There's been a lot of talk about manly balls in Washington.
In January, Kevin Drum instructed President Obama and the Democrats to "grow a pair." He's not alone; "growing a pair" and "manning up" have become common refrains throughout the year, from the left, the right, and the foaming-at-the-mouth fringe, over and over and over and over again. Sarah Palin, apparently attempting to woo the Latino vote with her impressive bilingual skills, said the president doesn't have "cojones."
The question of whether President Obama is a man with balls is, of course, ridiculous. He has fathered two children; that ought to be sufficiently irrefutable proof to put that question to rest for ever. It hasn't though.
In July, the columnist Kathleen Parker, who claims to be "a big fan of Barack Obama," called him "our first female president," and said "he may be suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises." The incessantly insipid Maureen Dowd said the president has "female management traits," unlike Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, who "have traditional male traits." Apparently, both columnists believe Obama's a girlie president because he doesn't swagger around in a codpiece, calling himself the Commander Guy. His lack of swagger doesn't make him a woman, though; it makes him a grown up.
Questioning the president's gender and genitalia isn't really about anatomy, of course. It's a sloppy substitution for saying the president is weak. Or, as the New York Times asked in January, "Is Obama a Wimp or a Warrior?" The point, obviously, is this: warriors are manly men with manly balls; wimps are, well, women. With female traits. Who can't be strong and courageous leaders because they suffer from, as Obama's "big fan" Parker so delicately put it, a testosterone deficit.
Uglier still, the suggestion that this president isn't a real man is no different from calling a grown black man "boy" or "son." While this may not be the intent of those who question the president's manhood, it ultimately has the same ugly result of perpetuating the centuries-long racist practice of emasculating, humiliating, and dehumanizing black men. It has no place in our public discourse, regardless of how some may feel about the president's leadership.
The manly ball talk is not, however, limited to Obama and the Democrats. Recently, Joe Scarborough implored Republicans to "man up" and start attacking Sarah Palin for the vapid ignoramus she is. Note to Joe: you don't have to be a man to call out Sarah Palin for the idiot she is. Hell, my ovaries and I have been doing it for two years.
It's especially odd to hear Republicans whine about testicular fortitude, even as some of them are quite prone to crying. Crying, after all, is one of those "female traits," isn't it? When Hillary Clinton welled up before the New Hampshire primary in 2008, she was both mocked and praised for finally showing her feminine side -- as if her gender had, until then, been in question.
Just the other day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wept on the Senate floor about the departure of his colleague, Judd Gregg. Incoming House Speaker John Boehner sheds tears at the drop of a hat -- for tax cuts, for military spending, for Henry Hyde, for the school children he now refuses to visit because it's just too painful for him to see the consequences of the harmful policies he supports. Some even suggest he suffers from "emotional incontinence," which evokes the sort of mental imagery that might lead others to weep.
Even Sarah Palin recently commented that there was a double standard in how Boehner is praised for his tears, while she, certainly, would not be. This observation came after giving Boehner a "pass" for wearing "his feelings on his sleeve on things that are so important to him." And it's not hard to imagine that if she thought for one moment that crying would help her promote Sarah PalinTM in any way, we would no doubt be subjected to a Palin crying jag that would put even Boehner's tears to shame.
The point, though, is that being strong, courageous, powerful, forceful -- whatever adjective you want to insert -- has nothing to do with gender. The president hasn't been railroaded by Republicans because of insufficient masculinity. The possession or size of his balls are not the issue. History is rife with tough, ball-less leaders, and it is equally rife with XY wimps and weaklings.
The truth is that no gender in Washington has a monopoly on weakness. You want to know what's weak? Taking the American people hostage in a closed-door meeting with the president because you know you can't make a persuasive argument to the American people that the very richest Americans and their kids deserve tax cuts while the unemployed are left to fend for themselves. That's weak.
You want to know what's weak? Sen. Mary Landrieu calling an extension of the Bush tax cuts "morally bankrupt" to score points with her anti-Obama constituency, even though she voted for the "morally bankrupt" tax cuts in 2001. That's weak -- and morally bankrupt.
You want to know what's weak? Saying, "I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military," while threatening to block funding bills in order to keep the gays out and calling it a "sad day" when the majority of the Senate -- and the country and the military -- disagrees with you. Oh yeah, and voting against funding bills for veterans. That's weak, wimpy, and morally bankrupt. I'm looking at you, Sen. John McCain.
You want to know what's weak? Republicans talking, non-stop, for nine years about 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 to justify wire tapping, racial profiling, torture, and two wars -- and then voting against the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act that would provide health care to the sick and dying first responders of 9-fucking-11.
For that, there are no words.
We can, and should, criticize our leaders when we think they are wrong. We can, and should, encourage our leaders to fight for principled issues that matter to us. What we can't, and shouldn't, do is use sloppy and inaccurate euphemisms that perpetuate racist and sexist stereotypes about strength and weakness. Challenging the president on his policies and political tactics is acceptable, important, and patriotic.
Challenging his manhood? Now that's weak.