Actual Headline

Women's Support for Clinton Rises in Wake of Perceived Sexism

Bwahhhhhh!!! Perceived sexism. Stop, NY Times—you're killing me! PERCEIVED!!! Omigawd, ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Let's enter the Wayback Machine, shall we? Destination: Shakesville. Date: December 17, 2007. (i.e. 25 days ago)

Attack of the 50-Foot Vagina-American Who Thinks She's Got a Right to Be Equal to Her Husband and Shit

The New York Times' coverage of Hillary Clinton continues to be bloody disgraceful, outdoing itself yet again with another ridiculous image and barely concealed misogyny.

(Click here to open image—showing Bill, at long last, finally assuming a higher profile in "his wife's" campaign, instead of that lowly position down by her feet he's been holding while the uppity bitch was off running her campaign as if it's her own—in new window.)

Or how about Destination: The New York Times. Date: January 8, 2008. (i.e. 2 days ago)

Mrs. Clinton bared her thoughts about the race’s impact on her personally, and her eyes welled with tears… Her eyes visibly wet, in perhaps the most public display of emotion of her year-old campaign… Mrs. Clinton did not cry, but her quavering voice and the flash of feeling underscored the pressure, fatigue, anger and disappointment… Mrs. Clinton has felt frustrated and at times rejected…

It turns out the "Mrs. Clinton" of whom they speak isn't, in fact, a seventh-grade girl who's just been snubbed by the popular clique at school.

Or how about Destination: Shakesville. Date: January 9, 2008 (i.e. 1 day ago)

MoDo's thesis, as you'll surely recall, is that Hillary made herself a victim of the press, playing the damsel in distress, despite, I guess, what MoDo would argue is the totally fair, unbiased, and not remotely misogynistic treatment of Hillary. But, with neither an ounce of self-awareness nor a trace of irony, this is how her piece actually begins:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"

Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."

Nope, no sexism there among the witty banter of the measured, objective professionals at the Gray Lady. I'm sure that they think "crying works in relationships" for teh dudez, too, presume men to be incapable of regulating emotions while meeting with world leaders, and fail to regard as "human" all male candidates until they express an emotion that is then immediately deemed laughably inappropriate.

Yeah, what a befuddling shock that people might be "perceiving" sexism—never mind that I could dig out dozens, if not hundreds, of examples just like these just from your own pages, that I could dig out literally thousands and thousands of examples from across the entirety of the American media since the campaign started, and that I could dig out I can't even begin to imagine how many (a nonillion?) from coverage of Clinton over the past 15 years.

This isn't a problem of "perception." This is a problem of actual. fucking. sexism.

Assholes.