A different and compelling rationale, especially for our womyn participants, on why the absence of charges against Hilliary is most appropriate. Males may also read this on condition they so with a willingness to acknowledge their own chauvinism (oh, yes, it's there) and seek to do amends for it.

Zitat

---

In the wake of FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton not face any charges, I’m seeing far too many of my fellow women focusing on the wrong things.

So many women — yes, even some who call themselves “feminists” — are focusing on Comey’s revelation that Clinton and her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” and that because they did so, “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to” that information.

Um sorry, but no. What we women should be focusing on is that Hillary is also a woman, and that, as fellow women, we are not only forbidden from being upset that she won’t be charged, but also required to be horrified at the misogyny that Mr. Comey displayed while making his announcement.

After all, Mr. Comey didn’t simply explain the findings of the investigation in that speech — he mansplained them. As is always the case, all of the criticism of Hillary yesterday can be chalked up to sexism. Comey is a man; she is a woman, and he just had to find fault with the way she handled her e-mails as Secretary of State because he assumes that as a man, he somehow would have known better.

(Note: If you are also a man, and, like Comey, can’t seem to help yourself from going on and on about how awful it was that Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling information pertinent to our national security, please realize that this is more about your own internal biases against women than anything that Hillary did “wrong.” I’d encourage you to practice meditation, perhaps while listening to an audio recording of Lindy West’s new book, until you realize the foolishness of your ways.)

Why are we so concerned about what those e-mails said anyway? Women are constantly expected to explain ourselves to the men in our lives — regardless of our relationships to them — and that is always unfair. It doesn’t matter whether they’re e-mail messages about terrorism or text messages to a guy named Mark whose name our boyfriend doesn’t recognize, no man should feel entitled to answers just because he assumes that we as women can’t be trusted.

I mean, seriously. The whole tone of Comey’s speech was just so condescending towards women. For example, the part where he said “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” So women can’t be “reasonable,” huh? Just because Hillary has a uterus she can’t be “reasonable.” It really does make me sick.

Now, you may notice that in the above citation, I omitted the part after “in Secretary Clinton’s position” where Comey said “or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters,” a qualifier which indicates that Comey was criticizing everyone involved — including the men — for demonstrating a lack of reason. But do you know what? Whatever. My omission there is nothing compared to the way that patriarchal power structures omit women from The Conversation every day.

Look. I guess I can understand how some men out there might have concerns about Hillary getting off scot-free, and about how her getting off scot-free means that a person who has threatened the safety our country may soon be in charge of it.

But those concerns are not for women. As a feminist, I understand that it is my duty as a woman to support Our Dear Feminist Leader no matter what — and that I must spend all my time and effort looking for ways to interpret any possible criticism of her as being due to sexism rather than judging her the way I’d judge any other candidate.

Thankfully, I believe I’ve done that job well in writing this piece; I just really hope to see more of my feminist sister-goddesses out there wise up start to do the same — there is, after all, a special place in Hell for women who don’t support other women.

---

Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review online.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...women-celebrate

Oh, btw, you are all a bunch of racists, too; but that's a story for another day

Zitat

---

I certainly hope this is satire.

---

Lol. I thought it so obvious I didn't bother to mention it. Note the source.

Beyond that, did you think it was funny?

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #2

---

I certainly hope this is satire.

---