Taking women seriously

The simplest, most important reason that women's opinion needs to be considered as seriously and immediately as men's is sometimes, goddamnit, we're right. This passage from the section on women and the French Resistance from France: The Dark Years 1940-1944 by Julian Jackson portrays a scenario us Hillary supporters are all too familiar with:

Even Helène Mordkovitch, one of the founders of Défense de la France with Philippe Viannay..was reticent about imposing herself. Unlike Viannay, she never harboured any illusions about [Marshal Philippe] Pétain [head of the wartime French regime at Vichy], but it never occurred to her, or to him, that her views on politics should be taken into the account on the newspaper, which remained a male preserve. It took her husband two years to reach views she had held from the start.

The timing of two to three years is striking. In the Chicago Tribune op-ed HIllary for President , a former Obama supporter rallies to the idea of Hillary--about three years too late to be of any use. Apparently his personal identification with Obama clouded his thought process. His outrage at the Hillary campaign's "3 AM phone call" campaign ad is because the ad directly challenges his divine right (and Obama's) as holder of the twin pillars of authority, the law degree and the penis, to rule. "I am mature enough but you are not" remains an unacceptable assertion from a woman to a man. Even if, goddamnit, and to the young pup's sorrow, she is right.