My God, the stupid. It burns. It burns like fire.https://t.co/uulMVjliXB
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) October 31, 2016
I suppose this was inevitable. Stupid, but inevitable. https://t.co/fy21SfUdJP
— Dr. Kankokage (@kankokage) October 31, 2016
This will probably come as a major shock to you, but Joyce Carol Oates isn’t the only one defending Hillary by crying sexism.
"Hillary Clinton's emailgate is an attack on women" https://t.co/Iofh3S3y6Y
— TIME (@TIME) October 31, 2016
Would you believe that op-ed was written by a UC Berkeley professor?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course. You’d definitely believe it.
Hillary Clinton's emailgate is an attack on all women, says linguistics professor at Berkeley https://t.co/9nJAZDIVes She does.She says this
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) October 31, 2016
OK, before we jump to conclusions and assume that this piece is utter nonsensical garbage, let’s hear Professor Robin Lakoff out:
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.
If the candidate were male, there would be no scolding and no “scandal.” Those very ideas would be absurd. Men have a nearly absolute right to freedom of speech. In theory, so do women, but that, as the creationists like to say, is only a theory.
Nope. It’s definitely garbage.
"The people are demanding Clinton act like moral exemplars." That's some damn fine linguistics right there. https://t.co/4l7fKDY6Az
— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) October 31, 2016
Ha! But seriously. This op-ed is bad and Professor Lakoff should feel bad.
Private server violated the law, but yeah, go with the woman angle. https://t.co/CSZXBVNSha
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) October 31, 2016
Call us crazy, but isn’t it sexist to argue that Hillary’s in this mess because she’s a woman? And that if you question her integrity, you must yourself be sexist?
This post is the most sexist thing I’ve read in a long while: Hillary Clinton's emailgate is an attack on women https://t.co/FOmNoHZ7Yh
— Kemberlee Kaye (@KemberleeKaye) October 31, 2016
Nope, it's an attack on liars, irresponsible officials and people who mishandle top secret information. pic.twitter.com/EYppOFG8Ej
— Dane??? (@Althios) October 31, 2016
— Skeptcrátēs (@skeptcrates) October 31, 2016
pretty sexist of you to assume women can't understand and obey the law
— Jean Tuttle (@waffle721) October 31, 2016
you have impressively low expectations of women
— ⩘⩗ Ashley Buffay ⩘⩗ (@BasicAshHoe) October 31, 2016
been a feminist my whole life but no, it isn't. Feminism also means women being held accountable. "Soft bigotry of low expectations"
— Oedipa Maas – Yoyodyne FC Ambassador (@bridgietherease) October 31, 2016
Hillary has no agency? She's a weakling? This is the defense? Holy crap https://t.co/QVttYJi3H2
— Lourae? (@Flaaaaalala) October 31, 2016
But don’t be surprised to see more like it in the days and months — and possibly years — ahead.
Great! So any disagreement with her policies will be dismissed as misogyny. A president we cant question. Terrific.
— Heretic Prince (@Heretic_Prince) October 31, 2016