There seems to be an interesting backlash on those of us pointing out sexism when we see it

[Der Blaue Engel]

In the past 24 hours, I have seen calls for the admins to implement a new rule AGAINST calling out sexist language, and defending the right of sexists to post as they please.

I have seen taunts that all "cries of sexism" are simply the result of "frustrated" Clinton voters who want to blame her "loss" (did I miss the nomination somewhere?) on sexism. (You see, we're hysterical and irrational and vindictive, and there is no sexism on DU. Those of us who see it are all shrill and ranting and delusional.)

I have seen absurd rationalizations about how sexist terms are really not sexist because they're used on men, and boastful claims that because the mods don't delete something, it is therefore proof that it has no sexist connotations.

I have seen vituperative rants explaining why women have had it better than blacks and should therefore sit down, shut up and accept that the sexist nature of language is simply to be tolerated, lest we be perceived as whiny bitches.

In case you still don't get it, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO WINS THIS NOMINATION. It has nothing to do with supporting a woman candidate, or with "sour grapes." I strongly suspect this shit is being sown deliberately by those who want us to lose in November.

This campaign has sadly brought out the worst, ugliest impulses in certain people who are emboldened by the rampant resurgence of 1950s "code word" misogyny. False arguments try to turn this back on us: "Why would you think I meant that in a sexist way? Why would you think that had anything to do with women?"

Do you think we were born yesterday? Do you think this veiled language and petty obfuscation is new?

I am calling on all feminists of both sexes supporting either candidate to stand up against this not-so-subtle demand that we STFU and let sexism stand.

I will support whomever wins the Democratic nomination, but I will not stand by and pretend sexism is not sexism for fear of being called partisan.

[LostinVA]

1. Excellent, excellent post -- recommend!

[Seabiscuit]

136. And what kind of sexist bozo refers to Hillary as "Hot Flash" Clinton?

Really - I actually saw some freeptard post containing that phrase yesterday. From a purported Obamanoid.

[orleans]

382. did you alert the mods? n/t

[Seabiscuit]

422. No. I should have. But I was in shock, and then my kid pulled me off the computer.

[leftofcool]

2. Count me in!

[NashVegas]

3. I Think They're Pretty Funny

Especially when the ones who accuse Hillary's campaign of divisive racial tactics. That's when they really crack me up.

[Beausoir]

4. K&R!

[Cant trust em]

5. There has been a lot of sexism on DU, but

I also didn't appreciate being called sexist just because I don't support Clinton. Just because there is a woman running and I don't support her doesn't mean that I don't support women. The same statement could be said about an African-American candidate. If sexism is apparent then it's fair to call it out. However, people shouldn't cry wolf when there is no evidence of sexism.

[LisaM]

20. But there hasn't been the veiled or not-so-veiled racist language

I'm pretty sure most people here are sensitve to racist language and even the most nuanced racial slurs and react STRONGLY against it. We've seen, however, that sexist language is pervasive, and tolerated.

[Cant trust em]

22. I've made that argument a few times in different posts

a little sexism appears to be OK, but a little racism would get you tombstoned.

My previous post is specific to calling out sexism when it actually exists and not just because someone isn't supportive of this particular woman candidate. Personally, I would never call someone racist because they don't support Obama. I can't speak for others, but that's not my game.

[earthlover]

225. Respectfully, there has been a LOT of playing the race card by Hillary backers....

The usual theme is we should not nominate a black person because the big bad racists of the Republican PArty wouldn't like it or something like that. So we are supposed to base our decision on our nominee on the basis of race....if that is not a racist suggestion, peanut butter doesn't belong on bread!

[Cant trust em]

257. and peanut butter does belong on bread

There is a certain poster who always infuriates me and I always take the bait. He argued that wwe shouldn't nominate Obama because he's so swiftboatable, being an inexperienced black man. So we're only supposed to nominate white men because the republicans will swiftboat us? Earth to dude! The GOP will call their own grandmother a whore if it will help them win the nomination. I can't chose my nominee based on the fact that the GOP is filled with racists.

[niceypoo]

421. I have never ever seen that tack taken

I have seen people say that the republicans will use race to rally their bigoted following, which is true, but I have never, ever seen a post saying Obama can't win because he is black. I challenge you to show us some of these threads.

Where you come up with this being the, 'usual assertion,' is beyond me.

[aquart]

423. Since we don't need Republican votes, that's an irrelevant argument.

But, sorry, we DO get to consider all these things when putting up a candidate. I adore Sheldon Whitehouse but he's got a lisp and comes from tiny Rhode Island. I get to consider that. We get to consider religion: I don't expect to see Greek or Russian Orthodox running for president anytime soon. I don't expect to see a president with ethnic origins from Viet Nam or China or Japan anytime soon. We don't have to worry about accusations on the basis of religion or race or homophobia (that lisp, you know?) in those cases because all those people don't even come up for a vote, we so automatically exclude them.

If Obama were half-Burmese instead of Kenyan, think he'd be running? How about a Saudi-American father and a Laotian mother? Don't pat yourself on the back for being so high-minded you'll vote for a guy from a big industrial state who brings in 15% of the American population without breathing hard.

[texshelters]

151. Examples Please

Can you give me more examples of this "sexist" language. Has Senator Obama, or Edwards, or any other male candidate used any. Is it just the right-wing pundits, or all pundits. I need examples because I haven't seen much of this as I don't watch Fox News.

Tex Shelters

[LostinVA]

155. Oh brother

[pnwmom]

216. The examples aren't from Obama or Edwards. It's from other DUers.

People who call Hillary -- or her supporters -- harpy or banshee or witch or bitch. People who make fun of her feminine body shape or voice or pantsuits, who would never make fun of someone's racial characteristics. People who put Hillary in the classic gender-based double bind.

[RaleighNCDUer]

249. I have NEVER seen a DUer call Hillary any of those things -

I have only seen Hillary supporters SAY they've seen DUer say those things.

And I spend WAY too much time here.

[spag68]

325. You must

only post and never reaqd.

[theHandpuppet]

328. Sorry, but I've seen it plenty of times

Bitch, Shrill bitch, "Her Shrillness", "Her Thighness", and entire song posted about Hillary the Witch, et al. And it's not just a post here or there but multiple posts every day. You must be reading with blinders on.

[pnwmom]

356. Then you've got blinders on.

Although the very worst stuff -- the C word, for example -- gets deleted right away.

[papau]

403. LOL - I guess rose colored glasses have been replaced by Obama see no evil/hear no evil but say as

much as possible evil sexist crap eye patches.

It must be good to have eyes that do not read that which can not be named - unless it is the Obama pretend race card as Obama claims Hillary is "playing the race card" as he himself plays it to get that 90/10 AA split (up from the 70/30 where the split settled post Nevada and NH) he needed to win those primaries. And DUers bought the new racial slurs "young" and "kid" as being real real close to "boy" - but they can't see the sexist crap "shrill crackle harpy pimping out their daughter when Chelsea campaigns for her mother" etc... - and by the way Shuster is back on mike now that the DU/MSNBC campaign has been successful.

But I do love your use of the word "NEVER" - SO THIS IS JUST A POST OF APPRECIATION FOR GIVING ME A LAUGH.

[ekwhite]

310. Cmon - making fun of the pantsuits is sexist?

Some of the ones she wears are atrocious - they are the equivalent of leisure suits.

[elixir]

334. I LOVE her wardrobe, I think she has great taste.

[ekwhite]

349. Sometimes, but that canary yellow thing made my eyes hurt

That thing gave me flashbacks to the 80's. :scared:

[elixir]

410. Agreed, that one probably could stay in the closet.

[polmaven]

374. "When she gets upset, out come the claws"

Given in an Obama speech a couple of weeks ago. The only media it seemed to get, however, was on Dan Abrams. And while the two men, Dan included, didn't think it was really a sexist statement, the two women, Rachel Maddow included, most certainly did think so.

[11 Bravo]

414. Do your own homework. It will require, at best, a minimal effort.

Try keywords like "shrew", "PMS", and "hysterical wifey". (Where DO these double-digit Obama posters come from, and how many of them are the same person?)

[Captain Hilts]

318. That's awfully 'white' of you Lisa! THAT's racist. nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

65. I would never accuse anyone of sexism for not voting for a woman

I'm referring specifically to culturally-loaded language. Considering I wasn't even interested in voting for Clinton when Edwards was in the race, I'm obviously not basing my vote (or anyone else's) on gender.

[Cant trust em]

89. I'm not blaming you

I agree with your point 100%. It's fascinating to me that some people are sexist and they probably didn't even know it. Quite sneaky really.

[polmaven]

164. Please show me just WHERE

anyone has said that you are sexist JUST BECAUSE you don't support Clinton!

You show me that, and I will call on all Clinton supporters to both repudiate AND reject that kind of statement.

[pnwmom]

214. Can you point to the posts where someone called you sexist simply because

you don't support Clinton?

I've heard people claim that over and over, but I've never seen one myself.

[Cant trust em]

215. This happened over a month ago, so I can't give you a link

The argument made was that I didn't support Clinton and since there were no other women candidates that I could support, ergo, I don't support women candidates.

[pnwmom]

218. It happened once, over a month ago. Well, sexist crap gets thrown here every

single day against Hillary and sometimes against her supporters.

[Cant trust em]

221. I'm not arguing against that

It saddens me that it is happening on DEMOCRATIC underground. I'm simply saying that it's a pain in my ass when someone tries to label me as sexist for no reason. There's only so much apologizing I can do on behalf of other people's actions.

[Cant trust em]

236. I was able to find this exchange from a while ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4404921&mesg_id=4429950

[pnwmom]

248. I truly appreciated the points you had just made.

You had said "The whole women can't be Commander in Chief is crap. The Hillary cries and is too weak to be president is crap. The Hillary stuck by Bill during the Lewinsky affair and anyone who would stand with a philanderer can't be trusted thing is crap. People will always try to rationalize their subconcious feelings with something tangible.

"I do think, however, that voting for anyone for issues unrelated to politics (gender, race, sexual orientation) are goofy.

"I'm more interested in how we subconsciously assign roles to people based on gender. People who would never think they are sexist because they believe in universal suffrage or equal pay for equal work might discount Hillary for reasons that they never imagined. It's called the glass ceiling because we can't always see that it's even there. Hillary faces a different kind of discrimination because it manifests itself in ways that people didn't even know they possessed.


"I'm a man, BTW, so maybe I'm totally full of shit.
These are my San Francisco values."

[JohnnyLib2]

6. Recommended, vigorously!

Now I don't feel quite so isolated in this matter.

[LostinVA]

7. Wait -- you forgot something

If we think there's any sexism against HRC here or IRL, then we're Freepers and need to leave here, NOW. "Or else" was very heavily implied.

[leftynyc]

148. Unless it was a moderator

tell that poster to blow it out their ass.

[quinnox]

8. Sexism is the hidden story behind this entire campaign

All over the media in subtle and not so subtle ways, Hillary has been the target of sexism. And I can see it as a man, when the male anchors use the language with a wink and a smile. Here on DU it has been blatant as can be.

This campaign has proven sexism is alive and very very well in America, this is rather sad. It makes me think if a woman as brilliant and qualified as Hillary can't be elected then what woman can.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

33. My husband, thankfully, sees this as well. He's always been an enlightened sort, but her campaign

has provided more awareness, for him, of the level of utter contempt with which the male anchors talk about her. Those men who appreciate smart, tough, caring women appreciate her. And he's supporting Sen. Obama, which is fine with me.

[Captain Hilts]

313. Women can be just as bad. Sexism is not exclusive to any one sex!

[totodeinhere]

59. There might be another explanation.

It makes me think if a woman as brilliant and qualified as Hillary can't be elected then what woman can.

Perhaps there are other reasons which have nothing to do with racism which would explain why she is losing. For instance, Obama's wins in several primary states where fueled by an overwhelming amount of support from black voters, which is very understandable. But that'd not sexism. It's racial pride.

[NMMNG]

230. I'm really confused here

For instance, Obama's wins in several primary states where fueled by an overwhelming amount of support from black voters, which is very understandable. But that'd not sexism. It's racial pride.

Why is it OK for black voters to have "racial pride" and allow that to affect whom they vote for, but then women aren't supposed to have "gender pride" and allow that to affect whom they vote for? Or are you suggesting it's OK, and even appropriate, for women to vote for the female candidate just because she's a woman? And what of black women; how are they to vote? Moreover, what of LGBTs--why are they being shat on for having issues with the McClurkin/Caldwell incidents? Are they not allowed to have LGBT pride ( I won't even go into black LGBTs--that's just too much to consider)?

You can't have it all ways.

[Der Blaue Engel]

364. .

:thumbsup:

[NashVegas]

469. Yeah, There's Been a Lot Of That, And

A huge amount of "my mom / grandma / sister / aunt is voting for Obama"; "I'm a woman and I'm voting for Hillary"; "I'd love to vote for a woman, just not this woman," posts - all designed to lure the female vote away from Hillary.

Now, imagine if that were flipped into "my black cousins are voting for Hillary." The howls ...

[pnwmom]

250. How would you feel if overwhelming numbers of women voted for Hillary

out of gender pride? I assume that'd be okay with you, too?

[totodeinhere]

284. Absolutely.

Gender pride is as understandable as racial pride. Of course neither side should vote for their candidate just because they are either a woman or an African American, but we know it does happen. All I'm saying is that sexism may not be the reason why Clinton is losing. Right or wrong, racial prise may be a more logical explanation for what's happening.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

332. Never mind. You were responding to the phrase. Am I correct in my guess that you're a white guy?

C'mon, it's not the worst thing. I would have campaigned like crazy for Kucinich or Edwards.

[katty]

137. agree-and it's all over DU like wildfire

[texshelters]

154. Examples please

Reading is believing:

Can you site some examples and I will join you in the condemnation. Otherwise, it's just hot air to me.

Tex Shelters

[LostinVA]

156. Shoo

[texshelters]

254. Hmmm

dismissness is useful when someone asks a sincere question.

Way to make a point!

[theHandpuppet]

329. Okay, here's a sincere question (or two)

How long have you been here? Since you have no profile, I have no idea how long you've been here but I assume having only ten posts under your belt you may not know how to use the search feature.

[papau]

405. "asks a sincere question"?? LOL

[rodeodance]

182. do your own research as examples will hit you in face quickly

[texshelters]

266. What?

It's easy to accuse, hard to prove. I only found one real instance of sexist language by Obama:

"her claws out"

Any others, or would you rather just accuse without showing proof. If so, you will never be wrong.

Tex

[TheDebbieDee]

165. "This campaign has proven sexism is alive and very very well in America."

What surprises me most is the number of female "pundits" that seem more than willing to perpetuate it.

The Andrea Mitchells and the Arianna Huffingtons and the Nora O'Donnells appear to be bending over backwards to be one of the gang by tolerating the sexist remarks instead of challenging the remarks.

[Captain Hilts]

319. Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd leading the pack: "Nurse Ratched," "Lady macbeth,"...nt

[Cameron27]

9. I had no idea

wow, other than occasionally logging in for a few minutes a few times a week, I've pretty much stayed away from this place, and look at what I've missed.

Thanks for OP.

K&R

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Sadly, many of those who are posting sexist statements don't

even realize that they are sexist because they are so prevalent and accepted in our society.

[Little Star]

24. You are right. I saw a post on here a while back,

where a gentleman was very happy to say how he protected his wife from her parents WORDS. Can't recall the whole thing, but he was actually enabling his wife to be a victim, instead of championing her to stand up for herself. Being there for her is one thing, speaking for her is just enabling. I found that post to be very telling. If she was verbally victimized by her parents he should have given her the support for her to confront them herself. Now, if they were physical with her, that would be different and should be handled by law enforcement, not the husband. To me, that action, of confronting her parents was sexist and just another way to enable a woman not to stand up for herself. jmho

[Der Blaue Engel]

343. Exactly, which is why we can't ignore it

Those who don't recognize it need to understand the historical pervasiveness of the language of sexism, while those who do recognize it absolutely need to be called on it and not given a pass.

[high density]

11. Ah yes here we are... Another sexism thread!

I'm sorry but this idea of the Clinton campaign running the "I am a woman" theme and then her supporters on here crying about sexism is the largest WTF of this campaign season from my male POV.

[Dinger]

19. Nobody's "Crying" Here hd

Are you saying there is NO validity to claims of sexism?

[high density]

25. There have been some obviously sexist comments

However, the overall complaints of rampant sexism while we have a campaign that sells the gender of the candidate is a double standard in my opinion.

[Dinger]

26. Agreed (nt)

[LostinVA]

37. I am honestly shocked you agree with this

[Dinger]

53. I Know, But The Way THings Are Going Here LAtely, I'm Glad To Have An Acknowledgment

I can see the logic of the argument about a double standard, however, I think that has been unfairly used against her as well.

[LostinVA]

32. OMFG

[juajen]

83. How about the race of a candidate? You don't think Barack is

benefiting purposefully from his racial background? How about the fact that Hillary cannot even question a thing he says without someone yelling "racism". This is particularly loathsome when you look at the support the Clinton's have always given to the black community. Do you see what I mean. Are you saying it's ok for us to use racism as a tool against Obama?

It's unmistakenly "Rovian" to pit this remarkable first female potential presidency against a first African American potential presidency. It plays on the Clinton's greatest strengths, i.e., their ties to the black community and the good relations they have had with that community for years; which is exactly like slashing Gore for his intellectualism and Kerry for his patriotism. Pull them down by attacking their greatest strengths.

Another example is how they have marginalized another of Hillary's greatest strengths, Bill. Every time he speaks up forcefully for his wife, he is immediately scorned as still wanting the presidency through Hillary, or, his bad temper is destroying her candidacy, or he is being racist, etc., etc.

The people of this country are once again being taken to the cleaners by Karl Rove, but, gosh, I'm a woman, so don't listen to a thing I have to say. Mark my words, most of the republicans and independents are not crossing over to vote for Obama because they love him.

[high density]

96. The media is certainly playing up the race angle with exit polls, etc

However, I have not seen Barack Obama come out and say, "Vote for me, I'm black," unlike the way Clinton has used her gender.

[ekwhite]

312. Tinfoil hat much?

:tinfoilhat:

:rant: I can't believe you think that the Obama campaign is a dirty trick by Karl Rove. This is just absurd. :rant:

There are no doubt some Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama to knock Senator Clinton out of the race, but this cannot explain the overwhelming numbers coming out this year. The fact is that Obama has inspired new voters to come into the Democratic party, and has had a superior grassroots organization to take advantage of the turnout. Senator Obama is no Karl Rove plant. He appears to be the real deal.

[lark]

160. That doesn't make sense to me

It's OK for African-Americans to vote for Obama due to racial pride, but wrong for women to vote for Clinton due to pride of sex?

Sad.

lark

[high density]

201. They can support the candidates for whatever reason they want NM

[anigbrowl]

47. Certainly not. But claims of sexism have been wildly exagerrated.

It's become (for a few people) a convenient response to any unwanted criticism, legitimate or not. The fact is that Hillary Clinton is not every woman, but many criticisms or rejections of her as an individual candidate are taken to apply to all women. Some people project their own psyche onto a candidate and take anything negative said about that candidate as an attack on themselves.

One thing that's struck me a lot is that almost nobody who claims sexism as a big issue has ever made comparisons between the challenges faced by Hillary Clinton and those faced by other successful Democratic women, for example governors or even Geraldine Ferraro, who ran as the VP candidate in 1984 with Walter Mondale. Most of these posters seem to think the history of women in politics begins and ends with Hillary Clinton and accord disproportionate weight to anything and everything said about her, to the point of being irrational.

I say irrational because many of the responses to posters to specific criticisms are irrational. Take, for example, the issue of Clinton's tax returns, which she has so far been reluctant to release. When this is brought up, rebuttals include the idea that she isn't finished preparing them (although anyone who stops to think about their own taxes would realize that it's her 2006 tax returns in question), that she can't release them because of her husband (while citing reasons that only apply to information about the Clinton presidential library) or just talking about something else altogether. These are not reasoned arguments, they are reflexive arguments. Please note that this is not to say Hillary Clinton must make public her tax returns to be considered acceptable, but to point out the sort of arguments that are most frequently advanced for her choosing not to do so.

There has been sexism directed at Hillary Clinton during the campaign and it's legitimate to complain about that...to the extent that it's legitimate to complain about any overtly shallow criticism of a candidate. On the other hand, in a presidential campaign it's inevitable that shallow criticisms of a candidate abound - McCain is frequently trashed here because o his age, his looks, and many other things, Bush is characterized as everything from a chimp to a maniac, and Republicans are frequently referred to as 'Repukes' or 'Rethuglicans' - by people who are deeply offended by the idea of being called a 'Democreep' or a 'Dimocrat'.

Bottom line is that if you don't like hearing it about your party or your candidate, then priority #1 is to avoid doing it yourself about others. And saying '_______ started it first!' is a waste of time. It didn't solve problems in elementary school and it's not going to solve any now.

[Dinger]

51. In SOME, Not All Cases. I Don't Know About The "Wildly" Part (nt)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

73. It's bit condescending to hear that "we" all think "women in politics begins and ends" with Clinton.

When you start with a broadly based description of your audience, you've revealed yourself. Along with telling us gals what's "legitimate" and what's not...all in your opinion of course.

Well, at least my response kicks the thread. :-)

[anigbrowl]

95. It would be, if I had actually said that...

but I did include qualifiers. Maybe your choice to ignore them reveals something about you.

And I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion about what legitimate criticisms are, and it being different from yours. You attacked it, but you didn't offer any actual reasons for disagreeing with it.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

103. Yes, your caveats are duly noted.

:hi:

[bvar22]

113. !

:thumbsup:

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Voice for Peace]

139. true.

when a hungry person goes to the grocery store,
everything there looks like food.

[Breeze54]

189. Cram it...

You support republicans! :grr:

[Der Blaue Engel]

366. I can't see what you're responding to

But this is my favorite response on this thread.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

229. The issue of her tax returns has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

But it gave you a nice opportunity to claim that her supporters make "irrational" arguments. That must have felt good, getting that zinger in.

The bottom line is that there should be NO sexist name calling or other sexist slurs on a progressive web site, but here it occurs on a daily basis. And people like you, as intelligent as you think you are, still need to be educated.

[RaleighNCDUer]

272. Links?

I have only seen Hillary supporters SAY they've seen people calling her names - I have not myself seen any of them.

Shrill? Yes. Not necessarily a sexist term. Phony? Applies to nearly every candidate. Please document the rampant use of 'witch, bitch, harpy' and whatever else it was you claimed.

[pnwmom]

277. Not worth my time. You can search as well as I can.

But "shrill" in regards to a woman IS sexist, even if some men might be shrill -- just as it would be racist to call an African American "Brillo" -- even though some white people also have kinky hair.

P.S. I decided to give you one example, but you can find the rest yourself. All I did was type "DU Hillary harpy" and I found this recent post. As I said, it's not just Hillary who is the target of sexist name calling -- her supporters are, too.

"Hillary's Harpies Will Slit Their Wrists Over This"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3186834&mesg_id=3186946

[theHandpuppet]

330. It's not allowed

Posting those links would be considered "calling out" other posters and could get this thread locked. Do your own search. There are plenty of DUers here who have read this sexist garbage and can vouch for the fact that it's posted here very day -- unless you want to call all of those witnesses liars.

[ekwhite]

315. Haven't been to HuffPo lately, have you? N/T

[stevenleser]

267. Very well said

... wonder if it will sink in?

[ekwhite]

314. I certainly liked Ferraro better than Mondale

That guy was the stiffest campaigner ever. Geraldine Ferraro would have been much better at the head of the ticket.

[casus belli]

361. Which of the four and a half million claims? n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. It's amazing isn't it? We comprise more than half the population, yet in 240 + years we have not

had a woman president.

I wonder why that is?

[high density]

27. Yeah that's all because of the Obama supporters like myself

Isn't it?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

29. What?

Unless Obama supporters have lifespans of centuries, I don't see it.

[pnwmom]

233. I'm not a Hillary supporter or an Obama suporter, though

at one time I leaned more toward the Obama camp.

But all the sexism I saw directed here toward Hillary has made me particularly careful to give her positions a fair appraisal. So, for the Obama supporters who somehow thought this would help their cause, it has backfired, in my case anyway.

[leftynyc]

149. We couldn't even vote until 1920

We all know why that is and there are still those who think we still shouldn't vote. Assholes everywhere.

[RaleighNCDUer]

273. And I didn't get the vote until 1972.

WTF does that prove? Other than the fact that you can carry a grudge.

[pnwmom]

278. It proves that you were born around 1954. So what? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

292. My point exactly. nt

[Pamela Troy]

300. And that point is...?

[RaleighNCDUer]

304. That the comment

(#149 by leftynyc) had nothing to do with the subject.

Conflating all the history of sexism into the thread is, itself, sexist.

[Pamela Troy]

309. How is bringing up the history of sexism in this thread sexist

for heavens sake?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

322. How can one doubt your agenda in posting this, with your history of enlightened

posts? :shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

333. Whatever. nt

[pnwmom]

355. The fact that there are many people alive today who were alive when women

couldn't vote shows how recent that time in history is -- and goes toward explaining why so much misogyny STILL exists in the culture.

Since that misogyny directly affects Hillary and every other high level woman politician (ask Barbara Boxer -- she's spoken at length about it), it is indeed relevant to this thread.

What is NOT relevant is the fact that you had to wait until you were 18 to vote.

[tigereye]

46. this has nothing to do with her campaign

but about responses to it (and in general) that I am surprised to see on a left-leaning political board.

[Maddy McCall]

79. Thank you.

I greatly appreciate you acknowledging it. Thank you.

[tigereye]

86. sure, that's my personal opinion

I'm a lefty feminist from way back, and I'm still stunned by some of the comments I read here. It doesn't have anything to do with who supports HRC or Obama.

[Maddy McCall]

303. Yes. That's what's so frustrating.

When I point something out, the person responds that I'm just mad because my candidate is losing...

I can deal with my candidate losing--I'm not bitter, angry, upset over that. I have a hard time accepting some of the sexist stuff said here, though.

:(

[LostinVA]

88. Thank you VERY much for stating this publicly

[tigereye]

92. this is just my personal opinion

I'm not speaking as a mod, but as an old school lefty feminist.

[LostinVA]

106. No, I understand that

[Captain Hilts]

317. I'm pretty stunned. I expect better of people who lean liberal. nt

[rodeodance]

118. you really do not have a clue dear one do you!

[Pamela Troy]

169. The complaints about sexism are perfectly valid.

Have you actually read them?

[pnwmom]

220. Did you hate the "Black is beautiful" slogan, too?

If an African American campaigned on a theme similar to "Black is beautiful," would you think that person deserved to have racial epithets thrown at him or her?

Wouldn't you criticize DUers who did so?

[VotesForWomen]

369. we'll stop complaining about it when it stops happening. pretty simple. nt

[Lucinda]

12. K&R - Thanks for the post!

[Pathwalker]

13. If you can't proudly say it to your Momma's face

you shouldn't say it about any woman*. Simple rule of thumb many here should use, IMO. Thank you for your post.

* This is what I taught my sons.

[emilyg]

99. Good rule.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. K&R!

[Dinger]

15. K & R, Definitely!

:patriot:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

16. Exactly. I've said it before, we know it when we see (read) it. K & R!

Every time we've been told "Don't worry your pretty head", everytime we've been dismissed as "just a girl", everytime we've heard the "pubic hair" joke, or some variation, every time we've had to literally fight off unwanted physical contact from clumsy, clueless men, well, we know it.

:applause: to your INSPIRATIONAL post!!!!

[tandot]

17. Great post. It has been very frustrating lately.

K & R

:hi:

[Froward69]

18. Ever since

Hillary (excuse me) Clinton decided to run for Prez the "sexist" accusation has been thrown quite liberally. First when we began referring to her simply as Hillary... it did not matter Hillary was what SHE chose to have printed on all of her campaign garb.

Sexist sexism and punishment for sex crimes is egregiously lop sided in this country anyhow. case in point.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/28/connecticut-woman-gets-probation-groping-santa/

Now lets hear about FAIR treatment...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

28. This has nothing to do with the crazy "sex offender" laws. Tying the two together

on your part, does not make it so.

[Froward69]

45. one goes

along with the other... if you want to bring attention to "sexist" remarks then the same rules apply no matter what gender they are leveled at. if a man grouped one of Santas elves he sure as shit would be 1)labeled a sex offender
2) would NOT have it dropped after PROBATION was up
3) would be doing TIME.

yet it was a woman who did the crime... like lots of women tell me (as I feel by the way) "I would like to have a Woman as President, Just not THAT woman." having an opinion about Ms Clinton based upon actions and are in no way based upon sex.To Hillary supporters that is "SEXIST"!!!

not letting gender nor race influence my decision as to whom I feel would be a better president is to
Hillary supporters "SEXIST"!!!

goes to show how much of a catch 22 not supporting Hillary really is.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. You seem upset about this. I'm not spoiling for the fight you seem to want.

YOU are the one who brought a "groping" post into this discussion. Your issues are not the be all, end all.

No more chum for you. :-)

[lark]

178. Patently false and totally untrue

Every day men grope or violate woman in much worse ways and nothing AT ALL happens to the guy, other than other guys patting him on the back!! I remember when a young woman was raped at a club in front of tons of people but the judge ruled it wasn't rape because the woman wore a lace dress. When did you ever hear of a group of women violating a man and they aren't charged because he's wearing tight pants - NEVER. Tell me that sexism and sex crimes aren't alive and well in America, then spend a month manning a rape crisis line and see if you feel any differently.

[question everything]

40. Simple criteria

How many threads on DU have been about Obama's hair, makeup, voice, cleavage, clothes?

None.

How many comments in the late night shows have there been about Obama's pantsuits? Or any other article of clothing?

None.

How many threads have compared Obama to a crazed murderer?

(She was compared to the Glenn Close character in the movie Fatal Attraction)

None

How many voters said they would not vote for Obama because he is still married to Michelle or because he does not have pets, or because he reminds them of their 5th grade teacher, or because he does not have a hobby? And collect these comments in a book?

And these are just threads that I have seen. I don't spend many hours here, not every day, so no doubt I've missed some.

[Zookeeper]

44. Two years of probation for groping Santa doesn't sound unfair...

considering all the crap men get away with everyday, including rape and molestation.

I just did a google search using the words, "Man gets probation for molesting girl," and here are a few of the many results:

"Girl's molester gets no time"

"During the investigation, the girl told police Smith molested her “every day of the week” when her mother was at work, with the first molestation occurring in the summer of 2000. The molestations stopped in January 2004 when her mother said they would be moving out of his home."

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/LOCAL03/802090378

-------

"Elder gets two years probation for molesting 12 year old girl"

"Claude Martin, 77, was convicted of sexual assault for touching the 10-year-old girl’s buttocks and vagina through her clothes in 2000 or 2001.

He was acquitted after a five-day trial in Ontario Court of a second count involving a girl who was about the same age during an alleged incident in the late 1980s.

Although it was not admitted as evidence, the court also heard about a 2003 statement in which Martin told police he had a problem with sexual fantasies involving young girls.

He gave the statement while police were investigating an allegation that Martin exposed himself to a 12-year-old girl delivering newspapers. He was not charged in that incident."

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17053/elder-gets-two-years-probation-for-molesting-12-year-old-girl

-----------

"Judge gives man 2 years probation for molesting girl"

"An Arlington Heights man who pleaded guilty Monday to sexually abusing a young relative in 1992 received two years' probation as part of a negotiated agreement. The family's desire to put the past behind them was a factor in the arrangement for John Maday, 54, who was released after the hearing before Cook County Judge Karen Thompson Tobin."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5273/is_200006/ai_n20593852

----------

Do a search. You'll find many more.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

62. Muy excellente.

:toast:

[Der Blaue Engel]

74. Sex crimes has what to do with this, now?

As for the first part of your post, which actually made sense, I'm not talking about people claiming any and every anti-Clinton statement is sexism. I'm only talking about the sexist language, regardless of whether the person is anti- or pro-Clinton, that is being thrown about quite liberally: "bitch, shrill, menopausal, voice like every man's ex-wife, scolding mommy," etc.

[lark]

167. Sex crimes are lopsided

It's about power and control, not love or even lust. How many men are raped each year, how many men die from assault by their spouses or girlfriends each year, yep, I'm sure there are so many male victims. Your post is disgusting! The woman did a stupid thing, men do even more stupid things every day and nothing at all happens, so you should be happy that this woman got punished.

lark

[davidthegnome]

188. Absurd

So because men are more often the guilty party we should be grateful that a woman is handed any punishment at all when guilty of sex crimes? Even when the punishment comes no where near fitting the crime? Personally, I feel that those convicted of such crimes should face certain... unpleasant consequences that I won't go into detail about. Your post, however, is very sexist.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[LisaM]

23. We need to help more women get elected

That's why, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I strongly encourage women to put their campaign dollars behind EMILY's list.

[eridani]

158. Nomination or not, EMILY's List is still an excellent organization n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

354. We need to get more PROGRESSIVES elected

unfortunately that doesn't include Hillary. Oh, wait, do i have to talk about sexism now?

[jgraz]

31. Sexism is a problem, as are false charges of sexism

I agree that there are a lot sexist posts on this site (strangely, most of them coming from women). But when you go after honest posters for using words like "unhinged" or "rant", you make it that much less likely that people will listen to complaints about the truly objectionable comments.

The sad fact is that much of Hillary's problem comes from her inability to use emotion effectively. She comes across as scripted and phony, much in the same way that Kerry, Dukakis and Gore 1.0 did. Of course, when you point out that problem with a woman, you are immediately subject to charges of sexism.

The other side of the coin is that the same posters who see sexism lurking around every corner will talk about the "new perspective" a woman president would bring, or about how "it's time we elected a woman in this country." They seem to imply (or state directly) that Hillary's gender somehow comes with these magical benefits that we'll realize once she's elected. And yet, if someone were to suggest that her gender would have negative consequences for the country, these same posters would (rightfully) hammer them.

This primary season has given us all an immersion course in race and gender relations. People on both sides are bound to say stupid, insensitive things as we adjust our online discourse to deal with these two historic candidacies. The only way I see to deal with it is to give each other a break, accept that all humans are pre-programmed to be dumbasses, and try to work these issues out calmly.

At the end of the day, we're all working for the same things. Pointing fingers at each other does nothing to get us closer to those goals.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

36. Wow, talk about a balancing act.

I'll give you props for presenting your opinion in a civil manner.

[jgraz]

39. This whole lurch through the minefield of gender politics has been a balancing act

One that I'll fully admit to failing at times. I think all of us are going to come out of this with a better understanding of the other's POV.

[tigereye]

48. nicely said, jgraz!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

57. What a nice post, jgraz. And, I couldn't agree more.

:toast:

[anigbrowl]

52. Well put. nt

[Breeze54]

193. "... her inability to use emotion effectively." ? What a crock!

If she shows emotion, she's vilified for 'using it'.

If she doesn't show emotion; she's a cold, calculating bitch!

She can't win no matter what she says or does!!!

I haven't seen men using their emotions effectively either but I NEVER hear about that!! :grr:

Here's another of your BS statements....

"I agree that there are a lot sexist posts on this site (strangely, most of them coming from women). "

That's BS too! First of all, how do you know who is or isn't male or female on DU?
More male names or people saying they're male have made sexist comments and it was
going on well before HRC announced she was running.

The only thing you said in your post that I agree with is the title.

[jgraz]

217. Would you consider it sexist for me to question your reading comprehension skills?

"If she shows emotion, she's vilified for 'using it'."

She's "vilified" (your word) for being programmed and uncomfortable. She comes off as phony.


"If she doesn't show emotion; she's a cold, calculating bitch!"

Point to one poster on here who has used the words "cold calculating bitch" (besides you, that is)


"I haven't seen men using their emotions effectively either but I NEVER hear about that!!"

Yes, you do. You heard it about Kerry, you heard it about Gore and you heard it about Dukakis. "Using emotions effectively" are my words. "Robotic", "programmed", "uptight", and "phony" are the words the press used -- coincidentally, the same words they use about Hillary.


Here's another of your BS statements....

"I agree that there are a lot sexist posts on this site (strangely, most of them coming from women). "

True story, but admittedly my own personal experience. The only "bitch" posts I've seen have come from females, and the infamous "wifey" post that sent GDP into meltdown last weekend came from a female.


"That's BS too! First of all, how do you know who is or isn't male or female on DU?"

See, we have these things called profiles, where people sometimes list their gender. Hey, I noticed you've done that, too. :crazy:


"More male names or people saying they're male have made sexist comments and it was
going on well before HRC announced she was running."

Now why is my statement BS and yours isn't? How do you know they're male? What's your definition of a "male name". How many posts did you actually look at?


"The only thing you said in your post that I agree with is the title."

And yet you chose to add to the problem. Nice work. :eyes:

[Breeze54]

235. "these things called profiles"

And those things called false statements.

"She's "vilified" (your word) for being programmed and uncomfortable. She comes off as phony."


No, she comes across as being in control of her emotions and being serious about the topic she's discussing.

When a man speaks that way, I don't hear people saying he's phony and uncomfortable. Just you.

Typical that you'd use an insult of my reading capabilities as a defense for what you now admit was that your statement accusing more women of making sexist comments was your opinion and not based in facts. I already knew it wasn't factual but I guess I'd better brush up on my comprehension. :eyes:

[jgraz]

240. Also, you might want to consider learning the difference between fact and opinion

Most of us can pick that up from context. Apparently you need some sort of more explicit signal.

OK -- The original response was MY OPINION. You can have a different opinion, but you don't get to say that MY OPINION is "false". Opinions don't work that way.

Your opinion seems to be that Hillary has done NOTHING in her statements or actions that should be criticized. She is in control and serious, and all of the boos she gets in debates and the fact that she's cratering in the polls is nothing but rampant sexism. If only she had a penis, she'd already be the nominee.


And by the way, when have you heard ANY presidential candidate speak the way Hillary did this weekend? Has any candidate previously held a wild-eyed, pamphlet-waving rant in front of reporters only days after saying how "honored" he was to share the stage with his opponent? Has any previous candidate openly and sarcastically mocked his opponent's supporters? Unless you can point to examples, you have no reference point for your comparison.

[Breeze54]

245. Now who can't comprehend?

I didn't say YOUR opinion was false.

I said you spinning your opinion as FACT was false.

I saw Edwards screaming in anger in quite a few speeches.
I didn't see anything here on DU chastising all the anger Edwards was displaying.

HRC has the right to be angry and to say so, if she wants to, as does Obama.

Get over it. It's a campaign. She's fighting to win it. As is Obama.

[jgraz]

263. You've gotta be kidding -- you missed all the "angry Edwards" criticisms?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3752301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3896164

Funny how they all seem to come from Hillary supporters. :shrug:

[Breeze54]

269. Thanks, I missed them and will take a look.

But I was working on promoting and supporting Dennis Kucinich, so
I didn't really bother with the others. He's my candidate still.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

324. You Kucinich supporters kick ass. I told friends of mine to watch the MSNBC debate just to see him

in action. Then MSNBC went to the Nevada State Supreme Court and well, that was that.

I apologize for not paying more attention. He's getting money from me tomorrow. :loveya:

[GoneOffShore]

306. Hey - Good post

And you put much of what is going on here in perspective.

[truedelphi]

439. Unless you have been a woman, you cannot realize that "language"

is only a wee teenie little bit of the problem.

The same woman that would beat up on me here for calling someone,even a man, a "Pussy" (bad refection on the dialogue of men and women's empoweredness) is the same woman who looks down on me because I no longer concern myself with enshrouding my life inside an anorexic diet to have me at the desired Size Six of burqha hood required of career minded women.

And what about the panty hose thing? How many women who would disdain a woman calling Hillary shrill or bitchy would also, if they were the boss, call that woman into their office to say that panty hose were a necsessity.

American women are supposed to eat every other day of the week to be thin, wear confining and weird and expensive items of clothing accessories, and many other things to fit into the "A" list of approved behavior. None of THAT is considered sexist. It is actually encouraged by many if not most of America's women.

But when a woman says "Cunt" or "Pussy," "Bitch" or "Witch" that is supposedly against her gender.

As far as I am concerned, the required behaviors are far more confining of my personhood and should be far more examined than mere language.

[joeprogressive]

34. It is absurd to think that calling someone "frustrated" is a sexist statement

You diminish your cause with such notions. .If there are truly sexists here, they are either trolls, freepers or in such the minority that your concern is not warranted

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. Thanks for the lecture!

I always love it when a big,strong man tells pretty little me what's what!

:hi:

[texshelters]

172. Taking it personally, are we

I don't know if JoeProgressive is a big hunky man, but he seemed to be questioning something and disagreeing. Is disagreement somehow on the list of sexist behaviors?

I don't think so.

Tex Shelters

[Hoof Hearted]

190. You and your silly notions, diminishing your cause and having all those

thoughts and stuff.

[LostinVA]

41. Continuing this from your OWN locked thread is against DU rules

[SeaLyons]

63. blah blah blah

[MonkeyFunk]

76. When one attributes her frustration

to menopausal mood swings, yeah, it's sexist.

[anigbrowl]

87. And when people attribute the use of the word 'frustration' to...

a belief in menopausal mood swings, it's BS. I saw several threads where people were jumped on just for saying 'She looks frustrated' without any menopausal connotations whatsoever. One poster argued that the proof of 'frustrated' being a gender loaded term could be found by googling 'frustrated women', a method that could be used to suggest any word is gender loaded (try 'presidential women', for example, which gets almost twice as many hits as 'presidential men').

[MonkeyFunk]

101. Well, I saw many posts

directly mentioning mood swings or menopause, and people making those claims didn't even think THAT was sexist.

So I've come to the conclusion that those who engage in it just refuse to see it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[anigbrowl]

115. Yes, but are they from the same people?

I'm not disputing that some people are very sexist and blind to the fact; but indiscriminate accusations of sexism are just as annoying and hurtful as gratuitously sexist remarks to those on the receiving end - in both cases someone is being denigrated for the perceived failings of others which they have no control over.

[MonkeyFunk]

119. It's frustrating to argue with people

who keep talking about unfounded accusations of sexism, when I see such blatant examples of it here every day.

[anigbrowl]

130. But that is the foundation of bigotry.

Yes, there are examples of sexism all over. But calling people sexist because sexism exists is like calling black people criminals because you've seen a lot of black crime, or calling women fussy because you've seen a lot of fussy women, calling old people senile because you've seen a lot of senile old people.

It's right to call people on specific examples of sexism, but in a lot of cases lately that judgment is being applied far too broadly. If you think people should be judged as individuals, as I assume you do, then that applies just as much to judgments about sexism.

Nobody's perfect, and nobody here wants the sort of rigid ideological conformity that we associate with strict communism, but identity politics taken past a certain point stop being liberating and start being oppressive too.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

132. Kind of like the "identity" politics of those who opposed apartheid.

:shrug:

[anigbrowl]

145. I said 'taken past a certain point'. Apartheid itself was a form of identity politics taken too far.

It seems you're not willing to discuss what's written, but only want to argue with partial statements pulled out of context. You really distorted what I was trying to say and I think that's very dishonest of you.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

327. You and I agree far more than we disagree, I'm sure.

If you want to discuss with a woman the implications of language upon those for whom the words are designed to inflict a form of contemptuous ridicule, then you should be prepared for some energetic give and take.

[Pamela Troy]

166. Calling people sexist when they engage in sexist rhetoric

is not "bigotry." I read posts like yours, and I truly wonder what it would take before you admitted that there was a problem here with sexist comments about Clinton.

No, I'm NOT a Clinton supporter. I'm an Obama supporter who's savvy and awake enough to recognize sexism when I see it.)

[Scout]

35. K & R n/t

[tigereye]

43. couldn't agree with you more, actually

:thumbsup:

[juajen]

49. I'm very happy to recommend this post.

Yes, I have noticed this happening, and I agree with you. I love it that a lot of men recognize this. We have progressed some from the fifties, but, not as much as we should have. I am glad that, AFAIK, Skinner did not grace that particular post with a reply.

[cali]

50. I'm with you

all the way. I wasn't surprised when yesterday, I wrote a post as an Obama supporter decrying sexism, and I got a lot of shit from fellow Obama supporters.

[countryjake]

177. Your post was a good example of how many wish to overlook the problem...

and simply attack the messenger, no matter where one stands in these campaigns. Speaking out on sexism will bring out the worst and most ignorant of the lot, for sure.

[tabasco]

54. I agree it has brought out the ugliness.

Sexism in no form should be tolerated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4793809&mesg_id=4806352

[Straight Shooter]

55. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[Jamastiene]

56. Best.Post.Of.This.Year.So.Far.

:kick: and recommended.

[SeaLyons]

58. Well Said

[washingdem]

61. Kinda like pretending there was no ill intent behind the Obama "garb" picture

"What? It's just a picture!"

or

"What? That's his middle name!"

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

64. Another case of not getting itosis.

Welcome, such a helpful post! :hi:

[washingdem]

66. You're welcome

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

77. self delete.

Said poster will do it to himself.

[SeaLyons]

68. No, Kinda Like

the Obama camp put the picture out there themselves to promote their assault on the Clintons.

[washingdem]

69. Wow... and it's Obama people who are supposed to be delusional cultists?

That's quite a theory you have. I guess Hillary has never done anything wrong.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

91. LOL, if little cricket is a Sen. Clinton supporter, I'm Sarah Connor.

:-)

[pnwmom]

280. I'm convinced the Rethugs passed that picture around. Easy enough to do,

since it had recently been in the National Enquirer. But by pretending that Clinton did it, they can score direct hits against both Democratic campaigns.

[Zookeeper]

67. I've been avoiding threads about Clinton or Obama...

but, I don't doubt you at all since I've always noticed a disappointing amount of sexism and misogyny on DU. It is glaringly obvious in the media.

As an aside, my HS daughter regularly reports on what kids at school are saying about the candidates. The only negative about Obama so far is the rumor that he's "a Muslim and we don't want a Muslim for president." OTOH, the boys call Clinton a bitch and a c**t, which my daughter has challenged them on, asking for a reason, which they don't have. And then there are the comments that we don't want a woman president "because she'll get her period and blow up the world."

I have found all of this very disappointing, to say the least, and really feel a sense of loss in thinking that I will never see a Democratic female president in my lifetime.

[tigereye]

174. that's just incredible...

as if there haven't been many women around the world who have run countries....

[Zookeeper]

209. Well, the general lack of knowledge on the part of these kids...

especially regarding current and world affairs is very, very disturbing. One of my "favorite" stories: My daughter mentioned something about the Iraq war and another girl (popular, affluent) said, "Ohhh. Are we still over there?"

However, sexism is FAR more acceptable, if even acknowledged, than any other "ism." The only bigotry at my daughter's high school, full of middle and upper-middle class kids, that is nearly as tolerated as misogyny, is directed at Jews and fat people. (I'm really mystified by the anti-Semitism around here!)

[lark]

231. Never in misogynistic America, that's for sure

Never will be for a long time to come, either, based on the hating every female candidate to date has had to face.

lark

[totodeinhere]

70. I don't understand.

I have seen absurd rationalizations about how sexist terms are really not sexist because they're used on men.

If a term can be used both on men and women then please explain how that term can be sexist? For instance, Obama has been slammed for using the term "claws." According to some that is sexist. But specifically how is that word sexist? Both males and females have claws. So how can a term not be sexist when it refers to a male yet that same term is sexist when it refers to a female? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

80. It implies the feline. Which is often used as a stereotype of negative female traits

But, of course your confused,concerned self already knew that. :-)

[totodeinhere]

85. I ask a simple question and I get personally attacked for it.

Honest to God, I haven't ever heard that the term feline is "used as a stereotype of negative female traits." And in all modesty I consider myself at least a reasonably informed person.

How can that be when felines are both males and females? It still doesn't make any sense to me. And unless he has been reading DU I doubt if Obama has ever heard that implying the feline is sexist either.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

90. Le Sigh. Oblivion, such a warm, fuzzy place. Since you desperately seek answers,

here's a couple of examples of expressions, although, I'm not certain you're ready for this level of enlightenment, "catty" and "catfight" for starters.

I breathlessly await your plea for yet more clarification.

[totodeinhere]

97. And now I am greated with sarcasm.

I was trying to have a civilized discussion on an important issue, but I don't think that's possible now.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

100. It appeared to be obsfucation, it's tough to tell the difference anymore.

[RaleighNCDUer]

279. My feline is very definitely male, and he has his claw,

even if he no longer has his balls.

Felines are feminine and canines are masculine is nonsense from people who know neither.

[Der Blaue Engel]

82. If you're a man, and I call you a bitch, it's not because that word isn't sexist

It's because I'm demeaning you by comparison to the feminine.

So how can a term not be sexist when it refers to a male yet that same term is sexist when it refers to a female?

That's not what I said. I'm saying the terms in question are always sexist; using them on men doesn't make them neutral.

It has been argued by a number of posters that bitch can't be sexist because people call men bitches. The astounding ignorance and failure of logic in that argument is mind-numbing.

[totodeinhere]

93. Clinton should not be referred to as a "bitch."

And the vast majority of Obama supporters would not do that, but those who do should be chastised for it. And I am not maintaining that sexism doesn't exist or that sexism has not been used against Clinton. And when sexism is used against Clinton I oppose it as all fair minded people should. But I do maintain that Clinton's failure in the primary campaign cannot be blamed on sexism. There are many reason why she is losing but sexism isn't one of them IMO.

But it seems as though you presume to be the ultimate authority on what words in the English language are sexist and which aren't. But that's not how it works. Terms are deemed to be sexist when there is a general consensus in our society to that end. The same applies to racism. For instance, everyone agrees that the "n" word is racist, but there is no consensus in our society that the word "black" is racist." Likewise, you are assigning sexism to terms that most people in our society would not consider to be sexist, and I ask, what gives you the right to do that? You don't speak for our whole society.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

102. Hmmm, you seem to have gained all kinds of understanding in a very short period of time.

Glad I could be of assistance!

[totodeinhere]

117. You didn't help me one bit.

But thanks anyway.

[texshelters]

173. Condeleeza Rice?

I'll stick to calling her a b....bad person.

Tex

[Der Blaue Engel]

274. I'm talking about a whole system of language

I don't make the rules, nor am I claiming to be an "authority" on anything. I'm telling you that as a woman, I and others have experienced sexism in this culture through the use of certain terminology meant specifically to deflect accusations of sexism. It's possible that some truly don't recognize it for what it is, but as an example of the era in which this type of language reached an ugly peak in the US, I'd recommend watching the series "Mad Men." The subtlety and the unspoken assumptions behind seemingly innocuous phrases make it easier to hide, so that objections to it can be summarily dismissed.

It becomes second nature to use terms that demean and belittle when it's pervasive in the culture. Women do it as well. Hillary Clinton has probably done it. The point is that when someone says that they feel demeaned by something, the response should not be "You're imagining things" or "You're crying sexism because you're not getting your way." (Those, in fact, are the very kinds of responses we have heard all our lives to reinforce the language of sexism and to make us feel it's "all in our heads.") It's a simple matter to respect that the words are being perceived as demeaning whether they are meant to be or not and to adjust. If someone tells me that I'm using language they feel is demeaning to their race, I don't start arguing hotly with them about why what I'm saying is perfectly acceptable. I just don't say it anymore, out of respect for the fact that it is being perceived as negative.

People can dispute the meaning of language until the cows come home, but what I and many women here are saying is that we've begun to see a hostile atmosphere on DU, and it should not be dismissed as "partisanship."

Edited for clarity and spelling

[VotesForWomen]

370. calling a man a bitch insults him and it also insults all women. men do it all the time and then

they act all innocent and clueless if you tell them it's insulting to women. do women go around routinely calling each other 'dicks' or some such thing? men are constantly insulting each other by comparing them to women and it is so obviously degrading to women that anyone who doesn't see it is being willfully ignorant or needs to seriously open their eyes.

[lark]

232. Have you ever heard mention of a man bringing out his claws?

Nope, didn't think so.

[starroute]

275. How about this one?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-hillary_haters_bdaug26,1,4382207.story

Vast army of 'Hillary haters' has claws out

August 26, 2007

Richard Collins, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, businessman and political aficionado, heaps praise on the woman he has set out to destroy, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

"She looks like a winner," said Collins, sitting in his high-rise office with sweeping views of the city. "She's run a good campaign, very consistent, no mistakes."

But make no mistake about it: Collins is just one in a vast army of professional "Hillary haters" who are banking on Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 election who denigrated John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, Collins and others are searching for just the thing that will crystallize the way voters think and feel about her. . . .

With his affable demeanor and sixth-generation Texas twang, Collins, 60, is the force behind StopHerNow.com, a humorous and snarky Web site, as well as an independent expenditure group dedicated to stopping Clinton's march to the White House.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. I remember the good ole days when I referred to a GOP congressperson as...

a "bitch" and was flooded with PMs admonishing me and a rap on the knuckles from a mod. Apparently it was okay to refer to someone as a bastard, but bitch was out of the question. (I'm female BTW)

At any rate, I agree with you. Thanks for posting.

[SharonAnn]

105. The interesting thing is that many pejoratives refer to the "feminine", such as

Bitch
Son of a Bitch (refers to his mother)
Bastard (refers to mother's marital status)

[anigbrowl]

112. As a guy, I have to tell you, it's not all about you.

When one boy/man calls another a bastard, neither of them care about the mother's marital status. The insult is based on the suggestion that the target is not good enough to be acknowledged by his father. Boys tend to try out calling each other bastards long before calling a girl a bitch, and that latter is usually based on whether they think she's mean in some way.

I can't recall 'bitch' ever carrying connotations of illegitimacy *among boys*, despite many hours of sitting around as a kid discussing what various 'bad words' actually meant. Girls might have some quite different standard for these things among themselves, though from what I remember in an academic context the main differences are in conversational dynamics rather than particular word meanings.

Deborah Tannen has written several books on this sort of thing if you're interested.

[Pacifist Patriot]

114. True, but then I catch my kids mostly calling each other...

"jerk off" and "dickhead"

;) Cheers

[SaveOurDemocracy]

72. Excellent post ... thank you!

I've been outraged by some of the blatant sexism I've seen tolerated on this board.


Is this surprising tolerance due to the fact that the Admins are all male? They set the tone of the board by what they choose to react to ... an absence of reaction is seen as acceptance, if not passive approval.


Ridiculously stereotypical sexist language, and demeaning cliches, have been permitted to stand time and again. This only encourages more of the same. We ALL decry any posts even remotely racist. We refuse to tolerate that bigotry, so it seldom rears it's ugly head here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. I accept that IRL...

There is significant opposition to Hillary that has a misogynistic basis.

1) I don't think that our candidate is served by rending our garments and setting ourselves on fire because someone, somewhere, called her shrill. It makes her look weak. If a male candidate spent a comparable effort complaining that someone said he was an oaf, it would make him look irrelevant and unfit.
2) If the language used in DU, a place where rules exist forbidding all but the most carefully veiled allusions to misogyny, renders us incapable of function, words like "periodically", we'll self-destruct in the general election.

The best way to break the stereotypes and change the prevailing views is to win and govern wisely.

[anigbrowl]

78. Reality check: would you vote for Condoleezza Rice?

If Condoleezza Rice were running against a similarly qualified Democratic candidate who happened to be male, would you vote for her?

How about Margaret Thatcher - OK, she's British, but she won power through elections - within her conservative party, and three times in the UK general elections. for those not old enough or too forgetful to remember, her policies were pretty similar to Ronald Reagan's: union-busting, force-wielding, privatizing.

They're both very conservative, but they're women. And per comment sin this thread, there's never been a woman president. We know perfectly well that if the GOP did field Condoleezza Rice as a candidate, any criticism of her from the left would be greeted with the response 'but I thought you guys cared for gender equality!'.

Now, if you are serious about the sexism issue, explain to me why you wouldn't want to vote for Condoleezza Rice, but think there's something sexist about a majority of voters on the Dem side preferring someone else to Hillary Clinton. Please try to avoid arguments based on 'she has 35 years of experience' because the quality of experience is highly subjective, and in any case McCain has arguably 50 years of experience.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

84. OMG. That's rich! No I wouldn't vote for her, nor would I stand for her being attacked for being a

woman.

Hell, I've defended Coulter and Malkin here on DU, from sexist remarks made about them.

Funny question and post, though. Thanks for the laugh. :rofl:

[anigbrowl]

104. But then why is it, when people say...

'I'd vote for a woman, but not that particular woman' about Hillary Clinton, some posters are quick to write this off as nothing more than a figleaf for covert sexism? Such a statement has been dismissed as 'code' many times on DU recently.

That's the only reason I bring it up - it's got to where some posters (not you especially) seem to interpret any opinion about Hillary Clinton which doesn't jibe with theirs as evidence of sexism...and frankly, I think it's scared a few undecided people of the idea of voting for her.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

108. Perhaps it's the qualifier "I'd vote for a woman". As if we're some rare, unusual species,

instead of half the population.

If anyone said something similar "I'd vote for a black man, just not that black man" they'd be called out in a heartbeat and rightly so. The speaker makes it a distinction, and then elaborates in a negative manner.

[anigbrowl]

121. But women ARE rare in politics - as we are constantly reminded.

You seem to be making a very circular argument here - though perhaps I'm being sexist by taking a linear approach :-)

Seriously, what I'm hearing on DU from quite a few people goes like this:

a: Women are underrepresented in politics. That's one reason you should vote for Jane Doe!
b: True, but frankly I prefer John Doe (no relation).
a: Well, that's kinda sexist - I think you just like John Doe because you're so used to voting for men.
b: I'm cool with voting for women. I just don't like Jane Doe in particular.
a: Why are you treating women in politics as exceptional?
(etc.)

that's why I brought up Condoleezza Rice. Since we're on DU, we can easily agree on all the reasons why she is not someone we'd want to have in charge of the country, and nobody (besides a Republican troll) would argue that this is due to patriarchal brainwashing or something. Ditto Margaret Thatcher or a number of other examples that spring to mind. So it bugs me that this argument is being brought up so often about Hillary Clinton.

It also offends me because I've already voted for women in many contexts. I live in San Francisco, so I'm represented by Nancy Pelosi, although she's been a disappointment to me as speaker. My US Senator is Diane Feinstein and I'm happy with her. And unlike you, I've already voted for a woman in a Presidential election - President of Ireland that is (dual citizen). Twice, for two different women. The Irish Presidency isn't nearly as powerful as the US one, but the President is head of state.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

127. How do you know that I haven't voted for a woman for president. I was voting age when Shirley

Chisholm ran. More assumptions about me.

And I would love a discussion as to why half the coutry's population has some a small representation in our large institutions of government and business. Or, why women had to fight to have the vote less than eighty years ago. But, that's not the discussion you seem to seek.

And, I'm grateful that the people with whom I interact in the non virtual world would not participate in the shallow, non productive "argument" you made up. Very few people seem to have the need to preface any statement about Sen. Clinton or any other politician with "I'd vote for a woman" as if that is a necessary qualifier.

Fortunately, not a lot of DU'ers would participate in your hypothetical non argument, either. Just enough would to keep from touching on the real reasons that women are vastly underrepresented in positions of influence in this country.

[anigbrowl]

141. Shirley Chishold didn't get nominated.

What I meant was in a general election rather than a primary election. I guess I should have said 'general' rather than 'Presidential'. I haven't voted for Obama to be President yet, only to be the nominee.

It's certainly worthwhile having a discussion about why women are underrepresented in US politics and business. Being European originally, and having lived there about half my life, the level of female representation in these fields seems to me to be quite low in the US. I'm not sure why, but I feel it has something to do with the very different patterns of population density and demographics.

You seem to have missed my point that the qualifier about 'I would vote for a woman' is most often made to refute the suggestion (widespread here on DU) that some people would not vote for a woman because they're patriarchal or suchlike. Some Hillary supporters, knowingly or not, are employing a bait and switch argument in order to frame her candidacy a certain way, and accusing anyone who doesn't buy into it of being sexist. Lest there be further misunderstandings, I'd like to point out that I made my decision about which candidate to support a long time ago and it wasn't based on the views of their supporters but on specific policies they proposed. I'm only posting about this topic today because I want to make an observation about the discussions on DU.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

321. If you think the fact that American women are in very few influential government/business jobs is

because of "very different patterns of population density and demographics", than you're too far gone for me. Perhaps a more intrepid DUer will engage with you.

Yikes, pie charts of misogyny.

[RaleighNCDUer]

283. Bullshit.

If "that black man" happened to be (shit, mind-fart - what's the name of that fucktard who ran against Obama in Illinois?) yeah, him, the "not THAT black man" is perfectly valid.

I wouldn't vote for "that woman" Clinton because she's DLC. I certainly WOULD vote for Boxer.

There ARE valid distinctions.

[texshelters]

175. How about if I attack

Condoleeza Rice for being a puppet of the military industrial complex that would attack any country that would be a profit center for Cheney and his cronies? She doesn't need defending; she powerful and education. In addition; her actions and support of Bush has hurt us all.

Tex

[tigereye]

180. well, she's a Republican for starters

I have defended her on here when sexist or offensive remarks were made. I think she has been a terrible administrator. The only female I have had trouble defending is Coulter, and perhaps Phyllis Schafly.


you have made some well-reasoned arguments. Thanks for giving this some critical thought.

[Breeze54]

197. Your republicanism is showing again!

Why are you here? :shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

293. Did you read my post?

Nowhere did I even infer that preferring someone other than Hillary Clinton was sexist. In fact, I specifically said exactly the opposite:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO WINS THIS NOMINATION. It has nothing to do with supporting a woman candidate, or with "sour grapes."

Thank you for reading.

[ElboRuum]

81. Well, let me ask a question, because I've seen this...

...and I'm a little concerned about where this is all leading.

OK, say you call someone on a remark you deem sexist.
Let's say that they disagree with your assessment.
You say that it is sexist, no two ways about it.
Again they disagree.
Everyone starts piling on, one side or the other.
This goes on and on, usually resolving nothing of any sort, other than pissing everyone off and driving wedges into the DU community.

So, my question to you is as follows:

You call someone sexist, "pointing it out" as you put it. Now what do you expect to happen? What should happen? In other words, what is your INTENT with "J'accuse?", because I'm a little confused as to where this is supposed to go following that accusation.

[texshelters]

176. Reframe

If I use a word someone doesn't like, such as "dog" (men are called dog, is that sexist?), and I care about them, I change my usage and try to say it in another way. I might instead say, "We go out and all you do is ogle the women and we can't have a good conversation.

Tex

[ElboRuum]

385. I'm not talking in the specific, I'm talking about DU itself.

Besides, even reframed, the question isn't answered. You see, most of these "what is and isn't sexist" threads almost always devolve into a pissing contest. One side typically defines it, and the other refutes the definition. My question is that, in the case where someone points it out, what is the purpose of the person pointing it out? Is there a next step? On the whole, what is the point of this accusation if there is nothing past that point? Is it there to simply embarrass or admonish another poster, or is there more intent involved?

This is the question I'm asking.

[Der Blaue Engel]

295. If you search my posts, I don't believe I've ever accused anyone of being sexist

I have, however, said things like, "Comments like that are sexist" and then explained why I felt that way. Now, if someone disagrees, that is their right, but it is also my right to feel that it was demeaning to women. Should I just not say so in case they're offended by that?

Often, pointing out the inherent sexism (or racism or homophobia) in the wording someone is using helps people to realize the effect their words have on a large group of people if perchance they weren't aware of it before. Pointing it out is not divisive (and I will do so whether online or IRL conversation). Refusing to give a damn how one's words affect others and insisting that others are delusional (which is often the response) IS.

[ElboRuum]

402. Ok, let me address each point.

If you say that "comments like that are sexist" you make an implied accusation. Parsing the words is not a successful dodge. If a person makes a sexist comment, and you point out that the comment is sexist, then you imply that the person who makes the comment is sexist.

Second. You ask the (rhetorical) question that "should not say so in case they are offended by that?" What's remarkable about this is that it comes on the heels of a restatement of your own rights to offend when offended (you feel it is demeaning to women). However, by pointing out that you believe that a statement is sexist, you are making the implication that the person should, in all assiduousness, avoid comments that you find (or that others might) find offensive by your own statements, while at the same time standing up for your right to offend others.

Third, I would disagree with you in that pointing out the inherent sexistm in the wording someone is using is helpful writ large. Perhaps to some it is, but only in the case where the point is well made. Rarely does this well made point occur around here where this particular topic is concerned. I've seen accusations of sexism made where none exist. I've seen accusations of racism made where none exist. While some may have merit, the throwing about of accusations as though they were a dime-a-dozen is a self-fulfilling prophecy: the accusation itself is devalued, and sometimes it looks downright cheap.

Now let's assume that you had one of these aspersions (and yes, an accusation of sexism is an aspersion, whether direct or thinly veiled, regardless of intent) cast at you in a manner you believe is unjust. Then pointing it out carries with it the possibility of perception by the accused of divisiveness. Think of it this way, a person believes him/herself to be a member of a community in good standing, then someone comes up and levels a charge at them which is directly affective of that person's good standing. In our society, as ridiculous as it may be, the reality is that the accusation often convicts in the minds of people willing to believe the worst of people over the best. Now, you've made an enemy where you never had one before. Where it gets divisive is when enough people are carelessly accused (no matter how well-intentioned the accusation) and have the temerity to defend themselves, only to be piled upon, and that's where it usually goes south around here.

Finally...

"Refusing to give a damn how one's words affect others and insisting that others are delusional (which is often the response) IS ."

If you are coming to DU expecting the worst of people (refusing to give a damn?!? insisting others are delusional???!!? :wtf:) then maybe we have a real problem here that has nothing to do with sexism, or any other -ism for that matter.

If we are seeing enemies among us, now THAT'S divisive. I come to DU because I like the people and I don't have to worry too much about having to get into bullshit arguments with people. It's hard to argue with people you generally tend to agree with. I don't come here looking for enemies. If I did, I believe I'd have a hard time finding them.

What I find is that when these charges are levelled carelessly, the intent seems to be just to pick a fight. That's why I asked the question, "once you've made an accusation, where does it go from there?". Because it does nothing but devolve into one. If there were more to it, MAYBE then it would have merit, but I've never seen it have the effect that you claim to want (based upon your stated intentions). Moreover, when those are accused have the temerity to defend themselves from attack, the pilers-on get this attitude similar to "how dare you?!?" Now, not only are they accused, but they get placed into a situation reminiscent of Franz Kafka's The Trial, where they feel as though they don't even have the right to face their accusers. How the hell can that NOT BE DIVISIVE?!

Maybe, instead of carelessly accusing people of making remarks you don't like, maybe you should engage them in a fair, enlightened conversation. Moreover, you cannot have a fair conversation unless you are willing to rethink your own notions. If both parties are permitted to make their case in a level-ground, good-faith manner, then MAYBE your intentions could be served. Maybe the other person would see the errors of his/her ways, maybe you'd see the error of yours, or whatever. But simply throwing out accusations, then piling on as though you'd found the devil in your midst, pretty much tells them only that people aren't being rational, they are being negative and accusatory, and doing their level best to shame you in the process.

Attacking people with the wagging finger of shame (the intellectual equivalent of a baseball bat upside the head) just tends to make them mad. Once a person is angry, then they aren't listening to a word you say no matter how right or wrong your statements may be.

Consider a different approach.

[Der Blaue Engel]

424. I don't carelessly accuse people of making remarks I don't like

Again, you can search my posts if you'd like to show me where I have.

Are there people making spurious accusations? I'm sure there are. But the vast majority of posts I've seen pointing out sexism on DU have been respectful and right on the money. (To be fair, I have also put a huge number of people on Ignore during this primary for posting repeated nonsense, so I'm likely missing the most egregious posts on both ends of the spectrum. But even with a huge Ignore list I'm seeing all kinds of sexist crap.)

This isn't about word parsing, it isn't about picking fights. It isn't even just about DU. You can call it casting aspersions if you want, but I'm not going to ignore sexism when I see it, any more than I will ignore racism, anti-Semitism or homophobia.

And I am not seeing enemies or expecting the worst of people. Those were actual responses I've seen to perfectly reasonable posts objecting to truly offensive terminology. I don't have links, so I can't prove it without doing a lot of digging, but suffice it to say, I didn't just grab that out of thin air to suggest that's what I expect of people; rather it is what I have actually experienced. From most of the responses on this thread, it appears that a large number of people are seeing what I'm seeing.

When sexism (or any other form of bigotry) is allowed to go unchallenged, it is tacit acceptance and perpetuation. And I'm just not going to sit by and be a party to it.

[ElboRuum]

427. So what's your beef then? You're getting the response that your methods are asking for.

I never said you specifically, but when you say that you don't carelessly accuse, that's from your POV, and the accused may not share your view.

No one ASKED you to ignore ANYTHING! I merely suggested you find a different, more productive, more INCLUSIVE method of confronting it than simple accusation. When a person is attacked, they defend. So don't attack!

Just remember that what's reasonable is A MATTER OF OPINION. If there were rules of engagement telling us what is and isn't an appropriate response, these conversations would never be at issue, but there aren't, and so to your accuser, your opinion may seem UNREASONABLE, your conjectures FLAWED, and your arguments THIN. If you then take the next common step and say, in effect, "That's it, you're <fill in flavor of bigotry here>, nothing you say will persuade me otherwise, end of discussion" it is clear that you never wanted to discuss anything. So why'd you bring it up? What is the reason? What is the next step? Is there anywhere to go? No? So the statement was purely confrontational.

How is that NOT picking a fight? What else could it be?

As far as a "large number of people in agreement with your observations", believe me when I say that you should never assume that a lack of negativity presumes a positive. I for one have grown weary of these threads, and quite a few times, some of the accusations and the dismissal of counterarguments that I have seen displayed has all of the makings of me throwing my hat into the ring just to come to the defense of someone who's getting unfairly ganged-up on. Often, I've held back my severe displeasure at how some people on DU are grossly intolerant of those not quite as socially "evolved" as they consider themselves to be. Far from lending their perspective in any meaningful way, they are downright nasty. You almost get the impression that they don't WANT to educate or enlighten these "offenders", they just want to PUNISH them.

Are you this sort?

If so, all of your righteousness with the statement...

"When sexism (or any other form of bigotry) is allowed to go unchallenged, it is tacit acceptance and perpetuation. And I'm just not going to sit by and be a party to it."

...rings hollow. People change because they want to, not because you beat them up and told them they were bad. In fact, with the aggressive nature of accusation, people generally will refuse to change, just out of spite. Your intentions and righteousness do not matter in the slightest if you subvert the very intent you claim to espouse just by the way you choose to approach it.

I'll suggest it again. Consider another approach.

[Der Blaue Engel]

429. Yes, someone did ask me to ignore it

Hence my thread. In fact, that someone suggested we all leave.

No, I am not "that sort."

I'll suggest again that you search my posts rather than asking me if I'm the worst-case scenario you're conjuring up with no evidence from anything I've said here. Please show me where I've attacked anyone. I prefer to learn from my mistakes, so I've done so, I'd like to know.

[ElboRuum]

431. Ahh. See, now we're getting somewhere.

Someone suggesting you all leave? That would inspire a little rage in me as well.

I am glad you are NOT that sort of individual, one who would inflict damage as a response to annoyance rather than get to the root of why the annoyance occurred. The former is childish, the latter is adult, and we can use as many adults as we can get.

I'm not attacking you, just reasoning out the argument you were making.

The fact is that I truly believe that the way things are going around here with all of the accusations, baseless or having a solid foundation, it is clear that those of us who DO NOT throw in with that sort of behavior ought lead by example. To date, I've seen little in the way of that example except in conversations such as the one we are having now. And this is highly imperative when dealing with touchy issues.

The only mistake I've seen you make here is making the assumption that I'm accusing you rather than pointing out what I believe are flaws in your argument.

Those kinds of mistakes are a pleasure to overlook. :)

[Der Blaue Engel]

434. Point taken

:)

[JerseygirlCT]

94. I'll happily stand with you against sexism

Though I'll never agree that not supporting Clinton is de facto evidence of the same.

[stillrockin]

98. Sexist arguments are totally unnecessary.

Her voting record is reason plenty enough to not support her candidacy. As a woman who came of age in the '60s, believe me when I say that I am not opposed to her for gender reasons.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

107. This election has really opened my eyes to the fact that we still really have a BIG problem

I knew there were some issues still going on - but it has made me realize that even a lot of progressives (men AND women) have little awareness and concern about women's issues.

Some of the worst comments I've heard in the last year have been from a woman in her 20's who is an Obama supporter "I wouldn't vote for a menopausal woman - they're too crazy." Never mind the fact that men with their testosterone are much, much worse with being aggressive and angry.

Then - a woman in her late 60's who said that women are not "tough enough" to be a commander-in-chief. She also thought that Obama or McCain would probably be okay becasue they were men.

[eridani]

168. Next time tell the little twit that menopause brings and end to PMS

--and mood swings once you get through it. And no more water retention and breast soreness. It's really great, IMO. Like being 12 again, only smarter and less physically resilient. I finally know what Margaret Mead meant by the term "post-menopausal zest."

[madmom]

211. You got that right eridani, I was taught to dread menopause because it would mean

I would no longer be able to bear children or be less of a woman, HA! ( were they men's ideas?) I tell you what....I'm LOVING it! No more cramps, no more bloat, no more accidents, ie stained clothes, ... "post-menopausal zest" indeedy!!!!:bounce:

[judaspriestess]

109. K&R

:thumbsup:

[bain_sidhe]

110. Sexism is still culturally acceptable

in fact, it's often celebrated in the mass media. Think "The Man Show" and Don Imus... after all, Imus didn't get in trouble for the sexism in his comment, it was the racism that did him in.

(I'd write more, but I have to go right now, and I wanted to post something so I can find this thread when I get back!)

[Captain Hilts]

425. If Matthews called Obama 'watermelon boy' or 'step'in fetch it' he'd be off the air. But ...

his 'nurse Ratched', 'madame deFarge' and 'lady macbeth's about Clinton are okay.

[countryjake]

111. I'd answer your call if I could tolerate being in this forum for more than five min...

I made the mistake of tromping thru all of the smears and speculations yesterday to respond to "cali's" post on this topic. Probably one third of the responses in that one tried to justify attacking Sen. Clinton with sexist crap, as tho that is what we must expect if ever any woman runs for office...the all's fair in politics meme. Many also took advantage of that post to rant against Sen. Obama (as if his own campaign strategy was to launch misogyny), totally ignoring the point of the topic to get in their digs for their candidate. Others just missed what was being pointed out, entirely, and could not drop their stumping to hear what the problem is, so they attacked the messenger.

I think that when there are this many loose cannons firing away on the battlefield, it'll be nigh on to impossible to make any calls asking for rational conversation.

I'll confront it when I see it, but I don't wish to give some wingnuts the opportunity to up their "counts" to cement their position here nor do I wish to do battle with a small-minded moran who is ingrained with superiority to all minorities and is only posting on this board to convey that attitude.

There are real people out there who are also excited about the coming election and are worth my time discussing issues with, so excuse me while I exit this "temporary" viper-pit.

[rodeodance]

116. Thank you for your well articulated OP.

[stevenleser]

120. I see no reason why a special rule should be implemented for what you think are...

... bigoted posts against women vs bigoted posts against gays or people of color or various religions. The remedy is to hit the alert button.

Most of you here already know that I think most of these charges of sexism are crap. They suddenly appeared when Hillary started losing. Sorry, you cannot escape that fact. At that point, every Hillary supporter's sexism detector went on cancerous overdrive and every non-Hillary-supporting-man became sexist.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the approved remedy for bigotry is to hit the alert button and have posts removed and people tombstoned, not to post hundreds of threads whining about non-existent (or at least much more rare than the myriad of posts would suggest) sexism.

The further proof of this is, if you fast forward to one month after this nomination race is decided, you will see zero or close to zero posts on DU about sexism.

[countryjake]

147. Asking for a raised consciousness is now "implementing a special rule"?

The first task in solving a problem is making people aware that there is a problem. Do you deny that?

You are wrong about the sexism charges being very recent in these campaigns. Back last year, while it was still a wide-open field, I found myself having to defend Sen. Clinton against narrow-minded bigotry and while personally, standing up for her goes seriously against my grain, it is discrimination in that sort of poisonous accepted mindset that is detrimental to any and all women of the world and requires every person wishing to eliminate such oppression to speak up.

Most of us who recognize and wish to struggle against superiority issues have been alerting on such posts, for months and months, and your implication that some are whining about an imaginary problem is offensive.

The fact that after the nominee is decided, nothing more will be said, is simply a sad commentary on the ignorance and bigotry that remains a major issue in this nation, toward all minorities.

[LostinVA]

162. Wrong and more wrong -- the attacks have been here for a long time

However, they've gotten MUCH worse since she's been dropping in the pools. It's been like a feeding frenzy of misogamy on here. Some of my boorish, redneck cousins would NEVER talk about a woman like this. And, what's worse, is the often smarmy, Rovian tactic of, "Any criticism of Clinton is called sexist!" What the fuck ever. Sexist attacks are called sexist. And, they've been aimed at Senator Clinton for years on here.

[texshelters]

179. Obama sexist?

Other than talking about Clinton's "claws" and that she is "frustrated" (which is not sexist; it has been used to explain Bushes response to his low poll ratings and has a very weak link to gender out of context), what has Obama himself said that was sexist. It seems to me that if people repeat over and over that Obama is sexist, than we will have to believe it. That's a Republican tactic, isn't it?

Give me more proof of his sexism, and I will drop him. However, running against Clinton and winning is not proof of his sexism, it's proof of his intelligence against a qualified opponent.

Tex

[Breeze54]

198. Only a 'special rule' concerning you. Obama must be so proud to have you on his side.

:sarcasm:

[stevenleser]

262. Whatever...

please see further up thread where I helped to get someone who actually was being sexist tombstoned. As I said in that subthread, I relish that ending when it is a situation of true sexism, not what is portrayed as sexism 80% of the time but really isnt.

[uppityperson]

302. Where? I see no such thing.

[stevenleser]

474. See here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4809025#4811028

[uppityperson]

476. That is a link to this whole topic, will all replies included.

The whole expanded topic.

[stevenleser]

477. OK, I am obviously link challenged, see these message #s in this thread

122

123

125

126

128

129

133

135

[uppityperson]

478. right click on the topic in list to get link to just 1 post.

save, copy, paste. Took me a while to figure that out too.

And I agree with Flying Squirrel's #458. Gotta go tell him/her.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4809025&mesg_id=4827902

[Der Blaue Engel]

296. You're the one who asked for a special rule n/t

[uppityperson]

301. There have never been charges of sexism before Sen.Clinto ran for pres?

There have been charges of sexism since there has been sexism, which has been a long time. I see you have been on DU since 2005. I am amazed that you have never seen any sexism or sexism charges before now and that you assume that there will be no posts in another month. That would be nice, but I don't think sexism will go away so fast.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

331. Wow

:wow:

[VotesForWomen]

371. straw-woman much? nt

[FlyingSquirrel]

122. I have a few things to say about all this.

I actually have a LOT to say, but some of it will have to wait for another time.

However I do want to say a couple of things. I AM FURIOUS that the phrase "Hot-Flash Hill" can be allowed to stand 12 hours after being reported. And I think that silence = complicity. Not just talking about moderation of a message board, but the silence of members who are not saying anything about it. This is the kind of thing that in its extreme form allows physical abuse of women continue in this country to this day. I have been guilty of silence, among other things, on DU, but will no longer be silent. I will not just exit a thread due to repugnant comments against women (and I consider such comments against Hillary to NOT be fair game, any more than racist comments against Obama would), I will call them out and alert on them. And I would hope that others will do the same so that we can finally end this discrimination which is unseemly for DemocraticUnderground to be condoning through either inaction or sluggish response.

Finally, I disagree with the so-called week-long "gloating" period that will be allowed after Obama inevitably (IMO) wins this nomination. This is not just any primary with a bunch of white guys going at it. The losing side here has suffered enough without that final insult being added to their injury.

/rant

[stevenleser]

123. Did you hit alert?

I said MOST items are crap. If someone posted Hot Flash Hill that is effing disgusting and it should be removed and that person tombstoned.

[FlyingSquirrel]

125. Yes I did. n/t

[stevenleser]

126. What was the result?

Is that thread still around?

[FlyingSquirrel]

128. The thread itself was not the problem, it was a reply within.

Now I know they like to give people chances. But at the very least, they could have deleted the offending message. Perhaps they will do so, and it's just taking some time. I guess I should not be making an assumption here, they have a lot to do. But my perception is that they are a lot quicker to respond to racism / homophobia, that kind of thing.

[stevenleser]

129. Do you have a link?

Just want to see it for myself

[FlyingSquirrel]

133. Sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4805770#4806302

[stevenleser]

134. I have also hit the alert button on that one...

... disgusting...

[FlyingSquirrel]

135. Thanks. Gotta take a nap now

:toast:

[stevenleser]

260. Looks like it is gone and the offender tombstoned...

... and I relish that ending when the situation ACTUALLY IS SEXISM.

So, OK, that is two instances of sexism here that I have seen with my own two eyes and both resulted in the offender being tombstoned. I fail to see the issue.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

378. Very cool that your POV is revealed.

:-)

[stevenleser]

445. Thank you, I appreciate that. I am not in favor of coddling ACTUAL SEXISM

however, many things that have been accused of being sexism just arent.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

452. Right.

:hi:

[FlyingSquirrel]

458. Journal Updated

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4823595

I think you may be missing the point... If there are a bunch of threads talking about sexism, perhaps it may actually be an unresolved issue as opposed to something "bogus". Just keep an open mind about that possibility, please. Yes, a very obvious sexist troll was tombstoned and that is a good thing - but it can be a lot less obvious and a lot more "coded" or "ambiguous", under the radar, whatever. And many people don't even realize that they are prejudiced against women, while most who are prejudiced against people of other races, sexual orientation etc. are for the most part conscious of that fact. Or perhaps they somewhat realize their prejudice but don't want to fully admit it, or feel there are perfectly good reasons for it.

Anyway...

Peace

[stevenleser]

472. I think we will have to agree to disagree, but I am curious, what do you think of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4831298

[uppityperson]

479. Thanks FlyingSquirrel. Good post.

Good summary of underlying "ism"s.

[stevenleser]

484. Be sure to let me know via PM if you see any more of these...

... I think you will find me on the side that fights bigotry of any sort HARD, but it has to be real. You can count on me to hit the alert button every time.

But some of what is called sexism here, it just doesnt seem that way to me, I'm sorry. And to add insult to injury, a post today that I linked in a response to you that basically says straight out "Women are better than men" is celebrated as funny, interesting and enlightening.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

131. Thanks FS! Those who are the worst offenders bristle the most at the

spotlight being shined on their unelightened comments.

:toast:

[Breeze54]

199. I admire you. You are setting a good example on how to be a champion.

Thanks. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Der Blaue Engel]

346. Thank you, FS

:pals:

[russian33]

124. amen

k&R

[pleah]

138. K&R

[Mad_Dem_X]

140. I'm with you

Some people here just don't get it, and sadly many of them never will.

Women should be able to speak out on things that bother us, anger us, etc. without the sexist insults (PMS, hysteria, what have you). I cannot believe some of the blatantly sexist posts I have read on this supposedly-progressive site. It sickens me.

[Catherine Vincent]

142. A lot of them think it's okay because Hillary's campaign refer to her as "girl".

So in their warped minds, anything goes.

[dflprincess]

143. I really don't care for Clinton or Obama and I caucused uncommitted

thinking that, if I were backed into a corner, I'd go with Obama.

However, if I had it to do over again, I'd caucus for Clinton - not because I like her any better than I did on Februay 5, I just like Obama even less and it's largely because of the sexism of his followers.

[Der Blaue Engel]

347. I was uncommitted after Edwards pulled out

(I still voted for him on Super Tuesday, in fact), but it was the vicious sexism that seemed to balloon shortly afterward like a bad case of HPV that pushed me to her camp.

[Voice for Peace]

144. The qualities of a president I'd like to see in power

include wisdom, compassion, kindness, patience, core strength, honesty,
ability to communicate. I generally associate those qualities with women,
but not all women.

Maybe Obama could be considered to be the first woman president, like Bill was
considered to be the first black president, till a real black man ran for office.

[MoonRiver]

146. I've been horrified by it, both from Obama and here on DU.

I'm sure there are many freepturd Clinton haters infiltrating DU, but no such excuse exists for the "official" Obama campaign. The arrogant sexism I witnessed from Obama himself is a major reason I decided to support Hillary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

287. Please document Obama's sexism. nt

[leftynyc]

150. Count me in

I alerted on a post calling her "her thighness" which is a freeper talking point and am still amazed it was let stand. This was yesterday.

[ExtraGriz]

152. totally agree here

thanks for highlighting the topic again....its been horrible.

[Chovexani]

153. This is what the campaign stooges and newbies don't understand

DU feminists have been fighting this battle literally for years on this site. The so-called "Bitch" wars is just the most stark example.

Sexism has been endemic on this site for years, and a number of women have left over it. I've come close. DU is a microcosm of society, so it's not surprising, and even "progressives" (the few we still have here) are not immune to it. After all, we're all raised with this stuff in the media, etc.

It's only that this campaign has brought a lot of that ugliness out in plain view. The people who are accusing we who call out sexism of being shills for a campaign simply don't understand the history of sexism on DU and the battles that have been fought. They need to LURK MOAR.

[LostinVA]

163. Exactly -- I've been standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you all for years on here

This is nothing new. Senator Clinton is just the latest "acceptable" target of this filth.

[Bunny]

258. WORD!!!

:thumbsup:

[IdClaire]

157. Thank you for posting this...

I wonder how some posters can call themselves a democrat and post such vile crap. And you are right, it has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

[MrsBrady]

159. Here, Here! n/t

[Pamela Troy]

161. My favorites

are the guys who do this while describing themselves as "feminists." The absolute best, though, was the one who tried to claim that Virginia Woolf's famous essay, A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN, was not only "sexist" but a work of fiction. Unbelievable.

[Chovexani]

170. Yeah, that's rich.

BTW, I just wanted to let you know you're one of my favorite newbies. You don't post a whole lot but I always appreciate your persepective. :hi:

[foxeyes2]

171. Just like homophobic remarks

It all gets ignored or excused and if someone is confronted we are told to stop being so sensitive.
So yeah it needs to stop but it won't and that is part of the reason I like this place less and less every week.

[Der Blaue Engel]

351. Absolutely

It's my theory that homophobia is merely a subset of misogyny. (Or rather, the root of homophobia is misogyny.)

[Bluenorthwest]

408. Thank you!

I was called 'ludicrous' for saying so here.

[kath]

449. Awhile back, someone posted a link to an article with exactly that as its main thesis --

I'll try to find it at some point, but no time tonight.

BTW, I agree with that theory.

[beachmom]

181. I just don't think the word "sexism" should be casually thrown out every

time Hillary isn't winning an argument. Just the other day, Obama was accused of sexism on this board for saying that Hillary always attacks him when she is feeling down. Sorry, but I guess my female ears failed to hear anything sexist at all about it. The problem comes in when people get overly sensitive and "Cry Sexism" when there is none there. I think Media Matters has done a great job in showing Tweety's sexist remarks over the last months, and I agree there have been some sexist flame posts on DU (but of course, DU is set up to magnify flame posts, because when people want to condemn the OP, it kicks the thread to the top of the page), but overall, this race has not been particularly sexist. Hillary is just in the middle of a losing streak.

[Pamela Troy]

194. I've you've not noticed any sexism in the references here to

Clinton "shrieking," "screaming," having "hot flashes," becoming "unhinged," "unravelling," etc, then you've not been paying attention.

[stevenleser]

270. All but one of those dont seem the slightest bit sexist to me...

why is shrieking, screaming, unhinged or unravelling sexist? Is her campaign not unravelling? Is it sexist to say that? So a woman cannot become unhinged, but a man can? A woman never screams or shrieks but a man does? WTF is going on with this kind of crazy logic that calls these sexism????

[Pamela Troy]

305. Applying the words "shrieking," "screaming," etc.

to a woman who has done little more than raise her voice slightly is one of the oldest pays from the sexist playbook. No, it's not "sexist" to say the Hillary's campaign is unravelling. It is sexist to say SHE is "unravelling" when she is plainly articulate and controlled. Yes, woman can become "unhinged." Women, however are much more likely than men to be described as "unhinged" when the term is not warranted. Yes, women sometimes scream or shriek. Unfortunately, they are also more frequently described as "screaming" or "shrieking" when all they have done become visibly angry. (Men are not so quickly described in that manner.)

If there is something unclear about this, by all means explain to me what it is.

[stevenleser]

446. It just doesnt follow...

... people who are being unreasonable or overly dramatic (men and women) often accuse others of raising their voice when they are not doing so. Doing that is being stupid, I'll grant you that, but it isnt sexist. And no, it is not sexist to say a man or a woman is unravelling.

Having such descriptions automatically result in a sexism charge is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

[beachmom]

285. As I said, the sexist posts get MAGNIFIED on DU, because everyone

kicks it to tell the person where they can take their sexist remarks. Check out the positive Obama posts, especially when there are pictures & a story of a rally -- the quiet Obama supporters always respond to those posts. But instead, Hillary supporters concentrate on the loudmouths who are less interested in promoting a candidate, and are more interested in throwing grenades in GDP. It doesn't mean that there is a campaign of sexism against Hillary. Just that a few bad apples can dominate a message board.

Yes, I have seen a few of those posts, and of course, I ignore them because I think they're stupid. I guarantee you that the majority of Obama supporters on DU are not like that at all. There is no concerted effort against Hillary to hit her with sexist remarks. Only that any yahoo with a modem and a computer can type up a nasty thread in 2 minutes. How about people just IGNORE those posts from now on, and they will die? But NO, that would be too easy. It's more dramatic to claim sexism is what is sinking Hillary, that sexism is everywhere, even on DU, then it is to let the DAMNED THREAD DIE.

[Pamela Troy]

307. Sorry, but the old "just ignore them and they'll go away" meme

just doesn't work. Used to hear the same thing back in the late '70s and early '80s about racism. It was used as an excuse for not confronting racists. The result was that, instead of fading away, casual racism became re-mainstreamed.

[elias7]

376. Problem is, as Beachmom says, is that these posts get MAGNIFIED

These flamebaiters crave the turmoil they create. Fanning the flames with our indignation is exactly what they want. While I agree that one cannot just ignore the problem, ignoring a post will let it fade into oblivion, and those creatures may skulk elsewhere at least, and maybe rethink their attitudes at best.

[beachmom]

401. In real life, yes. But on a message board, kicking a sexist thread

gives it more visibility. If it dies, then no one will see it because it does not represent the views of Democrats! Do you understand the difference?

[ElboRuum]

430. Finding it hard to agree with the examples you've chosen, save one.

Of course, because you didn't provide a context, I'm taking them by themselves, out of context.

1) Shrieking: not sexist.
2) Screaming: not sexist.
3) Hot Flashes: going through "the change" as code for erratic mood swings stereotypical of sexist arguments... definitely sexist.
4) Unhinged: not sexist.
5) Unravelling: not sexist.

If you see any sexism in the others, may I suggest that Howard Dean was roundly described using numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5.

On edit: It should then throw into sharp relief the idea that context is important in making these determinations. Trouble is, quite a few accusations focus on hot button words or phrases rather than on the context of the remark. Many accusations would hold water with greater ease if this simple heuristic was followed more than it is.

[Breeze54]

183. You tell it, Der Blaue Engel !!

Sexism language seems to keep creeping in, doesn't it? :puke:

Proud to be recommend # 64!

:kick:

[Hoof Hearted]

184. K & R.

"I will support whomever wins the Democratic nomination, but I will not stand by and pretend sexism is not sexism for fear of being called partisan.":thumbsup:

[texshelters]

185. Janet Napolitano, a woman I can vote for

Yes, there is a lot of frustration in the Clinton camp that she is losing. I am sure that there are sexist men that won't support her. However, few of them are in the Obama camp, and most are Republican. We are not a color blind society, so why do people expect us to be a sex-blind society. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is viewed differently by many because she is a woman.

I will not support her not because she's a woman, but for the line "if I knew then what I knew now" when talking about the Iraq war. As an intelligent person who has more information than me, I can't believe she didn't know better.

Give me a woman I can vote for, such as my mom or the Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano. Senator Clinton is corporate owned candidate who backed down on health care and wants us to salute her for her failed attempt at health care. How do we know she will stand up to the health care industry now when she receives more money than any other candidate from them.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Chovexani]

195. Sexism is about more than who you will or won't vote for

And the fact that people like you keep harping on this like it's a "Clinton campaign issue" and that only Clinton supporters are objecting to sexism (here's a hint: I don't have a dog in this primary, Kucinich was off the ballot so I stayed home) illustrates just how far down the shitter this place has gone. Sexism has been entrenched in DU from Day 1 (I know, I've been here that long) and it will be here long after this campaign is over.

Sexism is about how we frame discussions, the language we use and the attitudes we bring to it. So are racism, ageism (of which there's been a fair amount also), homophobia, and every other ism.

The fact that people keep insisting on minimizing this by painting it as somehow a Clinton issue is proof that we WON'T elect Janet Napolitano or your mom. At least any time soon. Y'all are missing the forest for the trees.

[leftofthedial]

186. and some people see snakes crawling up their walls

and their long lost Aunt Matilda trying to give them a cup of ghostly hot chocolate

and dragon shapes in the clouds

and secret codes in the Bible


Not all insults to a woman are sexist. Some are and should be condemned. But criticizing a candidate's demeanor, personality, issues, ability to wage an effective campaign . . . all are fair game, are not sexism and I have seen posters who made such criticisms falsely accused of sexism. I have seen exactly two examples of sexism here. Granted, I do not read most of the swill here in GD-P. But I do read A LOT.

[Breeze54]

200. You are clueless then. Sexism is and has been alive and well on DU for years.

You should read more and spout less. It's obvious, you don't know what you're talking about.

[leftofthedial]

344. sexist

you only accuse me of ignorance about sexism because I'm a man.

pig


chauvinist


you're blind to the man-hatred that infests this place, because you spend so much time running off at the keyboard.


man-hater

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

377. Man hatred? So a woman who stands up for herself is now a man hater?

THAT'S your argument?

Talk about lowering the substance of the dialog here.

[leftofthedial]

411. me lowering the substance? You're the man hater, not me.

I'm a man. therefore I must be "clueless" and insensitive and oblivious. I must be so busy "spouting off" that I don't read and I can't see abundant evidence of behavior you claim is pervasive.

Those are stereotypical characteristics of males and you used them like a bludgeon against me, apparently because you hate men.

Sexist. Man hater.



I'm being aggressively sarcastic, I admit. But 99% of the recent accusations of sexism in response to criticisms of Clinton on this forum are no less absurd than me calling you sexist for criticizing me. And most have far more substance than your criticism.

I've seen "sexist" thrown around on this forum like "nigger" is thrown around at a Klan meeting. In between uncontrollable bouts of "spouting off" I've encountered hundreds of claims of "sexism" here and I've seen exactly two examples of real live misogyny. I've seen far more examples of insidious anti-male bias.

Calling this place a cesspool of misogyny is just ridiculous.

[ekwhite]

389. That was just plain wrong, leftofthedial

The comment you are responding to had nothing to do with your gender - and you respond by calling the poster a man hater? This post is clearly sexist, even to an old redneck like me.

I realize the post you are responding to called you 'clueless,' which was an ad hominem attack, but responding to the attack with the man hater bit is so inappropriate, I don't even know where to start.

[leftofthedial]

409. "clueless" is a classic sexist attack on men

we just don't get it. we're just stupid, clueless insensitive men.

the attack on me was clearly sexist. clearly nan hating.







(In *exactly* the same way 99% of the criticisms of Clinton here are labeled as "sexist.")

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

441. If you're talking about my post further up, I only use that term in relation to men

who have made aggressive physical passes at me, or my friends, no matter how hard we tried to put out "I have no interest, please don't try to coerce me" vibe and/or just say "No thanks".

Unless you've made unwanted physical advances to women who then had to physically fight you off, that comment was not meant for you. And, you'd see that in my post.

[leftofthedial]

442. the other poster in this sub-thread, the one I called "sexist"

called me specifically "clueless" for disagreeing that sexism is rampant at DU

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

443. When you called me a man hater, you alluded to the term "clueless"

Thanks for clarifying, I always like clarity when it comes to name calling.

[leftofthedial]

444. I'm a big man-hater-hating jerk. Please accept my apology.

I don't really think you're a man hater and calling you one was clumsy over-the-top hyperbole.

BUT

1. Criticizing Clinton is not automatically equal to sexism.

2. Sexism is not even common, much less rampant, on DU.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

447. Apology happily accepted. And, I completely agree with #1

and I'm not certain about your second assertion, it seems to be pop up fairly regularly, although I'm learning myself the intent often isn't there, even if the the language seems to sound that way.

That said, it's really gratifying that a lot of posters here are willing to examine the language and attitudes that could be mistaken for sexism.

These types of discussions are something one would never, ever, ever see on FR, where, I'm just guessing here, they probably don't have nearly as much participation by their female members as we do here.

Thanks, I'm trying to see the other side, too. :toast:

[IronLionZion]

187. Do you have any idea how many women post on DU and read these posts?

That might help to put things in perspective.

A person's ethnicity is not apparent from their DU handle, but their gender often is in their profile.

[Pamela Troy]

202. What's your point?

[IronLionZion]

223. It gives you something to think about

How can there be posts that insult probably half of our community. Are women involved in it too?

[Pamela Troy]

241. Only if you're completely unfamiliar with femnism

and with the way sexism works. Of course women are involved in it too. Ever read Margaret Atwood?

[Der Blaue Engel]

345. How can there be sexism in society then? We outnumber you.

Something to think about indeed.

[Lannigan]

191. Agreed, K&R

[qnr]

192. Anothere wholehearted recommendation. n/t

[hfojvt]

196. sexist terms are not less sexist just because they are used on men

I can see that with beach and slut, but when words like claws, down, periodically, unhinged, or Banshee become sexist terms then I don't think things are serious, similar to the way I'm not gonna call racism if somebody says "spadework" in regard to Obama (unless they start mysteriously over-using that word, then I could see it.)

Also, was the 1950s code word misogyny or misandry?

[whatchamacallit]

203. Can you provide any links?

It's not that I don't believe you (I do), it's just that there seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes sexist language. I'd like to read some of what inspired your feelings. Thank you.

[Pamela Troy]

205. Confusion? Really? Where have you seen this?

The only "confusion" on this issue I've seen seems to come from people who claim the "sexism" charges are being thrown at anyone who criticizes Clinton. They aren't, of course. They've come in response to postings referring to Clinton as "unhinged," as "shrieking," as "screaming," as irrational, and various other exaggerations.

[whatchamacallit]

208. Ok, this is what I'm talking about

I personally would regard terms like "unhinged" and "irrational" as gender neutral. I'm not defending their use, I just don't see how those words have different meanings depending on your sex.

[Pamela Troy]

210. Terms like "lazy, "stupid" and "greedy," "conniving"

are also "race neutral" and "religiously neutral." But racists still habitually refer to black people as "lazy" an "stupid" and Jewish people as "greedy" and "conniving."

Do you understand how bigotry works?

[whatchamacallit]

212. This is a very slippery slope Pamela

Following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any adjective in the english language could be considered sexist. Using your own example, if I called Hillary 'stupid' would that be sexist or simply derogatory?

[Pamela Troy]

213. No, it's common sense well understood by anyone who

is either old or experienced enough to have observed either blatant racism or blatant sexism. Are you truly unaware of the way language can play into bigotry?

You're unaware of the racial connotation like "sullen," "uppity," "kinky," "lazy," "shuffling" have acquired?

[whatchamacallit]

222. Sure, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions about the intent

Hypothetically: What if someone actually felt Obama was lazy? I don't know, maybe they felt he was relying too much on outdated stats in his speeches... What word(s) would you suggest they use to make their point without it talking on a racial connotation? I'm not claiming there isn't plenty of sexism in regards to Hillary, but I think people often project their own meanings on things.

[Pamela Troy]

246. It's not "jumping to conclusions" to use language as

it's intended to be used -- as a complex system of communication that involves nuances and connotations indicating the attitude of the speaker or writer. There is no more need to "project" sexism onto someone who refers to a woman candidate merely raising her voice slightly in anger as "shrieking" or "unhinged" than there is a need to "project" racism onto someone who refers to a black candidate as "shuffling sullenly" onto the platform when he's merely walking slowly and looking serious.

I am truly astounded at the headstands, contortions, and logical backflips I'm seeing here by people determined avoid admitting that obvious sexism is obvious sexism.

[whatchamacallit]

256. What do you expect? You sited words without providing context

Men are called all kinds of names; pig, dog, loser, fucker, jackass, dick, prick... you name it we've been it. When male presidents are called these names you don't hear us men crying foul. If you want president Hillary to be regarded as equal, you'll need to grow a thicker skin.

[Pamela Troy]

268. I most certainly have provided context.

The "context" of this discussion is a discussion board and frankly, a national press where Hillary's been repeatedly subjected to the kind of sexist hyperbole typically used about women. If she gets angry, she's described as "unhinged," "shrieking," no matter how controlled or articulate she actually was. She's repeatedly described as irrational, "unravelling," "shrill," "shrieking."

You're trying to pretend here that these descriptives would be used and applied just as readily and frequently to a male candidate. That is simply not so. I did not see Edwards and Obama described as "shrill" when they got heated during a debate. Nope, only Hillary, who was no more heated than they were, was denounced in that manner.

[NMMatt]

224. "unhinged," as "shrieking," as "screaming,"

Were all terms applied to Howard Dean as well. There is nothing sexist about those words.

[whatchamacallit]

226. Exactly.

[Pamela Troy]

244. So I guess you figure that since "shuffling,"

"lazy," "sullen," and "slow-witted" are terms sometimes applied to white people too, that they are not typically racist insults used for African Americans.

[whatchamacallit]

259. Not at all

It just means that they are not applied strictly to African Americans, so the intent is subjective.

[Pamela Troy]

264. You think the intent is "subjective"

when someone describes Barak Obama walking slowly and with a slightly grave look on his face, as "shuffling sullenly?" You don't think most black people wouldn't understandably read a certain racism in those choice of words?

[whatchamacallit]

271. Let's get straight to it

It may be regarded as sexist if someone calls Hillary "shrill", but so what? Is it any worse than calling Bush a fucking prick if that's what he's being? I think my responses in this thread are becoming more shrill, so what?

[Pamela Troy]

276. So you've gone from professing "confusion"

about what qualifies as sexist language to saying sexist language doesn't matter anyway. Riiiiight.

Of course it matters to many of us, on a progressive board, if posts about a candidate include a great deal of bigoted language, whether that bigotry it racism or sexism. That kind of prejudice is supposed to be antithetical to liberalism -- and to the Democratic Party. Please keep in mind the name of this board.

[whatchamacallit]

282. So you never use what might be regarded as sexist language when referring to men?

Just wondering...

[Pamela Troy]

299. What would you consider "sexist language" against men.

And you do realize, don't you, that men are not subjected to sexism to the degree that women are, right?

[stevenleser]

473. I'll answer for him...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4831298

No serious sexism against men, huh? Have you seen a man try to fight for custody of his children in divorce court recently?

[defendandprotect]

204. There is no denying that there is a strong urge to censor at DU . . .

but since you didn't direct me to any threads, I'm not aware of any specifics ---

and, of course, sexism is alive and well in America --- and often on posting websites!

However, I'm not a fan of the DLC nor Senator Clinton ---

[Cherchez la Femme]

206. Yet calls of Racism freaks everybody out

as it well should -- if there was REAL racism.

A couple days ago I saw a thread about how terrible racism was here on DU.
--Someone even called Obama "boy"!

So I asked the person who contended this dastardly deed, twice, to kindly quote their source; they made a contention -- well, prove it.

Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Crickets.


Of course this imagined racism, at least here as nobody has given me any proof whatsoever that it indeed has occurred, reflected poorly on Ms. Clinton, as many on that thread averred.
Yet the SEXISM here is rampant. Incredible. If I didn't see so much myself I wouldn't have believed it.

And an 'ism' which derides 53% of the population, an 'ism' which includes ALL races!

Those who bear the brunt of this sexism are too classy to employ tit-for-tat; but as is done with Ms. Clinton, I can and will hold all this sexism against Obama.
With those kind of nasty followers I don't desire to belong to his club.
Not one bit.


Has anyone started a list of what was said, and by who? That would be interesting reading...

[Bluestar]

207. Whiny Bitch here--giving this a K&R

I have attempted to call out he sexism here and all of these tactics have been used by the poster to get me to shut up. Thanks for telling it like it is.

[Dorian Gray]

219. I've stayed away from the Primaries posts

as I can't handle the vitriol.... so I don't know of what you are speaking about...

But sexist language should truly be avoided on progressive boards.

[jeff30997]

227. So true.

Now get in the kitchen and cook my something honey-buns! :P :sarcasm:

[Dorian Gray]

228. Okay...

Sort of funny. :P

[jeff30997]

238. I would never say something like that seriously.

I love women and I'm a feminist.:hi:

[Dorian Gray]

338. I know you were kidding!

It's all good!

[jeff30997]

459. I love you!

Period.:blush:

[Der Blaue Engel]

358. .

:spank:

[Political Heretic]

234. I find the sexist tone of your post to be outrageous and offensive.

OMG SEE WUT I DID THERE? :scared:

That's the problem on the board - not trying to combat sexism, but using the cry of "sexism" as a cheap political stunt to "discredit" any opinion one doesn't like.

Lot of that going on here too.

[Pamela Troy]

242. A lot of it going on? Where?

Please cite some specific cases where you feel the accusation of sexism here were as unwarranted and as ridiculous as yours.

[Political Heretic]

311. Here:

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

[Pamela Troy]

316. That is not an answer.

What SPECIFIC posts are you talking about?

[L0oniX]

237. ...

:popcorn:

[bowens43]

239. pointing out? Don't you mean 'manufacturing'?

[pnwmom]

252. The people who manufactured the sexism are the ones who

used slurs like bitch, witch, harpy, or banshee against Hillary, or her supporters, or who make fun of her feminine body type, her voice, her pantsuits, or behavior that is considered either too feminine or not feminine enough.

[Der Blaue Engel]

342. No, I don't

The only manufacturing I see on this thread is substanceless accusations like yours.

[varelse]

243. I strongly suspect this shit is being sown deliberately by those who want us to lose in November.

I strongly suspect you are right about at least some of them. Some of this behaviour has to be laid down to ignorance, though. We're not all as enlightened as we'd like to think we are - just look at *any* thread started about poverty, homelessness, or poor folks...

Bottom line for me is, in spite of what has happened here and in the M$M, and in spite of the fact that I'm NOT actually a Democrat (and probably will never rejoin the party) I will absolutely support the Democratic candidate to WIN in November and I will support the Democratic nominee in the upcoming GE - even to talking my fellow "splinterist" types into voting for that candidate rather than abstaining.

As for the alleged disruptors and their puppet masters: If "they" think they're going to walk away with yet another stolen election without a fight, then "they" have a surprise coming.

[RaleighNCDUer]

247. Decrying sexism is fine -

but don't do it if it isn't there.

Obama saying "you're likeable enough" was NOT a sexist statement - but people here claimed it was.

I saw a poster here called on the carpet for, apparently, saying "her" instead of "the candidate" - it was a post about some Clinton policy, and the "her" was the ONLY thing in the post that could possibly be gender specific, yet he was called 'sexist' for it.

I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's remark "I just want them on record DENYING it."

[pnwmom]

251. "You're likable enough" wasn't sexist, just unpleasant.

But sexist name calling here occurs against Hillary on a daily basis.

[pnwmom]

253. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I couldn't agree more. Recommended.

[Sparkly]

255. Yeah!!

:applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[ManyHamsters]

261. Thank you.

I had thought that I was alone in this observation of veiled misogyny prevalent on both sides of this campaign.

[eek MD]

265. Why is there a backlash?

I don't post often, but I've been watching GD-P here and there for the last few months, and I've seen it cut both ways. I've seen deplorable sexist statements, and I've also seen people labeled sexist for comments that were far from sexist in nature.

Most of the people on here deplore sexism. We wouldn't be democrats if we didn't. (I'm assuming the vocal overtly sexist statements being made are being made by trolls, as true leftists don't feel that way) Therefore, when someone makes a comment with no sexist intent, and they get raked over the coals for it and called out as being the next coming of a wife-beater for criticizing Hillary....they tend to get bitter over it. Also, the broad-brush statements about the supposed sexism of Obama supporters that I've seen thrown out by the Pro-Hillary crowd seem to come out in every single thread. THAT'S why you're seeing such a backlash.

If you see a sexist statement made that offends you... ALERT IT!. That's what the button is for. Let the mods sort it out. Throwing out the "sexist" label at someone who tries their hardest to support gender equality is only going to incite disgust, anger, and hatred towards yourself..... and ultimately towards your candidate.

Just my 2c, though I know I'll probably get flamed for it and have my words twisted to mean something I didn't intend, so I don't know why I bother. :)

[Der Blaue Engel]

298. There are two things going on

One is divisive posts for the sake being divisive, from both sides. I don't believe these are from Democrats at all.

The other is thinly-veiled and overt sexism and then absurd posturing about why it isn't when called on it. Then, after a number of people take umbrage at an increasingly hostile environment, the original poster or other sock puppets will run about screaming about how all accusations are from Hillary shills and they should all just shut up or leave.

The second is what I'm talking about. I do alert on it. It doesn't always qualify as an "attack," so it may not get deleted, but I think it's important to point it out and not let it slide.

People who truly are using sexist language DO NOT like to be called on it, most certainly not by a woman, and they will always lash out. And their intimidation tactics are exactly why it MUST be pointed out.

[katandmoon]

281. Thank you! The condescending sexism I've seen on DU has been a real eye opener.

[debbierlus]

286. Sexism is rampant. This country hasn't even begun the discussion

[kath]

294. Sexism IS rampant. But it's really sad that it's so rampant at DU, a supposedly liberal place.

I'm so sick of people denying that the following things are sexist, and denying that sexist language DOES matter:

the generic "he"

expecting a woman to change her name when she marries

expecting (or liking for) a woman to remove most, if not all, body hair so that she resembles a pre-pubescent child.

frequent comments about a woman's appearance, when a man's appearance in a similar role or situation would NOT be remarked upon, and having a VERY narrow range of what is considered "acceptable" female appearance.

terms like bitch, harpy, shrill. etc, etc ad nauseum.
I could go on and on, but will stop here.


And of course there's the classic female "double bind", faced by all professional women and mentioned in post#288 (I quote), where a women "can't win. Too passive and she is weak. Too assertive and she is trying to be a man. And those seem to overlap precluding a happy medium."

[Captain Hilts]

426. Or praising a woman by saying she has 'balls'. It's like "that's awfully white of you" to a black

person.

[VotesForWomen]

480. exactlty, but many 'progressives' here refuse to admit the obvious implications of the use of balls

as it is often used.

[Zookeeper]

435. You've highlighted several of the ways that "Post-Feminist"...

DUers perpetuate sexism and misogyny, particularly regarding female appearance and the preference for the stick-thin pre-pubescent child (with breast implants) look. I know men like what they like, but it wasn't that long ago that men liked women who looked fully adult. The idea that, perhaps, men could examine their preferences in a political context is one that is always bound to create great hysteria on the part of some DU men.

It's no accident that the pre-pubescent look has coincided with woman playing a stronger role in the workplace and politics.

[Deep13]

288. This is a shrill, screechy, bitchy, hysterical and unlady-like post.

Yes what I might expect from a "Hillbot" harpy. Now, preplace those words with ones derogatory of race and what do we get?

:sarcasm:

To be president one needs to be in command, to be decisive, to be critical and not take any shit.

The problem is all these are perceived as masculine traits. When women do it, it is not socially acceptable, especially if it is directed at a man. I heard one female caller on NPR say that in the OH debate, she was offended by HC's unwillingness to answer Russett's loaded hypothetical. In other words, as the woman, HC should have defered to the man.

She can't win. Too passive and she is weak. Too assertive and she is trying to be a man. And those seem to overlap precluding a happy medium. If HC were a man, this nomination and GE would be in the bag. As it is, enough people, including women and supposed liberals are horrified by the idea of a woman president who will actually act like a president.

And most people have no idea this is even happening because they are part of the problem.

[spooky3]

291. good post - but it's even worse than that

"And most people have no idea this is even happening because they are part of the problem."

I would say that most people feel sure that it is NOT happening because they are part of the problem. There are few things more frustrating and crazy-making than being told by sexist progressives (a term that SHOULD be an oxymoron) that you are wrong when you point out sexism. And it is exasperating and unfair that only incidents where someone uses obviously sexist language can even be considered for possible sexism. But no reasonable person would argue that the only time people are behaving in racist ways is when they obviously treat every black they encounter in a more negative way than every white they encounter, or that as long as someone does not call someone else a "n*****" or make obviously stereotypical comments, then they aren't racist. Most racists and sexists are smart enough to be subtle or careful these days, but that just makes it harder to catch them.

[PurpleChez]

289. Great hearing from you yesterday...

...and today, too. A lot of what I've seen called "sexist" ain't actually sexist at all, but NONE should be tolerated, so thanks for posting this.

[NastyRiffraff]

290. Proud to recommend

Yes, there is a backlash. No liberal likes to think of himself as sexist, and most aren't. But sexism is so pervasive in our society that even those who support feminism can fall into the verbal traps that are all around us.

Nobody is saying that "frustrated" or "unhinged" standing alone are sexist words. Of course not. It's the context that makes it sexist. You know, the words and meaning around those normally neutral words.

Nobody (or at least very few people) is saying that Hillary's campaign is struggling only because of sexism. We can argue about the reasons, but there are more than one, and sexism is one of them. When you see it on a very liberal message board, does anyone think for a moment it doesn't exist outside of DU, that the media enables it, and that it can affect people's vote?

Women have taken this shit for centuries, and even after some very real gains we're still expected to take it, to "get over it," or to believe that an insult isn't an insult if the same thing is said about men.

[jillan]

297. This woman who fought for women's rights is proud to give you a k/r !

[Ellen Forradalom]

308. AMEN!

No question about it, we are living in an ugly woman-hating era.

Behave respectfully or post elsewhere.

[theHandpuppet]

320. THANK YOU!!

I only wish this post could be a banner on every forum at DU.

:thumbsup:

[femrap]

323. K and R

I hadn't heard about the pleas for Sexist Language to continue...let me guess: I Want My Free Speech. It's My Patriarchy and I'll Shit Where, When, & on Whom I Want To...

This primary will be good for one thing....getting sexism out into the light.

[Fox Mulder]

326. K&R

[mckara]

335. Good For You...

:puke:

[Der Blaue Engel]

339. I think you got a little something on your shirt there n/t

[barack the house]

336. Most of this sexism has come from the right that is just a fac, they are making women the target as

the target as they can't no longer use race in their hate. Now, I have heard left wing men on the radio and they are very considerate of womens issues and I can only then feel that most of the attacks are either one time Republicans and those from the right trying to disrupt the board. The flagrant labelling of sexism hasn't helped hillary at all and it would be more wise to be less general of who was using thisname calling, only a suggestion all your decistion.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

337. Welcome to DU, bth. The left supplies plenty of sexism, but the right goes nuts with it.

Huckabee signed the "women submit to their husbands" petition from the Promisekeepers branch of the Evangelicals.

They are capable of using both race and gender. And, they will, as evidenced by the ridiculous Harold Ford ads.

[Name removed]

340. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

341. I've alerted on your post. I hope others do so, as well.

Calling either Dem candidate a "dick" should get your post deleted.

[ekwhite]

350. Not only sexist, but juvenile

Come back when you grow up please. Or better yet, don't come back. :puke:

[Jamastiene]

367. "Sexism will always exist...well as long as I'm still alive."

That one line speaks volumes.

[LostinVA]

395. It does, doesn't it?

[racaulk]

381. Who the fuck let you in here? Shoo!

And FWIW, the link you posted is disgusting and inappropriate for this forum. Alerted.

[LostinVA]

394. Post #5 and you're saying admins can't censor your sexist posts?

Guess what? They can. It's against DU rules. I recommend reading them.

[Fox Mulder]

400. Enjoy your stay.

Jackass.

[October]

348. KICK!

I'm stunned by the misogyny.

And now -- further stunned by the idea we shouldn't point it out.

Misogyny is so ingrained in our culture, that no one thinks there's anything wrong about it. They don't even see it.

If nothing else, the Obama candidacy has made everyone sensitive to the issue of racism. That sensitivity has made it the more obvious of how insensitive everyone is to women.

Thanks for the post.

I'm committed to voting for the Dem nominee.

[Hillary_Hillary]

352. Not surprsing...

Those who are guilty of engaging in sexism don't want it to be drawn to their attention!

[guyanakoolaid]

353. It's amazing you can type while patting yourself on the back at the same time

Yet another post from a Clinton supporter, full of drivel and made-up wrongs and not an ounce of substance. Full of "I've seen this" and "I've seen that"'s, as if the existence of a handful of trolls justifies the broad brush Der Blaue Engel paints the supposed enemies of feminism with. "It's a conspiracy" she shouts. Yet she and other Clinton supporters are the ones I see creating the posts about gender. Notice how Obama doesn't talk about race or gender? That's how equality happens. Not with a feminist call-to-arms based on flimsy generalizations, that does not even attempt to address any of the real, important issues of this campaign. Also - you want equality? Then don't cry in public, it makes you look weak, which is not a good thing for a President and commander-in-chief of any race or gender. Although your tears will be excusable come this time next week.

[Der Blaue Engel]

359. "you want equality? Then don't cry in public, it makes you look weak"

Nice. Thank you for providing an example. I didn't feel like digging through all the shit.

[guyanakoolaid]

461. Yeah, that pretty much makes my point...

Instead of replying validly to any of the things I mentioned, you righteous Clinton supporters here have basically summed up the Clinton campaign itself: full of old politics and divisiveness. I said that this thread and all of the others crying about sexism are nothing but a smokescreen campaign intended to sway emotions and ignore the real issues, and the author of the thread and others most ironically call me a troll. You don't even have the ability to talk about whether or not the President of the United States should be able to cry on cue without ignoring the question and attacking.

It is the issues and specifics of the politicians themselves, not their supporters, that we should be concentrating on. And it is real issues that are going to lose this campaign for Hillary: 1. She is never going to be able to talk her way out of voting for war with Iraq. 2. She has claimed all along the Clinton presidency has counted towards her experience. Unfortunately, that means she's not going to be able to shake off the stench of NAFTA 3. She has several times during the debates gone out of her way to deliver prewritten smears about Obama, while he has remained the true statesman.

[LostinVA]

397. Your username is very apt -- now shoo!

[Name removed]

407. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fedja]

357. Maybe I'm missing something..

...but doesn't Hillary's campaign "support" sexism? Look at it this way, she's doing everything that she can to show that she's "tough". She'll be "tough" on tewowists, she'll be hard on this and that, she'll come down on Obama hard when some flier is out.

Her campaign policies and speeches show her as bending over backwards to prove she can be as tough as a male president. That even tho she's a woman, she has the "balls for the job". Why isn't she campaigning as a woman? Why isn't she campaining as a level-headed, calm and rational being without testosterone to guide her words. Why was she only a woman with any semblance of empathy and emotion for 5 minutes, and then went back to robocop the moment the media said she cried?

Sure, she may think being any level of feminine won't get her elected. Sure, it may be a good political move to be hard as nails. But that just makes her that much more guilty. The fight for the equality of the sexes doesn't happen when it's easy to be a woman. It happens when it's hard, perhaps even unwise to be a woman, but one stands up to the system and against all better judgment, wears her gender with pride.

[Liquorice]

360. I don't understand what

you mean when you say Hillary is not running as a woman. Women can be tough as nails and not be men! I think Hillary is running as herself and she seems like a woman to me.

[Der Blaue Engel]

363. I think you've got it

Welcome to DU, Liquorice! :hi:

(Your name makes me think of absinthe. :D)

[Liquorice]

365. Thanks for the warm welcome! :)

[Der Blaue Engel]

362. Why is "tough" male?

Why do you think there's only one kind of "feminine"?

And why do people keep focusing on Clinton's campaign when I've stated clearly that I'm not talking about the campaigns, I'm talking about what this primary season has brought out of the stinky basements of our collective conscience?

[Fedja]

372. It's not.

Being tough and acting tough are different. As for the campaign.. it's the catalist for most of what's been going on lately.

[Der Blaue Engel]

415. It sounds like you're blaming the Clinton campaign for the misogyny on this board

If so, that's pretty reprehensible.

[guyanakoolaid]

462. Do you mean like misplaced charges of misogyny?

Ironic.

[Der Blaue Engel]

467. Okay, I give: What are you talking about?

The last time you misunderstood which post I was responding to, but this one just baffles me.

[VotesForWomen]

368. thank you; women need to stop putting up with this crap or it will never change. nt

[DDQ]

375. So I want to focus on how we are going to stop putting

up with the sexist and misogynist crap.

My feeling is that there are many of us who are wondering what to do next?

Do we belong in the democratic party? Do we belong in a party that I believe hasn't gotten the memo

that women are important.....that women's rights are human rights.

And yes it goes well beyond DU and other sites. It is the media, it is the leaders of the democratic

party (and of course the republican party).

I truly believe that continuing to complain and then vote anyway is enabling this to continue.

I have voted 8 times for the democrat for president.

I don't know that it is helping.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

380. There's much more to be done than voting for president. You can choose to throw your efforts into

any number of organizations/communities that have have recognition and support of women's issues. There are many ways to get involved, you can PM me if you'd like to know more.

The fact that the discussion is occurring is a good thing, for the longest time, here and in the non virtual world, the pointing out of the sexist and misogynist crap around us was met by a shrug and dismissed.

It feels, sometimes, as if we are teetering on the verge of a "Handmaid's Tale" type of reality, and we women need to vigorously make our voices heard.

I'd also strongly recommend listening to Thom Hartmann, yes, a man, but most are good guys, since he often references how removing the oppression of women throughout the world would be a sea change that would be good for the planet. He's also discussed the historical path that has created the heavily patriarchal societies around the world today.

I've been meaning to read his books, I might try to get to it this weekend.

Anyway, we must keep talking about this. Hang in there. :hug:

[VotesForWomen]

433. do it on a personal level; call out sexist b.s. and boycott the purveyors of it, whether individuals

or businesses. what is beyond me is why any woman would socialize, date, or marry the women-hating dumb-asses out there. and many of them do nothing to advance woman's status in the world; if anything they actively sabotage efforts to improve it.

[Popol Vuh]

373. I understand how you feel

Because that's how I feel when I read all the posts concerning immigration and Mexican workers, etc.

[SIMPLYB1980]

379. K&R!

Thank you.:toast: :yourock:

[stark6935]

383. DOWN WITH MEN

Yeah, I as a woman am tired of people declaring her some sort of lesbian femi-nazi. K&R

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

386. That is a hateful post.

[Der Blaue Engel]

417. DOWN WITH SEXISM

including yours.

Enjoy your stay.

[guyanakoolaid]

465. You are a humonous hypocrite of unknown gender specification

A person sees a post called "Down With Men", responds that it is hateful, and gets labeled a sexist. Can you not see that maybe you're taking this a bit too far? Or maybe that's the point, just keep huffing and puffing about it, despite not being able to mention any notable examples of this misogyny (from notable people), and hope it sticks. Sway the woman's vote by ignoring reason. Whatever gets you elected, I guess.

[Der Blaue Engel]

466. And you are a humongous...well, no, you're just temporarily mistaken: look within....

My response was TO the "down with men" post, to which I said that "down with men" is sexist. I think you looked at the wrong post above and assumed I was responding to something else.

I'll accept your apology now. :D

:pals:

[racaulk]

384. My only regret is that I have but one rec to give for this thread.

Very well stated...and it needed to be said!

:applause:

K&R

[stark6935]

387. How is it hatefull...

She is guilting people into feeling sorry for her. She is fake, and tries to come off as something she isn't.

Look at women like Danica Patrick. She is looked at as very strong, independent, and not fake. If I had one reason to not vote for Clinton is her calculating way of living. She has been placing every vote, step shes walked, and decision based soley on what is good for her politically since her senate win in the 90's.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

388. "Down with men" is hateful. Using Limbaugh talking points in your post is hateful.

[stark6935]

391. Never listened to limbaugh.

I tell it like it is. She is losing because she comes off as fake. Bottom line.

[stark6935]

390. ...

You think Obama wanted to make race an issue? Doubtfull. I think when Clinton made the Jesse Jackson remark he knew that making race and issue over the sex of his wife was a smart thing. From the start I said Obama does not want to make his race and issue. Clinton knew that also, but we didn't realize it would blow up in their face like this, and it made me sick. Subtle attempts to undemind people has ruined her campaign.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

393. You want to join DU, just to come in show your ugly side. This thread is not about

Sen. Clinton, it's about the sexism inherent in our society, which her campaign has exposed, which we knew was there the whole time.

I know about the disruptor M.O., who are you trying entertain/impress?

I've alerted on your posts, and I'm not throwing you any more chum.

[Der Blaue Engel]

419. "Subtle attempts to undemind"

Look everyody! A fun, new freeperism!

I think you have not-so-subtlely "undeminded" yourself.

:rofl:

[racaulk]

399. Shoo!

[ElboRuum]

404. Fake?

Wow. A person faulting a politician for doing things that are politically good for them. Now I believe I've seen it all. Every politician is fake to some degree. If they weren't, they would never get elected. Why? Because of remedial decision making skills of an incurious population.

[racaulk]

416. Best post of this thread!

With the exception of the OP, of course... ;)

Thank you!

[Captain Hilts]

438. FDR was a fake who would have passed a lie detector test! It's part of the job. nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

418. Oops...you forgot which sock puppet you were using

:eyes:

[saltpoint]

392. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being "Most Likely Cause of Clinton's Polling Drop,"

I rate "sexism" a 2 at best.

This is to say that most of us acknowledge that sexism exists, but it exists more IMO as a force against women in anonymous, non-famous, wage-earning, and overwhelmingly international circumstances more heavily than it does for Ivy League-educated former First Ladies who are also 2-term U.S. Senators.

John Lewis now supports Obama and not because John Lewis is a sexist pig.

[Captain Hilts]

428. When people start criticizing Obama for being "ambitious" then sexism will be a '2'. nt

[ieoeja]

436. No, that just proves Clintonism is a '10'

Cause what you usually hear is that "the Clintons" are just ambitious. Certainly we heard it all through the 90s about Bill Clinton.

[Captain Hilts]

437. It's only a bad thing in reference to her. It's okay for Obama, JFK, FDR, McCain...

[ieoeja]

440. So the 90s were a dream sequence? Bill was not accused of being too ambitious as a bad thing? n/t

[saltpoint]

450. Good thing for U.S. history that Harriet Tubman was ambitious, then.

Because Harriet Tubman rocks.

[Captain Hilts]

453. Yes, she does. So do Eleanor Roosevelt, Mary McLeod Bethune...

Ella Fitzgerald, Katharine Hepburn, Grace Hopper, etc.

Damn straight they were ambitious.

[saltpoint]

455. And in her way, I would consider Georgia O'Keeffe in the group of

insistent, ambitious, and wildly successful women, not because she stayed in New York City to mix it up with the gallery folk but because she said to hell with it and went out to the Ghost Ranch and lived to be 99 ripe years old.

I'm offering my strict bias, but I just don't think we can exclude her from a list of triumphant women in our nation's history.

[Captain Hilts]

470. Absolutely! I stand corrected.

These women were so much more than an insipid, patronizing press depicted them as being.

Eleanor Roosevelt had a drop-dead handsome boy-toy ten years younger than she was AND the ability to be an excellent president. Pitty the poor Republican men in the UN delegation with her that expected her to be the befuddled do-gooder the press depicted her as being.

Check out Esquire's - 20? - most influential Americans issue. Late 80s issue, I believe. I think O'Keefe and Martha Graham are listed along with ER and Katharine Hepburn. But, so typical, the essays were written by men. John Kenneth Galbraith writes the essay on Roosevelt and Truman Capote the one on Hepburn. Galbraith's essay is good, Captoe's is bad. Check it out, sister!

[Zookeeper]

432. John Lewis said he switched his support to Obama...

because he realized there was something groundbreaking going on....as if having the first woman president wouldn't have been equally groundbreaking.

[saltpoint]

451. I'm not speaking for Congressman Lewis but observe that the

majority of those in his neck of the woods want -- and voted for -- Barack Obama.

His decision to switch allegiance to Obama reflects the will of those Americans he represents.

[Zookeeper]

456. He's obligated to represent his constituents in Congress....

He isn't obligated to endorse any particular candidate.

[saltpoint]

457. He isn't prohibited from endorsing one either.

The point is he used to support one candidate and now support the other; I assert that his reason for the change-over is not rooted in sexism.

[Zookeeper]

460. I didn't say that it was rooted in sexism, I pointed out that....

he made a statement that electing Obama would be "groundbreaking" as if electing Clinton (the first woman president) wouldn't be equally groundbreaking. Sexism? Maybe. But, it's typical of the hype surrounding the possible election of a bi-racial person, while virtually ignoring the significance of finally electing someone who is of the same gender as more than 50% of the population.

As you can see from my avatar, neither of them are my first choice. If Senator Clinton would distance herself from her husband and disavow his NAFTA fiasco, I would be inclined to support her.

But, watching the way she has been treated in the media, on DU, and hearing the sexist and misogynist comments directed at her has made me realize that hatred of women, especially powerful/older women, may even be worse than it was prior to the second wave of Feminism. As a result, I feel fairly alienated from my own party.

I would be proud to have an African-American Democratic nominee. However, my enthusiasm is dampened by the ugliness that has been directed at Senator Clinton and generally accepted without question.

[saltpoint]

468. To begin with, I prefer the guy in your avatar over the two chief

remaining combatants as well, but that's neither here nor there for immediate purposes.

Some in this thread have claimed "This isn't about Sen. Clinton," but of course it is exactly about Senator Clinton and her failure to become the nominee-apparent on or prior to February 5th.

The Wisconsin Primary, a post-Feb. 5th contest, exposed the chaos and lack of focus, as well as the lack of ground game, for the Clinton campaign. There was chaos in the Clinton campaign in Wisconsin because there was no ground game to speak of, nevermind in relation to the one Obama's team had assembled. This is one of the 'primary' flaws of the Clinton effort to date -- that hers is a top-down campaign while others relied on grassroots ground games. Obama led the field in Iowa with a great ground game. Edwards also beat Clinton in Iowa with a very strong grassroots presence. Wisconsin might have been in the bag for Clinton if she'd developed a ground game there, or in any case she could have held her traditional constituencies close and bolstered the rationale for her candidacy on at worse a narrow win for Obama. But absent a real Clinton presence in the state at all, Obama whomped her by 17%, carrying 60-plus of 70-some counties.

I don't condone ugliness against any candidate and stood by Biden, for example, in the "clean and articulate" flap, for which he humbly apologized and which Obama accepted graciously. But ugliness is not a race-rooted or gender-based element.

We did not hear about sexism last summer and this past fall when Senator Clinton held a very strong lead in all national polling. We're hearing threads about it with increasing frequency correspondent to Obama's rise in those polls and his string of wins in the primary and caucus states. Sexism exists, as if anybody ever doubted that, but it does not explain the failures of Senator Clinton's campaign. They exist also, quite apart from her identity as a female human.

[Zookeeper]

475. My observation of sexism is more basic than who won what...

state. The words used to describe her, from the media pundits to my daughter's male high school classmates, frequently display misogyny. If racially-charged words and attitudes were used to describe Sen. Obama, there would, rightfully, be tremendous outrage. But, misogynists seem to get a pass.

It isn't about criticizing her policies or performance; it's about the ugly, sexist way she is criticized.

I have had zero investment in either one and am basically sitting back and waiting for the nominee to be chosen. They both are corporate candidates; Obama seems like an empty suit, Clinton is loaded with baggage from her husband. However, the nastiness I have seen directed at Clinton simply for being a woman, causes me to want to support her and leaves me liking Obama even less.

That said, I will support the Democratic nominee.

[saltpoint]

486. We agree that 'sexism' is not about who wins which state, but we

apparently disagree that a charge of sexism against some Obama supporters is not related to the campaign, or to Democratic outcomes, or this post on DU.

The OP put her well-written but off-target post in the 'Primaries' forum by her own volition. We're hardly into the post at all when we get Senator Clinton as a victim of "sexism" right there in the second paragraph. If "(t)his isn't about Sen. Clinton's campaign," it should be posted in the Women's Forum, which is very frequently excellent.

If you want to eschew contemporary U.S. politics and immerse yourself in the pre-Homeric Goddess religions, I say more power to ya, I'm often in that particularly delightful glen myself, but we are in the DU Primaries forum currently and the charges of sexism are not persuasive.

They are not persuasive not owing to anyone's theory that there are not sexist attitudes in the United States, but owing to the self-serving refusal by some to acknowledge that Sen. Clinton's failures are not rooted in sex or gender but instead to political ineptitude and arrogance. Lincoln was an empty suit, by the way, until he became the Lincoln of our textbooks. No president -- neither boys nor girls -- can be gauged in greatness until after his or her term in office. History is loaded high and deep with people who were never given much of a chance and wound up doing just fine. Ask the world of 337 or so BCE if Alexander ever amounted to much. Ask Claudius. Ask Margaret Sanger. Ask Harriet Tubman. Ask Desmond Tutu.

The OP asserts, correctly, that some of the language -- some and not all -- used in descriptions of Sen. Clinton is sexist, but so is some, not all, of the language used to describe Obama dismissively racist or contextually racist, and some of THAT language had its genesis in Clinton surrogates such as Billy Shaheen in NH and Bill Clinton himself in SC, attempting quite unsuccessfully and very ineptly to diminish Obama to "the Jesse Jackson candidacy." The outcome of that state's primary results is an extremely reliable measure of what Democratic voters in South Carolina thought of that language.

And the Clinton campaign has kept Senator Clinton's husband muzzled and short-leashed for the last two weeks. Whoever made that decision in the Clinton team deserves a big raise.

And once more, we have these Clinton-as-Victim-of-Misogyny posts only after her polling began to tank, and not last July or August, or even in October or November, when she was still the nominee-apparent and the then-media-darling.

There are female victims in the world and there are female victims of misogyny as well, and this is a topic worthy of its own thread in the Women's or General Discussion forum, IMO. Hillary Clinton is not one of those victims.

[Zookeeper]

487. You are still missing the point, but....

I appreciate your effort and think you mean well.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

396. 121 Recs! Great OP, thought provoking, revealing thread,

disruptors and all! :kick:

[stark6935]

398. Name recognition

She goes in winning due to her name recognition. Most people aren't trolling the forums like us, and talking about this crap non stop. They say they will vote for her because they know her name. Then all of a suden they actually listen to her when she comes to town, and they want to barf. She should stop going places, because once she gets there people want to boo her, or her surrogates. The only reason she didn't get booed at the debate the other night was because they asked the audience to not make noise. She turns peoples stomachs, and it shows.

[Der Blaue Engel]

420. "Most people aren't trolling the forums like us"

OMG, stop, I can't breathe!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm going to miss you.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

448. I know. It's kind of sad, in a funny way.

:rofl:

[TheZug]

406. How about the subtle racism in her latest Texas ad?

It's the same imagery and pushes the same buttons as home alarm system ads: look at your precious little white girl sleeping peacefully. If you don't buy our alarm/vote for me, you're at the mercy of some scary black man.

Not saying that it was intended, but for those seeing sexism everywhere, this is at least as plausible.

[Turbineguy]

412. There seems to be a backlash at just about everything

what used to be a topic for discussion is now a reason for personal attacks.

[blondeatlast]

413. Thank you sister--from a disgusted OBAMA supporter.

We're inundated with it in the media--and here as well.

Grow up, DU. Really.

:thumbsup:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

454. Thank you bal.

:toast:

:yourock:

[ORDem]

463. OK, knock it off, really! I'm 99% sure that "backlash" is definitely sexist. n/t

Stop it! You're embarrassing me!!

:kick:

[AGirl]

464. Wonderful Post

It has been a blessing to read all the responses and the lively discussion on this topic. Many people do get it , that's a good sign. Thank you for bringing up this topic, its so important.

[stevenleser]

471. I think we will have to agree to disagree, but I am curious to know what you think of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4831298

[NashVegas]

481. Check Out This Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4834860

And tell me why we shouldn't be making caddy jokes?

[Pamela Troy]

482. And this justifies the outrageously sexist comments about HIllary....how?

[stevenleser]

485. I think you misunderstand crisco, he/she is saying that this is another example of sexism...

...which I would agree with, except that this is taken from an exact quote from Hillary's foreign policy advisor.

[stevenleser]

483. Did you see the link in that thread?

Jamie Rubin, HRC's foreign policy adviser, was on MSNBC today. When asked to specifically list Hillary's foreign policy credentials, Mr. Rubin responded it was the 1995 Women's Conference in China.
----------------------------
Sorry, if her foreign policy adviser said this, it is in bounds to criticize it.