The danger to women and feminism in nominating Hillary

[Firespirit]

Maybe this has been said before; I don't know. If it has been, then no hard feelings about the treatment the post will get.

I don't support Hillary, and my reasons for it have been stated many times by other people, so they don't really bear repeating... except for one. I would love to see a woman become President in my lifetime. I would not want it to be her, even if the other objections I have were not issues.

Hillary is where she is because of her marriage. She had no experience of her own when she was elected to the Senate, and got there by virtue of being First Lady. I don't doubt that she was very involved in that position, far more so than her successor, but the fact remains that it was not a position she took by virtue of her own achievements. She was there because Bill was President.

Hillary's political career was jump-started by her attaching herself to a particular man.

Again -- before I'm jumped on for saying that, I do NOT mean to suggest that this was the only way she could make anything of herself. She's a smart woman and could have forged her own way entirely, but that was not the option she chose.

What sort of precedent is that for women? Of all the women senators, governors, and representatives, who ran their campaigns on their own talent and experience, we're possibly going to nominate the one who got where she is because of the man she is married to.

I don't like that precedent.

[LostinVA]

1. I suggest you research her career and accomplishments

[Maddy McCall]

2. GAAAAAAAAH!

I need a xanax. Now.

[redqueen]

3. Share?

:banghead:

[Maddy McCall]

5. Here...

wish it were real.

[redqueen]

26. Thanks...

It's gonna be a long day.

:hug:

[mutant80]

122. NOW disagrees with you. Most Women Activists LOVE HILLARY

[redqueen]

131. What?

Are you sure you meant to address that comment to me?

I think you might have meant to respond to the OP...

:shrug:

[nonconformist]

167. I want those.

I NEED THOSE.

[LostinVA]

4. I think we all do

[Maddy McCall]

8. Here.

I think I'm going fishing.

[LostinVA]

11. Thank you

*grabs water and glugs*

[Maddy McCall]

15. Fuck water.

Where's the gin?

:shrug:

[KitchenWitch]

35. Pass me a couple....

[Maddy McCall]

38. Glad to!

[KitchenWitch]

64. Thanks

I needed that.

Go fishing...much more fun than troll bating here.

:D

[mtnester]

84. I am thinking we need something more like this:

For those REALLY long days....plus you get to chuckle at things for no reason.

[BlackVelvet04]

74. I prefer Canadian Club and 7 up.......

but I really could use it NOW, too.

[Maddy McCall]

141. I'm a can-do gal!

While my hubby does the important things, I'll fix everyone drinks and drugs. :rofl:

:hi:



I'd suggest just drinking it straight, today. :D

[BlackVelvet04]

154. Thanks......

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[KitchenWitch]

193. How dare you hide behind your husband like that!

:evilgrin:

[blm]

7. WalMart and Rose Law Firm where Jackson Stephens ran amok and got his ass covered

on his BCCI dealings?

Ok.

Have YOU ever REALLY examined Hillary and Bill's careers and who was actually bankrolling those careers?

Ever read the BCCI report and wonder WHO Jackson Stephens is and WHY would he bankroll the political careers of both GHWBush AND Bill Clinton?


Whitewater was pure theater for the bases as BushInc's legal cleaners were going over Rose Law Firm to scrub all of Jackson Stephens and Poppy Bush's dealings on BCCI and other operations.

[LostinVA]

13. Yes, I REALLY have -- unlike most of you

[blm]

18. I doubt it. But since you claim you did - who is Jackson Stephens and who is he

to BCCI, to GHWBush, to the Clintons and Rose Law Firm?

Let's hear YOUR pov.

[mod mom]

63. BUSH/CLINTON BCCI WALMART TYSON WTI Financier-Jackson Stephens:

LET'S SEE IF THIS DUer IS INTERESTED IN RESEARCHING CONNECTIONS OR IN WEARING BLINDERS:

Here is a portion of activist/mother, Terri Swearingen's acceptance speech for the Goldman Environmental Prize, given April 14, 1997:



I am not a scientist or a Ph.D. I am a nurse and a housewife, but my most important credential is that I am a mother. In 1982, I was pregnant with our one and only child. That's when I first learned of plans to build one of the world's largest toxic waste incinerators in my community. When they began site preparation to begin building the incinerator in 1990, my life changed forever. I'd like to share with you some of the lessons I have learned from my experiences over the past seven years.

One of the main lessons I have learned from the WTI experience is that we are losing our democracy. How have I come to this sad realization? Democracy is defined by Merriam Webster as "government by the people, especially rule of the majority," and "the common people constituting the source of political authority." The definition of democracy no longer fits with the reality of what is happening in East Liverpool, Ohio. For one thing, it is on the record that the majority of people in the Ohio Valley do not want the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in their area, and they have been opposed to the project from its inception. Some of our elected officials have tried to help us, but the forces arrayed against us have been stronger than we or they had imagined. Public concerns and protests have been smothered with meaningless public hearings, voodoo risk assessment and slick legal maneuvering.

Government agencies that were set up to protect public health and the environment only do their job if it does not conflict with corporate interests. Our current reality is that we live in a "wealthocracy" big money simply gets what it wants. In this wealthocracy, we see three dynamics at play: corporations versus the planet, the government versus the people, and corporate consultants or "experts" versus common sense. In the case of WTI, we have seen all three.

The second lesson I have learned ties directly to the first, and that is that corporations can control the highest office in the land. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore came to the Ohio Valley, they called the siting of the WTI hazardous waste incinerator next door to a 400 student elementary school, in the middle of an impoverished Appalachian neighborhood, immediately on the bank of the Ohio River in a flood plain an "UNBELIEVABLE IDEA." They said we ought to have control over where these things are located. They even went so far as to say they would stop it. But then they didn't! What has been revealed in all this is that there are forces running this country that are far more powerful than the President and the Vice President. This country trumpets to the world how democratic it is, but it's funny that I come from a community that our President dare not visit because he cannot witness first hand the injustice which he has allowed in the interest of a multinational corporation, Von Roll of Switzerland. And the Union Bank of Switzerland. And Jackson Stephens, a private investment banker from Arkansas. These forces are far more relevant to our little town than the President of the United States! And he is the one who made it that way. He has chosen that path. We didn't choose it for him. We begged him to come to East Liverpool, but he refused. We begged the head of EPA to come, but she refused. She hides behind the clever maneuvering of lawyers and consultants who obscure the dangers of the reckless siting of this facility with theoretical risk assessments.

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/et0897s17.html




There has always been something incongruous about Stephens Inc. Despite the Little rock firm's attempts to portray itself as a small- city operation that closes for the duck season and got fabulously lucky on a couple of down-home deals like Wal-Mart, it was, at the incinerator's inception, the ninth-largest investment bank in the country. Since it is not headquartered in New York, its dealings are local news, little noticed by the national press, even when they have national implications. And, as a source close to the company once remarked, "The farther you get from Arkansas, the better it looks."

Stephens Inc. was founded by Witt Stephens, a state legislator's son who parlayed a Depression-era belt-buckle, Bible, and municipal-bond business into an immense personal fortune. After his retirement in 1973, the company was run by his shy younger brother, Jackson (a classmate of Jimmy Carter's at the Naval Academy). Witt Stephens and Stephens Inc. did much to create the economic paradox that is modern Arkansas: a desperately poor state with a scant 2.3 million inhabitants that is nonetheless home to a number of wealthy companies. Without the financial assistance of the Stephens brothers, Sam Walton might have ended his days as the most innovative merchant in Bentonville. Stephens money was also important to the fortunes of enterprises as various as Tyson Foods and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, the television producer and reigning First Friend. Stephens Inc. is an important client of the Rose law firm, whose chairman, C. Joseph Giroir, made Hillary Rodham Clinton a partner. And back in 1977, Stephens assisted BCCI's infiltration of the American banking system by brokering the latter's purchase of National Bank of Georgia stock held by Bert Lance, former President Jimmy Carter's friend and disgraced budget director.

Jackson Stephens (who turned over the reins to his son, Warren, in the late eighties) and his firm were both substantial contributors to the campaigns of Presidents Reagan and Bush (to the tune of at least $100,000 in 1980 and 1989), but they have been closer still to Bill Clinton (whom Witt Stephens had been known to call "that boy").

On two occasions, once when Clinton was running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990 and again in March 1992, when his battered presidential campaign was broke, the Stephens family saved Clinton's bacon with an infusion of money. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that their Worthen Bank's emergency $3.5 million line of credit saved the presidential campaign from extinction. --L.J.D.

-snip

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1993/11/davis.html





Who is the octopussy that might be lurking in the Ohio River Valley? Perhaps we should start by asking shy Arkansas billionaire Jackson T. Stephens. After all, Stephens introduced BCCI from Pakistan to the United States and the WTI waste incinerator to East Liverpool, Ohio. Stephens would be a good sketch artist because he's seen some monstrous scandals in his day. Stephens' family firm is the largest privately owned investment bank outside Wall Street. In September 1977, President Jimmy Carter's Budget Director Burt Lance was forced to resign amid allegations about his bank dealings with Stephens (Stephens and Carter were classmates at the Naval Academy). In 1978, Stephens, Lance and BCCI were charged with violating U.S. security laws. The charges were dropped after the defendants promised not to violate security laws in the future, even though they admitted no guilt.

The New York Post reported in February 1992 that it was Stephens who enabled BCCI to gain a foothold in the U.S. and helped the fraud-plagued bank secretly acquire U.S. banks. In Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin's book, False Profits, perhaps the best account of the BCCI scandal, the authors outlined how opium revenue from Afghanistan Mujahedin fighting the Soviets ended up in the accounts of BCCI, founded by Agha Hasan Abedi. The Post reported that Stephens allegedly introduced Abedi to Lance shortly after Lance resigned.

In 1991, Lance testified that he urged Abedi to acquire a Washington bank holding company, but he denied any knowledge of BCCI's subsequent secret ownership of First American Bankshares. The Post reported that Securities and Exchange Commission documents from 1977 substantiate that the idea originated with Stephens.

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run, Stephens and his son Warren boasted of raising more than $100,000 for the campaign. The Stephens family also owned a 38 percent share in Worthen National Bank that extended a crucial $2 million line of credit to Clinton in January 1992.

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/bob.html



Waste Technologies Industry, Inc. (WTI)


WTI has also gained significant political support, as one of the original partners in the corporation was Jackson Stephens. Stephens, an Arkansas investor, was known as a significant contributor to Reagan, Bush, and Clinton campaigns.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has been accused of having bias in favor of WTI and carrying out decision-making activities without required public participation. The agency also violated rules established in RCRA during the WTI permit application process. EPA admitted such wrong-doing at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommitteeon Administrative Law and Government Relations, as well as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/mcormick.html#Key%20Actors


THE LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS HAS GIVEN PRESIDENT CINTON C- FOR HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE

Washington, D.C. - The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the self-described political arm of the environmental movement, has given President Clinton a middling grade of "C-plus" overall for "not working up to potential" during his first year in office.

In particular, the League criticized the Clinton Administration for failing to halt Waste Technologies Industries' controversial hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.

-snip

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fewer_onsite_hazwaste/

[blm]

71. Oh no, mod...these are just some more of them thar COINCIDENCES that

never came back to HAUNT this nation. No sirreee....BCCI had nothing to do with terrorism networks or armsdealing or nuclear proliferation or the Bushes or Bin Ladens or Jackson Stephens or Marc Rich or Dubai and Saudi royals....

nothing....you hear.....it's all just .....coincidence.

[mod mom]

75. No connections between Jackson Stephens and the Bushes, Mother Jones et al must be

wrong.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

65. No

[blm]

68. heheh...of COURSE not.

.

[LostinVA]

102. That's right, because I won't be baited, nor do I have to defend my choices on here

Nothing I say to you will be the "correct" thing, and you know it.

[blm]

127. Just expecting you would be armed with some FACTS from what you learned in the reports

you claim to have read.

I highly doubt anyone who READ those reports would ignore the facts contained in them reJackson Stephens, Marc Rich, Poppy Bush, et al.....

And I doubt anyone who did would readily forgive the deep-sixing of those reports and the outstanding matters in those reports that led directly to the emergence of Bush2 and an event like 9-11.

[Firespirit]

16. FTR I don't count being president of a college GOP organization

Just to clear that up.

She campaigned for the Senate and has campaigned for the Presidency by touting her experience "in the White House" -- aka as Bill's wife. All the head-slapping in the world won't change that.

[truedelphi]

53. People brag about her as to the great value of her wonkish-ness

To me, Wonkishness without the ability to make a policy happen means absolutely nothing good happens.

She tried and failed to get the National Health Insurance Plan she had created get out of the gate.

Legislatively it got nowhere.

So now her answer is that she will make her policies amenable to the opposition.

What if LBJ had done that with civil rights? People of color would be sitting in the damn middle of the bus!

[question everything]

25. Waste on the likes of her

like a slave who has no desire to be free and should just stay in there.

[Firespirit]

27. You know nothing about me

There IS no man in my life. I am entirely self-made, single, and happy.

[leftynyc]

126. That clears things up for me

Thanks for that info.

[mod mom]

55. McClatchy: Clinton's '35 Years of Change' Omits Most of Her Career

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career
By Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Sunday, February 3, 2008

WASHINGTON — To hear Hillary Clinton talk, she's spent her entire career putting her Yale Law School degree to work for the common good.

She routinely tells voters that she's "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." She told a voter in New Hampshire: "I've spent so much of my life in the nonprofit sector." Speaking in South Carolina, Bill Clinton said his wife "could have taken a job with a firm ... Instead she went to work with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund."

The overall portrait is of a lifelong, selfless do-gooder. The whole story is more complicated — and less flattering.

Clinton worked at the Children's Defense Fund for less than a year, and that's the only full-time job in the nonprofit sector she's ever had. She also worked briefly as a law professor.

Clinton spent the bulk of her career — 15 of those 35 years — at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.

-snip

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html

[billbuckhead]

6. That's just a lie

Just go to wikipedia!

College
In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.<16> She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year.<17><18> However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;<17> she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."<19> In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,<8> and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.<20> Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.<21> In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association.<22><23> She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views.<21> Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.<21> Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.<21>
Rodham returned to Wellesley, and wrote her senior thesis about the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under Professor Schechter (which, years later while she was first lady, was suppressed at the request of the White House and became the subject of speculation as to its contents).<24> In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students,<25> she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address.<23> According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.<26><27> She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement;<8> she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.<28> That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).<29><30>
Law school
Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.<31> During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,<32> learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).<33><34> She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital,<33> and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.<32> In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;<35><36> Edelman would become a significant mentor to her.<36>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton>

[yardwork]

20. Thank you.

[Firespirit]

Does she tout any of this?

No. When she ran for senate, it was as the First Lady. That is what she is known for, to be the "trusted advisor" of Bill Clinton rather than a person in her own right.

[yardwork]

128. Wrong. That's just flat-out wrong. Have you seen any of her speeches?

Read any transcripts? Read any of her books or many law journal articles?

It sounds like you are basing your opinion on Faux News.

[no name no slogan]

105. uh, Wikipedia is NOT a very reliable source

many college professors will not allow students to use it, as it is easily edited by any schmoe with an account and an internet connection.

[shaniqua6392]

9. Sexist bullshit.

Should people say that I got to where I am because of my husband? Hell NO! We both got where we are by supporting each other as a team. The same goes for Bill and Hillary Clinton. As a woman, I look to her with admiration. Some people just can't stand when a woman is strong and accomplished. They just have to give all the credit to a man. After all, we are just helpless little things, aren't we?? Ugh. It is a good thing we were not in the same room and you spouted off crap like this.....

[Firespirit]

24. What a load

As a woman myself, I look down on women who use marriage as a means to get ahead in life. It does no good to the feminist cause when women take that route instead of using the various means that feminism has made available to them.

[question everything]

29. Next thing you will claim that intercourse is a rape

It is opinion like yours that give feminism a bad name. I suspect that most of the young women who adore Obama will recoil from the term feminism.

[Firespirit]

50. A lot of it is.

Funny how you immediately bring up sex and rape when it has nothing to do with anything.

[redqueen]

61. ...

:rofl:

Alllllrighty then... that's enough for me.

Y'all have fun! :hi:

[LostinVA]

183. No, only rape is rape

Sex isn't rape.

[Firespirit]

186. I've been in far too many blowout fights IRL over this one

You're entitled to your opinion.

[LostinVA]

You're actually saying that intercourse is rape?

:rofl:

[Firespirit]

190. Hook, line, and sinker.

I love baiting people into putting words into my mouth.

[LostinVA]

194. Then, why don't you explain what the hell you were talking about?

[Firespirit]

198. Because it's more amusing to watch people hang on my every word. /nt

[LostinVA]

199. I'm not hanging on every word -- I'm calling you on your nutty posts

[Firespirit]

202. K, here's one for your entertainment

Maybe I do think that all heterosexual sex is inherently degrading, disgusting, nothing more than rape, and that straight men should be denied at every opportunity and kicked in the nads, and castrated as menaces to society if they keep asking.

Maybe I do think that. Maybe I don't. Why don't you try to divine my mind, just as so many have done, in calling me a woman-hater, bitter for being single, and everything else.

[LostinVA]

213. Wow. Unreal.

I will pray for you.

[Firespirit]

215. Ha, that truly says it all.

Prayer for me because I enjoy baiting people online who willfully refuse to see what I'm saying in a post. Prayer.

If that post does express my true thoughts, your prayers might be better spent on any XYs I ever come in contact with.

[LostinVA]

217. You're practing for "The Onion," right?

I will pray for you. So will Midlodemocrat.

[KitchenWitch]

242. Seriously I pray that the seething resentment you have for men gets lifted from you

and that you find joy.

[Midlodemocrat]

244. I am praying that my FedEx package is delivered tomorrow.

and no longer delayed by those who hate women.

[KitchenWitch]

245. Coke... On... Screen!

:spray:

[LostinVA]

246. I pray that God delivers you from your sinful Bunco addiction

I love you Sister, even if I hate your sin.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. "as as woman myself, I look down on women"

You sure do.

[TheWraith]

195. Nice way to cut her sentence short. NT

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

233. She looks "down on" and is proud of it. She didn't take offense and later stated she feels superior.

sorry it offended you.

[mentalsolstice]

67. My career was made easier by having my partner around

His hours were 8-5, whereas mine were all over the place. On any given day I didn't know if I would be home at five or nine, or even later. It was nice coming home to a dinner already made, knowing the pets were taken care of, etc. Sure I could have been successful on my own, but not as much, and I would have suffered a lot more stress.

And where do you get the idea that Hillary knew Bill was going to be successful when they married? He could have just as easily turned out to be some two-bit ambulance-chasing lawyer with a drinking problem.

So I guess only single women can be truly successful?

[Firespirit]

77. I admire a single woman, or a lesbian, who defeats adversity far more

The deck is thoroughly stacked against her and yet she manages. That's extremely admirable to me.

Sure Hillary didn't KNOW anything about the future, but you can generally tell when a person is going to be a dud. Bill was ambitious and determined from a very young age.

[mentalsolstice]

92. What about a lesbian with a partner?

I think you just backed yourself into a corner. All women, partnered or not, face adversity, and we should be supportive of one another...now that is true feminism. I have an aunt who has your same exact attitude. And after awhile she just simply came off as jealous...

[Firespirit]

96. It'd be easier for that woman than for the single woman

I'll grant you that much.

Unless she lived in a fundamentalist area, it'd be easier for the lesbian.

Not quite as easy as for a heterosexually married woman, though.

[Marrah_G]

115. What about a married Lesbian?

[Firespirit]

124. Since that is currently a rare thing in the good ole U.S. of A.,

I didn't see the need to differentiate between a lesbian in general and a lesbian whose partnership was recognized by the law.

[Marrah_G]

134. Well- that pretty much says it all !

[LostinVA]

170. OMFG -- I've been marginalized twice in one post!!!

[Firespirit]

176. To arms!

By stating a statistical fact, that married (according to law) lesbian couples are rare in the country, I must be a misogynistic, homophobic... um... bisexual woman.

Yeah.

What else have we got? I'm enjoying this.

[LostinVA]

182. I don't know WHAT the fuck you're talking about

But, you marginalized ME twice in one post. That's a fact.

I know you're enjoying it. You're totally transparent.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. I Feel Sorry For You.

To go through each day so alone. It's quite apparent the true source of your bitterness and eagerness to bait others. The attention seeking is more than apparent and instead of feeding into your surface baiting, I instead actually feel quite sad for you. I know as you sit alone at night, staring at the ceiling in the dark, how much pain you feel in your soul from the voids within you. I truly hope nothing but good things come for you, in spite of the stupidity you've shown in this thread. Here's a hug for you (no, I'm not raping you LOL), since though you won't admit it, you obviously need one.

:hug:

[Firespirit]

234. ...

Yeah, jerk it. Nothing gets it up quite like thinly veiled condescension eh?

In seriousness, if there are such things as souls, then righteous anger is balm for mine. And if good things come for me, it'll be because I took them, not because of DU well-wishing and requests for divine interference. The world doesn't work like that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

236. There There. It'll Be Ok. It'll Be Alllllright. There There. C'mere You.

:hug:

[LostinVA]

184. Well -- you're a cradle robbee, so you're doubly screwed by the patriarchy

[BlackVelvet04]

72. Be honest....

you just look down on women, period. I suspect you probably feel threatened by them.

[Firespirit]

79. You've got it completely 180 degrees wrong about whom I look down on

That's all I'm going to say on that.

[BlackVelvet04]

103. I don't think I do.....

You assume Hillary couldn't have done it without Bill. Hillary is a quite accomplished woman in her own right. I have every idea you have a need to feel superior to other women. If you want to know what's bad for feminism, go look in the mirror.

[Firespirit]

111. I said explicitly in the post that she COULD have done it without Bill

She chose not to try.

My problem is with her choice.

[BlackVelvet04]

152. So her sin was in getting married?

That's really shallow, dudette.

[Firespirit]

157. Her "sin," if you must use that term

was in getting married and then either

*letting Bill's political ambitions come before her own, in terms of when these ambitions were to be pursued...

*or deliberately planning to launch her own national career from Bill's achievements.

Either one bothers me as a woman.

[BlackVelvet04]

161. so you know her motives.....

LOL Are you like her confidant so you know her deep inner thoughts and motives?

[Firespirit]

165. If you can name a third alternative, I'd be glad to hear it. /nt

[BlackVelvet04]

168. Maybe the worked together for each to acheive what they wanted

when they wanted? Gosh, maybe they really love each other and work as a unit.

[Firespirit]

185. They're working in a competitive field

the same field, in fact.

And if they did as you said, well, for Hillary's part, that'd fall under *both* of my guesses. She put off her own ambitions till after he achieved his, and she also used his accomplishment to launch her own national career. Whether he was working with her isn't really relevant to what I posted, and shouldn't matter anyway.

"Using each other for mutual benefit" isn't what I'd want in a partner, were I looking for one.... :shrug:

[Marrah_G]

117. Your opinion of women is pretty damned obvious

[Firespirit]

123. Change "women" to "people."

[yardwork]

132. It sounds to me that you look down on women who make different choices than you.

I don't call that feminism.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. Methinks You Need To Learn What Feminism Actually Is.

Cause what you're preaching isn't feminism, it's simple common every day stupidity.

[demigoddess]

230. Did anyone consider that Bill Clinton may have gotten to where HE did because of her?

She may have been the power behind the man. Granted he has talents but he also has displayed bad judgment a few times and I am sure he consulted her on most issues and she worked on many subject. She may have been turned down on health care but that is one tough issue, and they would not let her sit in on cabinet meetings etc but that was probably because of a lot of pressure from the repubs. Remember how they used to parrot the line "she was not elected to anything" Mrs. Lincoln and many other first ladies held positions of power they considered themselves co occupants of the oval office.

[Whisp]

31. b.s. - n.t.

[avaistheone1]

156. I'm tired of the sexism too.

It is really pushing towards Hillary.

[cali]

10. Fucking ridiculous, and the language you chose to use is VERY

telling: Attached herself to a man? Make me puke. Yes, she was married to the President, but she is a talented person in her own right and has the resume to prove it. And if she's elected president it will damn well do great things for feminism and women.

Your post is absurd on its face. And sickening.

And as you can see, I don't support her.

[cd3dem]

19. thank-you... about as dumb as saying if Obama is elected it will hurt minorities in America

[cali]

37. maddening this sexist crap on a progressive site

I can't say what I'd like to the OP. Wish I could.

[busymom]

12. Let me say...

I am where I am today because of my marriage...and honestly, my husband wouldn't have reached the point that he is at professionally without his marriage to me. It has been mutually beneficial. It might be true that Hillary got a boost out of her marriage to Bill, but have you ever considered that he might not have gotten where he was politically without HER supporting him. Hey..behind every successful man is a woman rolling her eyes, right! ;)

Hillary had plenty of experience. Go check out her CV. But I'm going to make this personal. I had experience too...and a degree...but no hope of getting employed where I am... because unfortunately, it is all a political game. That's the truth.

Was my career jump-started by attaching myself to my husband? maybe. Was my career also set aside for years because of my husbands? yes. Did I have to play second fiddle so that he could accomplish his goals and I could raise our children? yes again...because someone had to do it.

How on earth could Hillary Clinton ever have forged a way for herself in the shadow of Bill Clinton? There isn't a single thing that she could have done that wouldn't have had people saying "she only got this job/appointment/whatever" because her husband is the ____.

What sort of precedent does it set for women that support their children and families, put their careers aside to help their spouse become successful and then are punished for it?

[Firespirit]

30. I pity you. /nt

[busymom]

39. I pity me too..

because if I had been born with a penis, he could have been the one to sacrifice his career for our family.

[Midlodemocrat]

59. You're the one I pity.

[yardwork]

142. You pity somebody because they are married?

That's certainly not feminist.

[tandot]

"Hillary's political career was jump-started by her attaching herself to a particular man."???

...

Early Career

Clinton went to Wellesley College, where she was chosen by her classmates to be the first-ever student commencement speaker. Next she attended Yale Law School, where Clinton focused on the law's impact on children and began her work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Clinton represented foster children and parents in family court and contributed to early studies that created legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund in Washington, D.C..

After serving as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Clinton chose not to pursue offers from major law firms; instead she accompanied her husband, Bill Clinton, to Arkansas.

But married life did not mean an end to her work. After arriving in Arkansas, Clinton ran a legal aid clinic for the poor and handled foster care and child abuse cases. She also organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When Clinton was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.

When Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas, Clinton continued to advocate for children, leading a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools as well as serving on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital. She also served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop.

Clinton continued her legal career as well, partnering in a law firm. During this time, she led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. As a result of her efforts, Clinton was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

more at link: http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/hillary/bio.html

[cd3dem]

14. Maybe Bill got where he did because he married Hillary!

[blm]

58. Bill got where he did because Jackson Stephens bankrolled him just as he did GHWBush

and WalMart and his BCCI deals.

[BlackVelvet04]

17. yeah, lots of women are always too highly principled to vote for

the woman of the moment. There's never a woman quite perfect enough for them. There's ALWAYS a man just enough better that they just HAVE to vote for him.

yada yada yada

[yardwork]

22. I wish that I could recommend your post.

Exactly correct on all counts.

[BlackVelvet04]

28. Thank you....

I'm so tired of this shit, aren't you?

[yardwork]

143. Yes. Bizarro world.

[Beausoir]

32. Oh hell yes!

Thank you.

[BlackVelvet04]

46. Salute......

it's time for me, anyway, to vote MY best interests and as a woman I entrust those interests to a woman.

[AGirl]

41. TRUE THAT!

[Whisp]

44. a woman who votes and supports war more than peace

will never be considered a feminist to me.
believe what you want. That is my line in the sand.

Hillary owns a percentage of the mayhem in Iraq. She owns a percentage of Iraqi's suffering for about 15 FUCKING YEARS NOW if you still insist on calling her First Lady stint as experience.

[BlackVelvet04]

81. Yeah, I'm sure that's it....

the fact Obama votes to fund the war, the fact he wasn't called on to vote for the IWR means he is so much more pure and able to lead the country. I wonder what your excuse will be next time?

Like I said, lofty sounding principles are always the reason. :eyes:

[Whisp]

95. go roll your fucking eyes down the sidewalk.

just because I think Clinton is not my choice, based Mostly on her record on how she votes on war issues doens't mean I'm a sexist.

My other choices have long gone and left. Obama is my choice now because I think Clinton is a Failure when it comes to the real day to day interests of the people - you don't like it?

tuff hairy dog shit.

[BlackVelvet04]

106. Yeah, Obama has such a long record of success. LOL n/t

[yardwork]

145. If you truly support unions I recommend that you vote Democratic.

You may not like Hillary, but I hope you'll vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee. Because Republicans are no friend to labor in this country.

[yardwork]

21. You are entitled to your opinion, but....you're wrong.

[question everything]

23. And Obama is here because he is not Jesse Jacson

How dare you?

She has been a very successful and contributing senator, certainly more so than Obama.

She was very active when she was the first lady of Arkansas and of the United States. She certainly was not a dew eye admiring spouse.

What is it about women who take the time to say they will not vote for Clinton. You don't see many blacks who would say the same thing about Obama.

This just shows how bad women are still behind today. It is women like you who should go back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, because you will never understand how oppressed you are.

Here, read this one. This may help, though I doubt it.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

And it ends

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

[redqueen]

33. So your advice to women is what... to stay single, in case their partners are more successful...

so that morons won't be able to later say "you only got there cause of so and so"?

What a steaming, stinking load of sexist, idiotic horseshit... you SHOULD be ashamed... but I'm not surprised you're not. You want to talk about precedent for women? How about not TRASHING them for mindless, bullshit reasons? That'd be a GREAT start, IMO.

[Firespirit]

Women will not truly come into their own if they attach to people who might overshadow them

Most women politicians are married, but they married men who have their own niches. There's no competition there, no possibility for being overshadowed, since they're in different areas.

I'd advise any woman against marrying someone in the same career as herself, for that very reason. As long as there are vestiges of sexism in our culture, she'd have to compete against her own husband.

[Maddy McCall]

47. This post is wrong in so many ways...

but I'm going to go fishing instead of waste my time arguing against this faulty, defective, stupid post.

[redqueen]

56. WTF?

:rofl:

You're sitting here PARROTING sexist bullshit, and attempting to lecture others on how they should lead their lives, in order to meet YOUR standards of "feminism"?

Girrrrl, you got ISSUES!

[Firespirit]

69. What exactly have I said that is sexist?

I'd actually go so far as to say that MARRIAGE is inadvisable, but people seem to have groinal needs, so that's a pointless thing to encourage.

But that aside, sexism won't be countered by using marriage as the best way for a woman to get ahead in life.

How many women have worked all their lives, fighting as individuals, only to see Hillary Clinton advance because she married an ambitious man who became President? Sickening.

[redqueen]

90. Groinal needs?

Look... when you disregard Hillary Clinton's entire career as being nothing but "Bill's wife"... what the hell else COULD you call that?

:banghead:

[Firespirit]

93. And you think I'm only referring to women when I say that?

Look at the context of the expression. It refers to marriage in general.

[redqueen]

94. What the hell are you on about now? Look at your OP!

" The danger to women and feminism in nominating Hillary "

*sigh*

[Firespirit]

100. What are YOU on about now?

I don't say "groinal needs" in the OP, but in a post about how I think marriage in general is a bad idea.

[redqueen]

104. "Groinal needs" is just DUMB.

I wasn't attempting to open a new line of conversation about the remark... just commenting on the dumbness.

That you chose to seize on that and respond to it speaks volumes.

[Sapphocrat]

155. People who "think marriage in general is a bad idea"...

...are usually single and bitter about it, married and bitter about it, or divorced and bitter about it.

IOW: They're bitter.

Btw, I'm a lesbian, partnered, and I'd be happy as hell for either my partner or me to enable the other to become hugely successful, whether that means my making a pile of money and financing her education or business, or my staying home and holding down the fort while she does whatever she wants to do, or one of us introducing the other to someone who could pave the way to success (you ever hear of "networking"?).

Marriage is a PARTNERSHIP -- and if you resent your partner for sharing in your success, the problem is with you; I'd guess it's a self-esteem issue if you have to prove (to yourself) that you don't need nobody, not nohow, for nothin'. Well, goody for you if that's what floats your boat; not all of us are so bloody competitive (and bitter) that way. I'd bet you wouldn't even give a partner credit for encouraging you when you think you've run into a brick wall in your life, or your career, or whatever. How sad that must feel. How angry you must be. I expect you don't put a lot of stock in relying on friends or family, either, for anything. I also expect you think that a successful business partnership degrades the accomplishments of either/all partners in business together with the goal of mutual success.

You remind me of the "lesbian separatist feminists" I knew in the 1970s -- the very small minority of lesbians who twisted "women's lib" into some weird thing that had little to do with equality, and the ones who gave the rest of us lesbians the "man-hating" label: They were so angry at men, they cut themselves off from the opposite sex as much as humanly possible, living in their own little collectives, limiting themselves to interacting with "womyn" only in trade, socially, you name it. At the same time, they tried to convince everyone within earshot that 1) no straight woman could be a real feminist; only lesbians could, and 2) any lesbian who associated with men was a gender traitor.

They were stupid, and wrong, and they embarrassed me, and I always found myself apologizing to straights and explaining that lesbianism wasn't about hating men, but about loving women.

As a woman, you embarrass me, just like that.

P.S. If you think lesbians have it easier, in anything, anywhere, whether or not we're partnered, or whether or not a village full of fundies is breathing down our necks, you are dead wrong. Try to assert yourself as a straight woman in a man's world, and you are automatically a pushy bitch. Try to assert yourself as a lesbian in a man's world, and you're a pushy, man-hating-lesbian bitch. Sexism isn't limited to men -- there are plenty of women threatened by other, strong women (straight or lesbian), who will do everything in their power to keep us down, and justify their own misogyny with the lamest of excuses... such as you do in your OP. In that regard, you also remind me of Phyllis Schlafly.

[Firespirit]

164. I'm not bitter in the slightest about my own state

Just cynical about people, and yes, I'll admit it, a bit superior about how I've ended up. I grew up watching my parents' marriage of 30 years be destroyed utterly, just because they grew apart. If you can't trust to get along with someone after three decades, you can't trust anyone in a partnership, and I'm grateful to have learned that secondhand so I don't waste my life.

I'm living in Boston, and I freely admit I may have developed some myopia about LGBT relations in the wider world. As you might also gather, I'm under 40, and in my demographic and my city, it's a non-issue.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

187. Another "I wish I could recommend a post" moment.. Well stated.

:applause:

[Firespirit]

197. Oh -- forgot to mention

I'd guess it's a self-esteem issue if you have to prove (to yourself) that you don't need nobody, not nohow, for nothin'. Well, goody for you if that's what floats your boat; not all of us are so bloody competitive (and bitter) that way. I'd bet you wouldn't even give a partner credit for encouraging you when you think you've run into a brick wall in your life, or your career, or whatever. How sad that must feel. How angry you must be. I expect you don't put a lot of stock in relying on friends or family, either, for anything. I also expect you think that a successful business partnership degrades the accomplishments of either/all partners in business together with the goal of mutual success.

You give me a REASON to put stock in such things.

There were two times in my life when I really could have benefited from some emotional support, or so I thought at the time. Both times -- one especially -- I was left to founder, and in fact had to deal with incivility, insensitivity, and general crap from those who you'd think would be willing to offer support. They made it worse rather than better, and I'll tell you freely, I cut them off and feel no shame in that. As I said... at the time, I thought support would've been nice, but in retrospect I'm glad I had that enlightening experience. Better to know what people really are, the earlier the better.

[Sapphocrat]

207. *scratching head*

How do I give you "a REASON to put stock in such things"?

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is uncivil, insensitive, and crap-flinging? And that (to mix metaphors) you might have cut off your nose to spite your face, by writing off the entire human race based on those two experiences?

I've cut lots of people out of my life, and never looked back. Some relationships are indeed toxic -- but to deem all relationships toxic is far worse judgment than to at least attempt to learn to discriminate between People Who Are Bad for You and People Who Are Good for You.

You want guarantees. You want perfection. I'm sorry you got hurt, but setting your "standards" so impossibly high as a defense against future pain is a really fucked-up thing to do -- to yourself.

You are wrong. Very, very wrong. There are a lot of rotten, vile, despicable people in the world -- and there are a lot of loving, compassionate, kind people. Most are somewhere in the middle. But you're condemning everyone.

Let me ask you: Do you consider yourself as horribly uncivil, insensitive, and crap-flinging as you think of everyone else? Serious question.

[Firespirit]

210. This thread has gotten off topic

I didn't intend it to be a fight over my views of people, but it appears that there are some views that are Unacceptable to Express.

I might be more starry-eyed had I solicited nice people for support, but I wouldn't be stronger. I wouldn't have the unparalleled satisfaction of being able to say, "I got out of that with no one's help." That is worth a great deal to me, far more than the security blanket of having someone who would pat me on the back and say nice things. People grow from adversity.

In answer to your question at the last: To be honest with you... yes. Completely.

[Sapphocrat]

214. Off-topic, no, I don't think so at all.

And it's not a fight, AFAIC.

That you view people -- including yourself -- as so without any redeeming qualities whatsoever explains a lot about your OP. It's my guess that your OP only reflects on the faction of humankind -- women -- you're angriest with at the moment.

Two more questions:

1. If you're as rotten as all that, aren't you just contributing to the state of humanity you hate so much -- thus compounding the problem, and (assuming you don't care about the effect you have on anyone else) just making it worse on yourself?

2. If you don't need human interaction of any kind, or any kind of external validation (yes, we all do to some extent, no matter how self-assured we are), then why are you interacting with the rest of us online?

Nope -- "The Internet is not human interaction" or the like is not an acceptable answer to #2. It's very human -- all the Internet does is put a "safe" barrier between people.

And as for "some views that are Unacceptable to Express," there you go with that black-and-white thinking, that "splitting" again. It's hard to tell if you think that way naturally, or if you choose to think you think that way.

Whatever it is, I'm sorry you hold yourself in as little esteem as you hold everyone else. That's the key to all of this, you know: You can't love anyone else, in any real way, if you don't love yourself; for you, I think it's that, plus "I'd never belong to any club that would have me as a member."

Yet here you are.

Finally: "I might be more starry-eyed had I solicited nice people for support..." That's a gotcha: You admit there are "nice people" in the world.

"...but I wouldn't be stronger." You can call it "stronger," but I think you're fooling yourself. "Stronger" is what you get when you survive pain without letting it destroy your humanity. "Stronger" is what you get when you have the courage to risk facing down pain again.

Bitter is what you get when you 1) fall off your bike, 2) refuse to ever ride a bike again because all bikes are evil, 3) insist that everyone else who rides bikes stop riding their bikes, and 4) get really angry because everybody else continues to ride their bikes and have fun doing it.

I don't think you're stronger. I think you're just bitter. And I think you're scared. There's nothing wrong with being scared (who isn't?) -- but to run away because you're scared isn't strong at all. That's weak. In my book, that's the very definition of weakness.

[Firespirit]

219. Since you are making some effort to be civil,

rather than responding with one-liners and emoticons, I'll try to respond in kind. I'd rather debate the actual content of the OP, but meh, I need something to do while waiting for the returns.

Two more questions:

1. If you're as rotten as all that, aren't you just contributing to the state of humanity you hate so much -- thus compounding the problem, and (assuming you don't care about the effect you have on anyone else) just making it worse on yourself?

As I see it, if you meet people on their level, you won't be taken advantage of as easily. Yes, this carries over to politics -- it wouldn't bother me if our side used Rovian tactics if that's what it took, and I think the fuss over "Democrats swiftboating Democrats" is so much BS.

2. If you don't need human interaction of any kind, or any kind of external validation (yes, we all do to some extent, no matter how self-assured we are), then why are you interacting with the rest of us online?

Nope -- "The Internet is not human interaction" or the like is not an acceptable answer to #2. It's very human -- all the Internet does is put a "safe" barrier between people.

I could be doing something else with my time, certainly. But where did I say I didn't need human interaction of any kind? What I don't need are attachments. A thread that, I admit, I posted in large part to see what it might stir up, isn't an attachment.

And as for "some views that are Unacceptable to Express," there you go with that black-and-white thinking, that "splitting" again. It's hard to tell if you think that way naturally, or if you choose to think you think that way.

Whatever it is, I'm sorry you hold yourself in as little esteem as you hold everyone else. That's the key to all of this, you know: You can't love anyone else, in any real way, if you don't love yourself; for you, I think it's that, plus "I'd never belong to any club that would have me as a member."

Yet here you are.

Finally: "I might be more starry-eyed had I solicited nice people for support..." That's a gotcha: You admit there are "nice people" in the world.

"...but I wouldn't be stronger." You can call it "stronger," but I think you're fooling yourself. "Stronger" is what you get when you survive pain without letting it destroy your humanity. "Stronger" is what you get when you have the courage to risk facing down pain again.

In my way of thinking, "Fool me once, shame on you," and you know the rest. I don't see any advantage in acting in a way that has caused pain before through no fault of my own, and could cause pain again with nothing I could do about it. That's not strength or courage; that's foolishness. There are people in the world with the ability to be nice. I have the ability to be nice. These same people also have the ability to be cold and unfeeling, and it's a roll of the dice. I wouldn't want to risk it again. The rewards are just not worth it, in my estimation.

[LostinVA]

228. I think you're talking to a zombie

[Marrah_G]

206. That was most excellent post !

[yardwork]

138. It's a freaking insult to dismiss Hillary Clinton's career in that way!

To even suggest that Hillary Clinton "advanced" because "she married an ambitious man who became President" is incredibly sexist. It's dehumanizing.

By all accounts, both Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton were ambitious - it's what drew them together and kept them together. They both wanted the White House, and they worked together to get there. They're working together to get back. A lot of folks would argue that Hillary is actually the smarter and more strategic of the two. How do we know that his success isn't due to her hard work and ambition, instead of vice-versa?

Dismissing a woman just because she's married is just as bad as dismissing a woman for not being married. Equally wrong.

[leftynyc]

60. You need help

Please get some.

[EFerrari]

73. On the contrary. Successful people often marry partners who challenge them.

It keeps them sharp.

[Firespirit]

87. Alternatively, society approves of partnered people above single people,

...making it easier for them to be successful.

This thread makes that much abundantly clear.

[redqueen]

89. I hope you don't think people are looking down on you

because you're single.

[EFerrari]

99. You have that backwards. It's easier to survive and thrive

with the support of a family, whatever "society" approves.

[Marrah_G]

118. Wow- you have some serious issues

[yardwork]

133. So if women don't behave exactly the way you think they should, they're not admirable?

My definition of feminism is supporting women's rights to make their own choices.

[Firespirit]

137. May I not admire who and what I wish?

I'm all for choice. I'm also of the opinion that not all choices are equal and it is disingenuous, lazy, and PC to suggest otherwise.

The RIGHT to make a choice has no bearing on the JUDGMENT of that choice.

[yardwork]

151. I said upthread that you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just trying to understand it.

[RoyGBiv]

34. ... or possibly ...

Bill got to where he did because of Hillary?

Or, hey, I got an idea. Maybe they got to where they are together and individually because they're partners and have helped each other, creating accomplishments that neither may have accomplished alone and that this all just so much nonsense.

No. Couldn't be that, could it.

[redqueen]

40. You put that so nicely.

I should take a lesson.

[Firespirit]

45. No one NEEDS a partner to do a damn thing in life

That's romantic nonsense.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

51. I'll bet you're the life of the party, anywhere you go :-)

[Firespirit]

54. Ah, yes, the personal attack

What's next -- "ha ha you can't get laid"? I'm sure it's in the arsenals of some of the people in this thread.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

70. Would it be safe to say that you're opinionated without demonstrating bonhomie?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

57. Uh, no... that's a founding principle of liberalism.

That "rugged individualism" shit? Repuke lies.

We do actually NEED other people... no matter how much bitterness we have festering inside ourselves at how unequal things are.

[Firespirit]

62. This country is based on the worth of the individual

It's not "Repuke" to value that, and place the most value on accomplishing something on one's own.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

83. The corporations now say they're "individuals" worthy of that protection.

The collective voice is the whole basis of the Constitution.

And, basic protections and rights that apply to ALL. Not just a few.

How does anyone accomplish anything, but with the help and support of others?

Whether that's acknowledged by those who arrive at their accomplishments is another story.

[RoyGBiv]

97. Who said anything about romance?

I'm talking about partnership. That's what's left when the romantic nonsense is gone, i.e. the real part of a relationship.

And, no, no one inherently *needs* anyone else. We could all go live on islands I suppose. But, it sure makes life more interesting and can aid in achieving the things one wants to accomplish ... and sometimes achieving things one didn't know they wanted to accomplish.

Btw, if you ever get curious and want actually to learn something about this, U of Michigan did a study recently on this very thing. The data suggest that people do tend to achieve more, both male and female, if they have partnerships with others. Not that this is necessarily an ideal, but it's the way things are.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

163. yes, because we constantly elect unmarried men and women to office

:eyes:

[Firespirit]

169. There happen to be many more partnered people than singles

I'd expect our government to follow the statistical distribution, or -- as it does with white men -- OVERrepresent the most "acceptable" group, the coupled people.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

171. how many singles have been elected president? especially single women?

[Firespirit]

175. I'd have to look it up

There was one bachelor... several widowers who didn't have a partner while they were in office.

What's your point? Only white men have been president; does that mean one must be a white man to be president? Of course not. There have been no single women president; does that mean a single woman cannot be?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

177. spouses are important in society. its not romantic bullshit. thats all.

just because you want hillary to suffer, doesnt mean you are right in any way, shape of form.

i am casting my first vote ever for her. she reminds me of my grandmom who was the first woman judge in the high courts in my hometown.

i cannot be more proud to vote for her.

[NMMNG]

174. People need partnerships with one another for everything

Whether the partners be romantic, family, community, business or whatever. We need the informal cooperation if not formal contractual partnerships with fellow humans to get anything done on any and every level. Just try to go 24 hours without the aid of another human and you'll see what I mean. You won't have electricity, running water, heat, food or any of the basic necessities, let alone love and compassion.

And the notion that a woman or man is crap if they achieved anything while in a relationship is archaic nonsense, BTW.

[Firespirit]

180. OK, if you count *employment* and *utility contracts* as partnerships

Isn't that reaching, though?

I mean yeah, if I quit work, cut off power, terminated my lease, I'd be straight up shit creek. But I don't count business contracts, with an exchange of money, as "partnerships" in the sense that has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.

[NMMNG]

200. I'm including every relationship people have with one another

You seem to have a number of false assumptions, the most basic of them being that single women accomplish everything on their own with no help from others, and that married women accomplish everything with the aid of their husbands and nothing on their own. Neither is true and if anybody thinks so they've got blinders on.


Of course business relationships like the one you have with the utility companies and your grocery store aren't nearly as intricate as those with your employer. Those in turn aren't as intense and developed as those you have with family members and/or romantic partners. But overall you need partnerships of one kind or another to get anything done, and to claim otherwise is sheer folly.

[Firespirit]

205. I trust enforceable contracts

The exchange of money for a product or service is, usually, an enforceable contract. You're entitled to something, unless the other party explicitly says "no warranty" (which is anti-consumer, IMO, but there you have it). Employment... yeah, employment-at-will truly sucks. Ideally I'd like for there to be an obligation on an employer's part, and in some jobs, there actually is.

Marriage, and romantic partnerships? You're not entitled to a thing. Even a marriage can be gotten out of without extreme legal difficulty these days, compared to how it used to be. That's how it should be; don't get me wrong... but that doesn't make that sort of partnership at all desirable to me.

[NMMNG]

209. Do tell

What exactly do you think you're entitled to in life? Please tell me. What exactly is another person supposed to do for you?

And why, considering all you seem to expect out of a relationship, would anybody be insane enough to get into one with you?

[Firespirit]

211. There are these things called "human rights"

As liberals, we all (?) think that people are entitled to certain things in life, regardless of circumstances.

For your second question... whoever said I wanted one? If I had one, in all probability the other person would be the dependent, clingy one, and I wouldn't respect that.

[NMMNG]

216. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, human rights, etc.

We are entitled to those.

But in interpersonal relationships we aren't entitled to anything. The notion that you're entitled to someone, and someone who will stay with you under any circumstances whatsoever, is not the case.



For your second question... whoever said I wanted one?


Your complaint that relationships are "too easy to get out of" and that there are "no guarantees" in them implied it. Bitter much?

[Firespirit]

220. That's precisely what I said upthread

That is indeed how relationships are, and should be. Doesn't mean I have to like it, or want that for myself.

[NMMNG]

221. It also means

you don't have to dump on those who have relationships or the desire to have relationships.

[Firespirit]

225. The only dumping going on in this thread

is from those who think my life choices are unacceptable. "Get help," I'm told. There's something "warped" about my mind. Yadda yadda. It's nothing at all to me what goes on in someone else's life. You choose that life, it's your problem. I pointed out (and someone, naturally, jumped down my throat for it) that while I think commitment is a bad idea, a lot of people have hormonal needs that they can't suppress, so there's no point in trying to convert them to my way of thinking. I do ask, though, for the same in return, and I'm not getting that. I can't even discuss the OP because these shrill people think that my choices are somehow their business.

[NMMNG]

240. I don't care what your life choices are

As long as they work for you and you're not harming others with them, why should I care?


But the fact that you impugn the life choices of others and belittle womens' accomplishments is why people are jumping on you.

[Firespirit]

241. It's truly amazing how professing an opinion is impugning a life choice

You know, I would've loved to debate what I actually said in the OP. A few responders took my point, understood what I was saying, rather than letting their devotion to a candidate or their insecurity in their own lives color their words.

Most people did not, and took my post to mean that I was somehow attacking their marriages, their partnerships. They turned around and started throwing shit at me, very personal shit, like a pack of enraged apes. "Get help." "You're so miserable and bitter." "You are a misogynist." "You're a zombie." I expected a response, but not that. Possibly I hit a nerve; possibly some of them DO feel shame in being emotionally dependent, but take their comfort in telling themselves that those of us who are stronger than that are secretly crying of loneliness, or have something mentally wrong with us. Perhaps it hit a little too close to home for me to call it out when a person achieves something truly major and groundbreaking, but by no real strength of her own, and instead by attaching to someone else to do it. There's nothing admirable in that and many of the posts in this thread prove it: If someone has "help" all along the way, if it's natural behavior to seek out that attachment, then there is nothing remarkable about getting ahead by that means. But it wouldn't surprise me if these posters who are attacking me are secretly agreeing with me, and wishing that they had had the inner strength to do what they did in life without a crutch to lean on.

[NMMNG]

243. Project much?

Nothing in my life has been accomplished due to a "crutch". But then if it makes you sleep better at night then go ahead and think that. I really don't give a flying rip.

I've got a blog post to work on. You can rant at someone else, I'm through with you.

[Whisp]

52. so much for the individual then...

like the old days were a woman was defined by a man's accomplishments and was considered his property.

I consider people as individuals, not as a siamese twin teams.

and besides, Bill was a lousy partner - dicking around on her and humiliating her like that.
yeh, great team.

[RoyGBiv]

86. Hold on there a minute ...

Back up the applecart. Read. Understand. Then speak.

You take a heteronormative view of relationships if you define "partner" in such a narrow way, buying into the very ideology that creates this "woman are defined by men's accomplishments" thinking.

Saying Hillary was "humilitated" by Bill's actions just further entrenches such ideas. You yourself are defining her by her husband's actions, speaking her feelings for her. I think Hillary can determine for herself whether she was humiliated by anything and what she does about it. It's a private matter nonetheless and none of our business as far as how it affected their relationship Considering she's running for President of the United States, whatever humiliation she may have felt doesn't seem to have had lingering, negative effects.

In any case, partners exist in all sorts of forms. Bill and Hillary have a partnership they developed a long time ago that has benefited them both. Neither is defined exclusively by the other. They have individual accomplishments, but the fact remains, they are a partnership.

I have my own partnership, and we accomplish things together that neither of us would have accomplished on our own. I am proud of that.

OnEdit: Typos ...

[Firespirit]

91. This is an excellent example of the everlasting smugness of coupled people

"I wouldn't be where I am if not for my beloved partner!"

Please. If you honestly, truly think that, then there is a problem. There's either a strange situation where your partner actually did materially help you in your career (which makes me squick -- that is far too big a potential for power to be abused), or there's a self-image problem.

We evolved as individual, self-sustaining people, able to make our own way. We're not ants, needing a colony to live. To deny that part of oneself is, in effect, to deny one's own humanity, to suggest that you're only a part of a person without a partner.

[redqueen]

98. "We evolved as individual, self-sustaining people, able to make our own way."

OMFG...

Take some anthropology classes... and some history classes... this is getting downright embarrassing now.

:banghead:

[EFerrari]

108. Hey, redqueen, let's do a monograph on GD-P!

lol

:hi:

[Firespirit]

109. It's true

Put a person in an environment that is physically survivable, and that person has the ability to survive -- an individual brain, not dependent on any other member of the species. We evolved in a way that lets us survive utterly alone, so long as the environmental conditions permit it.

An ant, when displaced from its fellows, wanders aimlessly until it dies. They have a hive "mind" (using the term loosely).

What the hell is the point you're trying to make, seriously?

[redqueen]

114. No, it's not true.

You just spewed a whole lot MORE bullshit about how humans evolved, and in doing so you showed everyone how little you really know about the world around you.

My final words to you: read, learn, and grow the fuck up.

Good luck.

[Firespirit]

119. I'm sorry for you

and I hope you never find yourself stuck anywhere without your support network.

I take pride, myself, in having been there, done that, and lived to talk about it. I know of what I speak far more than I intend to divulge on this thread.

[redqueen]

121. BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

:rofl:

[Firespirit]

130. If you knew, you wouldn't laugh so hard.

Until a couple of years ago, I lived on the Gulf Coast. Do the math -- you might want to get out your calculator for it -- and then Google for things that happened in that time frame on the Gulf Coast.

Then, for many months I was unemployed, uninsured, my family hundreds of miles away and poor, and without a friend in the world. I got out of that situation without the help of a damn soul and I do mean that.

It is to laugh.

[redqueen]

136. I could sell you my sob story too...

I've had a harder life than most (IN THIS COUNTRY)... but what's the fucking point? So you can "approve" of me and my motives? Fuck the hell outta that... you're going around assuming things about others while simultanteously insisting that others don't know you... Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

Do you listen to yourself? Are you reading the words you're typing? Cause damn!

[Firespirit]

144. I assume nothing about your life

and I've made no personal judgments on it.

Unless you've taken my general comments to be aimed at you, because they happen to fit your life, in whole or part.

I give my opinions, and apparently they piss people off, or I wouldn't be told to "grow up," "get help," called sexist, uneducated, and everything else that has been hurled at me for saying what I think.

[redqueen]

147. Ah but honey... you surely did... to me, and probably others as well.

"I hope you never find yourself stuck anywhere without your support network."

Already have, dear.

Can we be done now?

[Firespirit]

148. That was in reply to a post YOU MADE

You disagreed with me that people developed biological features to survive independently. Since you are, by definition, surviving, if you are able to sit at a computer and post... then by your own logic, you have always had a support network, or you would not have survived.

[redqueen]

153. Hopeless. Fuckin hopeless.

Have a good life.

[Marrah_G]

208. Actually you are the one I feel sorry for

I'm not sure what happened that warped your perception of relationships so badly, but I am sorry that it did.

[RoyGBiv]

125. Lots of luck ...

'Cause ain't nothing else working up there.

If nothing else, I think this little sub-thread did expose the original inspiration for the thread-starter. I already had a "m'thinks ye doth protest too much" reaction going, but this pretty much solidified my initial reaction.

Lots of sexist garbage is buried beneath a very thin veneer.

[redqueen]

129. I'm reminded of a quote from my favorite movie...

"How can it not know what it is?"

Apparently some who consider themselves to be as far from sexist as they can possibly be have actually morphed into what they despise.

[EFerrari]

107. No. We are social animals. We do best in groups.

And it is possible to be a competent individual AND be in a couple or group. In fact, competent individuals do better in couples or groups.

[RoyGBiv]

112. That's absurd ...

Now you're just embarrassing yourself ...

"We evolved as individual, self-sustaining people. . . "

We're more individualistic now that at any point in the history of humanity, and we got there *through* partnerships. If we go to the point of discussing how we evolved in the biological sense, humanity would be extinct if not for partnerships.

Oh, and I'm not a "coupled" person. I have partnerships, lots of them. Some are more productive than others, one in particular having resulted in a great number of accomplishments for both of us.

I'm done.

[Sapphocrat]

166. "We evolved as individual, self-sustaining people" ...

What planet did you come from? Here on earth, we evolved in tribes.

[Firespirit]

172. Do you require companionship to live, or to do what you want in life?

I speak in terms of worldly ambitions with the second part of that.

A social construct can be CONVENIENT for some, but there's a bit of a difference between convenience and necessity.

[Sapphocrat]

189. In a sense, yes.

In terms of worldly ambitions: What good is all the success in the world if I have no one to share my happiness -- and sorrow -- with?

That would be like the rich eccentric who buys the Mona Lisa, then hangs it in his basement and stares at it alone every night.

Of course I could survive on a desert island with no one to help me survive -- but that is mere existence, not living.

And then, of course, as soon as I was disabled by illness or injury, I would die. What a pointless existence.

Life isn't mere existence. Life is to be shared. Life is to be lived.

I'm very sorry that all partnerships fall under the heading "social construct" for you. I am not partnered because it's the thing to do -- I am partnered because I want to be, with this woman. If I followed your line of thinking, I'd have automatically rejected the best thing that ever happened to me, because it would make me less of a person on my own. :eyes:

On the contrary: Sharing my life with this woman makes my existence far more fulfilling. She does not supplement me (I hate that "You complete me" crap -- I'm 100% my own person, partnered or not); she complements me, and I her.

You see the individual as 100%. You see a partnership automatically deducting the value of each partner -- 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 90/10...

I, however, see the right partnership as 100/100.

[EFerrari]

88. My ex and I worked together for ten years and we did much more

together than either of us could have done singly. And, for that matter, if you look around at very successful families, you'll find they work together in all kinds of combinations.

[Firespirit]

116. You ignore the people who do well with everything stacked against them

and no fuzzy-wuzzy support group.

I'm not going to argue with you that it's easier for people to do well if they have people patting them on the back, supporting them financially or sharing the burden, and so forth. That, combined with the fact that a majority of people are paired in some way, or have a support network, would tend to produce these statistics you keep citing.

Doesn't make it more admirable, though.

[EFerrari]

139. I'm not ignoring anyone and happen to be single.

:)

[RoyGBiv]

140. Oh, I dunno ...

I find it admirable that some people can actually get along well enough with others to form partnerships.

[EFerrari]

78. . . .

:applause:

[TexasObserver]

36. sad, but true

A sellout to the corporate law firm, a sellout to Walmart, a sellout to the Pentagon.

[AGirl]

42. You are a danger to feminism.

[Maddy McCall]

49. .

:thumbsup:

Succinct and spot-on.

[KitchenWitch]

48. That is such a flaming panty load!

[Maven]

66. Factually untrue and overall dishonest bullshit.

Bye now.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

162. yup. great way to diminish her qualifications and penalize her for being married to someone

equal to her

[Lebam in LA]

76. Go Away

:puke: :nopity: :thumbsdown:

[Firespirit]

80. Thanks

I've been around since 2002, seen flamewars galore, and I'm not threatened by this one.

Best wishes to you too.

[Iceburg]

82. Who's your daddy?.. Obama or Rove? Quite frankly, its hard to tell the difference/eom

[Firespirit]

85. Perhaps it was my mother whom I credit

I notice that didn't occur to you.

[Marrah_G]

101. There is no "danger" - I couldn't disagree more with your entire post.

[rodeodance]

110. Instilling FEAR---is a Rovian tactic that so many of the Obamababies are good at.

[Marrah_G]

113. And another thing- Where the fuck would Obama be without his wife supporting him?

But I suppose she is nothing but a woman latched on to her successful husband.... RIGHT? Or do you think perhaps she is an intelligent and successful woman in her own right who someday might choose a career in public office?

[Firespirit]

135. I have no opinion about Obama or his wife

How do you figure I am for Obama?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

120. There's no danger to feminism or women by nominating Hillary Clinton.

I wouldn't call it a big advance for feminism, for some of the reasons you state, but a Hillary Clinton nomination and presidency will not be a setback for women in any way.

[ShortnFiery]

146. I concur.

Although I served for four years in the AD Army, I was an AD Marine Corps Officer's wife for 18 years. HRC's "life example" reminds me of SOME senior Officers' wives who loved to "wear their husband's rank" among the junior officers' wives.

I despise almost everything HRC stands for, most especially that of stealing her husbands' power base and staying withing a love-less (physical at least) marriage. Their whole partnership is a glaring example of deceit.

Although Bill Clinton was better than that of being under a Republican, I held my nose BOTH TIMES I forced myself to vote for him. His wife, IMO, is cut from the same TRIANGULATING, duplicitous, and in general, "immoral cloth." :thumbsdown:

Beyond all else, I don't trust either Clinton to run OUR beloved Nation on behalf of anyone other than those within their "Crony Investor Classes."

[Firespirit]

149. Thank you

You get it, in a way that others apparently do not.

[ShortnFiery]

150. Yes, and I'll admit to being a little jaded. I wish that I had a nickel for every time that

I was "ordered about" by one of my husband's senior officer's wives. :( There's NOTHING you can do or say - you just must OBEY their pseudo-commands. :grr:

When I resigned my Commission, I earned a masters degree and entered a career path separate from my husbands. I try NOT to dislike "husband and wife" teams, but my utmost respect goes toward successful career women who made their mark without any hint of nepotism. Yes, I'm admittedly biased in that regard. :shrug:

[Midlodemocrat]

158. Bat shit nuts.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

181. Ignore

[Pathwalker]

159. I had no idea "The Clintoris" was as powerful as the Clenis!

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

173. OMFG

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

179. Dupe

[tandot]

237. I hope you don't mind me "stealing" the term "Clintoris" .... ROFL

Behold the power of Clintoris and Clenis ...

<a href="http://www.lolcats.com"><img src="" border="0" alt="lolcats funny cat pictures"></a>

[La Lioness Priyanka]

160. so you will penalize because she was married to an equally competent/ambitious man?

nice to see that things for women havent changed much

[George_Bonanza]

178. Every political figure usually has some benefactor

Would JFK have gotten anywhere without his father's influence and fortune?

[Auntie Bush]

188. If Obama wins the election and is president till 2016....

And Michele became very successfully active in politics...and she were to run for President...would you honestly not vote for her? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Would you say she only got there because of her husband's accomplishments?
I honestly think you would change your mind.

Think about this:
Romney only got there because his father was senator or governor .
McCain got there because he was a prisoner of war...nothing personal he did.
Bush Sr. got there because of family ties and his grandfather.
Bush dimson got there because of Poppy Bush.
Al Gore got there because of his family connections to his Father.
Ray-gun got there because of Hollywood fame and movies.
Mary Bono got there because of Sony. etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure there are many many more!

I don't think you're being fair to woman to hold them to a higher standard than men. Most woman raise children and don't get the opportunities to do everything on there own. If the majority agree with or think the same as you...we'll probably NEVER have a woman president!

[cd3dem]

191. let's make a list of women who have propelled their men to becoming successful...

[BootinUp]

192. Have you read this - Goodbye to All That #2

I found it pretty though provoking.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

[NashVegas]

201. Wonderful Commentary - Thanks.

!

[tandot]

203. I think this should be in its own thread...

she made some really great points. Thanks for posting this :)

[TheWraith]

196. I agree.

To be blunt, if she hadn't been Bill Clinton's wife, she'd never have even been elected to the Senate, and would have been laughed off the presidential stage. She touts "experience," but has less real experience in government than almost anyone else in the race. The only Dem candidate who spent less time in government than she did is John Edwards.

The people who want to see a woman president should go hunt around the statehouses and legislatures for somebody who can muster both a solid record and charisma.

[ecstatic]

204. Wouldn't a true feminist be touting HRC's achievements

and not minimizing them as having occurred from "attaching herself to a particular man?"

I dunno... I know I'm a feminist, so therefore, I must conclude that you aren't one--or you certainly don't understand what it means to be pro-woman.

ETA: Also, every woman who's living in reality knows that choices must be made--when it comes to love, family, career, etc. Unfortunately, we can't have it all like men can--there must be tradeoff somewhere. You don't seem to understand that. HRC could have chosen career as her number one priority, but then she'd probably be all alone, like Condi.

[lamp_shade]

212. oh for pete's sake darlin'

... give it a rest.

[noamnety]

218. Worst "feminist" post ever.

I strongly do not support Hillary and won't be voting for her based on her record.

HOWEVER.

I think it's absolute crap to announce that she would be eligible - in a feminist way (disregarding her votes) - to be president, if only she didn't have connections.

IF ONLY.

Listen up. No woman ever has been in a position to seriously be considered for the position based entirely on her own merits to date, because a) massive discrimination has historically prevented women from building the same sorts of resumes that men have built, and b) massive discrimination dictates that women must have stronger resumes than men to be considered for the same jobs. How are we going to have stronger resumes than men, when we have less opportunities? By waving our magic "I'm a feminist" wand and clicking our heels together?

Saying "she needs to get there on her own merits" is a libertarian sort of twist on reality, which completely ignores that we are not dealing with a level playing field, and that men don't get into that position on their own merits either. Every previous president has gotten to that position based on their connections, including being part of a patriarchal system which granted them special status (along with being part of the white supremacist culture, which granted them special status).

So no woman is allowed (in the REAL world) to get there on her own merits, and no woman (in hyperfeminist libertarian world) is allowed to get there by using connections. Men, on the other hand, since the start of our nation, have been using their white male privilege to attain that position, and our "objective" view is that THOSE people got there on their own merits.

Well, no. They didn't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

222. BWAHAHAHA!!! OMG That's One Of The Funniest Posts Ever!!!!

I LOVE the sense of humor of some DU'ers. Priceless!

:rofl:

[MrCoffee]

224. I will pray for you.

[LostinVA]

226. I knew I could count on you for prayerful support

[Firespirit]

229. Well that makes two of you.

Don't waste your time, though. If there is a God, s/he has already given me good life reasons not to change how I think about this.

[LostinVA]

235. God can heal everyone

[Darth_Kitten]

231. I don't like the fact a woman with Obama's experience.....

would NEVER get the opportunity to run for president.

[McCamy Taylor]

232. Bill and Hillary ran together. They worked together as a team like FDR and Elanor.

The feminist wing that says that women can only be women if they isolate themselves from men is sooooo 1960s. Get over it.

:hippie:

[LadyVT]

238. Another example of a poster who has not done their own research

Ignorant and insulting. CHECK YOUR OWN FACTS. You sound like a pod person.

[Bunny]

239. Wow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a bigger, steamier pile.

Congrats! :thumbsup: