signs of the Times?

ok, i know women have a tendency to be catty.  i think the other girl that likes the boy i like looks like the joker, and i’ve joked about it probably too much with my roommate, who agrees with me, of course.  i’m not making excuses for it, but i like to think that in terms of politics, i’m not quite as much of a neanderthal.  no, more than i like to think, i’m fairly certain that’s true.  acording to this Times piece, however, women Are that unevolved in the political arena.

(i really like the little response jender over at feminist philosophers had to the article.)

the author of the Times piece, herself a woman, gave no creedance to women hating sarah palin because, oh, they disagree with her, they question her credibility, you know, all those valid reasons to be opposed to a person who’s running for vice president…
the glaring flaw with the piece is that she assumes women will never vote for women based on these petty, juvenile, fundamental issues… when many, many other countries have women heads of state… who were voted for… by women.  and men.
people are people.  i can’t possibly be in the only country in the world where saying the girl that likes the boy i like looks like the joker happens.  there are woman-hating-women world-wide, and there are women who have overcome their programmed proclivity towards cattiness and run for, supported, and voted for other women in politics.
it’s just ridiculous that at the end she subversively calls for women to vote for women instead of “some guy” just because, she sarcastically adds, “it’s worked so well for us in the past.”  it isn’t this accused women-hating-women issue that has kept women-as-madam-prez out of the white house, it’s a lot of factors.  if that were the sole cause, there would be no women in politics and our lovely sarah herself proves women have made some inroads.