Unfiltered

Even though it is nearly the end of February, this is my first blog of 2017.  For those that are closest to me, you may be aware that I ended 2016 with a bang.  Not the good kind of bang like the sound of fireworks on the Fourth of July but rather the kind of bang that brings with it destruction like the sound of a grenade exploding into soft earth.  I’m not ready to write about the events leading up to the end of 2016 but I tell you these things because for the entirety of 2017 I have felt, well, gutted.  My muse had fallen silent in the wake of 2016.  The asshole in me had finally been quelled.  As a result of this paradigm shift, I found myself purging friends on Facebook—people I went to school with, people I knew from work, people I knew from the Army—all were defriended.  I had simply reached the limit of my tolerance for putting on airs.

For some time now, I have hidden my true feelings on many things because I was fearful that I was too radical or that my views differed from those around me.  Before I took any action, at least for the past two years, I had to evaluate whose ego I would be threatening and how I could soften my approach or mince my words in order to make the person not feel threatened by me.  No longer free to be who I was, I gradually became someone I wasn’t.  I became overly concerned with what people thought of me, never acknowledging that if people liked me for who I was pretending to be, they still didn’t really like “me.”  My anxiety skyrocketed due to the fact I was always second guessing my approach or worried when I upset someone that I had not done enough to stroke their fragile ego.  Writing a single email became an hourly endeavor as I poured over every word and evaluated it for how it would be perceived.  Apologies ran rampant.  I’m sorry for asking this, I’m sorry for bothering you, I’m sorry for doing my job.  This translated into I’m sorry for being who I am and I am even sorrier for being here and posing a threat to your perceptions of reality. Fuck that noise.   So, today, for the first time, I am choosing to write about a controversial topic.  Read at your own peril for this will be unfiltered. 

The 2016 election highlighted many issues.  Let’s start from that premise because I want to start on common ground.  It was by no means, no matter which party you support, a high point in the history of American politics.  I think we can all agree on that.  But no matter who you supported, I think it is important, perhaps even critically imperative, that we at least attempt to put aside bipartisan politics so we can unpack the blatant sexism that pervaded the election because this issue affects our country as a whole, regardless of your preferred party or candidate.  I could have found other examples but the election was probably the most glaring example I have and so I am choosing to go down this road with the hopes you will keep an open mind, regardless of your feelings about Trump or Clinton.  I would have written the same article had Sarah Palin been the first woman nominee for President on a major party ticket.  That didn’t happen and so I have to use the example reality provided me. 

From the outset, I am disgusted by the obsession with what professional women wear.  How many times during the course of the election did we hear the word pantsuit?  Why was no one talking about Trump’s tie/suit combinations?  We cared more about what Clinton was wearing than her agenda, regardless of whether you agreed with it or not.    My older sister, Amy, was working during the inauguration and overhead a comment about how the dress Michelle Obama wore made her butt look big.  I happen to think Trump’s ass is generally huge (unlike his hands – ha ha) but no one is out there talking about how pleated pants make his butt look even bigger.  Again, instead of commenting about her relative success or failure as a First Lady, people chose to comment on her appearance.  Why is this?  Why do we care so much about what women wear INSTEAD OF WHO THEY ARE?  This is not “just” the way things are, the way they have always been or the way they should be.  We need to name this.  It is fucking sexism and I’m so tired of it.  Both men and women don’t seem to understand sexism and they seem to want to deny its existence.  Even when presented with evidence, there is an automatic denial.  It couldn’t possibly be sexism. 

Take for example, the fact that David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information in April of 2015.  What led up to this plea of guilt, was an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, a biographer.  Petraeus provided classified information to her during the course of the affair.  This next point is important folks:  BOTH THE FBI AND THE DOJ recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus.  In order to avoid a tawdry trial, Petraeus and his legal team worked out a plea deal where he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor, thereby negating the need to proceed with a felony indictment.  While there was some disagreement about whether Petraeus would prevail in a court of law, there was little public resentment voiced over the resolution.  I don’t recall much back lash, if any.  This is evidenced by the fact that Petraeus’ name was repeatedly floated as a potential appointee in President Trump’s Cabinet. 

Contrast this with what happened to Mrs. Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton used a private email server for official communications in her capacity as Secretary of State instead of the official State Department email accounts.  Those communications included correspondence that would RETROACTIVELY be marked classified by the State Department. Although none of the emails were marked classified, policy dictated that unmarked classified information should be treated the same as information marked as such. All of the emails originated in five other intelligence agencies and were all sent from unclassified systems, thus violating the very same policies Clinton was alleged to have violated.  Unlike in the Petraeus case, the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton.  Part of the difficulty in the case involved the mens rea or intent requirement.  Specifically, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible to prove Clinton knew the emails violated the policy when the information had not been marked as classified prior to being sent from another intelligence agency.  Also unlike the Petraeus case, there was no evidence someone with unauthorized access received the information.  However, Clinton was vilified in the court of public opinion.  I remember being at the Iowa State Fair when then Governor-Pence was visiting and a mob of angry people began chanting, “LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP.”  I do not recall anyone saying such things about Petraeus, who was allowed to quietly resign as director of the CIA, plead guilty to a crime and less than two years later, be considered trustworthy enough to be a contender for a cabinet position.  Petraeus’s conduct was arguably worse, and yet, Clinton was persecuted and Petraeus was not.  I have to wonder if deep down part of the assumptions made about what happened in the investigation were based on the fact Clinton was a woman, and therefore perceived as “careless.”  As a result, even though the respective experts in the field—the FBI and the DOJ—did not find sufficient evidence that the elements of a crime were established, the public assumed the elements were met without even knowing, understanding or likely being aware of what the elements of the crime were and how they might be proved in a court of law.  Without knowing the facts or the standard of proof, the public was much more eager judge and condemn a woman on bad facts than it was to do the same to a man on fairly good facts. 

Regardless of your political persuasion, if you can’t see the sexism in that, you probably never will.  If you do see it and "get it," then i implore you to stop being part of the problem. Be aware of sexism and name that shit--don't try to call it something else like "the way things are." Do not ignore it, deny it or avoid it. And for fucks sake, do not participate it or condone it. As long as we, as a society tolerate reporting on professional women's ensembles instead of their accomplishments or qualifications s, the media will continue to report it. Stop being part of the problem and state your opinions. We cannot continue to tolerate, or worse, take sick pleasure from tearing down some poor female who is trying to be seen as a professional because she wore a fucking pantsuit or a dress that did not flatter a size 0 ass. That's some straight up bullshit.

If I have offended you, I can tell you it wasn’t my intent.  However, I will not apologize.  I am sick and tired of being apologetic for having an opinion that might be different than yours.  My Higher Power sculpted me through many trials and tribulations to be this asshole.  Might as well let her out, at least once in a while.  Welcome to the era of the unfiltered Jill.