If I were an old fashioned sexist pig, I'd love Gloria Steinem.

No seriously. I really would. While no reasonable person would call her a "leader" of women, to the extent she is perceived as that, she makes women who follow her ("all" feminist women, to sexist men who believe in stereotypes) look like absolute idiots.

Analyzing the Obama-Clinton race in purely identity politics terms, feminist icon Steinem first brushes aside the McCain candidacy for the bizarre reason that his former P.O.W. status not only doesn't qualify him for office, but would be seen as a liability for a woman.

...she claimed that if Clinton's experience as First Lady were taken seriously in relation to her White House bid, people might "finally admit that, say, being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss's job and take it over."

I don't know, but the reason I'm asking is that I've always wanted to be a brain surgeon, but I'm a little too old to go through the years of medical school plus a residency program, and I like the idea of being a brain surgeon's secretary and then replacing her. (Yes, there are women surgeons. And even male secretaries. But surely someone told this feminist icon all about life in America.) Come to think of it, I'd like to replace Bill Gates too. Maybe he'll hire me as a secretary andI can.

Steinem raised McCain's Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.

"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?'" Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, "I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don't think so."

Steinem's broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.

Who knows, being imprisoned and tortured might even be more of a test than having your spouse cheat on you. I don't know, as I haven't been imprisoned and tortured. As to having been cheated on, yes, it has happened to me! Should I run for president? (Someone, form a committee quick!)

But the part that most caught my attention was Steinem's statement that "redemption" for what she calls "gynocide" justifies the election of Hillary Clinton:

Steinem told me the Illinois senator was "an intelligent, well-intentioned person." She added: "I would like very much to see him be president for eight years after Hillary has been president for eight years."

But she also opined that "a majority of Americans want redemption for racism, for our terrible destructive racist past and so see a vote for Obama as redemptive." Then, using a term for the mass killing of women, she added, "I don't think as many want redemption for the gynocide."

"They acknowledge racism--not enough, but somewhat," Steinem continued. "They would probably be less likely to acknowledge that the most likely way a pregnant woman is to die is murder from her male partner. There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female."

I've long been annoyed by the social conservatives' argument that I am somehow responsible for the personal decision of millions of American women to abort their fetuses, because it is not logical. But at least they're talking about something happening in the United States. Steinem's argument is sillier than the social conservatives, for she's seeking to blame Americans for events over which they have no control -- but of course Hillary will redeem us if only we would seek redemption ourselves by voting for her.

Such logic is more than astoundingly bad. It's irredeemably bad.

I'd be tempted to say that Steinem gives women a bad name, but that would be a sexist stereotype.

The problem is that she is steeped in vintage stereotypes herself, and this lends credence to the idea that stereotypes are true.

I've joked about the idea, but at times like this I wish I could choose my gender to "whatever, whenever" as certain activists have proposed. That way, I could register as a woman and redeem myself by voting against Hillary Clinton.

As I explained, there'd be no need for messy surgery:

If a woman can go from female to male (and can be called a man before the surgery) then why require the male lesbian (once s/he really reaches a deeper understanding of him/herself) to go through one surgery to become female and another to become male? Can't the process be an internal one?

But would Gloria Steinem ever understand?

MORE: Am I being too kind to Gloria Steinem? Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Ann Althouse characterized Steinem's remarks about McCain as "mindcrushingly stupid," as well as an "old feminist rhetorical device."

Glenn asks a good question about whether "mindcrushingly stupid," or "an old feminist rhetorical device" should be applied. I don't know, but I'm thinking maybe both.

"Mindcrushingly stupid old feminist rhetorical device" does have a nice ring to it. (But only her mindcrusher knows for sure.)