I apologize for the late posting. My wrist has been feeling arthritic all day, or what I imagine an arthritic wrist would feel like, so I am currently typing with one hand. The only thing I can think of is that I hurt it doing handstands in yoga. Normally I would stop doing handstands when I’ve had enough but at my last class the guy next to me was holding his handstand like, FOREVER, so then I tried to hold my handstand longer. I think I heard a snap in my wrist but I couldn’t let him win. Now who’s the loser?

In case you missed it the big news today is that Democrats have declared a War on Moms, which makes the Republican War on Women much less interesting because if the War on Women consists only of single women, childless women and women going through menopause, who cares. These are MOMS, people.

It all started last night when Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life.” This created a firestorm because everyone knows that being a mom is the hardest job in the world, even harder than laying black tar pavement in the middle of the summer for minimum wage. I’ve heard that some poor women in Lubbock even resort to vacuuming naked for tips.

Romney responded today by saying she made a career choice to be a stay-at-home mom to five boys. That’s not a career choice. That’s a life sentence. Of course this little exchange has now become a veritable shitstorm, forcing Republicans to lay down their arms in the War on Women in order to enlist in the “War on Day Care: Moms Who Don’t Care.” The battle has already begun with latchkey kids being taken as hostages.

I’d like to say that, as a proud American warrior, I stand ready to be sent to the front lines of these gender wars. I’m just a stay-at-home person. I have nothing better to do.

I didn’t get the memo that today is International Women’s Day, also known as International Womyn’s Day because YOU CAN KEEP YOUR E, MEN. I take International Women’s Day very seriously, choosing a different world culture to honor each year. (Last year was the United Kingdom and I dressed as a member of the royal family. Prince Philip, if you must know.) The day is ostensibly meant to celebrate women. One day? What is this, Mother’s Day? I celebrate being a woman every single day by purchasing birth control pills in bulk.

But apparently International Women’s Day has become one big old pukefest, according to Jen Doll at the Atlantic Wire, with such celebrations as giving flowers to women and wearing red lipstick in a “Rock the Lips” campaign (“because women rock!”). Flowers and lipstick. I feel empowered already. Many places are handing out free cupcakes. Please. Like women aren’t fat enough already.

I don’t know about you but I think what we really need is an International Single Women of a Certain Age Day. People could make contributions to your pity dating fund and send you flowers since you never get any.

/what?!

There’s been a lot of talk (maybe too much talk) about Michele Bachmann’s photo on the cover of Newsweek and whether it’s sexist because she’s got the crazy eyes. That’s not sexist. That’s truth in journalism. If I were Bachmann, I’d actually be flattered with “The Queen of Rage” tagline. What I would be upset about, however, is that helmet hair. Good God. Is she running for president or Fox News anchor or both?

But leave it to the grouchy feminists to ruin a perfectly good magazine, which judging from the cover, is now known simply as “Neek.” National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill called the cover sexist and complained that a magazine would never do the same to a man.

Oh I so beg to differ.

Take, for example, Sen. Mark Warner. I have never seen such an offensive cover photo in my entire life (March 2006). The New York Times made him look like a freakish Nixon/Mr. Ed crossbreed and I will never forgive them for the fact that he decided not to run for president soon after. (I still refuse to pay for the NYT, instead waking up at 5AM to steal it from my neighbor’s driveway. Then I go back to sleep for four hours.)

I didn’t hear NOW complaining when Newsweek put a Virgin Mary-like Sarah Palin on the cover (June 2010, “Saint Sarah”). That was way more sexist. She was portrayed as having a halo and everyone knows that angels are men.

Of course the most offensive magazine cover of all time was…say it with me…Governing, July 2005. The issue about bloggers. Did they tell me they were going to use that photo of me sitting on my impossibly tiny couch, barefoot, pretending to type on a laptop, wearing a pink t-shirt, hair thrown up in something resembling a child’s ponytail? It also looks like I’m wearing Not Your Daughter’s Jeans (before they were hip). When that issue hit the newsstands (I kid, it’s not sold on newsstands, it’s free for state legislative interns), I had to go into hiding to protect myself from insanely jealous bloggers who wanted their photos snapped under the headline “Blogger Power.”

Bachmann got off easy.

You know, if there’s one thing women are good at, it’s whining, especially in the workplace. So you didn’t get that promotion. It’s because you suck at your job. Maybe you’ve been replaced by some frat boy with zero experience outside of bong hits but that’s your fault, man. For not joining a fraternity. Perhaps no one listens to you in the boardroom but that’s probably because you have small breasts. And the fact that you refused to credit your male colleagues for everything you did just means you’re a man-hater.

There is one state, however, which has figured it out. Kentucky. Home of the traditional head stomping of women in order to keep them in their place. Yes, according to a Republican nominee for Congress, Todd Lally, gender discrimination is a total myth. Lally claims he has personally never seen a woman be discriminated against so it probably doesn’t exist. Kind of like “Santa Claus” and “Europe.”

Democratic incumbent John Yarmuth, clearly trying to secure the bitter woman’s vote, called Lally out on his position during a debate by citing gloomy facts and figures about women in the Kentucky workforce. Maybe that’s a good thing. Why aren’t these “career women” at home with their children before they end up on juvenile probation for dumping innocent cats in trash bins?

In the debate, a woman from the audience asked each candidate to comment on what they would do to address “gender discrimination.” Here’s what Lally said:

I look at women’s issues like any other issue. We have equal rights in this country, we have fought — women have fought very hard for those equal rights. Uh, it’s up to them. I mean my wife is a working woman, she works very, very hard and she’s been very successful. I’ve not seen any barriers in her career and I don’t believe that exists.

(For the record, Mrs. Lally is a sales manager with a home health-care company. Like most sales managers with home health-care companies, she probably had to sleep her way to the top.)

At a second debate, Yarmuth brought this faux issue up again, ticking off several statistics about female workers in Kentucky: Out of 40 companies in the state, only four have female CEOs; nationally, one out of every three women is sexually harassed; and that “a 25-year-old with a Bachelor’s degree — a woman — makes $40,000 when a man in the same situation makes $60,000.”

Lally responded by saying, “Now, if you take two — a woman and a man who both have a Bachelor’s degree, that’s kind of vague. Is the male’s degree in electrical engineering and the female’s is in education? Are these like degrees? Like careers? So I need to know more about that.”

Exactly. We all know that women can’t be engineers. This reminds me of a friend of mine who was majoring in electrical engineering at UT (she was too asked on dates!) and was wearing her engineering sweatshirt when someone asked her if it was her boyfriend’s sweatshirt. OH NO THEY DIDN’T.

In a surprising twist, women are starting to lean Republican. Possibly due to the Palin effect. This is so embarrassing. So women are actually beginning to gravitate to the likes of Christine O’Donnell, who, despite her prudish views, was apparently quite the slut in her past life. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I wouldn’t want to offend my promiscuous female readers.)

It was in college at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey that O’Donnell did things she regrets—drinking too much and having sex with guys with whom there wasn’t a strong emotional connection. But it was also during college that she found her faith again and chose to live a life of chastity.

TOO LATE.

But getting back to women who are deserting the Democratic party. (Keep an eye out for quilted patriotic kitten vest hoarders.) There are now five Republican women nominated for the Senate and apparently women voters want to vote for, well, women. Perhaps they remind them of themselves. Or maybe they’re all just lesbians.

Good Lord. No wonder Newsweek‘s going under. Check out the cover of their new issue featuring Sarah Palin. But not just your regular old Sarah Palin. It’s Sarah Palin as a cross between the Virgin Mary and a woman with a bad trying-to-look-younger-through-bangs haircut. (Not to suggest that the Virgin Mary had a bad trying-to-look-younger-through-bangs haircut. I’m pretty sure she had the “Rachel.”) The cover line reads: “Saint Sarah: What Palin’s Appeal to Conservative Christian Women Says About Feminism and the Future of the Religious Right.” I’ll tell you what it says about feminism. It says that feminism is officially dead.

According to the article: “Palin has been antagonizing women on the left of late by describing herself as a ‘feminist.’ Her pro-woman rallying cry, articulated in the evangelical vernacular, puts Palin in a position to reshape and reinvigorate the religious right. The Christian right is now poised to become a women’s movement—and Sarah Palin is its earthy Jerry Falwell.”

Jerry Falwell with boobs. It just doesn’t get any better than that.

In a speech last month, Palin described the “old feminism” as a relic of “the faculty lounge at some East Coast women’s college, right?” Oh come on. East Coast women’s colleges don’t have faculty lounges. They just have lesbian lounges.

The writer, Lisa Miller, concludes that “Palin has her faults, but the left is partially to blame for her ascent. Its native mistrust of religion, of conservative believers in particular, left the gap that Palin now fills.” OH MY GOD. Yes, everyone on the left hates religion because we think there should be a separation between church and state and that everyone should be able to worship as they please.

Sarah Palin does not represent the “new feminism” any more than I represent the “new journalism.” All she represents is a whole new kind of bullsh*it.

At this week’s CPAC white-male-rapper par-tay, there were actually some women in attendance. Don’t get me wrong—I know there are plenty of conservative women out there—but shouldn’t they be raising their families and not cavorting at some political conference? I mean, who’s watching the children? Well apparently there are just some things that are more important for these women than their child’s welfare.

Like going to the “XPAC 2010” event, or Xtreme Politically Active Conservatives, designed specifically for young activists. And by “young,” I mean “under 30.” And by “under 30,” I mean “screw them.” The XPAC project was launched by radio host Kevin McCullough and…do I really have to say it…Stephen Baldwin. Please don’t promote it as a celebrity event if that “celebrity” is…Stephen Baldwin. Let’s reserve that title for Kirk Cameron.

The event was held in the basement of the convention complex. No, I’m not kidding. Did the young conservatives also have to sit at the kids table? Remember the kids table? Our parents would pull out the folding table on holidays for the children but we didn’t care because the grown-ups table was SO BORING and now I sit at the grown-ups table and look at the kids table like, gross. They’re sticky. Have them removed.

Meagan Vance, a political science major at Liberty University, was one of the 150 XPAC attendees, and she’s a huge fan of Sarah Palin because of her positions on “sanctity of life, traditional marriage, traditional family values.” Vance expressed concerns that “the female movement has gone on towards feminism and liberalism and really taken the wrong track.” Seriously. When I first got on this female movement express train, I assumed we were heading back to patriarchal society. GET ME OFF THIS RADICAL TRAIN.

Still, the Republican party is doing their best to recruit women, as one Republican strategist pointed out. “Women are a very important voting demographic,” said Andrea Tantaros. “They tend to make a lot of the decisions in the household. They’re raising the kids. They’re actually becoming the caretakers for their parents. As their parents get older, they’re making a lot of the healthcare choices as well. Now, more than ever, women are paying attention, particularly because of healthcare.”

And, some of us even have jobs!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to the “Going Rogue: Women Changing the Face of Conservatism” session featuring Phyllis Schlafly, who’s like 100 years old. Ah, the new face of conservatism.

There's not enough money in the world for me to be on the same cruise ship as Stephen Baldwin.

I never watch Larry King Live because I’m always too busy watching anything else. But I just had to check out the transcript from Wednesday’s show because apparently former Miss California and porn queen Carrie Prejean was whining about how conservative women are constantly attacked by the liberal media. She’s so right. I can’t think of any female Democrat who endured constant media scrutiny except OH WAIT A MINUTE HILLARY CLINTON. Carrie Prejean discussed the pain and suffering of being Carrie Prejean in her new book, “Still Standing, The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate, and Political Attacks.” Wow. What courage. What bravery. What bullshit.

KING: You characterize yourself as being Palinized. What do you mean?
PREJEAN: Well, you look at Sarah Palin and Congresswoman, you know, Michele Bachmann, they are relentlessly, you know, torn down by the liberal media. I mean, they’re wonderful women. They’re intelligent. They’re great mothers. They’re brilliant. And yet there’s this double standard that conservative women are fair game to be attacked. And it’s not right. And it needs to stop.
KING: Doesn’t the conservative media tear down liberal politicians?
PREJEAN: Not to the extent that liberals do to conservative women. I think that they get away with it. If you look at Keith Olbermann, for instance, I talk about it in my book, some of the things that he says on his show about conservatives, if Sean Hannity or if Bill O’Reilly said anything like that about a liberal woman, like Sonia Sotomayor or Michelle Obama, he would be off the air. And there is this double standard and Americans are now exposed to it.
KING: But the conservative media commentators denounced Sonia Sotomayor as a racist, Hillary Clinton as a bitch and a liar. Laura Ingraham recently accused Nancy Pelosi of having done everything but sell her own body to get the health bill passed. You must condemn things like that.
PREJEAN: Look at the things that they said about Sarah Palin and her children. I mean, it’s unbelievable. The attacks are still coming. And, you know, when they’re not happy with the message, Larry, what do they do? They attack the messenger.
KING: Well, you don’t see that it happens on both sides?
PREJEAN: I think that it’s important for women to stick together. I think that’s the biggest thing. And I think that there definitely is this bias against conservative women. It’s fair game. And if they don’t like what you have to say, they have to attack your personal life. And that’s what we’ve been seeing. It’s very consistent.

Now I’m all for conservative women sticking together. That way they won’t be around me. OMG! So we have a beauty pageant queen making the media rounds to represent The Persecuted like psychotic Michele Bachmann. It’s so surreal. I mean, if anyone’s been oppressed, it’s liberal women. It’s just that we can fight for ourselves. Anyway, I thought Christians were supposed to turn the other cheek. At least that’s what the nuns told us when they slapped us around.

OK, here’s my favorite part.

PREJEAN: Sarah Palin is my hero.
KING: Oh, she is?
PREJEAN: Yes, she is.
KING: Have you come to know her, by the way?
PREJEAN: Well, actually in my book “Still Standing,” I actually had a conversation with her. And I just — I really look up to her and admire her for her strength and her courage. And I just — I really admire her.

Prejean goes on to call Larry “inappropriate” (what did he do? take off his suspenders in a come-hither way?) and almost walks off the show because he was about to take viewer calls which is, you know, part of his show. She even takes off her mike. Afraid of a few phone calls. Fearless, Carrie. Fearless.

What a long, strange primary it’s been. But, fear not, the end is in sight, barring some unforeseeable circumstance such as the revelation that Chelsea is actually Obama’s daughter, not Bill’s. There will be plenty of time for me to look back and reflect at the first woman who (really) ran for president. I imagine I’ll be on a yoga retreat in Costa Rica, years from now, resting in shavasana, when it hits me.

WE LOST! WE ALMOST HAD IT ALL! AND, COME TO THINK OF IT, I’M SICK AND TIRED OF SOY YOGI TEA!!

Not to say I blame any of you. I don’t. Not really. OK, maybe just a little part of me that can’t let go because I hold grudges until the end of time. I have no doubt that pundits and historians will be analyzing the 2008 elections for years to come. How a woman was treated. How a black man was treated. How an old man was treated. How this blogger, in particular, was treated.

I couldn’t help but stumble across a few articles over the past few days that discuss Hillary. Sure, that’s how my Google alerts are set up but still, I took it as a sign that I must write about it as well. Not a “sign,” as much as an “excuse.”

Washington Post columnist Marie Cooco, Misogyny I Won’t Miss:

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan “Bros before Hos.” I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts.

I won’t miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of…Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film [as Hillary was compared to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction]? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

OK, so I’m glad I didn’t read that column in full before I started blogging about it or my head might have exploded. If you could see me right now, you’d be saying, “Oh my god! That girl’s head is about to explode!”

Then there was this article in the NYT Monday that featured a photo of a forlorn little girl holding up a sign that said, “I Plan to be the 2nd Woman President” (so obviously planted by the Clinton campaign).

Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.

The answers have immediate political implications. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?

Finally, in the Sunday Week in Review, Kate Zernike asked, so who can be the first woman president?

Senator Clinton may or may not become the first female president of the United States, but if fate and voters deny her the role, another woman will surely see if the mantle fits.

That woman will come from the South, or west of the Mississippi. She will be a Democrat who has won in a red state, or a Republican who has emerged from the private sector to run for governor. She will have executive experience, and have served in a job like attorney general, where she will have proven herself to be “a fighter” (a caring one, of course).

She will be young enough to qualify as postfeminist (in the way Senator Obama has come off as postracial), unencumbered by the battles of the past. She will be married with children, but not young children. She will be emphasizing her experience, and wearing, yes, pantsuits.

Oh, and she may not exist.

Many of the women I know who are strong Obama supporters don’t seem overly concerned about the possibility of not seeing a woman president in their lifetimes. They remain pretty confident that it will happen — that they just didn’t want Hillary to be the first woman president. I can respect that, and hope that they’re right.

But, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, you may never see a president in the White House who doesn’t have a dick. I plan to take any life-extending measures possible to keep myself alive to see a woman as leader of the free world, including being cryonically preserved, mind uploading, and suspended animation.

If you’re a woman, and the comments about Barack vs. Hillary (commenter against commenter, brother against brother, husband against wife, and, the cruelest division of all because all they have is each other — desperate single woman against desperate single woman) have been making you emotional (i.e. screaming, shaking fists in anger, crying, maniacally laughing, filing divorce papers, canceling labia-shortening surgery), I have a simple explanation.

Your estrogen’s out of control, BABY!

According to a study conducted by University of Michigan researchers (whose votes will be chewed up and spit out due to an unjust primary calendar), estrogen “fuels feelings of power and competition in women” just like testosterone does for men. I knew it. My estrogen levels are dangerously low, which is why I lack the competitive gene.

OK, so maybe I’m just a little bit competitive. When I was little, I tried to save my Halloween candy until the following May so I could dig out my grocery bag of rotting candy from my closet in triumph because I had saved it longer than my sisters. I fought tooth and nail for the coveted role of narrator in our annual Christmas pageant at St. John’s (despite the fact that they had to equip me with a microphone because I was so soft-spoken).

In high school, I temporarily ruined my friendship with Smooch so I could make the freshman cheerleading squad, even though she was better. (Speaking of super-high estrogen, never go up against Smooch. Ever.) In college, I could perform a perfect keg stand, impressing all the boys and making myself the envy of all the girls, alcohol poisoning be damned.

As an adult, my competitive drive has decreased significantly, with one exception. This blog. Do you realize I’ve had this blog for over THREE YEARS?! It’s like I’m trying to be the oldest living blogger in the world. This blog has provided me with a much-needed outlet for ranting, arguing, pissing off, lying, spewing senseless rhetoric, listening to myself talk, making enemies, losing friends, attacking readers, and churning out the excess estrogen.

Oh don’t kid yourself. I’m not the only one. I love that you all remind me of my relatives at a family reunion, where we spend the better part of our quality time together arguing over who was the best Kennedy and questioning whether I really share their DNA.

(Sidebar: The past two posts have generated 200 comments and counting. And, despite the back and forth and bickering, I think we finally found common ground, something we can all agree on — Hillary will be the nominee.)

ZINGER!

You know, some of you probably assume that I wake up in the morning thinking of Hillary. That is not the case. The first thing I think of is what flavor syrup I will be getting in my latte that day. In the shower, I think, vanilla. While brushing my teeth, I think, no, scratch that, hazelnut. Getting dressed, I think, I’m feeling a little wild today, perhaps I’ll ask for caramel. And then, smiling, pleased with my decision, only then do I start thinking about Hillary.

I read Maureen Dowd’s column today about how Hillary has made Obama a tougher candidate. You’ve got to give her that. Obama had been given a free ride, and he was starting to get cocky.

Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective damage control.

Which brings me to another female columnist, Ellen Goodman, who I saw speak yesterday while sitting at a table by myself, drenched in ice water. She read from one of her columns on the gender issue:

If Hillary Clinton was the tough guy in the race, Barack Obama became the Oprah candidate. He was the quality circle man, the uniter-not-divider, the person who believes we can talk to anyone, even our enemies. He finely honed a language usually associated with women’s voices… the transformative inspirational, collaborative, “female” style has become more attractive. Especially to a younger generation. And — here’s the rub — especially when it is modeled by a man.

Goodman pointed out some of the differences between racism and sexism during this presidential campaign. Remember when that guy at a McCain rally asked McCain how we can “beat the bitch”? And McCain smiled and said, “Excellent question”?

Just imagine if someone had asked the candidate how we can “beat that black guy.” Or when those two guys outside of a Hillary rally yelled at her to iron their shirts. What if they had yelled at Obama to park their cars? Racist statements are unacceptable (as they should be) but sexist statements are laughed off.

On a side note, I turned on “Dancing with the Stars” last night while flipping channels. I don’t watch this show out of principle, although I have no problem watching “The Bachelor” (speaking of sexism — did anyone see the mud wrestling this week?!). So I hadn’t seen anyone’s performance. I wasn’t familiar with most of the celebrities, except for Steve Guttenberg, who was last seen singing “Goodnight Sweetheart” with Tom Selleck and Ted Danson, circa 1987.

There were two African-American men in the competition, and the judges were eliminating couples one by one. I sat there transfixed, hoping that neither black men would be cut. I hadn’t even seen anyone dance. I have no idea if they’re better than the other dancers. But it didn’t matter.

Sure, there have been times when I think Obama should win because he’d be the first black president. Why? I don’t know. Is it “white guilt,” whatever that means? And if it is, does that mean there are men out there supporting Hillary because of “male guilt”? While Hillary is being pressured to drop out, I continue to explore my own biases and perceptions concerning race and gender. That’s a good thing.

(And, if anyone’s interested, I ended up going with almond today.)

I honestly had to sift through my posts to see whether I’d already referenced Maureen Dowd’s column yesterday. It’s been a frantic week, what with getting my resumes and head shots together to send to the Hillary campaign. (Incidentally, thanks to all who congratulated me on my hard-fought victory Tuesday night. It’s been a tough road, and I appreciate your support.)

Dowd touched on one of my favorite issues: feminism. WAIT DON’T LEAVE I SWEAR I WON’T BUST BALLS. Apparently there are some younger women among us who are, like, so totally over feminism and their bra-burning, hairy-underarmed, Our Bodies, Ourselves foremothers. They call it “shoulder-pad feminism,” which makes no sense to me, unless they are referring to the few suits that are hanging in my closet that made me look like Xena: Warrior Princess.

The anti-feminists have grown tired of old-school feminism because they are sick of having to open their own doors, split the check, and work outside the home. One woman said, “Hillary doesn’t make it look like fun to be a woman. And her ‘I-have-been-victimized’ campaign is depressing.”

Yeah! SNORE. People have shown nothing but respect for Hillary, ever since she (God forbid) kept her maiden name, refused to bake cookies, and decided to wear pantsuits. Standard times two.

Smooch and I went to see Evan interview Debra Winger last night at the Paramount. She looked fan-fucking-tastic. I mean, the woman’s in her 50s and she came out wearing this teeny tiny dress. I never saw Rosanna Arquette’s documentary, “Searching for Debra Winger,” which discussed actresses in Hollywood and how their opportunities shrivel up as they, well, shrivel up. Of course, this doesn’t happen to men, no matter how wrinkly and old and fat they get. Now is that fair?

After the interview, they did a screening of “Urban Cowboy,” which is a true feminist film because Sissy wants to ride the mechanical bull at Gilly’s and Bud won’t let her so she sneaks off during the day and practices. And then they both sleep around and the audience has to listen to the real and acoustic versions of Boz Scaggs’ “Love, Look What You’ve Done to Me.”

So what was my point? Um… go ahead and ride that bull and wear those shoulder pads proudly.

Sissy: I’m gonna ride that bull again and again.
Bud: No you ain’t. You think you are, but you ain’t.
Sissy: You ain’t my daddy. You can’t tell me what to do!
Bud: I’m the next best thing to your daddy – I’m your husband and I’m tellin’ you that you ain’t never ridin’ that bull ever again!
Sissy: I think you’re just jealous cause I can ride it better than you.

With all this talk of politics and debates and why Hillary is the superior candidate, we’ve neglected to focus on the Americans with real problems, the voters who have been left behind, the group which has been ignored for far too long.

Single women. And the men who don’t love them.

There is really only one explanation for their spinsterhood: they refuse to lose the weight required to become a glowing anorexic bride, dooming them to a life of eating.

According to what passes for an article in Newsweek, modern-day brides are obsessed with losing weight before The Big Day. Just for the record, this was not the case for me. Instead, I became a special kind of drunkorexic — one who drinks too much while stuffing her face with wedding cake and clearing the dance floor with her carefully choreographed dance routines. Mostly to “Tricky.”

Researcher Lori Neighbors, nutrition professor at the University of Wisconsin, published a study concerning the relationship between looming nuptials and weight loss, focusing on the dieting patterns of close to 300 engaged women who were six months away from their wedding day.

The study found that 70 percent of the women were trying to lose more than 20 pounds, and another 20 percent were spending hours in saunas fully clothed to make sure they didn’t gain any weight. A small percentage started smoking, or vomiting after meals. Wow. These are going to be some seriously fun wives.

I was horrified to see a “Bride Boot Camp” course being offered at my gym. I mean, that’s totally going to ruin your wedding gown. I immediately walked up to the front desk, grasping the sign in my fist, and demanded to know if they would also be offering a “Groom Boot Camp” for all those fat asses who won’t be able to fit into their tuxes. When they stared blankly at me, I held up the sign and shouted, “Tell your manager to meet me in Ohio!!”

Lately, everyone has been giving me the pity face.

You know the face. The face that says, bless your heart, your candidate’s losing and there’s nothing you can do about it and you’ve blogged about this for so long and everyone knows you’re a loser and OH MY GOD I TOLD YOU SO IN YOUR FACE GO OBAMA!!

Don’t you pity me. It’s not over yet (this has become my mantra — and stranger things have happened). It certainly hasn’t been easy these past few weeks but I’m voting for Hillary because I think she’s the most qualified, most experienced, and most deserving of the title of commander-in-chief. This is separate and apart from whether I think she’ll be the nominee. I vote for the person, not the polls. (I supported Bill Bradley in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004, and wrote in Andy Brown in the general.)

I’m not ashamed that one of the reasons I support Hillary is because she’s a woman, just like I don’t expect African-American voters to apologize for supporting Obama (at least partially) because he’s an African American. It’s an undeniable fact that in a groundbreaking election season such as this, race and gender have factored into decisions. The first woman president, the first black president — both are exciting. But women haven’t rallied around Hillary the way she thought they would.

Bear with me. When I was growing up, one of my favorite TV shows was “Remington Steele.” You remember that one. An intelligent and experienced private investigator can’t get any clients because she’s a woman. So she hires Pierce Brosnan — a former thief — to pose as the detective with her as… his assistant:

Try this for a deep, dark secret: the great detective, Remington Steele? He doesn’t exist. I invented him. Follow. I always loved excitement, so I studied, and apprenticed, and put my name on an office. But absolutely nobody knocked down my door. A female private investigator seemed so… feminine. So I invented a superior. A decidedly MASCULINE superior. Suddenly there were cases around the block. It was working like a charm… until the day HE walked in, with his blue eyes and mysterious past.

And before I knew it, he assumed Remington Steele’s identity. Now I do the work, and he takes the bows. It’s a dangerous way to live, but as long as people buy it, I can get the job done. We never mix business with pleasure. Well, almost never. I don’t even know his real name!

Unbelievable. And this really wasn’t that long ago (1982). Remember “Moonlighting”? Remember “Mr. Mom”?

This post is not about sexism and Hillary Clinton. Really. If I thought that the reason people are voting for Barack Obama is because they’re sexist, that would mean that most of my family and friends are sexists. OK, so maybe my Uncle Norm is sexist but the majority of them are otherwise enlightened.

But you can’t tell me that we don’t still live in a man’s world. I can’t watch a solid hour of TV without seeing a Cialis commercial, yet pharmacists around the country can refuse to provide women with birth control because of “moral reasons.” Women still (yes, it’s true) make less money than men. In my entire career, I’ve had one woman boss. One.

The majority of women still take their husbands’ names (I am not judging this — most of the women I know have done this — I’m just wondering why this is still the rule). Very few men stay home with the kids. We expect young girls to be vaccinated against cervical cancer as opposed to vaccinating the boys — how do you think the girl gets the sexually transmitted disease?

Men propose, women accept. Mostly. Over the years, I’ve met many women “waiting” for their boyfriends to propose. Here’s a novel idea. YOU DO IT. Also, why does a woman’s biological clock tick and not a man’s? (Yes, I’m saying that God is, all things considered, a sexist.)

So damn straight I want a woman in the White House. I don’t know if I’ll see one in my lifetime. I don’t know who will come along, or even want to, after watching this primary (look at that fat ass! who’s picking out her pantsuits?). Out of 435 members of the U.S. House, 70 are women. Out of a 100 senators, 16 are women. And there is one woman on the Supreme Court. I think this country has been ruled by men for far too long.

So on March 4th (or before), we’ll go to the polls and vote. Then we’ll go to the caucuses and vote. As a journalist, I am not allowed to participate in the caucus. Stop laughing, it’s true. If you want to participate in a caucus, you go to your precinct polling place, where you will receive your “I Am A Dork” button.

Traditionally, women do not participate in caucuses as much as men, and the women who do go tend to sit there and knit booties or something because they sure don’t speak up. So, if you’re a woman and you’re caucusing, make sure you actually voice your opinion.

Unless you’re comfortable with Remington Steele voting for you.

Maureen Dowd’s column yesterday touched on feminism and Hillary’s campaign. Any of you who read Dowd know that she is no fan of Hillary’s but I thought she made some great (talking) points. I’ve been trying to make some of these same arguments but, unfortunately, I am far too emotionally invested to engage in a grown-up debate, which leaves me yelling at commenters and putting up fake poll numbers.

A few excerpts:

Many women I talk to, even those who aren’t particularly fond of Hillary, feel empathy for her, knowing that any woman in a world dominated by men has to walk a tightrope between femininity and masculinity, strength and vulnerability.

They see double standards they hate — when male reporters described Hillary’s laugh as a “cackle” or her voice as “grating,” when Rush Limbaugh goes off on her wrinkles or when male pundits seem gleeful to write her political obituary. Several women I know, who argue with their husbands about Hillary, refer with a shudder to the “Kill the Witch” syndrome.

When the usually invulnerable Hillary seems vulnerable, many women, even ones who don’t want her to win, cringe at the idea of seeing her publicly humiliated — again.

And since women — and some men — tend to be more protective when she is down, it is impossible to rule out a rally, especially if voters start to see Obama, after his eight-contest rout, as that maddening archetypal figure: the glib golden boy who slides through on charm and a smile.

Of course, Dowd goes on to discuss Hillary’s weaknesses and baggage, and how she’s not the best litmus test for a woman president but here’s the thing. Anyone who says that Hillary has not been pummeled in the media is kidding themselves. Yes, some of this is due to the fact that she is who she is, but some of it is blatant sexism. And it makes me sick to watch this visceral hatred by some toward the very idea of the first woman president.

We don’t know when the next woman will come along. And, yes, I would be proud to help elect the first African-American president as well. But it’s still one more man running this country.

And I’m sorry. I want it to be a woman.

Sure, I may call myself a “feminist,” but I’m a “wife” first. I understand my role in the household to be secondary to that of my husband’s. At the end of the day, I know I’m responsible for making the sandwiches, ironing the shirts, and bringing him his crutches. I believe this is the Lord’s way.

So when Mike Huckabee says in a debate that “as wives submit themselves to the husbands, the husbands also submit themselves, and it’s not a matter of one being somehow superior over the other,” you can imagine how offended I was. As you all are well aware, I am nothing if not submissive.

In strict accordance with the Southern Baptist Convention (a statement signed by both Huckabee and his wife), though the husband and wife are of equal worth before God, the wife “is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.” I’ll admit that I have not always submitted to the servant leadership. Before this afternoon’s awakening, in which the Holy Spirit appeared to me in my office while I was on my third cup of Irish coffee, I had been downright antagonistic.

I blogged about politics, science, and other things I couldn’t possibly understand with my little female pea-brain. I engaged people in arguments, waving my hands about furiously and ending every sentence with, “What the f*uck do you know?” The only thing I submitted to was the drink.

Richard Land, a spokesman for the SBC, further explained that the wife does not get veto power over the husband’s decision. “Somebody has to be in charge,” Land said. “The Bible says the husband is in charge.” While the husband should “solicit his wife’s views,” ultimately “he is going to make the decision.”

Just remember, ladies, if you’re still single, you’re probably not spending enough time on your knees.

Just because Hillary Clinton can bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan doesn’t mean she’ll get the feminist vote.

“Being a woman in and of itself is not sufficient to gain broad-based support,” said Faye Wattleton of the Center for the Advancement of Women. “We’re not doing affirmative action in terms of the presidency.” NOW they’re trying to play coy? I suppose the feminist vote could be courted, if feminists didn’t find courting so offensive.

At her alma mater Wellesley College last week, where most women major in lesbianism, Hillary told the crowd that she was facing “the all-boys club of presidential politics” following the last debate. Some feminists, however, are weary of Hillary because of her decision to stay with Bill despite his infidelities.

Speaking of infidelity, who gets the single women/mistress vote? Unmarried women voters (or the “Sex and the City” vote) have become hot political commodities in the presidential race. See? SOMEBODY wants you. And now, for the first time in our nation’s history, there are equal numbers of single women and married women. That is terrifying. There are only so many designated “crazy singles tables” at weddings.

This is good news for the Democrats, however, since unmarried women tend to vote Democratic–but they’re less likely to vote because they’ve completely given up. The majority of married women, on the other hand, vote Republican because that’s what their husbands tell them to do.

According to a new study, feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women. Having (literally) a feminist partner is linked with healthier heterosexual relationships and fair wages. So all you men who prefer “traditional’ women, I hope you’re prepared for a lifetime of missionary.

The study, conducted by Rutgers University, surveyed college students and older adults and came to this stunning conclusion: “women with egalitarian attitudes do find mates and men do find them attractive. In fact, results reveal they are having a good time, maybe a better time than the non-feminists.”

Who would’ve thought that men would prefer hairy, screechy, bra-burning, one-time-lesbians to pretty, sweet, vapid know-nothings? Despite the findings, researchers concluded that both men and women continue to hold negative views of feminists as obnoxious sexually unattractive soy-drinking bloggers with freakishly small knees that can hardly support one’s torso.

Some survey questions centered around views of feminists and career women and gender equality. Other questions were more general, like “how often do you and your partner laugh together” and “how often does your partner bring social justice issues into the bedroom.”

So ladies, next time you’re on a date, be sure to pick up the check. It’s sexy.

The Sunday NYT was bulkier than usual yesterday due to its special women’s style ‘T Magazine.’ From what I could tell, it was 316 glossy pages of pure crap – 282 pages of which featured impossibly thin girls looking bored and hungry. However, after sifting through an insightful article on the latest eyebrow trends (strong and shapely), I landed on a piece on women in power and politics that was both terribly uninteresting and incredibly offensive.

The article by Daphne Merkin discussed the novel concept of how looks matter, especially for women in power positions. As a female, you’d think that Miss Daphne would be railing against the injustice that men with ass-faces are given a pass while women are skewered on a daily basis for not looking like 19-year-old airbrushed bloggers.

We study our female politicians as closely and obsessively as we do in part because they still remain something of an anomaly… we study their shade of lipstick, we listen for a note of defensive shrillness in their voice, we infer, we project, we accept or discount official positions for reasons that are neither fully conscious nor even rational.

Merkin’s main target is Hillary Clinton, who she slams for her “fallback position of mix-and-match jackets or trousers,” as well as her “generic mumsy earrings, executive-secretary suits and a bright, unconvincing smile.”

My GOD what an embarrassment. Let’s pick apart the first woman running for president based upon the earrings she chooses to wear with her boxy pantsuits. Merkin adds, “[Hillary] wears her clothes – whether the old frumpy style or the recent, more streamlined look – like armor, and for all of her newly flattering makeup, there is a grim determination that comes through, vitiating all the efforts to feminize and humanize her.”

Who cares about Hillary’s positions on healthcare and the troops in Iraq when the whole world wants to know if she’s had her eyes done? What do I care what she thinks about global warming and immigration when her body type “isn’t easy to dress at all.”

To be fair, let’s look at some of the male presidential frontrunners, shall we? (Let’s just say, they ain’t winning no beauty contests.)

• Joe Biden (obvious plugs, cheap suits)
• John Edwards (terrible crow’s feet)
• Barack Obama (put your shirt back on – you’re no Vladimir Putin)
• Bill Richardson (fatty)
• Sam Brownback (a face only Jesus Christ could love)
• Rudy Giuliani (so ugly even his own children can’t look at him)
• John McCain (looks like that dead guy from Poltergeist II)
• Mitt Romney (radioactive face, obvious porcelain veneers)
• Fred Thompson (Mr. Potato Head)

“At the end of the day – and at the beginning – what is clear is that Hillary Clinton doesn’t wear herself well,” Merkin concludes. Well, since we’re all about judging on the basis of appearances, here’s Daphne.

According to the latest NYT/CBS News/Hustler poll, women tend to have a more favorable view of Hillary Clinton than men but they remain skeptical, especially if they are older, married or spell womyn with an ‘e.’

In the last presidential election, women made up 54 percent of the vote. OK. Which of you dumb b*itches voted for Bush? The poll found that while most women agree with Hillary on the “issues,” think she’s a strong “leader” and are confident that she would make an effective “commander in chief,” they still don’t trust her.

This is not surprising since women don’t trust other women, as they view them as competition. We’re still the same girls we were in 7th grade. Meaning I’m 4’10″ with liquid blue eyeliner, freakishly small knees and invisible to boys.

Not even the new plunging necklines are helping Hillary. (Lede in the Washington Post story: “There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2.” That’s the most action C-SPAN has seen since Sen. Robert Byrd read the phone book.)

Hillary faces the most resistance, however, from the old hags. Marilyn Manson Bielstein, 69, said, “I don’t like her politics, and I don’t admire her as a woman… I think she’s a socialist.”

The 59-year-old Linda Carroll said she was “not ready for a lady president. I’m not for this women’s lib stuff.” Sonya McMahon, 57, described Hillary as “harsh and cold.”

You senile geriatric gray-haired profiteering porn peddlers. Go back to knitting scarves that your grandkids will never wear and leave the election of the first woman president to us.