Ugh. When is being called a woman not going to be considered an insult? What’s worse is when it comes from a female. Nationally syndicated columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker recently did just that. In a column she decided to call President Obama our first female president. You know, like Toni Morrison said President Clinton was our first black one. Parker believes she’s doing the same thing, right? No, far from it. Instead Parker’s statements lead us to some pretty sexist drivel.

First off, Morrison was trying to be inclusive with her statements, even if they were a little silly. Parker’s assertion that Obama is a woman is intended as an insult.

Apparently being passive and talking a lot are traits that are terribly female. She writes, “Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.”

Yeah, thanks for that huge over-generalization about women, Parker. I’m sure there are more “rogue exceptions” than you’re willing to acknowledge. Second, what the hell is wrong with having a general agreement amongst people before making a big decision? Big problems need as many different points of input as possible for a solid solution to arise.

I’ll be the first to say that I’m not too thrilled with Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill, either, but saying that he’s inept because he’s a woman is just as ridiculous as it is insulting to women. Obama is inept because he’s a politician; gender has nothing to do with it.

But we’ve got to ask the big question here: does Kathleen Parker really believe these gross overgeneralizations about women apply to herself or is she the rogue exception too? I bet it’s the latter. Perhaps to her credit she did follow up on this column, but she completely missed the point of the criticism. Here’s what she said was the gist of the complaints, “One, a black man cannot show anger in public lest he be considered an Angry Black Man.

“Two, to suggest that a black man has any feminine characteristics, even when framed as an ‘evolutionary achievement,’ is to emasculate and reduce him to a figure from Jim Crow days.”

Um… no, that’s not it at all. The problem is that Parker equates femininity to being weak, passive and indecisive. Come on, how many times have we heard being called a girl or a woman as an insult? It’s childish and foolish. Being a woman is nothing more or less than being a man. Got it?

I’m tired of this whole song and dance about being lesser because I’m a woman. It’s annoying when it comes from a man, but it is worse when it comes from a woman. Surely she went through a similar experience of feeling lesser because she was female throughout her life. She should know better.

Female readers, how many times have we been told we can’t do something because we’re girls, like excel in math and science, be a leader or even have a career? Surely someone who has gone through such a thing mustn’t have forgotten these experiences.

Male readers, how many times have you been called a girl or been told you were lesser because you possessed supposedly feminine traits? Or worse you’re equated with being passive and wimpy because you’re a “pussy?” Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic. Like I’ve said a thousand times and will probably say a thousand more, there’s nothing inherently wrong with being male or female or anything in between.

Unfortunately, I may be in the minority on this one. Too many have forgotten about feeling lesser and decide to play along with the status quo to make themselves look better than they actually are.

It’s time for this nonsense to change. Kathleen Parker, please drop the schoolyard insults and dig a little deeper. Come on, if you have an issue with how Obama handles something, say so. A Pulitzer Prize winner should set a better example than stooping to such sexist, ridiculous statements.

– Rhiannon Root is a junior News-editorial and History major at U. Nebraska.