Skip to content

“#ManEnough4Hillary” ad doesn’t come from her campaign, but betcha it’s a dumb Hillary PAC job

From my latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

View image on Twitter

Why buying stock photos can be be a mistake.

On May 26, an ad appeared with a photo of…a white man asserting his support for Hillary and displaying that familar blue “H” with the enormous jutting red arrow that instantly reminds viewers of Hillary’s adventurous husband, Bill, back in the Monica days.

“I am man enough to vote for a woman…Are you?” asks the ad. The problem is…um, the man. If your idea of a really masculine guy is a hair-gelled lumbersexual with a collarbone-level beard that looks like algae bloom, a sleeve tat, and not a lot of muscle mass on those white- T-shirted arms, well, you’re man enough to vote for…maybe not just any woman but certainly the one who couldn’t keep her e-mail accounts straight.

Then—-hahahaahaha!–it turned out that the Hillary fans who made the ad apparently didn’t want to spend money to hire their own model–and anyway, time was of the essence–so they used a stock photo. And lo, it then turned out that  a photo of the same guy with the gel, the  Rasputin beard and the white T also appeared in an Oregon Health Authority public-service ad for…syphillis awareness!

Really! The Oregon ad says: “PORTLAND Nationally we’re #1 for coffee, #1 for fitness, #5 for syphillis.”

The combined bearded message: You must be itching to vote for Hillary!

Now, Jezebel writer Anna Merlan called the Clinton campaign office and got this response: “This is not an ad from the campaign.”

And it undoubtedly wasn’t from her official campaign. But most of the ham-fisted pro-Hillary ads that look as though they were produced at the Trump Tower penthouse don’t come directly from the Clinton campaign but from the gazillion-dollar super-PACs that do Hillary’s legwork for her. Why should this one be any different?

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen



– See more at:

Oberlin: Where you pay $63,000 a year to feel oppressed by the “cissexist heteropatriarchy”

From my latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

Oberlin student protesters: They want $8.20 an hour for doing this

New Yorker staff writer Nathan Heller reports on the scene at the $63,000-a-year liberal-arts college in Ohio:

The flourishing life of the mind:

“‘Because I’m dealing with having been arrested on campus, or having to deal with the things that my family are going through because of larger systems—having to deal with all of that, I can’t produce the work that they want me to do. But I understand the material, and I can give it to you in different ways. There’s professors who have openly been, like, “Yeah, instead of, you know, writing out this midterm, come in to my office hours, and you can just speak it,”right? But that’s not institutionalized. I have to find that professor.’”


The effort to expose young people to the great classics of Western civilization:

“[A] student wanted trigger warnings on ‘Antigone.’”


The celebration of the Oberlin’s progressive and inclusive atmosphere as one of the first elite colleges in America to admit blacks and women:

“In mid-December, a group of black students wrote a fourteen-page letter to the school’s board and president outlining fifty nonnegotiable demands for changes in Oberlin’s admissions and personnel policies, academic offerings, and the like. ‘You include Black and other students of color in the institution and mark them with the words “equity, inclusion and diversity,”‘ it said, ‘when in fact this institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy.’…

“There were negative responses to the fifty demands (which included a request for an $8.20-an-hour activism wage….”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Justin Trudeau elbows female member of Parliament, but who cares? He’s a “feminist”

From my latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

Image result for justin trudeau boxing

Self-proclaimed feminist Trudeau going pugilistic

I can’t decide which is richer in layer upon layer of irony: Self-proclaimed feminist and liberal heartthrob Justin Trudeau’s elbowing a female member of the Canadian Parliament–or the Gender Studies 101 reaction of another female member of Parliament  who witnessed the incident.

Here’s the story, from the CBC:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accused of ‘manhandling’ Opposition whip Gord Brown and elbowing NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau in the House of Commons as MPs gathered for a vote on the government’s assisted-dying bill Wednesday afternoon.

“In video from the House, Trudeau is seen walking toward Brown in a crowd of MPs in the Commons aisle, taking his arm in an apparent effort to move Brown toward his seat. While doing so, he encountered Brosseau, who was also standing in the aisle and was seen physically reacting after the contact.

“‘I was trying to start the vote, the prime minister grabbed my arm. I immediately told the prime minister to let go of me — now,’ Brown said in a statement released later. ‘Immediately afterward, the prime minister went back down the aisle of the House to confront other members of opposition parties.’


Then, as HeatStreet reports:

“Brosseau’s colleague, Niki Ashton, said she was ‘ashamed’ to witness the ‘deeply traumatic’ incident, using language most American college students would find familiar.

“’What I will say, if we apply a gendered lens, it is very important that young women in this space feel safe to come here and work here,’ Ashton said. ‘[Trudeau] made us feel unsafe and we’re deeply troubled by the conduct of the prime minister of this country.’”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen


Polls show large nos. of Americans don’t like Hillary–so pundits scramble to explain it away

From my latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

Maybe she’s just not very likeable.

The pundits are scratching their heads over why so many Americans can’t stand Hillary Clinton.


So unfair. So let’s look at the reasons the pundits are offering.

  1. Pure misogyny. That’s the lean-and-mean theory of Jack Ohman of the Sacramento Bee:

“I can only ascribe this Rage Against the Clinton Machine to misogyny….”


2. The “paradox” theory: Hillary is such a devoted public servant that we never get to see her more winsome side. That’s the idea floated by the New York Times’s David Brooks:

“The second paradox is that, agree with her or not, she’s dedicated herself to public service. From advocate for children to senator, she has pursued her vocation tirelessly. It’s not the ‘what’ that explains her unpopularity, it’s the ‘how’ — the manner in which she has done it.

“But what exactly do so many have against her?

“I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun?”

3. She’s too good for us mere mortals. Talk to CNN’s Jay Parini (writing in March) about that one:

“The main reason that Republicans, in particular, hate Clinton is that she will probably beat Trump or Cruz or anyone thrown up by the GOP in the general election.”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen


WaPo news flash: Women who wear makeup & comb their hair earn more than those who don’t

From my latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

So unfair that men don’t have to put on mascara to get ahead


News flash from the Washington Post:

Women wear makeup.

In an effort to appear polished and professional, many American women — not all, of course, but many — spend a huge amount of time and money on makeup and skincare products.


And since this is the Washington Post, there has to be a sexism problem somewhere in all of this. And there is:

“You might dismiss all this female primping and preening as vanity or silliness. Yet a fascinating new paper from two sociologists suggests that women do have good reason to spend so much time and money on their appearance: If they don’t, they risk losing a substantial amount of money.


“Like past studies, the research showed that attractive people tended to earn higher salaries. But that wasn’t all. Their research suggested that grooming – practices such as applying makeup and styling hair and clothing — was actually what accounted for nearly all of the salary differences for women of varying attractiveness. For men, grooming didn’t make as much of a difference….

“They find that, controlling for other differences such as age, race, class and education, individuals who were rated as more attractive by an interviewer earned about 20 percent more than people who were rated as having just average attractiveness….

“They found that a substantial amount of attractiveness was the result of grooming, and here’s where they found gender differences, Wong says. ‘For women, most of the attractiveness advantage comes from being well groomed. For men, only about half of the effect of attractiveness is due to grooming.’

“In other words, the study suggests that grooming is important for both men and women in the workplace, but particularly for women. Changes in grooming have a substantial effect on whether women are perceived as attractive, and their salaries. In fact, as the charts below show, less attractive but more well-groomed women earned significantly more, on average, than attractive or very attractive women who weren’t considered well-groomed.”

In other words, a little makeup always helps–just like your mother said. Oh, and comb your hair before that job interview. Did we actually need a sociological study to prove this?

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen


Bull in a china shop: WaPo feminist wants “First Gentleman” Bill to pick Hillary’s dinnerware

My latest blog post for the Independent Women’s Forum:

Bill Clinton and friends: China patterns on his mind

Sunday-newspaper readers were treated to this Washington Post opinion piece by Hillary fan  Jill Filipovic:

“Lest voters get nervous, Hillary has pledged that Bill wouldn’t be on traditional first lady duty — he’d be in charge of fixing the economy, not picking out the flowers and china for state dinners.

“But why shouldn’t he pick the china? If one goal of a Hillary Clinton presidency is to challenge traditional gender roles, then her husband should flout them, too. The best way he could do that is by taking on the domestic issues facing women and children that are too often derided as ‘softer’ than economic or foreign policy topics — and, yes, doing the stereotypically feminine work of party planning and decorating, too.”

Hmm, the idea of Bill Clinton picking the White House china. Let’s have a vote on which of the following patterns Bill would choose:

1. The “Juanita”: Those blood-red lips on the teacups might go well with Hillary’s pantsuit when we entertain those nice young rebels from Libya. But would that be too matchy-matchy?

2. The “Monica”: Basic blue.

3. The “Kathleen”: Those saucers are sure easy to grope.

4. The “Gennifer”: That floral pattern is awfully pretty.

5. The “Paula”: Nice, but I’d get sued if I broke a plate.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Wait till those “women deacons” find out that they have to be celibate and wear nuns’ habits

From my latest for First Things:

Armenian women deacons: Actually, they were nuns.


The nunnishness of the early Christian women who became deaconesses is striking. And it is a feature that persisted, even into fairly recent history. Deaconesses disappeared from both the Western and Eastern Orthodox Churches during the Middle Ages, when the office of “deacon,” with its specifically liturgical functions of preaching and reading the Gospel, became a formal part of Holy Orders and thus open only to men. Only the Armenian Church continued to ordain deaconesses to serve at the altar, up through the early twentieth century. And it should be noted that every one of those Armenian deaconesses was a nun, often the abbess of her convent.

I suspect that few of the women who suddenly feel the “call” to the Catholic diaconate in light of Pope Francis’s statement will likewise be willing to enter nunneries—much less to adopt the very feminine title of “deaconess.” Most of those pushing for women deacons are interested not in restoring an aspect of early Christian history but in acquiring political power in today’s Catholic Church. Their goal is the priesthood and, ultimately, the episcopate—just as it was for women deacons when the Anglican Church began recognizing their office as part of Holy Orders during the 1960s. Our aspiring women deacons view the female diaconate not as a historical revival, but as a camel’s nose in the clerical tent.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 107 other followers