Does Katrina vanden Heuvel thinks she has testicles?

A disturbing story in The Washington Post yesterday suggested that Congress is losing its cojones when it comes to closing some of the most obscene tax loopholes benefiting the richest of the rich--hedge funders and private equity managers.

Can Katrina vanden Heuvel embarrass herself further? (Yes, she can.) As if telling her smutty oral sex 'joke' wasn't bad enough, she wrote the above in "A Democratic Litmus Test" (Editor's Cut, The Nation). We actually missed this from a September 5th post until two with the magazine pointed it out. (We truly are avoiding the piece of crap that is The Nation.) Had we seen it, we would have voted it "Worst statement of the week" last week.

Somewhere around the third week, we (Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.) were turning out an edition back in the day when Jim used "stones," "cojones," "balls" or some variation of them. Ava and C.I. stopped him pointing out that linking strength to testicles is sexist.

The usage was popular then (and still is) and Jim had never thought of it in that light. Ava and C.I. have consistently asked, when the term came up originally and since, "Is this equating strength with gender? If we're discussing 'strength' why are 'balls,' 'stones' and 'cojones' used an not 'spine'?"

If you're still note getting it, from The Common Ills last May:

I also wouldn't have highlighted because I don't see the need to call Congress female dogs (not in that language) and other uses of female imagery to imply they were weak. Congress is weak. I don't know why anyone has to be sexist to make that point. Considering how few women serve in Congress, exactly what was the need to drag gender into it and to imply that they were all women and that's why they were weak?
[. . .]
You also won't find "cojones," "stones," or any of that other macho b.s. at this site. It's real easy to say, "Well a woman could have that!" Yeah, and she'd be considered a freak. There's enough macho b.s. in the world (largely coming out of the White House), I won't add to it by pushing some myth that strength is determined by what hangs out below the belt.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is aware she doesn't have testicles, right?

Maybe she's not. Maybe that's why she's so undisturbed by the publication rate, under her, for women at The Nation? [See week's highlights and writing this feature."Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis."]

Or maybe Katrina vanden Heuvel grasps that she does not have testicles but is confessing, by equating the male genitalia with strength, that she doesn't see herself as strong.

"I wish I'd seen this when it went up," Rebecca says. "I would have been on the phone to my mother-in-law explaining that Katrina had just confessed to being the weak princess waiting to be rescued that so many see her as."

Regardless of whether you buy either possibility it is true that Katrina vanden Heuvel grasps the power of language. That's one reason she jumped on the hula-hoop of framing. So she should know that associating strength with testicles is sexist and perpetuates the myths that women are not naturally strong people and that the ones who are must be freak of natures.

Remember folks, it came from The Nation, not The Weekly Standard. Katrina vanden Heuvel -- Always there to make life a little harder for women.