By Emily Geiger

I found a fascinating article yesterday about Hillary in her new role as Secretary of State. She is facing criticism from some who find her bluntness alarming.

On a recent trip to Asia, Hillary acknowledged publically that, while she would mention the human rights issue with Chinese officials, she was not too optimistic on that front because “we pretty much know what they're going to say."

This development is interesting to me on many levels. First, you have the issue of whether or not her “bluntness” is magnified by the fact that she is a woman. Let’s face it - bluntness is still not a quality that is appreciated generally in women. Often times, when a woman says what she’s really thinking (i.e. being honest despite the potential to hurt someone’s “feelings”... or ego), she is labeled as... well, it rhymes with witchy.

Then you have the issue of whether or not such bluntness is really effectual in these circumstances. What’s the point of it? Sure, it’s good to be honest, but are you giving up leverage on that issue by essentially admitting defeat?

John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador known for his own bluntness, had an interesting take on the situation:

"The issue with whatever she says, candid or not, is whether it has an objective in mind, or whether she is just running at the mouth. This is the difference between an executive branch official and a senator, academic, think-tanker, reporter, whatever. Executive branch officials, by definition, are not just bloviating, but executing policies."

This leads me to my next question. How does the apparent dismissal of this issue by Hillary mesh with President Obama’s feelings on the issue? Remember him? He’s kinda Hillary’s boss. My guess is that he would not want to be perceived as giving up ground when it comes to human rights.

So where is the mainstream media who covered Palin? Here’s a perfect opportunity for them to write about another woman in politics “going rogue.” And yet, that’s an angle of this story that I’ve not seen really explored, at least not at the level it should be. Is this really the Obama administration’s position?

Another analyst interviewed asked the question:

“Is Hillary Clinton going to not mention women's rights to the Saudis because they already know what we think?"

That’s an interesting point – bringing the women’s rights issue into the fold (not something that would have happened if our secretary of state were a man right now). But actually, I think women’s rights are already implicated in this story; however, once again, that’s an angle no one is talking about.

When we talk about “human rights” and China, we all think about Tibet. But doesn’t the “human rights issue” also include the one-child policy that has led to the slaughter of millions of baby girls in a culture in which sons are valued so much more than daughters?

I think it does.

And I also think this means that Hillary is not going to address this issue either, which leads me to ask, why? Perhaps, once again, she doesn’t see the Chinese government budging on this issue and doesn’t think it’s worth her time. Perhaps, despite being “pro-choice,” she doesn’t care about women who would like to choose to have babies rather than kill them. Or, perhaps, (and I think this is the most likely scenario) Hillary is pretty much asexual when it comes to her job, and so pragmatism is her number one priority.

I don’t think we’ll ever know the answer to most of these questions. After all, it’s almost impossible to read a woman’s mind... or so I’ve been told.