viz.

I don't think there are "different sarcasms"--as I point out in my comment on your other post (this is getting confusing!) I think the difference lies in what aim the sarcasm seems to serve. Michelle Obama's is safe because it is seen as serving her husband's aims; Clinton's is not because it is seen as serving her own aims, aims that are unsuitable for a woman to pursue. Certainly, you can argue that mine is a "simple gendering" of the problem, but, I stand by it.

And I agree with your second point, about the line between victim and perpetrator. That's why I pointed out that I don't think gender bias is sufficient as an explanation for why Hillary is losing: there are plenty of other reasons too, including a lack of political acumen on her part. And certainly, I never suggested that she is not also falling prey to forces that are well within her control. In other words, I think that even if gender bias played no part whatsoever in the process, she still wouldn't necessarily be winning.

It does seem to me, however, that there is a real desire (somewhat on your part, Jillian, and even more greatly on the part of many others) to downplay the significance of gender bias in this campaign, as if it's an irrelevant concern. In my humble opinion, this response is both wrong and egregious--egregious insofar as "postfeminism" is maybe the worst thing to happen to feminism since Betty Friedan tried to kick all the lesbians out of NOW.