In the above video, Ken Buck -- who is competing for the Republican nomination in Colorado's Senate race against Jane Norton, the state's former lieutenant governor who ran an ad with this video of Buck at a rally -- jokes that the audience should vote for him because he doesn't wear high heels. Not only that, he wears cowboy boots, boots with bull manure on them. Should the "I'm a good ole' boy" message not sink in, he stresses that the bull crap comes from the county I assume he's standing in. He says the comments captured on video were in response to Norton's campaign, which had blamed Buck for being behind independent groups' attacks on her. In an anti-Buck video produced by an independent group, a voice said, "You'd think he'd be man enough to do it himself," according to Politico. So that's Buck's excuse: that she stoked the gender wars by challenging his manhood.
The Buck campaign told Politico the comments were made in jest, because Norton has repeatedly brought up gender as a good reason to vote for her. But that's always how it is. The "jest" isn't just that, you know, she's a woman and he's a man; it's an implicit, "wouldn't it be funny if I wore high heels because I'm a man," and a "look how grounded my shoes are, and therefore, I am, in comparison" statement. When individuals who make racist or sexist statements try to get out of it, it's often by making the "if the reverse were true, it wouldn't be sexist/racist" argument. That is, if we brought up someone's manhood in this context, it wouldn't be sexist. That doesn't excuse the screwed-up gender assumptions in a statement like "You'd think he'd be man enough to do it himself." But it ignores the power imbalance in the situation. With only 17 percent of Congress made up of women, Buck has all the power, and that's why he can't say things like that and get off with the joke excuse.
-- Monica Potts
