Or, if you want a more up-to-the-minute example, think of Malika Aroud, a 48-year-old Moroccan-born Belgian woman profiled in Wednesday's New York Times.
"One of the most prominent Internet jihadists in Europe," Aroud is blazing a trail for women in the male-dominated world of Al Qaeda supporters. "Normally in Islam the men are stronger than the women, but I prove that it is important to fear God -- and no one else," she explains. She wears an Islamic black veil outside, but inside, she wears a black T-shirt and slippers "monogrammed in gold with the letters SEXY." Through extremist websites and blogs, she encourages Muslim men to take up arms against the West, and advises Westerners that "Vietnam is nothing compared to what awaits you on our lands.
Want to guess whether Al Qaeda will be gentler and more nurturing if Aroud should somehow take the helm?
Right. I won't be taking up Aroud as a feminist icon.
As for Clinton, don't expect a kinder, gentler administration from her: She's been at pains to assure voters that she can rival any man when it comes to unswerving bellicosity.
Vote for war in Iraq? Been there, done that.
Obliterate Iran? Can do.
Innocently reference Robert Kennedy's assassination? Just telling it like it is.
We do live in a world full of ugly, lingering sexism, and yes, plenty of it has been directed at Clinton. But we also face plenty of ugly, lingering racism -- some of it exploited by the Clinton campaign -- as well as a collapsing economy, potentially devastating climate change, two ongoing wars, instability in critical parts of the globe, an ever-present threat of nuclear proliferation and the hostility of a solid portion of the world's population.
With so many evils to worry about, why should women feel constrained to support the candidate who happens to have two X chromosomes -- especially when that candidate has gone out of her way to insist that she can be just as bellicose as the most testosterone-addled male?
--
rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com
