Tulsi is invisible—evidently not a woman, hence unmentioned by the media hacks complaining that there are “no women” in the Democratic race.
It was the same with Jill Stein four years ago, when we kept hearing that the animus against Hillary was based wholly on misogyny, as if Jill Stein weren’t a women, either. (That “feminist” line on Hillary appears to be the whole point of Hillary, the four-part documentary on Hulu, lauded in today’s NYTimes:
From Vladimir Golstein:
The Poverty of Political Correctness, or Tulsi Gabbard, the Invisible Woman
So NPR has its regular Friday show on which they discuss Warren and other female candidates. Tulsi is not mentioned.
We get the usual litany of complaints—that women are ignored, that Warren was dismissed because she is a woman, and the predictable lament that there are only two old white men left standing. Tulsi is not mentioned, even though she is still in the running.
Then they go to two super-journalists who cover women’s issues. These hacks go on complaining about what happened to Hillary, and Warren, and Harris, acknowledging that there were plenty of women running, each bringing her own set of issues to the table: Warren talking about her grandchildren, Gillibrand about her children, and so on; but Tulsi is not mentioned.
Why? Why are they ignoring her? Why are some women are more equal than others?
Military vet. Mixed racial background. Intelligent. Attractive. Congresswoman! What the hell do they want? Why do some people, despite their stellar credentials, become persona non grata (Tulsi, or Chelsea Manning), while others, like the reptilian Hillary, are hailed as victims of male harassment, male abuse, the male gaze, male stereotyping, prejudice, anger or whatever.
What is it? You’re embraced as a victimized minority only when you air particular views? Otherwise, you become invisible, you vanish without a trace, like those enemies of Stalin’s erased from the historical record, and even whited out of photographs.