My must read of the day is "Hillary Clinton's book is exactly as 'safe' as female politicians are forced to be," by Jessica Valenti, in the Guardian:
I'm not exactly sure how action-packed the minutiae of a diplomat's life is supposed to be, but the Hard Choices haters ignore that a "safe" book was Clinton's only real choice. After all, whenever she's hinted at being anything other than measured and guarded, Clinton has been attacked as hysterical, a ballbuster, or worse. So if people are bored by Hard Choices, they should blame the misogynist expectations of Washington, not the careful crafting of a seasoned politician. […]
Any emotion that Hillary Clinton shows has always been used against her, and it has become a kind of stand-in for the many reasons women are said to be oh-so-unfit to lead. The building-up of her protective public armor, post- and potentially pre-White House, isn't just smart for Clinton personally—it's essential for the growing national image of women in politics.
It's clear from reading Hard Choices that sexism—particularly during Clinton's 2008 run for president—has taken a toll on her. "I knew that it arose from cultural and psychological attitudes about women's roles in society, but that didn't make it any easier for me and my supporters," she writes. Indeed, the frenzy of misogyny was so intense that it's hard to imagine enduring it all while vying for the most important job in the world.
Yes, Clinton has faced a lot of sexism—we all saw it in 2008, and anyone who denies it occurred (to both Clinton and Sarah Palin) is lying to himself, but Valenti is also exercising a form of sexism here.
Valenti suggests that because life is unfair and sexism still exists, Clinton must reduce herself to appease that underlying societal tension. That’s preposterous. If Clinton is going to be the commander in chief, we should expect her to rise above that, to challenge behaviors and notions she disagrees with, not to cower from them. Yet Valenti seems to believe it’s more appropriate to ascribe blame to the broad notion of sexism than to look at Clinton as an individual fully capable of intellectual prowess.
This enforces the oppression of sexism by implying that Hillary Clinton isn’t able to challenge it—and to that I say, puh-lease.
It’s not just female politicians who must "balance their policy stances with ‘likeability’"—it’s everyone. Clinton wrote a boring and safe book. Trying to excuse it by blaming it on society’s sexism is trite, and quite frankly, obnoxious.