1,369 lightbulbs

The wound is deep, and it is raw. But in a time for healing, some are trying to cut even deeper.

As we all know, many women that supported Hillary Clinton are planning to vote for John McCain or sit out the election altogether.

I've always felt that though I am a man, my individual perspective had certain commonalities with aspects of feminism. First, my concept of what many would assume is a set reality - my "Blackness" - is as amorphous as the various attitudes, experiences and voices that shape popular feminist theory. I've never understood feminism to advocate solely one path to gender equality, nor one perspective on how unfair American society can truly be to women. It's overly simplistic to think that a soccer mom in suburban Denver would have the same thoughts and views on inequities as a waitress in Columbia, S.C., or a high-powered attorney in New York City.

Yet sexism can create a sisterhood, diverse as it may be. What's referred to as the "African-American experience" has similar differences, but also similar, invisible threads that bind all Blacks together. But the saddest commonality between the struggles of Blacks and those of women has been the culture of victimization that too many have embraced.

At moments of weakness, it's an understandable crutch: when felled by the weight of injustice, a one slur too many...consider yourself a victim. I mean, it's true after all, isn't it? I can't tell you how many times I've personally fallen into this trap. Self-victimization, frankly, seemed a viable alternative to the Horation Alger fantasies of guys like Shelby Steele and Ward Connerly.

But today, we hear persistent allegations that rampant sexism was the principal cause of Hillary Clinton's loss in the Democratic primary.

To be honest, I didn't see it. I saw the many errors of the candidate and her campaign, to say nothing of the appeal of her opponent, as being the principal reason. My being an active supporter of Obama's didn't blind me to real slights and even how certain words and actions could be interpreted as sexist (e.g. "You're likeable enough") even when they clearly weren't intended as such. True, there are those that say the same about Bill's "Jesse Jackson" comment in South Carolina. But Hillary showed her greatest strength when she was able to deflect such perceived slights with aplomb, and her greatest weakness when she openly aimed to make gender an issue with her language in the stump. Meanwhile, race remained a taboo topic for Obama to even discuss in interviews.

Damage was done during the campaign by the likes of Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon who first offered sexism as an explanation for Clinton's third-place finish in Iowa. (Thankfully, Steinem has followed her candidate in endorsing Obama.) The weird thing is, Steinem, et. al. are crying "Sexism!", when Hillary was being given any number of balls by her supporters. I mean, when it came to her and Pretty Boy Barack, Hillary was supposed to be mas macho. As evidenced by her Iraq vote and hawkish stances, Hillary had a misguided desire to show the boys that she too could be hardcore. How many times did we hear Hillary tell us how "tough" she was, or that she was a "fighter"? How many times did pundits, mostly male, parrot that sentiment, rarely offering us any evidence of said toughness? (Persistence in the face of stark reality isn't always courageous.) This notion was adopted by her supporters, and many of them became fighters, too. But now that the "fight" is over, they still want to battle. The problem is they've picked the wrong opponent.

John McCain is and always has been anti-abortion, and is ready to appoint Supreme Court judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as there's an opening. No "maverick" here - there is a clear record of McCain being a hardliner when it comes to women's rights, particularly reproductive rights. Add in the fact that McCain ran around on his first wife after she'd suffered debilitating injuries in a car crash, and uttered one of the most sexist jokes I've ever heard by a sitting statesman - about Clinton's daughter!

Knowing these things, it's curious why women who supported Hillary would vote for McCain at all. Why they would decide to do so when a decidedly better alternative is available tells me that it must be anger talking.

I know all about it. Various times during the course of this campaign, I've said these exact words: "I'll never vote for Hillary again. For anything. Ever." I was undoubtedly ticked about something she'd said, or something her husband said, or maybe just any time I saw or heard Geraldine Ferraro. But for all my bluster, I always hoped that I would not allow my vote to be subsumed by my personal weaknesses. For one, I was never voting for McCain. I didn't care if Bill Clinton showed up for a presser in blackface. Wasn't happening.

Let's leave aside the likelihood that a number of these (mostly White) ladies are simply unwilling to vote for an African-American candidate. Why would you allow your anger over perceived slights to lead you to vote for the very person Hillary was to run against? I just don't understand the logic of it. All throughout the campaign, we've heard how similar these two candidates are. Yet, when one candidate loses, everyone's ready to jump ship? Huh?

I can appreciate the historic nature of Clinton's candidacy, to be certain. But I didn't see a flock of Black folks headed to vote for Reagan or George H.W. when Jesse lost.

There's a very large part of me that really wants to tell women like Harriet Christian to get over it. Sometimes you lose. That's what progress is - if you want to stand on a level playing field and be judged for your merits, you leave the door open for that to happen.

One can't celebrate the historic nature of her campaign while at the same time ignoring her faults, and that's why it's complete crap to allege that sexism sank her ship. She ran an awful campaign, complete with gaffes, poor "loyalty" hires, bad money management and underestimation of her opponent. Also, this is not Margaret Thatcher we're talking about here. Thatcher was a woman who truly built herself out of nothing. Hillary Clinton is a child of privilege, and a woman who benefited greatly from her association with her husband and his legacy. I voted for her in New York's 2000 Senate race, not once worried about the fact that she had lived in the state she wanted to represent for approximately a half-hour. She cannot sing "I'm Everywoman" credibly. But yet, many women saw their hopes of a female President in her. I don't begrudge them that, but let's be real.

A disgruntled Hillary supporter voting for John McCain is the equivalent of South Central burning itself in the Rodney King riots. We didn't get what we wanted, so we burned our own neighborhood to the ground? Hillary folks didn't get what they wanted, so now they'll chance abortion being criminalized, as well as other setbacks of other feminist gains that have been fought for over generations? Flexing political muscle for the sake of flexing it impresses no one. Flexing it while you're kicking your own ass gets you laughed at.

The wound is deep and it is very raw. But we can't let it fester. It could prove fatal.