’s OK when we do it because we’re doing it back.” That can apply to any bit of bigotry in which they wish to indulge. It’s pretty much foolproof armor for the True Believers; for the rest of us it’s scarcely worth the trouble to point it out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.