A media storm erupted last week when Hillary Clinton announced her run for the 2016 presidency by having her daughter conceive a child. After all, it’s not like a thirty-four-year-old woman could possibly make the decision to become pregnant for her own sake. As anyone who’s ever had kids can tell you, the only reason your kids will ever have children of their own is so that you can live vicariously through your grandkids. The press hailed the announcement as a brilliant political maneuver: by cleverly deciding to have her daughter decide to have a baby, Clinton makes herself seem that much more sensitive, warm, and maternal, all qualities we Americans require of our female politicians under pain of social humiliation. Pundits, of course, were quick to point out the double standard at play here.
“[It’s] blatantly sexist on its face,” says one Fox News opinion writer. “I don’t recall anyone lauding the fact that Mitt Romney was a grandfather.” Thank you, Fox News, for always checking America on our inherent misandry problem, the only prejudice we Americans still have to overcome in this modern day (we mean, besides us persecuting Christians and being racist to white people, of course). It’s the twenty-first century; misogyny is dead. It’s not like you women really wanted equal pay, right?
For instance, when some pundits wondered if perhaps the impending Clintonchild might make Clinton a worse politician due to her ovaries releasing grandma-hormones that would override all her knowledge of debate protocol and fiscal policy with how to knit embarrassing sweaters and where to buy the most disgusting brands of sugar-free candy, that wasn’t misogyny, just biology. “All I’m saying is that there are certain differences between men and women, differences which are expressed in the exact same way in every man or woman (because those are the only two genders it is possible to be) and which are completely determined at birth by a series of factors that have no cultural component and thus whose validity we should never question,” wrote one blogger on the subject. “How is that sexist?”
Indeed it is not, good blogger. Even if it were, clearly Clinton is the one benefitting from this sexism. After all, as we’ve established, no one ever praised Mitt Romney for being a grandfather. In fact, no one even commented on it at all. It’s almost as though Americans don’t see a male politician’s grand-spawn as having any sort of effect on how good a president they would be. But, no, it’s probably that misandry thing we just said.