Men, I'm conducting an important survey here. It's vital that you answer as honestly as possible. Ladies, for the time being, you may relax. This survey is an evaluation of current gender-related political attitudes (or political-related gender attitudes, depending how you prioritize attitudes) and there is no way the questions can be formulated for both you and your studly counterparts. But don't wander off, Sis. Your turn's coming!
First question: Gentlemen, in your adult lives, have you ever allowed a woman to tell you what to do? (Check one--and listen, I am not a woman so you needn't feel emasculated if you follow my directions.)
Those who answered "Yes" may go hang out with the ladies. If you answered either "No" or "Hell no" on the first question, in which hypothetical situation would you conceivably allow a woman to tell you what to do?
If my job depended on it.
If my marriage depended on it.
If my getting laid depended on it.
If the building were on fire and she knew the only way out.
There is no scenario my brain can imagine that would get me to turn into a such a big wuss.
Is it acceptable for a woman to tell you what to do if she is a head-of-state?
Yes, but only if she's got an army, a navy and an air force to back her up.
No, because I'd never live in any wuss country that would elect a woman to head-of-state, anyway.
Were Hillary Clinton elected America's head-of state, what choice would you have but to let a woman tell you what to do, even if in the most indirect ways?
I would move to a no-wuss country.
Everyday, I would tell everyone I know, "She ain't the boss of me."
Maybe I'd do what she says, but I'd make goddam sure every other woman in my life would know I don't like it one bit!
At this point in the survey, let us take a short break while I tell you why I am conducting it in the first place. You see, on August 12, the local non-locally-owned newspaper ran an item about Hillary Clinton on the front page of their national/world news section. There, framed by stories about the foiled British terrorist plot and Israel's war with Hezbollah, was a two-column picture of her along with the bold title, "Why some people hate Hillary Clinton."
Holy Smokes! There must be some important new information here, I thought, or why else would an allegedly respectable newspaper print such a thing in such a prominent way?
As it turned out, there was nothing new to be learned from the "news" article. It merely repeated what everyone has known for years, that conservatives believe Hillary to be ambitious, calculating, an anathema to traditional values, liberal, and still married to Bill--any one of which is sufficient reason for them to hate her.
Why, this article didn't even mention the main reason conservative white men hate Hillary, I realized. And at that moment, I took it upon myself to rectify the article's glaring omission by writing a column dealing with the main reason conservative white men hate Hillary--which to me is as obvious as the strut on a peacock: conservative white men regard anyone who isn't a conservative white man as a threat. And like conservative men everywhere--white, black or in-between--the worst threat of all is a strong, intelligent, talented woman who, if they don't stay eternally vigilant, might tell the whole world what sexually insecure dinkwads most conservative men are.
A couple of days later, I showed the article to a friend and explained what I had planned. I expected him to agree with me, him being a liberal white man much like myself. But no, I think you're wrong, Bill, he said. People hate Hillary simply because they're being told to hate Hillary. And he pointed to the article I held in my hand as evidence.
There was more to the discussion, to be sure, but essentially, my friend thinks that many so-called "facts" are facts only because they are repeated often enough that easily manipulated people come to believe them. It's not a new tactic. Religions couldn't exist without it and many political leaders have nothing else to show for themselves other than the tenuous reality they fabricate out of endless repetition.
In Hillary's case (believes my friend), a great share of those who say they hate her do so only because they regularly are told that many, many other people hate her. Certainly, there is a hard-core cadre of conservatives who detest all things to the left of themselves, but their numbers are greatly inflated by malleable minds who couldn't name a leftist position if it were pinned to their underwear. These people have a great need to know there is a crowd somewhere, just so that they can go along with it. And thanks to lazy, sloppy, trite and meaningless "news" articles like, "Why some people hate Hillary Clinton," it's easy to guide such pathetic souls into the fold.
At any rate, that's what my friend thinks. As for me, I still go with the "sexually insecure dinkwads" explanation. But I can't prove it. Not yet, anyway. But when the results of this survey are tabulated... coagulated... uh, congregated... whatever it is you do with survey results... we'll know for sure. So gentlemen, back to work.
What precisely is the source of your visceral abhorrence of Hillary Clinton?
Because if Clinton gets to be president, what kind of example would that set for my Luanne, who already says she won't bring me a beer when I want it, not as long as I got two good legs.
Because it don't take no stinking village to raise a child. Not while I still got partial custody.
Because I've seen her type before... like that snooty bitch Caroline McClatchey back in highschool... thinks she's so smart ... who does she think she is, anyway... laughing at me in front of my football buds!?
Because if God had of wanted women to run things, he'd o' given them the balls!
Darnit! Out of room. And I have so many more questions. OK, dudes, keep track of your answers. We'll take this up again come '08.