Guy alert: I can say this, fellas, because frankly, I’m not you. If you say something like this, you’re likely to get beaten about the head and shoulders with the gender cudgel by the Kum-By-Yah Party. You know, the gender card elitists we all know and love. So kindly shut up for a minute while I say what you can’t.
Now then, I may love Rosie the Riveter, but I take umbrage at this Jamie Nichols propaganda. It implies that she should be hired as a county commish based on her gender:
Oh, I dunno. Sounds kind of sexist to me, for two reasons: 1) It’s a flawed syllogism. The counterpart of “man” isn’t a “girl.” It’s a woman. (“Girls” are what you have in fifth grade. Hello?) 2) It’s nonsensical.
Call me a dinosaur, but I kind of always thought that hiring should be based on who has the strongest resume, track record and qualifications, not on gender. Ergo, the best candidate for the job is the individual with the best resume, strongest skill set and demonstrable abilities. That’s called a level playing field. A meritocracy. No special favors. No head start. No extra gold stars based on gender.
Fellas, you probably can’t say this without getting tarred and feathered by the usual suspects. So I will:
If you’re truly qualifed Jamie, why make gender an issue? Why even bring it up?
Frankly, that gold star gender thing is insulting. It implies that a woman can’t compete equally on the same playing field with a man or measure up to the same objective standards. She needs that head start or extra points because she can’t make it on her own merits. Like that’s not patronizing or anything.
As far as this particular race goes, a woman should get the job because she’s a woman? (Sorry. “Girl.”) Let me count the liberal hypocrisies. But I repeat myself. (For a brilliant, broader discussion on this topic, What Do Women Want?, **No Wonder They’re So Ticked** and Hillary and a Beachfront Bridge In Barstow)
Meanwhile, is this the best Grays Harbor Dems can dredge up?