2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrimary Voting and Ascribed Status and "excuse me, I'm talking"
If some women didn't like "excuse me, I'm talking," then they are being sexist.
If Person A interrupts when Person B is speaking, then Person B has every right to say, "excuse me, I'm talking."
If person A supporters don't like that reply, they are implying that Hillary should have received some special, preferential treatment, based on sex categorization.
But that is totally sexist. Get it? Asking for something different or special, based on one's sex, is sexist. Just like voting for someone based on their sex categorization is also sexist.
That's how ascribed status works. Being either for or against someone, purely on the basis of an ascribed characteristic, is bad. Sex, race, ethnicity are ascribed statuses.
And, if Hillary does need some kind of delicate, kid glove deference, then it's just reason #2459 why she is a poor candidate for the nomination.
more here on ascribed, versus achieved, status:
Ascribed status is the social status a person is assigned at birth or assumed involuntarily later in life. It is a position that is neither earned nor chosen but assigned.
Ascribed status - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascribed_statusWikipedia
brewens
(13,392 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)This "woman"
FourScore
(9,704 posts)"Excuse me. I'm talking."
Just like anyone would do to anyone, regardless of gender, who interrupts.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And to interrupt and then claim SHE is offended, is so arrogant it is irrational. Not fit for office.
brewens
(13,392 posts)being told your time is up, interrupt incessantly. If you're good at it, you monopolize the time and keep your opponent from getting their message out.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)"Excuse me, I'm talking" when one is rudely interrupted is not sexist.
brewens
(13,392 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)He was rude to me because I am a woman? The whole argument is ridiculous.