Wake up, Mr. Patinkin, and smell the coffee

ShareThis

A reader named Gerry Fernandez warned: "Get ready for the flood of nasty e-mails."He was right.A typical letter said simply: "Dear Mr. Patinkin: You're a sexist ... .""Wah Wah Wah!!!" wrote Maria Montaquila. "You sounded like a big weenie! I feel very sorry for your wife."Last week, I wrote a column asking why middle-aged white women are so angry. I understand they are disappointed at Hillary Rodham Clinton's defeat, but why would self-proclaimed feminists say they'll get revenge by voting for John McCain, who is anti-choice? I particularly didn't get the claim that Clinton lost because of sexism."And you still don't get it," said reader Marie White."Sir," wrote Kay Goranson, "you don't know what you are talking about. It would be nice, if, for once, someone would shut up and listen."I've indeed been listening to the calls and reading the e-mails -- scores of them -- and it's been revealing.A number of men wrote in, most bewildered by the fury.But mostly, it was women who weighed in, and, interestingly, the split was right down the middle.Let's start with Linda Couture Strocky, who argued from both sides."You are a white male," she wrote. "I am a white female and sexism has been a part of my existence all my life. Women invested a lot emotionally into Hillary. She represented their aspirations to reduce sexism in their lives, to reach the next step, to gain more respectability. She worked her whole life for this. Just as many women work their whole life for something only to have it given to a less qualified male, they identified with her."But interestingly, Strocky then added: "What these women are blind to is that Hillary is not the best candidate. It's not about sexism or racism. It's about who can do the best job for this country."Jessica Deane Rosner tried to put me in the shoes of Clinton's female backers who felt this was the chance of a lifetime for one woman to prove that all women could be anything they wanted to be."Most women that I know, and I try not to speak for all of them, as you like to do, just felt a deep, wrenching disappointment at that moment."Then she added: "But the day after, most of us have moved on and can appreciate the historical and also equally inspiring achievement of H.C.'s competitor in this race to lead the nation."Plenty, however, were not at that same place "the day after.""I don't think Hillary got a fair shake from the beginning," wrote a woman whose e-mail name is Patyecakes. "I will not vote for Obama and will vote for McCain. I don't know enough about Obama to trust him, and what little I do know about him, I don't trust."Diana Norton-Jackson felt she lost her best hope of seeing a woman president in her lifetime. But she added, "The statements by women about voting for McCain were clearly made in anger." Clinton's women supporters, she said, need some time, and a break from being judged by the media.Diane Seleen had this to say: "Mark Patinkin's article was another example of a sexist, (stupid) column about Hillary and middle-aged women. Maybe if you could have lived as an any-age woman for the past 5 months, you might have a clue how we feel. We wanted Hillary to win, we think she was the most qualified, we were inspired by her. We think the press has trashed her enough, and we certainly do not appreciate being put down for having feelings about it. Let us grieve and move on."Finally, in a common sentiment, Charlene Kneath said, "Women are mad because whenever a woman runs for political office, she is subjected to such blatant sexism that it blows my mind."Plenty of others said the same thing.But there were just as many female readers miffed at this anger."I agree with your assessment of the sore-loser feminists and Hillary Clinton," wrote Suzanne Williams. "What's more, I'm a 60-year-old middle-class white woman who would like to see a woman as president but I put competency ahead of gender."Addressing the cries of sexism in the campaign, Ellen McKenna wrote, simply: "No one was picking on women!!!"As far as Clinton supporters threatening to vote for McCain, Meghan Kirby-McFarland wrote, "I actually feel the behavior of this group of women is an embarrassment to my gender."Carla Wahnon described herself as a 38-year-old feminist. "I was ready to vote for Hillary," she said, "but she was a huge disappointment, not as a woman, but as an individual. Her campaign and those running it just didn't get it -- mocking people who choose to believe that inspiration with hard work can change things. It's as if she didn't learn a thing from the civil and women's rights movements she claims to know so well."Deborah Reback-Cushman agreed. "I get frustrated with the 'militant feminists,' " she said. "I went to Wellesley and I had my fill of these women. They see themselves as victims of sexism every time something bad happens to a woman. ... It is sad that we have to walk on eggshells around them when we talk to them about not voting for McCain."Reback-Cushman went on: "Were there sexist remarks by the media and by others? Of course. Sexism exists! But you put your head down, shrug it off and keep going. We don't want to vote for a woman who is whining about what she has to put up with as the 'first' woman to run for president."It seems only fair to end with a reader who disagreed with my original column."You can't possibly understand how I feel right now," wrote Christine A. Richard. "You have never been discriminated against because of your gender. Wake up, Mr. Patinkin, and smell the coffee. There are many more like me out there than you think. I am angry and I am entitled to that anger."She concluded:"The question is what happens next. We will have to see."(mpatinkin(at)projo.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)