I am so tired of the anti-female card being played. While I missed seeing the Clinton and Trump interviews on September 7th, reports I read suggest that interviewer Matt Lauer is the latest victim of a gender attack. My daughter, who did see the interviews reported that Hillary seemed angry at being asked tough questions and inauthentic in her replies, while Donald seemed authentic but bizarre. I accept that as an honest review.
Yet, the press I read focused on Matt Lauer’s lack of fairness and sexism.
It seems he allowed Trump to talk over him while, in contrast, he made Mrs. Clinton toe the line. Perhaps the incensed Clintonites should sit down with Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and thirteen other Republican presidential candidates, only one of whom was female. In a series of embarrassing Republican debates, Trump dominated the conversation there too. When the identical thing happens with seventeen people, fifteen males and two females, can one of the female candidate’s supporters really call sexism? And why is it that we aren’t hearing the tired complaint that mentioning a candidate’s hair is sexist? Could it be because of the two major party contenders, Trump’s tresses are the ones that are ridiculed?
We live in an odd world. Politician’s and legislators are enacting laws that make gender a meaningless word, insisting that you are whatever you want to be, and at the same time, otherwise intelligent people are insisting that Hillary’s body parts are enough of a reason to vote for her and the source of anyone’s opposition to her. Lewis Carroll and George Orwell could not have collaborated on a novel of such ridiculous illogicality.
Theranos, the recently imploded bio-tech start up was founded by Elizabeth Holmes. For over a decade she was the darling of the press, investors and award-granting organizations for her revelatory development of a new, less intrusive blood test. It seems that the whole thing was illusory. Does anyone really believe that had she not been a young, attractive female in a world desperate for women scientists and eye-catching news, that her claims might not have been investigated more closely at an earlier date? It is possible while reading the Vanity Fair article about her, to think that Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Holmes have much in common. Holmes ran a secretive organization, eschewed outside review and when her facts were questioned by Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou, her employees led chants damning him rather than expecting her to refute his claims. A case could be made that neither headline-getting woman would have had the success she has if not for being a woman.
Noticing that there is gender bias—that people’s behavior towards you and assessment of you is affected by your gender—is another way of noticing that people aren’t computers. There are times gender bias works in either sex’ favor and times that it works against either sex. There are some valid concerns that deserve to be addressed and an overwhelming number of absurd grumbles. Right now, Hillary Clinton supporters lead the pack of foolish complainers. In doing so, they do a disservice to honest, hard-working, intelligent women who actually deserve positions of trust and responsibility. In a week that also saw the death of a true female leader, Phyllis Schlafly, there is little question that in a truly honest and fair environment, Hillary Clinton nor Elizabeth Holmes are little more than great pretenders.