In regards to the biggest strawman on this board

[knight_of_the_star]

Yes, I am talking about the accusations of opposition to HRC being sexist in nature.

I personally think that is a demonstration that those using that argument have NOTHING else to stand on and have no evidence to refute what is being said, so instead they resort to the time-honored tactic of shooting the messenger and not dealing with the contents of the message. I think it is irresponsible and disingenuous not to mention downright insulting to every person on this board to willingly sink to the level of such baseless accusations.

Granted, there probably are people who oppose Hillary because she is a woman, but I seriously doubt those people are on this board, if you want to find such people go to http://www.freerepublic.com, and to use that in lieu of actually discussing the issues is a total cop-out. Then again, seeing how she copped out on two major questions in the debate last night, if one expects the followers to use the example of their leader, its probably par for the course if you want to play that game.

If you want to sink to that level of, "You don't like Hillary because she's a woman and sexist and blah blah blah insert inflammatory remark here etc etc" that is your choice, but for point of comparison, the issue has been raised about opposition to Obama being linked to racism and that being a serious concern that has been raised about if America is really over that yet. I would like to say as point of praise, I have YET to see any of Obama's supporters accuse those who question their candidate or engage in baseless attacks and slanders of being closet racists. They have taken the high road on something that could easily be dragged down into the gutter very easily by using a very big cop-out strawman yet they avoid it even when things get really ugly.

Hillary's people on here I know there are a few in particular that when things are getting hot they invoke the sexist strawman at the drop of a hat. That some of her supporters will sink to this level is I think inexcusable and shows an unwillingness, to me, to really address the issues at hand and instead argue something that really isn't part of the discussion. It is quite frankly dishonest and not only below the belt but trivializes the issue of sexism in America to use it so readily and cheaply.

[Bonobo]

1. Maybe the reverse is true. Maybe some only vote for her BECAUSE she is a woman?

[knight_of_the_star]

2. That may be true

But if someone wants to do so its their call. What I don't see is people waving that around like a weapon anywhere near as much as the accusations of sexism.

[Mojambo]

7. I know this to be the case.

Not necessarily of her supporters here on DU.

But I know more than one person who plans to vote for her solely because she's a woman and "it's time"

I agree it's time, I just don't think she's the right woman.

[knight_of_the_star]

11. I'm with you there

I think it is fitting and time for a woman to be president, but not specifically her.

[rinsd]

3. Sometimes the shoe fits....some attacks are certainly sexist in nature.

Such as the one that she would be nothing without her husband.

But here's yet another attack thread generalizing Hillary supporters as group.

Let's add this one to the pile of how we're all paid, closet republicans, blind, idiots, gullible, etc and etc.

:puke:

[knight_of_the_star]

5. Just pointing out a serious issue

Namely how HRC's supporters are the ONLY ones who are using that trick against those who disagree with her.

And by the way, if I went into an interview and told them to look at my SO's resume as well as mine for consideration they would probably file hers separately at the least and most likely I would not get the job for trying to pull a stunt like that. That isn't sexist, that's the truth, trying to use someone else's qualifications doesn't fly in the real world, it shouldn't fly in running for the highest office in this country.

And a LOT of you guys seem to employ a lot of the same tactics, that one in particular. If you can't handle the mess in this forum for the primary season you can feel free to sit it out, but I was around for the last one and the last one was all-out ten way trench warfare with all the bells and whistles along with nuclear warheads now and then, this time isn't quite as ugly as last time, that time around was downright nasty compared to now.

[rinsd]

17. I agree its uncalled for when uncalled for.

But that should be address to that poster at that time and place.

Maybe I missed something but Hillary while evoking the positive imagery of the Clinton era she sticks to things she actually dealt with like fighting the GOP and healthcare. She hasn't claimed the mantle of many of Bill's biggest achievements including the MidEast peace process, his work in Ireland, his economic packages, etc.

Of course Hillary supporters will be the one complaining of sexism as she is the only woman candidate in the field.

[BootinUp]

20. Good answer

I cannot improve on it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. There are some here...

Who will use any, and I mean ANY, rhetorical device in their attempts to "whip us into line", such as: We must accept that the election of <insert candidate's name here> is Manifest Destiny and that those who question or oppose <insert candidate's name here> are violating the natural order of things and are bad, bad persons and terrible Democrats to boot.

What I want to know is if some person or committee came upon that stance as an online strategy. If they have, that person or persons needs 9 or 10 years in a McDonald's remedial work gulag, for verily, they are yutzes.

[DURHAM D]

6. Could you post some recent examples??

Please post some recent examples of DU posters calling out sexism inappropriately of fellow DUers.

Please exclude the responses to any of the posters that have flat out stated they won't ever vote for her because she is a woman.

[Cameron27]

8. You might want to include replies to

those who thought debating her style of clothing was worth a post.

[emilyg]

24. or her laugh.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. There was that thread I think last week

Where the poster flat-out said that opposition to HRC is because of sexism. I think that counts as both a recent and salient example.

On Edit:

Here it is, was posted Sunday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3542963

The "glass ceiling" and H. Clinton

The thread and responses prove my point sufficiently, particularly starting with response number 9.

[DURHAM D]

15. Let me see if I understand -

You took all of this time and energy because of one thread?

And just for the record - Very often men (and some women) are not able to discern sexism in themselves and others - just as Billo truly does not believe he is racist.

[knight_of_the_star]

16. That would be the most recent example

I've seen it more than just then, and quite frankly it rankles me either way. That and accusing someone of sexism without evidence to back it up is just plain dishonest and wrong in my book, and it wouldn't matter if its one thread or many, as it has been in replies to the various other threads, wrong is wrong and pushing it too far is still pushing it too far.

[DURHAM D]

18. Me thinks you doth protest too much. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

10. Most of the people bashing Hillary are you know who's supporters

PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. Yet another cop-out

So really, let's do more than just a drive-by ad hominem attack shall we.

[Clintonista2]

19. Lord Voldemort?

[The River]

12. Strawman #2 is Your Defacto Support for Repukes

If you won't vote for Hillary you're going to make the RNC very happy!
Or. You're going to vote for Rudy?

Just because I won't vote for Queen Hillary
doesn't mean I will vote for a republican or donate to the RNC.
Never have, never will.

[Cameron27]

14. Queen Hillary?

*St. John the later day populist

*The Holy Apostle Obama

*His Most Majestic Kucinich

Do we really need to go there?

[BootinUp]

21. don't forget "Lord Gravel"...

[Snarkturian Clone]

22. Thanks for this post NT

[applegrove]

23. I've rarely seen that strawman argument. I think you are wrong.