I'm perplexed by this line by Dana Goldstein: "Power's comments promoted an awful stereotype of a female leader as someone who is inhumanly calculating, with no core beliefs."
Whatever you think about Power or the brouhaha over her comments, "monster" isn't a gendered criticism, is it? I suppose that Power was trying to impress (albeit off the record) that Clinton is inhumanly calculating, with no core beliefs. But I don't think that has anything to do with Clinton being a woman.
Posted by Kriston at March 7, 2008 5:03 PMOh, doesn't it?
Five centuries? Really? Is there an epithet that hasn't been applied to women over that span? "Monster" isn't a word that's usually applied to humans; if that's not a gender-neutral epithet, what is?
Posted by: Ramar at March 7, 2008 6:43 PMCame here from a Yglesias link, but I have to pause briefly to give props for the PJ Harvey reference in the post title. Lovely.
Posted by: WWOTEO at March 8, 2008 1:44 AMGoldstein is full of it.
Power was venting about Clinton's fundamentally Machiavellian approach. Which, if anything, is a description of ruthless male leadership. Why, after all, was the tract called "the Prince"?
Posted by: Tungsten at March 8, 2008 4:05 PM