Democratic-voting ladies of Indiana, Indiana University law professor Kenneth Dau-Schmidt is very disappointed in you and all the reverse sexism you are doing to poor male candidates, what just can't get a break these days!

In a letter to the editors of Bloomington's Herald Times, Dau-Schmidt explained that the slate of female candidates who had bested male competitors (and even male incumbents) was a "very sad achievement" because it showed that women were out there just voting for female candidates rather than for the "best" candidates, because they are sexist jerks who hate men. Or something.

I was very disturbed by the results of the recent Democratic primary. I was glad to see women candidates do well, especially those who were accomplished and who had worked hard. But the fact that all women candidates won, even against accomplished male incumbents, was troubling.



At the state delegate level, combining the city’s districts 1 and 2, women candidates averaged 1,779 votes while the men averaged 696. All of the male candidates received less votes than any of their female rivals except the sitting mayor and Alphonso Manns. 

Clearly, hundreds of Democratic women are voting for female candidates based on their gender and have been encouraged in this regard by the Democratic Women’s Caucus. Ann Birch of the League of Women Voters said that the women’s success was the result of “nurture rather than nature.”

I agree that discrimination is an unnatural act and that the Democratic Women’s Caucus has taught many Democratic women to discriminate on the basis of gender. What a sad achievement

So sad! But sadder still is that he does not exactly have his facts right. In both instances in which a male incumbent was running for a seat in the House, he won -- including one instance in which a woman, Sue Spicer, was running against male incumbent André Carson. The only woman who ousted an incumbent male candidate was actually a Republican candidate for state Senate, Linda Rogers.

What are the odds, do you think, that if all the male candidates won their primaries, Mr. Dau-Schmidt would suggest that men had cruelly conspired to vote for men instead of women? What are the odds that he would suggest that those men were less competent than their competitors? I am going to guess that they are not very good.

In fact, he probably would not even notice. It would just be our glorious meritocracy at work!

Now, I'm not gonna lie. If a man and a woman are running for office and I like them both equally, I'm going with the woman (and if it's all men, I'm going with the candidate who isn't white). If it's a Democratic primary, odds are that is the case. It's not any more insidious than if -- out of two candidates I liked equally -- I picked the man. I suppose, in these instances, it is up to male candidates to work to appeal to me more than their female opponents, just as they must try to appeal to me more than other men running for the same office. For what it is worth, fellas, I think Medicare for All, ending at-will employment, unions, and publicly funded college are extremely sexxxy.

The fact that doing this apparently sends fear into the hearts of the kind of men who fear losing power, who fear that they will soon become the ones who are oppressed, who fear that people will no longer listen to their opinions, makes it all the more appealing. In fact, I consider it multi-tasking.

So multi-task away, ladies! Because when you vote for a female candidate you like, you not only get a qualified primary candidate, but you also get to annoy the shit out of dudes like Kenneth Dau-Schmidt. And that's worth something.

[Herald-Times]

Wonkette is woman-owned and fully funded by readers like you! Click here to tip us!