Hey girl, I was reading your column today (I blame my masochistic tendencies), and one phrase in particular stuck out at me:

[Hillary Clinton'] message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?

Now, I’m know fan of Clinton either (The Mr. or the Mrs.), but I couldn’t help but recall that you once wrote a column decrying the gender stereotypes that keep women from writing opinion columns, and complaining about how men perceived you:

While a man writing a column taking on the powerful may be seen as authoritative, a woman doing the same thing may be seen as castrating. If a man writes a scathing piece about men in power, it’s seen as his job; a woman can be cast as an emasculating man-hater. I’m often asked how I can be so “mean” - a question that Tom Friedman, who writes plenty of tough columns, doesn’t get.

So let me get this straight: gender stereotypes about who is supposed to be the aggressor are  bad when they are applied to you, and it isn’t fair that women who write tough columns should be called “emasculating.”  But when Hillary Clinton campaigns exactly the same way that hundreds of male politicians across the ages have before her, you get to call her message “emasculating,” thereby contributing to the gender stereotypes that hurt tough women.   Which basically means that you are above the standards you would apply to everyone else.

Ok, got it.

-Marianne