We have so distorted the meaning of sexism here that it has ceased to mean anything

[Political Heretic]

I work in the field of social justice - social services as a social work with marco-level community / policy development. My study is focused on oppressed populations, and understanding the roots of social and institutional sexism, racism and homophobia from an appropriate theoretical framework.

Sexism is offensive to me, and deeply so. If offends my sense of decency and justice in the same ways that racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination offend me. Though I'll add a quick caveat to that - not all forms of discrimination are forms that I encounter as frequently. Age discrimination, discrimination against the disabled, discrimination by class or educational background are also all real. However sexism, racism and homophobia are the most institutionalized and socially predominate in society today.

What is frustrating about how primary politics are played out on this forum is how sexism is so politicized. We see it being wielded as a tactical weapon - a way to cheaply attempt to undermine an argument or point of view by an ad hominem attack. There is no question that real sexism exists, and the more of it will be brought into the limelight because we have a woman candidate for President. And here, we have certainly seen sexists tombstoned and still endure a few real sexists here and there.

But what we see more of, is cries of sexism being used as political tactic. So here are three things to remember:

#1 Criticizing a person who happens to be a woman does not equal stereotyping or attacking women
Far too often, any criticism of Hillary Clinton - criticism that is gender neutral in every way - is attacked illogically and fallaciously by calling the person making the criticism sexist.

I have very clear, very precise criticisms of Senator Clinton - and none of them have a single thing to do with what gender she happens to be. I feel I've compiled a wealth of supporting examples sufficient to substantiate my own conclusion, that at the heart of the Clinton campaign is pure, unadulterated politics without a value base. It is a campaign of say anything, do anything, be anything. The ultimate value goal of the campaign is winning. Everything else is subordinated to that goal. So much so that when winning becomes practically impossible, Clinton would rather torch anything and everyone in her path, including the Democratic Party itself, rather than stand down, come together, and get behind a party nominee.

Of course every candidate for president has the goal of winning, but not every candidate subordinates all values, all integrity, all decency to that goal. I have lost all trust that Clinton means anything that she ever says. What she says either about herself or her opponent is totally relative to whatever happens to be politically expedient at that time.

Fundamentally, there is nothing I can stand less than that. I am not an ideological purist, and I understand that all candidates have to engage in a certain degree of "politicking" when they run. They all think about what people want to hear and how to win. But not all totally subordinate everything else to that one element. Hillary Clinton and her campaign does.

I don't trust Hillary Clinton because I've been given compelling reason not do. I don't like her brand of politics because I've seen it in action. I don't believe she is honest, because I've watched her lie not once, but many times. I don't believe she values anything more than her own victory, because over a year of statements from her, her campaign advsiors and her surrogates reflect that fact. You make not agree or like my criticism, but there is not one thing about it that is sexist.

#2 The media is not "blatantly sexist" because it reports Clinton misstatements, Clinton attacks, Clinton's finances, Clinton's campaign health, or Clinton's delegate status.
Do some media favor Obama, yes just like some media favors Clinton. But the Clinton campaign is the one on aggressive kitchen sink offense - which is why they are getting the most attention. Obama is not because he is not attacking - he's quietly winning over voters in primary states keeping out the the headlines while Clinton self-implodes. It's not "sexist" to report that. If Obama had the week Clinton had last week, he would be all over the news, just like he was when the Wright story broke. Clinton is doing it to herself, and playing the victim and crying "sexist" about it is an insult to progressive feminists.

#3 Politicizing sexism in order to play the victim and cry about how unfair it sets the woman's movement back by a half a century every time you do it.
Every time I read another thread expressing manufactured outrage about the horrible and pervasive sexism of the boards, I cringe. Because without fail, when pressed for examples, there are next to none. Someone will post an example, linking to a poster who has been tombstoned. Well, apparently the system is working well! Someone will post to some thread and take some generic phrase and attempt - in the most amazing of ways - to twist and contort it into something vaguely sexist - you know if you squint, and tilt your head sideways to look at it.

There's some real sexist here, as there are everywhere. But the bigger epidemic is the blanket claims of sexism that are based on nothing but reading some ambiguous statement in some ludicrous way. That's called using oppression for political gain. It's distorting the real issue of sexism and its seriousness, and turning it into political sport. It's disgusting, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.


When people saying something like, "Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman" or say things about her being "emotional" or "shrill" or whatever, that stuff is stuff we can all come together and reject. I don't like the threads that start making a thing out of whether or not hillary sheds tears at some point - because I feel like its just ripe to go sexist and takes away from real issues. And I say so. Arguments about bitch and whore are such cerebral arguments - only here does this kind of crap get fourteen 300+ post threads devoted to debating it. Bitch is rude and uncouth - there's no place for it in political discussion. We can just leave it at that. Whore is context relative - certain political whore and corporate whore are used all the time. But you can certainly take that term and be a sexist with it if you want - so don't. Enough said.

Please stop trying to use oppression as POLITICAL TACTIC. It's offensive and shameful.

The same is true about racism and homophobia, and when I see massive numbers of threads crying about how racist or homophobic GDP is because of criticism against a candidate that has nothing to do with either, I'll be sure to comment on it.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Yes, if you ignore all the sexist attacks on her

it's easy to come to your conclusion.

But portraying her as a witch, calling her a bitch, a fucking whore, a cunt... it's done pretty regularly and it's hard to come up with a non-sexist explanation.

But then again, you guys think "fairy tale" is racist, so your perception is a bit off.

[TheWraith]

3. Thank you for making PH's point.

When you make shit up out of thin air to justify smearing all critics, it does exactly the damage PH is talking about.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. What's made up?

A thread was just locked depicting her as a witch. A guy was just banned after calling her a "cunt" for 3 days running, and many cheering him on. Randi Rhodes called her a big fucking whore - again, with many here cheering her on.

It's stupid to pretend those things don't happen.

[Celebration]

12. and that is why there was no such pretense

Which part of the O/P did you not read? Perhaps, this one--

When people saying something like, "Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman" or say things about her being "emotional" or "shrill" or whatever, that stuff is stuff we can all come together and reject. I don't like the threads that start making a thing out of whether or not hillary sheds tears at some point - because I feel like its just ripe to go sexist and takes away from real issues. And I say so. Arguments about bitch and whore are such cerebral arguments - only here does this kind of crap get fourteen 300+ post threads devoted to debating it. Bitch is rude and uncouth - there's no place for it in political discussion. We can just leave it at that. Whore is context relative - certain political whore and corporate whore are used all the time. But you can certainly take that term and be a sexist with it if you want - so don't. Enough said.

We can all agree that there are sexist posts here, but that is not at the core of the anti-Hillary posts here. I have many, many problems with Hillary, and zero have to do with her sex. And that is true for the vast majority of Obama supporters here.

[redqueen]

22. Well yeah but it's no fun discussing her spreading the WH's lies about Iraq

10 months after the war started.

Or her believing and repeating that "Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda" lie in her speech before she voted for the IWR.

Much more satisfying to talk about her as a victim. Much less cognitive dissonance.

[Hepburn]

16. So people hate her. Did you ever stop to think that this hatred has to do...

...with things other than the fact that she is female?

I fucking hate her...and I would hate her no matter what her gender. She is a phony, a liar, a war monger, a corporate ass kisser and a DINO. I feel the same way about LIEberman and a few other DINOS and, as far as I know, they are male.

So stop the faux claims of sexism. I am female, I came of age in the 1960s and I can tell you that at NO time in my life did I feel ~~ or have I ever felt ~~ that being female stood in the way of anything I wanted to do. I got where I wanted to be ~~ and I managed to retire before I hit 50 years old.

Give us the bullshit, OK? It harms and does not help Hillary and it is insulting as hell to those of us who know and realize what a fucking false claim it is.

JMHO

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Regardless of the foundation of the hatred

calling her a fucking whore or a cunt is sexist.

[Eric Condon]

54. Yeah, it is. So find ONE instance of anyone denying that.

You've made your point, and it remains completely moot with regards to the point the OP was trying to make. What you said is true, the OP said as much. No one is denying it.

Like many others, you make the strawman that because someone is explaining why attacking Hillary for her myriad political shortcomings is NOT tantamount to sexism, they're somehow "ignoring" the actual sexist attacks on her. This argument is a slippery slope, because it's easy to go from "things like what the OP said ignore real sexism" to "things like what the OP said are sexist in and of themselves."

And that was part of the OP's point. A certain contingent of Hillary supporters have trivialized the real meaning of sexism beyond recognition by trying, ever so subtly, to frame every DU attack on Hillary (99% of which are made FROM THE LEFT and certainly have nothing to do with sexism) as an attack on her gender, and, by extension, an attack on all women. This does feminism absolutely no favors.

A while back I once saw a post on a forum that claimed that Keith Olbermann MUST be sexist because "he came from sportscasting." That's the kind of grasping at straws I'm talking about.

[Ellen Forradalom]

64. I think it's more germane that no such comparable problem has presented itself

with Obama.

Yes, calling Hillary the c-word is hideously sexist and completely unacceptable.
Yes, all decent people reject the c-word in connection with Hillary.
Yes, the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. I respect your right to choose your candidate based on his or her positions and record. You've never read otherwise from me.

However, I have yet to even read a post employing the n-word with Obama or applying some sobriquet with racist overtones. Sexist treatments of Hillary stand out by contrast.

The problem is much more noticeable outside DU, which tells me that the majority of DUers are really pretty sensible. However, the US, including us DUers, have some ground to cover to make sexism as socially unacceptable as racism. Denying that also does us no favors.

[Eric Condon]

75. I admit blatantly racist language hasn't been out in full force like some sexist language,

and I think that owes to the sad fact that people have just gotten a lot more desensitized to sexist language. For better or worse, I don't think it even occurs to most people that "bitch" is sexist. I think to most people, that's just the female equivalent of "dick" or "prick" or "asshole," which are typically only used toward men (yes, I've seen "asshole" used toward women, but it rings weird to me, because it's so rarely used toward women as opposed to men.) On the other hand, everyone knows the n-word is inflammatory and unacceptable in any circumstance, and people have been conditioned to use extreme caution with it.

I think when people bicker over "what's worse, the b- or n-word," it tends to get forgotten that both of these words can refer to women. We've seen black women consistently marginalized in almost every discourse about American culture, and that's is just another example, the idea that the n-word only affects black men, whereas "bitch" only affects white women. You also see it in the popular media memes that "African-Americans" are Obama's base, while "women" are Hillary's base - as if African-American women aren't "women."

Sure, out-and-out racist language toward Obama has been rare on DU, but I've seen it. I heard one Hillary supporter criticize one of his speeches, and referred to his body language as "shuffling." I don't know if it was their intent or not, but I called them out anyway, figuring that if certain Hillary supporters can appoint themselves DU's only moral authority on political correctness, I could return the favor.

Also, the "Obamarosa" thing. That is just appalling and it has no place on DU. And I've seen it multiple, multiple times.

[Honeycombe8]

171. What does "Obamarosa" mean? Never heard the term. What's it referring to?

Note: I support Obama.

[Eric Condon]

180. Omarosa was a notorious contestant on "The Apprentice"

whose reputation and public persona was one of being "bitchy" and "shrewish." She also happened to be black. Therefore, the oh-so-hilarious conflation of her with Michelle Obama as "Obamarosa."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omarosa_Manigault-Stallwor...

According to her Wikipedia page, "A TV Guide survey conducted in the summer of 2005 voted her as the most reviled reality show contestant."

And Michelle Obama, a brilliant, accomplished woman, apparently deserves to be compared to her for no reason other than the fact that they're both African-American women.

Despicable. And the Hillbots accuse US of "sexism" and "playing the race card." Unbelievable.

[polmaven]

187. As childish and unacceptable as that is,

I really do not think the comparison has as much to do with race as with the gender and the name similarity. I may be wrong, but that is the way I look at it.

We have to admit. There are some here at DU that see racism everywhere. There is at least one thread..I can't come up with it right now...(I'm at work..shhh)that called the 3am ad racist because "the skin tones were darkened". Whose skin tones? Senator Obama was not in that ad, and how would that poster know if skin tone of the African-American child sleeping in her bed was "darkened" of not?

And, while we are at it......Can BOTH sides of this please get over the "bot" mentality?

[kwassa]

240. I don't know why you think that.

I think that race is the primary reason the comparison is drawn. There has been a lot of smear material against Michelle Obama here on DU based on absolutely nothing at all. This is one more example of it. We see one more example of it today in the "Get White people" thread. No facts support the OP that Michelle had anything to do with anything.

What is the similarity by Obama, and Omarosa, aside from starting with the letter "O"? Why would they choose another black woman to compare her, a very disliked black woman, and not some disliked white woman, if race wasn't the issue?

[polmaven]

247. Well, if you are not able

to see the similarity between the names "Obama" and "Omarosa" other than the first letter, I am not going to be able to explain it to you. It is a childish comparison, but it is there. The poster had already described Omarosa as being considered to be "bitchy" and "shrewish".

We are obviously looking at this from very different sides of the spectrum.

I just ask you to stop and think about that comparison of the names though.

[kwassa]

257. I'm able; the comparison simply isn't there.

The two names are really nothing alike.

Michelle isn't bitchy or shrewish, either, so there is no comparison there.

[Eric Condon]

262. You're right, it isn't there.

Don't worry about Polmaven, she's just trying to state in a roundabout way that she thinks it's okay to make racist, sexist jokes about Michelle Obama.

[kwassa]

264. That is certainly what it seems like.

[Eric Condon]

181. delete

I accidentally posted #180 twice. My bad.

[Alter Ego]

248. I take issue with people calling him "the affirmative action candidate"

as well.

Fortunately, one of the only posters who did that was TSed just recently.

[housewolf]

65. Well said!

Good clarification & re-iteration of the op's points. It helps to see in different words. Thanks for the post.

[Why Syzygy]

152. I'm a little bit sexist.

I would really like to see a woman in the Whitehouse. But you are right. When I criticize her I am coming from the Left. They are ideas that are foreign to her. She goes so far as to CONTRA indicate herself when she cuddles up with RW mouths. Coulter is going to vote for her fer criminy's sake!

It has been obvious from the beginning that HilLIARy is not an asset to feminism.

[lukasahero]

270. Are you "a little bit racist" too? eom

[Why Syzygy]

271. Are you a stupid, insulting question specialist?

[lukasahero]

276. Just wondering

People who wouldn't dare consider it appropriate to be "a little bit racist" don't seem to have any problems admitting to being "a little bit sexist".

:shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

282. well, that's a good point ...

I wasn't entirely serious. But it's true. Maybe it's because I'm part of that *minority*, and know if *we* achieved that, it could mean great strides forward in the evolution of humanity. It's really a great pity that HilLIARy isn't that person.

[Debi]

58. You seem to enjoy repeating those comments

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

78. I enjoy exposing them to people

who falsely claim that such terms aren't used here.

[Debi]

79. So you continue to use them - so we can all be exposed to them?

[MonkeyFunk]

82. so I can point out that people are

liars when they claim those terms aren't used here.

[Debi]

83. Or you just want to use them. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

85. But I've already said that no, I don't use them just

because I want to. That's absurd. I've explained why, and pretty clearly, but you want to make it about some weird psychological trait of mine that compels me to use naughty words. fuck that.

[Debi]

86. Heh

:thumbsup:

[ut oh]

87. You just proved the OP's point

Your making claims of sexism without really reading the OP's points. You then go on to divert... someone said something sexist in another thread which was promptly locked, then infer because that thread existed all arguments against Hillary are also sexist in nature...

Great job a proving the OP's point!!

<golfclap>

[merh]

92. Welcome to DU

It is so good to read a reasoned post, thank you. :hi:

[ut oh]

102. Thanks!

Been a lurker for a good long time, then had some ID problems... Skinner is the man though and got be squared away!

[mhoran]

122. The OP clearly stated that those terms WERE used here.

When someone does claim that, by all means call them out, but that was not the case in this OP.

[RaleighNCDUer]

138. Well, I''m putting you on ignore, because if there are other people

using those words they are getting banned or tombstoned before I see them, so the only person I see using them is YOU.

Bye bye.

[Ken Burch]

89. This may be the only time you and I ever agree, MF

But I'm with you on that.

[delt664]

94. Words are not sexist, ideas / people are

So unless the underlying idea behind the use of those words is sexist, then the words themselves are not inherently sexist.

[mkultra]

144. maybe thats just a feminine verision of an asshole or a dick

Kind of like interchanging him or her.

[DCKit]

162. Your constant repetition is beginning to form a strong link in my mind...

between Hillary and the very words you decry. Imagine the MSM talking heads repeating over and over, 24/7 for a few weeks "Hillary is not a bitch" and I guarantee you half the country would say "bitch" when asked to describe Hillary.

Mission accomplished.

[murielm99]

100. You are the poster I alerted on

about a week ago for calling Clinton a lying *itch.

Faux claims of sexism? I wonder who the real liar is.

[Debi]

57. If all these attacks ended up in threads being locked, posters being banned

and radio personalities being suspended then their inappropriate behaivior isn't being ignored.

[Chulanowa]

63. Case in point...

The thread was locked.

Read your own words there. The, thread, was, locked.

What does this tell us? a) that there are some serious assholes out there and that b) they get tombstoned and have their threads locked here on DU.

Is your gripe that Du does not have a Minority Report system to screen out the assholes before they display their assholishness?

[greguganus]

29. Dang! I got #1 on ignore! n/t

[merh]

18. You are so wrong and have been for weeks, if not months

The attacks on the candidate, Clinton, have been on the candidate and not on the "woman" - she would be subject to the same attacks if she were a man.

I've posted it for you before but you seem to ignore a very common sense take on the perceived "victimhood" - "sexist" statements, but Elizabeth Edwards has responded to the silliness the best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQxxldBvk

Tell me, what attacks made on Hillary have been made on her because she is a woman, only because she is a woman?

[papau]

46. Moneyfunk - you nailed it - obvious Obama campaign sexism w/ cries of Clinton racism - An Obama con

[merh]

68. Since the poster in #1 won't answer

maybe you can answer my post 18, you cheer him on, please support his reasoning with examples and facts.

thanks in advance

[ExPatLeftist]

66. "You guys think"... People are not controlled by hive minds.

You really make things easy for yourself by judging all people that share a single characteristic (Obama supporters) based on the acts of individuals.

What is the problem? Can you not realize that one asshole calling someone a c*** does not mean that "us guys" said it?

I happen to support Obama. That does not make me somehow controlled by groupthink. I do not believe that "fairy tale" is racist in the least, and if someone else thinks it is, that is their issue, not mine. Regardless of whether we share a particular characteristic or choice - such as wearing the same type of socks or our choice of presidential candidate, for example.

The world is not black and white.

[merh]

67. welcome to DU

I'm glad you posted what you did. It is tiring to try to get folks to understand that one crude individual doesn't represent all Obama supporters any more than one of the most fanatical on their side represents all Hillary supporters.

I'm glad to read the words of a reasoned individual. :hi:

[ExPatLeftist]

71. Thank you very much. :)

[delt664]

90. Its actually incredibly easy to come up with an explanation:

Perhaps its a judgement of character rather than gender?

I think Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are fucking cocksuckers. That is not a judgement based on sexuality. Its merely the best word I can find to properly convey the emotion I feel about the subject.

BTW, thank you for proving the OP's point.

[indimuse]

95. lol!

sopt F*cking on.....still lol..

[DrBlix]

98. Who said "sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you" was wrong.

Come on ladies she's one of your own......
.
Text of
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women Plenary Session  
delivered 5 September 1995, Beijing, China
.
No less true today.
.
Excerpt:
The history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loudly and clearly:
.
It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed -- and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.
.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. .
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.
.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard.
.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm
.

[Bongo Prophet]

101. Now that is the side of Senator Clinton that I really really respect and admire.

She has had problems in letting that side show, and for that I am saddened.
I tend to blame Penn, wolfowitz, Carville, et al - just like I blamed other "advisor/handlers" for Gore not being gore, and Kerry not being Kerry.Not sexist, but anti-insider campaign tactics. they always downplay the best parts of a candidate for some idea of "what the public wants".

But I think the public wants more like your quote.

[question everything]

256. You do mean Wolfson, right?

As much as many here would be willing to accept it, Hillary is not using Neocon Wolfowitz in her campaign. :evilfrown:

But I agree that these men pretty much harmed her campaign from the beginning.

:hi:

[Bongo Prophet]

278. A total brain lapse there. Unreserved apologies, LOL!

Oy, that was a bad one, didn't even see it. Thanks for the catch, QE!

[mhoran]

126. That's the Hillary I can respect.

And the one I haven't seen much of lately.

The erosion in her support base is a result of her behaviors, not her gender. Those shallow enough to reject her based solely or entirely based on her gender never supported her in the first place.

As disappointed and disturbed as I have been with the no holds barred, win at all costs tack taken by Clinton and her campaign staff in recent weeks, I still believe she has the potential to be an excellent president.

I just happen to believe that Obama would be a better one.

[Connonym]

128. you know what IS sexist?

The assumption that because I'm a woman and a feminist that I have to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's just as sexist to vote for someone solely based on her gender as it would be to vote against someone based on her gender. I started this primary season supporting John Edwards and it had nothing to do with his being white or being a man, it had to do with my agreeing with his ideals. Now that he's out of the race I feel that Obama best represents where I want America to go. It has nothing to do with race or gender and challenging my feminist credibility because I don't support Clinton is sexist and I resent the hell out of that. It's hive thinking that says that all women agree with one another because we are women. That's divisive and ridiculous.

[green917]

159. Thank you!

Your post is the most salient point that should be taken from this discussion! The fact that there has to be some unitary support mentality in voting for Sen. Clinton by women or feminists simply because they are women or feminists is beyond preposterous. The idea itself completely degrades both women and feminists!

In a similar conversation the other night at work I explained my position on Senator Clinton to a coworker who insinuated that I was being sexist because I don't support Senator Clinton (and allow me to preface my comments with the fact that I'm a man).

I will never support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Presidency of the United States (Although I will vote for her if, by some miracle she becomes our nominee with much regret)! The reason for this lack of support on my part has absolutely bupkiss, zero, zip, nada to do with the fact that she's a woman. I wont support Sen. Clinton because she's a corporate lackey and a liar! Nothing about the campaign she has waged has rang sincere or true to me and I simply can not and will not, in good faith, support someone who I don't trust to be President (we've had enough of that these last 7+ years). If I wanted to vote for someone who's going to lie to me, I'd be a Republican!

[IronLionZion]

252. It's sexist to believe that Obama's women supporters can't manage to think for themselves

or don't have the right to make their own decisions.

It seems like "divisive and ridiculous" is what GDP is all about.

[RaleighNCDUer]

139. Meh. Just words. A pretty speech by someone who had no

position to affect policy.

[dkf]

179. And how many posts use those words?

like .0005%?

Get real.

[MADem]

184. I agree with you, Monkey Funk

Nonetheless, the acolytes will cheer this crap on. It's all they know how to do.

[IronLionZion]

250. You and your candidate both thrive on bullshit.

Thanks for proving the OP's point by repeatedly displaying your inability to distinguish between the very real sexism in your post and the faux "sexism" the OP was calling out.

Well done! It's a good thing Hilarity has a big strong man like you to protect her!

PS I said Hilarity instead of Hillary because I'm sexist but the Hillbots who use the term Obama Nation (abomination) are just being witty and cool.

[IronLionZion]

267. I see those terms used most often in your posts

as Debi has pointed out, you seem to love repeating those terrible insults every chance you get. It's not just here either, there are many threads where you chime in with those words...all the while telling us that they are used in threads. It looks like YOU are the one using them.

I haven't seen the locked threads you are talking about but I have seen a few too many of YOUR posts using these terms.

[NanceGreggs]

2. Excellent piece!

Thanks!

:kick: & REC'D!

[cliffordu]

4. Excellent work! K&R

:kick:










:patriot:

[JohnnyLib2]

6. Given your points, do you see more harm in calling attention to

real sexism, or in letting it roll? That's the dilemma I see these days.

[Political Heretic]

9. I think calling attention to real sexism is the only effective counter to policizing it.

But to be most effective, it should be done not only independently but also while standing up to politicized claims of sexism.... saying, that's not sexism, but THIS IS, that kind of thing.

[JohnnyLib2]

10. Thanks. Dealing with the broad-brush stuff is tiring!

It's nice to see some thoughtful nuance.

[singingbiscuit]

43. "Broad" brush?

that's a pretty sexist thing to say!

:P


OH yeah:
:kick:

[olkaz]

7. That's a pretty sexist thing to say!

Good post.

[Hepburn]

8. Excellent....well said and something which needed to be said.

So many feel that ANYTHING critical of Hillary can only come from some form of sexism. They need to understand that finding the weakness in one particular woman to be POTUS does not mean an opposition to all women or that there is any opposition to a female president.

K&R! :hi:

[bunnies]

11. K&R. So True. Nice work! nt

[LeFleur1]

15. Excuses

"They need to understand that finding the weakness in one particular woman to be POTUS does not mean an opposition to all women or that there is any opposition to a female president."

Finding weaknesses in Hillary Clinton's policies is not sexist. Calling her sexist names to put her down is.

So...if I called Obama racist names would that be considered racism?

I am constantly amazed at the double standard.

[Political Heretic]

17. No double standard from me. Calling her sexist names as a put down should be condemned

And I would say we can pretty much agree on much of the terms that should be included.

Bitch just doesn't have any place in political discussion. If you can't find a better way to make a political point, then your political point isn't worth making.

Shrill, which I haven't heard that much lately, also has no place. It IS sexist - when was the last time any man was called shrill? If his comments seem exaggerated, extreme, hyperbolic, or over reactionary then other words are used to describe it. Thus, sexist.

Whore - basically also has no place in elevate political discussion. While it is true that this term is now broadly applied across genders in ways such as corporate whore, media whore, political whore, etc., its roots in sexism are real and even if it were not overtly sexist it is still low-brow and unnecessary. Rarely if ever does it serve was anything other than a personal attack. And frankly, getting caught saying something like "Clinton is a fucking whore" is more offensive than saying "Clinton is a corporate whore" - even if you disagree with that statement... so context matters. Sorta. Really, we ought to be mature enough to find better ways to make our point than resorting to such charged language.

Having said that, you can go back to my original post for my criticisms and objections to the Clinton campaign's attitude, none of which are sexist, through they are subjective opinion.

[bunnies]

25. This OP is not about calling sexist or racist names.

Dont change the subject. In doing so you only prove the OP's point.

[Flabbergasted]

13. Excellent. Well Said. KR

[H2O Man]

14. Nominated

This is what DU is when DU is at its best. Thank you.

[jobycom]

19. I heard similar arguments about racism growing up in Mississippi.

I've read very few, if any, people around here accusing all attacks on Clinton as sexist. Usually when I see the word used, it's appropriate. Sexism is there, and it doesn't have to be blatant and overt to still be present.

If an employer tells a black man he won't hire him because he's black, that's obvious racism. But if an employer tells him "You don't quite fit our image," that's a little more subtle. Most will still call it racism, but some might not get it. If the employer says "You don't have the right education," to one black applicant, and "You don't have the right experience," to another, and to a third "We don't think your skill sets align with our needs," those might all sound like legitimate explanations. If he then hires a white guy, it means little. If, however, all the employer ever hires is white people, suddenly the excuses sound less legitimate, especially if many of the white people hired aren't as qualified as the black applicants not hired.

Same is true with prisons, schools, colleges, and every other institution. The individual stories may not sound like racism, but the overall numbers prove it exists.

Many see the same thing happening with Clinton. We know that commentators like Chris Matthews have made blatantly sexist comments. We know that many in the media have said Clinton was only successful because of her husband, or because her husband cheated on her, or because she responded so well to the media pressure of her husband cheating on her. Those are obviously sexist attacks, and most people get up in arms about them.

So the media goes underground. They stop those types of attacks, but accuse Clinton of lying, when in other candidates equal misrepresentations are ignored. They question her experience claims, then never point out that even if her claims are exaggerated, her experience far exceeds that of her opponent (A claim even her opponent agreed with for a while, saying only that his "judgement" outweighed her experience). They treat her differently, and given that they slip now and then and use gender-specific attacks on her (Randi Rhodes calling her the "W" word, for example), and what you have is gender-specific bias.

My estranged wife is a bank officer. She's got more experience than most of the men who have been promoted over her. She's better at her job than most of the men who are promoted over her. She makes about half, or less, than most of the men promoted over her, and she even makes less than some of the men who are hired to work for her. There is no one decision or one example she can point to as proof that her lower wages are the result of her being a woman. In fact, there's always a reasonable explanation for why that happened, in each case. Yet somehow, some way, all of the women around her make less than all of the men with the same experience, and further, men with lesser experience are promoted to higher positions. This is par for her industry. There are exceptions, but not enough to overcome the norm.

That's sexism. It's not something you can take a picture of, or prove to a critic who wants to be blind to it. But it's institutionalized sexism, just as the scarcity of African American employees and promotions is institutionalized racism.

You say that "politicizing sexism" sets the women's movement back 50 years. I heard that same comment made all during the 70s and 80s in Mississippi, about racism. Desegregation, busing, Affirmative Action, all "set blacks back 50 years or more," according to the people I grew up around. Using prison sentences and arrest records to prove racism "Set blacks back 50 years or more," as well. Anything, in their minds, that exposed racism "set blacks back 50 years or more." It wasn't true, obviously, but they believed it was.

Exposing sexism, showing how it affects hiring practices, media coverage, and presidential selection, does not set feminism back. It shines a light on sexism, exposes it, in the same way MLK exposed the true face of racism. No one is saying Clinton deserves to be elected because she's a woman, any more than the equivalent comment about Obama is being said. But pointing out that it is happening, while certainly being met with strong resistance from people who don't want to see it, is not the problem. It is an attempt to expose the problem. That's the first step in trying to solve the problem.

Take race and gender out of the equation. What you have is one candidate who has served in increasingly complex roles in government, from 12 years as a top level cabinet member in state government, eight years in the same capacity at the federal level, and eight years as a US Senator. The other candidate has eight years in a state legislature, and three in the US Senate. No question which has more experience, but do you see the media accepting that as obvious?

I'm not saying experience is the only qualification and I'm not arguing which is better, I'm just making a point about the way the media treats both candidates. Clinton is not acknowledged as the more experienced by the media. Her experience is not even treated seriously by many in the media. It's even specifically criticized as being "as the wife of a president." Gender-specific, in other words.

That's institutionalized sexism. It underlies this whole campaign. So does racism, as we saw with the attacks on Obama through Jeremiah Wright. I suspect that when Clinton (or Obama) is out, that racism (or sexism) will become worse, as the media can finally pit a white man against a black man or a white woman.

Some of the accusations that may seem gratuitous to you seem so because of how hard it is to explain what we see. Just as it's hard to prove that women are paid less than men only because of their gender, it's hard to explain exactly how the attacks are happening. But they are there. Just as the racist stuff has hit Obama from time to time (he wasn't black enough, or he's scary because of Jeremiah Wright, or whatever).

We've got a long a way to go. This election is proving that just as much as it's proving how far we've come.

[uponit7771]

24. I understand where you're coming from with the overt and covert "-isms" but I think the post was...

...needed because the sexism issue is coming out too much when people are calling Hillary on her campaign.

Mark Penn, McCain promotion, Bosnia are fair game.

I don't like the fact that there were 3000 stories related to Wright either (vs. under 100 related to Yoo) but the obvious screw ups should be pointed out

[jobycom]

26. With all due respect, you don't really understand where I'm coming from

If you think the OP was needed, you missed my point. I disagree completely with it, and find it harmful.

[uponit7771]

33. When it comes to Hillarys overt screw ups how has the media been sexist or covertly so?

[The Doctor.]

155. Can't wait to see that answer.

[NashVegas]

97. *applauds*

I'm going to remember you next Valentine's day fundraiser, I swear!

In some cases, sexism is both the reason and the method of the attacks on HC; in the forums, by those who propagandize, they are a method that some may not even be conscious of what they're doing. They're just looking for something negative to post.

All season some people have started threads featuring essays by female writers, and going out of their way to point out if the writers were known feminists, saying HC is a horrible horrible candidate.

The message: you're a bad girl if you vote for HC.

Just to gauge, I went looking for black writers who were critical of Obama - yes, there are some - and posted one. Those who posted to the thread expressed disgust. To my knowledge, that's the only thread of that sort posted all season - yet, until the 'sniper' echo chamber, it seemed like we were getting at least one 'women against Hillary' thread per day.

When there were calls in the media for her to drop out in the days immediately after - even before - Super Tuesday, I believe that was totally gender-based; the candidates were neck and neck. Had it been two men, no one in their right minds would have demanded one of them bow out of the competition and hand the nomination to the other - and anyone who said differently would have been clubbed.

[lukasahero]

280. Pssst -

Did you reply to the wrong post?

I've checked this a few times and I can't see how you're agreeing with the post you are having read your other posts... (Just pointing this out because if you did, you really want to remember "jobycom" next February. :) )

[Political Heretic]

34. After reading your full post, this is where we disagree:

I've read very few, if any, people around here accusing all attacks on Clinton as sexist. Usually when I see the word used, it's appropriate. Sexism is there, and it doesn't have to be blatant and overt to still be present.

That's where we disagree. I have read many posts making blanket accusations of sexism against Clinton criticism. I disagree that the word is used only when appropriate. And the discussion of institutionalized oppression is irrelevant to my post. This board isn't hiring women and paying them a lower wage than men, or other examples of institutional oppression that are real.

Saying that Hillary Clinton has only been as successful as she is because of her husband, I'm sorry to tell you, IS. NOT. SEXIST. If Clinton was a man, and Bill Clinton was her partner, the SAME CRITICISM COULD BE MADE - that her own professional accomplishments have been mostly aided by the legacy and accomplishments of her partner. It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the context of the person Hillary and her partner Bill.

You don't have to agree with the criticism, and in fact I don't think I agree with it.

In order to call "whore" a gender-specific attack, you have to completely ignore the number of times it is used generically (i.e. corporate whore, media whore) and the number of times it is used to refer to MEN (again, corporate whore, media whore - as a verb, as in he's out whoring for votes from big business." Whoring, being prostituting yourself - something applying to both men and women - and in a political context, referring to sacrificing all principles to achieve a tactical end.

As I said in my OP, can whore be used in a sexist way? Yup. Is it always? Nope.

Other candidates don't have equal examples of lying. Period.

You haven't heard similar arguments from Mississippi because the arguments aren't the same. I say falsely claiming sexism where none exists and using oppression as a POLITICAL TACTIC hurts women. In mississippi people were arguing that giving blacks equal rights and equal access hurt blacks. Same? Nope.

Hiring practices aren't the issue. No one is disputing institutionalized sexism, nor overt and covert sexism. And we should talk about sexism in the political process, because its real. Remember when Hillary Clinton angrily condenmed OBama ads down in Texas? Media coverage of that was some of the most sexist I've ever seen. If a man had said those things, it would have been covered completely differently. We should talk about that.

But there is an ongoing tactic used here, to characterize all opposition as "Clinton hate" which is then twisted into "rampant sexism" and its categorically false.

[noiretextatique]

38. correction: during the civil rights era

some people were saying this to black people: demanding equal rights and talking about racism and segregation will anger white people, and that wouldn't be good for black people. not much has changed in that regard.

[jobycom]

40. You illustrate what I mean

Dismissing all of Clinton's accomplishments by claiming her success is due only to her husband is sexist. Definitively so. I'm not talking about people saying she was helped by her marriage--obviously both Clintons were helped by the marriage. But dismissing her accomplishments, or refusing to take them seriously, because of her gender-prescribed role, is exactly what is being called sexist. There's not an exact equivalent involving racism, but it's similar to, say, claiming that Obama is only where he is because he's black. Sure, you can put together an argument demonstrating how Obama's race has helped him demographically, but the accusation is still out of line, as Obama supporters seemed to understand when Ferraro made it.

And saying that the W word isn't sexist is like saying the N word isn't racist (excepting the times it's used as a term of endearment, but that's a separate argument). I grew up around people who justified the N word by saying "I've met white Ns, and black people who weren't Ns, so it's not a racist term." The reason this argument doesn't work is that the word never loses it's racial connotation, even when applied to a white person. The insult is that you are telling the white person they are like a black person, and that's supposed to be insulting. This further dehumanizes African Americans, no matter who the insult is aimed at. Same with homophobic language. Same with the W word. It refers to a woman who has sex too frequently to please the male world--a sexist judgement from the beginning. Using that word to refer to a woman is always a sexist attack. Using the word to refer to the media or a corporation is still using it in a way that tries to criticize a certain type of woman, to demean her for certain actions, to claim that only certain women are acceptable, and only if they follow certain male standards.

The rest of your post just proves you don't get it. I can't imagine this response will do any better.

[Political Heretic]

42. If Hillary were a man, the criticism would be exactly the same.

:shrug:

Frankly, I refer you back to my OP, where I said that Bitch, Whore and the like really have no place in political discourse. I really see no need to get into a microtechnical debate over the context in which the terms can be used. I disagree with you that whore is exclusively sexist. It, like many other things, can be used in a sexist way or not. Calling Mark Penn a corporate whore, for example - isn't sexist. :)

Main Entry:
Pronunciation:
\ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Function:
noun

1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3: a venal or unscrupulous person

Whore refers to women or men. It just does. Saying it doesn't until you're blue in the face doesn't matter.

Whore CAN BE USED IN A SEXIST WAY. It can also be used in other ways.

[jobycom]

45. If Hillary were a man, with her qualifications, she'd be the incumbent.

Going Geraldine Ferraro on gender, are you?

[Political Heretic]

49. No, I'm not. As I said before the criticism isn't one I agree with.

The criticism is also not sexist. If she was a man, people could make the same observations about the ways in which she has traded, benefited from, and in many cases claimed as her own the accomplishments of her partner. Agree with it, disagree with it, but when your partner is the former President of the United States and your own resume includes limited political history apart from being the partner of a political leader and limited foreign politic experience, the criticism is an understandable one.

The reason I don't personally agree with it is because I think both the candidates are more than qualified to run for president, but my criteria for qualification is a lot less than some people's.

[PoliticalAmazon]

259. WRONG! If Hillary Clinton was a man, she'd be Bush Jr. I wouldn't vote...

...for ANY candidate as corrupt and incompetent as she is.

[bain_sidhe]

74. You throw like a girl!

Just one small disagreement with your comment that "Whore" can be used in ways that aren't sexist.

Regardless of the context (corporate whore, media whore, etc) the criticism gets its power from the original meaning of the word. I.e. equating the person you're criticizing with a type of woman -- which relies on the unspoken assumption that being like a woman is a bad thing.

So, yes, I think all uses of the word "whore" are sexist.

But, in general I found much value in your OP. Still digesting the thread, though.

[Political Heretic]

107. You know I pondered that as I paused for a smoke outside at work...

You point is definitely not to be dismissed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. No, the bad thing is selling yourself, betraying your own principles.

Gender is not what makes 'whore' bad - it is the whoring that makes it bad.

ON EDIT: Or do you believe it is perfectly acceptable for MEN to sell themselves?

[guyanakoolaid]

77. Your post proves you don't get the OP

Hilarious - the OP points out that not all criticism of Hillary is sexist. You start your own debate about the merits of specific words, ignoring the OP. The OP must have been sexist for not including your talking points.

[jobycom]

261. Hilarious, eh?

Interesting. Often the person who laughs loudest is the one who didn't get the joke. I'm not laughing.

[MADem]

186. Wow--you're on fire! I can't tell you how much I enjoy your posts.

They are surgical--cut right through the fat to the heart of the matter.

Well said, again!

[PeaceNikki]

188. Like some others, I'd like to thank you for your well-worded and wise replies in this thread.

:applause:

[Eric Condon]

59. With regards to Hillary's success in relation to her husbands, I think it's worth pointing out

that she doesn't exactly shy away from Bill's success. If she were to say "I don't want to talk about Bill's presidency, I want to achieve winning the presidency completely on my own," then it might carry some weight to call it sexist when people say she's only gotten this far because of him. But when she practically comes out with a giant 50-foot neon sign that says "HEY EVERYBODY, REMEMBER MY HUSBAND'S ADMINISTRATION? PRETTY GREAT, HUH? VOTE FOR ME!" I think she opens herself up for a little more criticism as far as that issue is concerned.

[chknltl]

133. YES!!!!! Thank you PH

Thank you for the OP and especially for this particular clarification.

I was recently involved in a debate re: Randi Rhodes use of "fucking whore", with someone I felt was sanctimoniously using it as blatant sexism by Ms Rhodes. The DUer imo., was angry over the Clinton bashing and had latched onto this incident like a lifepreserver all the while screaming sexism. The DUer had managed to anger a great many throughout the thread, a thread that was more than 200 posts long, when finally asked: "If your problem with Randi Rhodes is "sexism" please show us other posts of yours prior to this incident where you have accused her of sexism and called for her head.

I even offered up this example for the DUer to use: "Randi Rhodes plays the song "Bounce Your Boobies" every Friday-please show me your posts where you are outraged about this!" There is plenty in that song which can be called sexist. Did the sanctimonious DUer respond? NO because that DUer could not have supplied us with such posts proving outrage against Randi Rhodes. Not for the song nor for any other supposedly sexist incidents that Ms Rhodes could have been accused of. Ms Rhodes is NOT a sexist! The issue was, for that particular DUer, the fact that Ms Rhodes was bashing Senator Clinton, it had NOTHING to do with sexism!

Your point that some DUers are using sexism as a political tool is well appreciated here. This thread of yours is hitting the mark with many of us, I am glad that someone has had the sense to tackle this topic. Thank you

[green917]

164. VERY WELL SAID!

I have, on other forums and in my daily life, been accused of being sexist for not supporting Senator Clinton. I would love to see a woman elected to the White House. I think it's long past time that that glass ceiling gets broken. When the woman in question, however, lies to make herself look more experienced (Bosnia lie), I take umbrage. When she tells me that I, as a caucus voter (I live in MN), don't really count because caucuses aren't "real elections", I take offense. When she tells me that she didn't support a bill that she actively campaigned to get passed (NAFTA) in order to make herself appear more in touch with the Democratic base, I take offense. When she lies again and tells me that she was speaking out against the Iraq war before Sen. Obama when she voted for the IWR and actually championed it for months afterwards, I take offense!

I have absolutely no problem with electing a woman to be the President of the United States! I do, however, have a gigantic problem with electing a corporatist who lies to the people they are purporting to want to represent and doesn't apologize for obvious gaffes whether that individual be a man, a woman, black, white, or purple!

[noiretextatique]

36. thanks, jobycom

i agree with you 100%. talking about sexism is often more of a problem than actual sexism...same with racism. same with homophobia. isn't it all really about the power and presumption of the dominant group? we (the dominant group) can acknowledge that racism and sexism and homophobia exists, but we will attempt to explain away any claims of those isms (especially claims from those affected negatively by the isms) as "playing the race card" or "making race relations worse" or "setting back civil/women's/gay rights. etc. it seems the dominant group still reserves the right to define what is and is not an ism.

[jobycom]

44. Exactly. White Male Supremacy.

The dominant group tells those outside the group what they can be offended by, what they can feel violated by, and what they can do about it, all within parameters that the dominant group sets to prevent any real challenge to that dominance.

And, :hi:

[noiretextatique]

48. bingo!!!!

i got that impression from the op.
nice to see you, and i appreciate (as always) your wisdom and insight :hi:

[jobycom]

55. Aww

:blush:

(Yes, I mistakenly posted this beneath my own post at first. The mind is slipping!)

[jobycom]

50. oops

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

47. Who had 12 years in what state cabinet position?

Which Federal cabinet position did that candidate hold ? As far as I know, the only candidate who held a cabinet position has dropped out of the race.

If you're comparing HRC and Obama, seems to me that he has held elected office longer than she has

[housewolf]

72. >"No one is saying Clinton deserves to be elected because she's a woman,"

Yet there are those who DO believe this... To the point of suggesting that women who don't support Hillary are "traitors" and that anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist. They seem to place loyalty to a sisterhood about an individual's right of choosing what one believes is right and best. Aren't they operating out of some sort of flawed logic, too?

[aquart]

73. Yep.

Thank you for this. It's so much better than calling the OP an enabling apologist which is my first natural inclination.

They don't see it because they won't see it. Because, if they admit it for a second, the serene and glorious halo of righteous goodness they have enshrined themselves in for having the great courage to vote for the first black president might slip and fall and get muddied on the ground.

The Obama bunch are terribly pleased with themselves because they, alone among the multitudes, have overcome and vanquished bigotry.

Hell, no, they haven't.

[jobycom]

137. No one recognizes their own accent, IOW. nt

[green917]

165. BS!

Allow me to preface this comment with the fact that I am a white suburban male in the north and have almost no direct experience with racism. Barring that fact, I found your comment deeply offensive! My support of Senator Obama (at this point, I was a Kucinich supporter before he dropped out) has exactly NOTHING to do with race just as my lack of support for Sen. Clinton has absolutely NOTHING to do with gender. To insinuate that those of us who support Senator Obama's bid for the Presidency are doing so out of some misguided hope of stamping out racism is puerile and stupid at best! WTF is happening to the Democratic party? I don't recognize it anymore and, much like my love of this once-great nation, I am deeply saddened by the changes I see. It's time for all of us to realize that, the main goal that we have, is to ensure that we put a Democrat back in the White House in November. To not do so will have disastrous implications for us all. What is getting lost in the shuffle is that NEITHER of the Democratic candidates can win the general election without the support of at least some of the other candidate's supporters. To make such an offensive, blanket statement such as yours just might ensure that we have President McCain and I, for one, wont have that. I don't support your nominee for a myriad of reasons which I have outlined elsewhere on this thread but, I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. Can you say the same? Are we Democrats here or are we going to allow our positions to blind us to what's really important? Wake up and think pragmatically for a minute and just perhaps, you will realize how foolish your comment was and is.

[ut oh]

88. I have to disagree

There has been a lot of cries of sexism in threads that did not contain them in the OP (yes some threads contained true sexism from responders).

There have also been cries of racism where it was not really accurate either...

People just need to take a chill pill...


Both sides are getting posters that are hysterical (not in the funny sense).

[redsoxrudy]

118. I agree with quite a bit of what you said.

You are absolutely right about Chris Matthews being a sexist tool. You are also correct about there being a lot of under the radar implied sexism. However saying that they "...accuse Clinton of lying, when in other candidates equal misrepresentations are ignored." I assume this is about the sniper fire and this is absolutely absurd. I am aware all candidates(the ones I support included) exaggerate about things. This "misstatement" is so far past the laugh test that to claim sexism in the media for reporting it is quite amusing. Also the claims about her experience as first lady just don't add up. Granted she was given more responsibility than most if not all first ladies, it is still not a cabinet post. As was stated by the Irish and Bosnian delegations she was not negotiating for the U.S. government. So when she is questioned about this experience I don't think that qualifies as sexism either.

[D23MIURG23]

172. If you can point to a covert -ism using statistics,

as you alluded in your post, then you can make a legitimate case. That females tend to make less than male counterparts to do comparable work is a well documented case of this.

The white man in your example becomes a bigot when he hires no black candidates, even though qualified ones walk through his door, and a news anchor becomes a bigot when he devotes 9 hours to Hillary's sniper statements, and only one to Obama's Wright controversy (I consider the Wright and Bosnia "issues" equally pointless so it seemed a fair comparison). But this doesn't mean that it is bigoted call Hillary out on her IWR vote, or to question Obama's commitment to LGBT issues given his McClurkin dealings, and to use accusations of -isms to defend against these legitimate issues would be a cheap tactical deflection.

It seems to me that institutionalized -isms lend themselves to being summarily denied, and gratuitously evoked (as the OP discusses)due to their inherent subtlety. The antidote is a measure of care and clarity to be used in their discussion, in defining them, and in laying out cases for them. Presidential campaigns are, unfortunately, a bad environment for this sort of discussion to proceed, but maybe having these issues bouncing around will encourage some thought that will eventually improve the dialogue.

Thanks for the thought provoking post.

[TLM]

175. In fact, there's always a reasonable explanation for why that happened, in each case.

"In fact, there's always a reasonable explanation for why that happened, in each case."

Says it all.

There are very likely in this workplace and others like it, men who make as much, some who make more, and some who make less and women who also make the same, more, or make less... if, as you claim, all or even most of the women with equal or more experience/skills were making demonstrably less than men with less experience and less skills... why not file a discrimination claim?

Why, because "In fact, there's always a reasonable explanation for why that happened, in each case." Like someone with less experience but more education... someone with specialized experience... someone with better references... etc.

This notion that somehow employers must have some magical statistical spread of the right breakdown of race and gender, in order to avoid the outward feel of discrimination is ridiculous and in fact has the opposite of the intended effect, by causing race and gender to be a factor in hiring and promotion, rather than merit alone.

I think when the effect of the "ism" is so diminished that you are unable to cite anything specific, but rather a general feeling or perception, the "ism" has effectivly been neutralized.

That's not to say that sexism or racism or ageism doesn't exist, because they certainly do. However when you can't even quantify any direct effect of the "ism" that you claim is causing the problem, then the discussion is no longer about real injustice but rather about feelings and perceptions. It is hard to buy claims that sexism is somehow holding back a woman who has accomplished pretty much everything short of the presidency that she's attempted in her life.



Oh and if being married to an elected official constitutes being "a top level cabinet member in state government, eight years in the same capacity at the federal level" then Laura Bush is almost as qualified as Hillary... and following that logic, Stewart Boxer has almost 30 years of federal experience, eclipsing them both.

The whole argument is inane.

Hilly was inevitable, until she started going negative, exaggerating, outright lying, and using the kitchen sink strategy. She has sunk her own campaign because campaigning against hope is a sure fire way to lose.

[Ellen Forradalom]

177. THANK YOU.

For a beautiful, cogent post.

[MADem]

185. Outstanding post. Well said! nt

[lukasahero]

279. I *heart* jobycom

I've said that before and am sure I will say it again. What an incredible post. Thank you for, once again, saying so clearly what needs to be said.

I have to say this about this election: it has opened up opportunites for me to talk to the (otherwise) liberal men in my life about sexism and how it looks/feels to me. My husband and a close co-worker have been especially sensitive to how this election cycle has affected me (and how difficult it has been for many women).

I didn't vote for Clinton in my state primary but I work in NH where the "iron my shirt" assholes decided to do their thing (and they come from my state). Neither my husband nor my friend had heard anything about the situation - and both are NPR junkies. I asked them to imagine someone showing up at an Obama rally with "pick my cotton" t-shirts and tell me if they would have heard of that in the news. They understood that. (Disclaimer: Anna Quindlen asked a similar question in her Newsweek op ed a few weeks after I posed the question to my husband/friend - I am not plagarizing her - I'm sure thousands of women made that connection in less than a heartbeat.)

The "act" of the idiot DJs was overt sexism and the people who heard about it were rightly outraged. In my opinion, however, the fact that it garnered little if any attention in the news was the real story.

[AtomicKitten]

20. The Clintons use the "isms" as a political tool.

Excellent OP! K&R!!!

[noiretextatique]

23. does this analysis also apply to the "racism" claims re" obama?

just wondering...

[Political Heretic]

28. All you have to do is read to get your answer.

Since I said that in the last paragraph.

[noiretextatique]

37. do you think the charges of racism by obama supporters

is as big of an issue as the clinton/sexism charges? frankly, i don't see much of difference.

[Political Heretic]

41. I think it is as big of an issue in theory. I don't think it is as prevalent as politicizing sexism

[noiretextatique]

52. obama does it in a more subtle way

but he does it. i think gender is more of an issue in this campaign, in part because obama, because of political reality, cannot focus too much on race. as i mentioned in another post, when one does that in america, it tends to turn off white voters. it did in 1950 and it does in 2008, unless of course it's truly racist rhetoric of the kind the GOP is fond of. that worked really well for ronald reagan.

[Political Heretic]

53. How does he do it?

And do what?

[izzybeans]

206. Why, by always telling us to move beyond politicizing race he is playing the dreaded race card

of course.

Excellent OP.

:)

[The Doctor.]

Great! Let's see the examples and explanations.

Thanks in advance!

[goletian]

27. K & R - nt

[MichiganVote]

30. So ok you have an opinion. You endorse a point of view. But there's the reality,

in the post- bullshit Iraq WMD war and occupation, some people, like me, want examples of what you're talking about when you use words such as "....bigger epidemic is the blanket claims of sexism that are based on nothing but reading some ambiguous statement in some ludicrous way."

My experience of the sexism I have witnessed in the media against ALL female candidates, on Democratic boards, on republican boards and in everyday conversation with neighbors is that there is nothing ambiguous about any of it. Females in politics are devalued. If that's an example of the "blanket" you're talking about maybe we have some common ground. If not, not.

Your post would have been ok with me until you began to qualify your own voting standards, choie of candidate and so on. You seem to mix things up a little.

[Political Heretic]

35. OP was very careful to stipulate "here" not the media, other boards, or everyday conversation.

[MichiganVote]

70. "Epidemic"?? You find an "epidemic" of assertions of sexism on DU alone?

Please.............:eyes:

[Tresalisa]

31. Great OP! K&R n/t

[housewolf]

32. Best post of the day!

Thank you for a thouoghtful, thought-provoing post on the subject of sexism.

Here's my question... it has to do with the fact that there are real, physical, biologic and emotional differences between men and women. Not only things that have to do with physical strength and emotionals, but differences in how mens' and womens' brains process certain things. Things like vocal tone and timbre. There are arenas of life that are of more concern to women and arenas of life that are of more concern to men, be that societally-induced or biologic.

In today's environment, how do we discern what is truly "sexist" from what is simply related to one gender or the other?

It seems to me that we often take this "PC" notion too far, to the extent that it becomes impossible to discuss differences or characteristics of one or the other. The fact of the matter is that each of is either one gender or the other or a few hermaphroditic, and it's impossible to remove aspects of gender from who we are.

[Political Heretic]

39. The answer will depend on your basic assumptions about gender identity

So you recognize differences between women and men, whether they be socially constructed or biologic. However, there really isn't much we can say unless we're willing to pick a side and decide whether we think more of these perceived "differences" are socially constructed or intrinsic.

For what its worth, in women's studies the term "gender" is not the same as "sex." Sex refers to biological distinction of "male" and "female." Gender, refers to culturally created "identity" expectations for men and women. Even saying that there are arenas of life that are more concern to women and arenas of life that are more concern to men is an uncertain thing to say. I'd be hard pressed to produce any example of something that concerns "men" more where you could not provide a counter example of some men who aren't concerned about those things and women who are more concerned. Further, sexuality throws a wrench in many if not most of our gender generalizations - if you stop and reflect on it, most of our gender generalizations refer to heterosexual norms and don't tend to hold up as consistently when including the experience of LGBTQ men and women.

As you can see, I approach gender identity from a constructivist bias. I can't make the case for a functionalist / biological approach as well, because I truly have a hard time seeing it. So I'm being honest about my bias, now let me give a provisional answer (your mileage may vary) to your question based on my framework:

What we should be labeling as "sexist" are things that attempt to compartmentalize women's experiences into structural categories. In other words, as a constructivist who believes most of gender identity is socially constructed, we should challenge it. Putting it still another way - I am suspicious of nearly all (if not all) gender generalizations. When someone begins with "women in general are...." I immediately grow skeptical and analytical. I am anticipating being able to think of numerous counter-examples in which that generalization is false.

So how do we distinguish between what's sexist and what's simply related to one sex or another? My answer - we don't, until you (or anyone) can give me a compelling example of something that truly is absolutely related to one sex and not another.

QUALIFICATIONS: Of course, simply because of the nature of our culture, we do have what are called "cultural expectation norms." Which means that yes, sometimes we can make some generalized statements about men or women in relation to what cultural expectations of gender roles are. We can say that "women tend to be...." but when we do we need to be conscience of what we are doing. We need to recognize that the generalization we are perceiving that many women tend to be....whatever... is because our culture has constructed an expectation of what being a "normal" woman should be. We might want to question and challenge those expectations. We also HAVE to be immediately sensitive that no matter how "accurate" the generalization - no generalization will ever represent 100% of any population. What about those who go unrepresented by a generalization? To fail to represent someone is to marginalize someone. How many times have we marginalized many women's experiences by attempting to generalize gender traits that aren't generalizable?

I'm a bit of a post-gender person. It's not that I don't think you can have a man and a woman in a room a noticed many differences in how they behave, perceive, interact, etc. But I think the differences are less fixed biological sex traits and more traits of differences in PEOPLE influenced my many social and cultural factors INCLUDING - but not limited to - gender identity, class, race, region, micro-culture, macro-culture, religious experience or lack thereof and more.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to theorize! :)

[cui bono]

51. Exactly. Well said. As a woman I'm so sick of the false sexism claims.

It is its own form of sexism and falsely portrays a strong woman as a weak victim. And that is bad for women everywhere.

[Deep13]

56. The attacks on HC's personality and qualifications are sexist.

Sorry, you have retreated from social reality into a reality of formality. Stating that spending eight years working in the WH does not count because she was merely Bill's wife is sexist. It undervalues wives and distracts from the point. Selectively criticizing her personality or history in a way we would never subject a male candidate's is sexist too. The fact is there are different standards of behavior for men and women and refusing to recognize it makes you part of the problem.

Many people are supporting Obama because he is Black and there is nothing wrong with that per se because Blacks have received the fuzzy-end of the lollipop stick for centuries. (I like to think we have made some progress there.) Likewise, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for HC because she is a woman and otherwise qualified for the job. So take off the rosie glasses and see this society for what it is: flawed and in need of correction.

[Political Heretic]

60. Personality - I think I would agree. Qualifications - how do you figure?

Can you elaborate on what you include in "personality?" Pretty sure I agree with you there.

Qualifications? No way. Qualifications are always open to criticism. And if Hillary would a man, and Bill were who partner, the SAME questions would apply. So you can disagree with the criticism itself, but it isn't sexist.

[Eric Condon]

61. But don't you know? Logically explaining why not ALL criticism of Hillary is sexist IS sexist!

Just kidding. Rec'd.

[debbierlus]

62. I am with you on your points, the discussion has become extraordinarily muddled

It is a shame because we missed a VERY big opporunity to have a real and necessary discussion surrounding sexism.

[ourbluenation]

69. I am a woman, who makes a living helping to empower women, and I agree w you 100%

Thank you for saying so eloquently what I have been thinking for months.

[orleans]

76. i wonder if part of the reason she is called these various words

such as b & w is because when we swear we use our terminology by gender. i mean, if she was a man we wouldn't call him a b. instead we might refer to him as a son-of-a-b or motherfu*ker, a pr*ck or a d*ckhead. using those terms possibly does not seem appropriate to use when describing a female.

i guess we could all start using the rather generic/gender free term of asshole.

i know i like to refer to bush as the fuckhead.(that is gender neutral as well)

[eridani]

131. Hey, "shitstain" is gender-neutral too! n/t

[orleans]

178. never heard that one before. n/t

[Kurovski]

80. Intelligent, concise, well-written, and recommended. (nt)

[kdpeters]

81. Very well said. Nominated

All the while reading your post, I was thinking about how the same thing was being done to politicize homophobia in the same manner. I was pleased to read your last statement acknowledging that. Excellent post.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Thoughtful, excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Utopian Leftist]

91. Thank you!

Those are my sentiments exactly.

I've recently begun to suspect something further too. Is it just my imagination or does it seem that lately Hillary has been going out of her way to make herself look bad? It's almost like, recognizing the futility of her chances at this point, rather than bowing out gracefully she has decided instead to pull out all the stops and allow her campaign to self-implode. I mean, the whole self-inflicted Bosnia issue would seem totally implausible and contrived were it not actually happening. Would anyone believe that such a shrewd and calculating politician could simply make such a gratuitous error and then repeat it so many times?

I've been wracking my brain to try to figure out how or why she would behave as she recently has, and I only have come up with one possible motive: that she recognizes how vehemently fired up her feminist base is; that she realizes a graceful bowing out would simply not be able to appease these folks at this point. You know the ones I'm referring to, the same ones that the OP refers to who militantly label everything EXCEPT the kitchen sink as "sexist." Maybe for those people a graceful bowing out would be seen only to imply that Hillary IS the victim. So instead of allowing this implication, she is hoisting herself on her own petard?

Either that or she truly IS insane and powermad. In which case feminists should be eternally grateful that we will never see her become president only to live out every unhealthy sexist stereotype that has ever been leveled against a woman.

[OzarkDem]

93. This coming from a man?

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ExPatLeftist]

96. Are you implying...

...that men do not have the right to express themselves regarding any accusations of sexism?

Do you care to explain or prefer the meaningless drive-by?

[Political Heretic]

113. Think about what it says when you take the time to use the profile function to find out

if I've identified as "male" or "female." You're looking so that you can categorically dismiss points based on no other criterion by my sex.

That would be sexism.

[seaglass]

183. You're making a big assumption. Viewing your profile absolutely

does not say your points were dismissed because you are male.

How about this: Read your post, dismiss your points, figure it sounds like a male, validate instinct by viewing your profile.

Don't be looking for sexism where it doesn't exist.:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

249. Maybe not, but the most I was responding to does.

"This coming from a man?" followed by numerous rolf icons pretty much does that.

And thus I pose the same questions I've posted elsewhere.... (thus the "you" is not directed at you):

Sexism is exactly what it sounds like - discrimination and prejudice based on someones sex. Institutionally, in a patriarchical society such as this one, that means discrimination and prejudice against women. On a personal level, it means whenever an individual disparages someone's output or actions exclusively on the basis of what sex they are.

When you look at the gender of the poster, you make some assumptions about privilege. Did you stop to consider that I might be a gay man? That's a bit different than the privilege experience of a heterosexual man, full of a mixture of sexuality prejudice and gender role prejudice as well (also known as sexism, "you're not a "real" man, faggot") Did you assume that I was white? Why did you do that? That changes the privilege experience as well. Did you consider that I might be transgender? What if I had completed transitioning to male identification from female? How would your you can't know anything because your a man fit then? What if I was beginning the transitioning process to female? Or are female transgendered people not "really" women in your book?

That's why its better to accept or reject an argument on its CONTENT not on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS about the sex, gender or race of the author. Makes a person look foolish.

[beachmom]

168. I am a woman and agree with the post.

[TLM]

176. So you are saying that....

because of the poster's gender, their opinion doesn't matter?

[NashVegas]

99. I Believe Your Post Is Full of False Premises, Intentional Obsfucation and Straw Men

#1 Criticizing a person who happens to be a woman does not equal stereotyping or attacking women. Far too often, any criticism of Hillary Clinton - criticism that is gender neutral in every way - is attacked illogically and fallaciously by calling the person making the criticism sexist.

Would you be so mandatious as to claim that gender-based attacks have not been happening since December? Would you claim that women who complain about HC being criticized in terms including "shrew," "harpy," "fucking whore," "bitch," "witch," "cunt," etc., etc., are seeing something that doesn't exist?

In a year where what makes the two Dem candidates unique is that they are from two different groups which have a history of being discriminated against. Constantly criticizing one candidate in traditionally negative terms that are associated with that candidate's identity group (and do you claim there has not been a steady stream of gender-based attacks on HC?), while either saying nothing of the other's identity group or praising it as an asset (and would you say there has not been praise of BO's racial background?) reinforces the negative perception of the hammered group and more importantly - its representative.

That it may make great political strategy in the short run does not take away the basic truth that is an "ist" in nature; in this case, it just happens to be a gender-based "ist."

Here's a typical instance: when a male candidate displays a show of temper it is called by the media "a forceful argument." When a woman does the same it is said she is "hysterical" or otherise unbalanced. That is a sexist attack. I invite you to use the search function and see what was written of HC on the night of the final NH debate.



#2 The media is not "blatantly sexist" because it reports Clinton misstatements, Clinton attacks, Clinton's finances, Clinton's campaign health, or Clinton's delegate status.

I don't recall seeing any rational person state the attacks on HC's credibility or finances were sexist or gender-based. I certainly wouldn't claim it. Double standards, sure in some cases, but not sexist.

#3 Politicizing sexism in order to play the victim and cry about how unfair it sets the woman's movement back by a half a century every time you do it. Every time I read another thread expressing manufactured outrage about the horrible and pervasive sexism of the boards, I cringe.

Again: Would you claim that women who complain about HC being criticized in terms including "shrew," "harpy," "fucking whore," "bitch," "witch," "cunt," etc., etc., are seeing something that doesn't exist? Although most of those are rare, extreme examples, some are a constant grind. And the fact that BO's supporters have stood by and said nothing until it dawned on them that they might just want female votes this fall shows implicit approval.

Also, obsfucation: BO's campaign started politicizing racism as far back as January, when claiming criticism of his Iraq stance as a "fairy tale" was somehow racist. Claiming HC's desire to play LBJ to BO's MLK was racist.

There are some of us who pointed out very early in the campaign that BO supporters were constantly accusing HC of various heinous acts that they, themselves, were engaged in. The candidate whose campaign accused the Clintons of racism was on national television criticizing HC's "tears" and even claiming they were falsely drummed up for sympathy points. And no one in the MSM called them on their shit, not even once.

Please stop trying to use oppression as POLITICAL TACTIC. It's offensive and shameful.

Overall, it is the posters who are in support of BO who are using oppression tactics. You should see the shit Deep Modem Mom got because she chose to post a range of stories on both candidates. Basically she was told that if she was going to post something critical of Obama then she should use an Obama avator so his supporters would know to not go after her.

Calling for civility rather than "shrew," "harpy," "fucking whore," "bitch," "witch," "cunt," etc., etc does not make anyone oppressive. OTOH, telling someone to quit it with the complaints already, is IMO.

[ut oh]

103. Links?

I've seeing a lot of yelling back and forth, and as the OP <b>outright admitted</b>, there were some asshats posting and they got promptly shut down.

I see a lot of accusations about these deragatory terms, but as others have mentioned those threads are getting promptly locked. So in turn you guys get on active threads that contain no such language and accuse the posters of using this inflammatory language?

The reactions you and several other posters are having are attributing this asshattery to EVERY Obama supporter, which is both unfair and inaccurate (just as any BO supporter attributing racism to everything the Clinton camp says).

Several people in this post are missing the salient point of the OP as well. You do a disservice to feminism and the fight against sexism by attributing anything negative someone has to say about Hillary as being sexist. Just as, anyone who claims that every action by the Hillary camp or their supporters in racist, hurts/diminishes the impact of true racism...

[NashVegas]

105. I Invite You To Use the Search Function

For the night of the final NH debate.

[Political Heretic]

108. I've already answered your "objections" in my original post.

[NashVegas]

116. If That Is the Case Then Why Make That OP In the First Place

If not to give the impression that people in DU are making invalid complaints?

Allow me to make a more visual representation of what I see in your OP:

People who make invalid claims of sexism are setting women back

Some claims are accurate, but ...

People who make invalid claims of sexism are setting women back

[Political Heretic]

120. You apparently see what you want to see. Here's what I actually said:

Sexism is offensive to me, and deeply so. If offends my sense of decency and justice in the same ways that racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination offend me.

...

When people saying something like, "Hillary is only where she is because she's a woman" or say things about her being "emotional" or "shrill" or whatever, that stuff is stuff we can all come together and reject. I don't like the threads that start making a thing out of whether or not hillary sheds tears at some point - because I feel like its just ripe to go sexist and takes away from real issues. And I say so. Arguments about bitch and whore are such cerebral arguments - only here does this kind of crap get fourteen 300+ post threads devoted to debating it. Bitch is rude and uncouth - there's no place for it in political discussion. We can just leave it at that. Whore is context relative - certain political whore and corporate whore are used all the time. But you can certainly take that term and be a sexist with it if you want - so don't. Enough said.

That's a little more than small print "some claims are accurate, but..."

[NashVegas]

124. One Of Fifteen

buried near the bottom.

[Political Heretic]

125. Buried?

It's part of the conclusion? :shrug:

I've never thought that the bottom was the part people don't read. The bottom is the summary conclusion part.. if people are going to skim... well I dunno, I guess I thought people scrolled down and read the end. That's what I do when I need to.

And typically if your making a point, but you want to make some qualifications and acknowledge context, you don't spend fourteen paragraphs qualifying and one paragraph making your point.

But anyway, I'm sorry I didn't please you, though I sincerely doubt anything would have.

[NashVegas]

129. It Really Looks Like You're Playing a Shell Game

The OP title claims we're over inflating claims of sexism.

The overwhelming bulk purports to claim instances in which claims of sexism are over-inflated, listing examples of a scenario in which claims would be over-inflated if those situations were actually happening - but they are not.

And yet, you say that the cases where 'sexist attacks actually have been made, and gee, that's bad,' is what the OP is really all about?

[Political Heretic]

142. Like I said, sorry I didn't live up to your expectations.

Obviously, you and I disagree that those situations are not happening.

[NashVegas]

245. My Expectations Are of Intellectual Honesty

And I feel that an essay such as the OP appears to be intended to deflect the sexist treatment and attacks on HC's campaign in the media and on DU, as well as the gender-dismissive propaganda that DU readers have been subjected to.

What is the constructive purpose of delivering a lecture that's 95% about the evils of making false claims of sexism while burying within the facts that such actions and language have run a steady stream throughout the campaign?

[merh]

284. I've asked you before to provide me with examples of

attacks on Hillary because she is woman.

What attacks on Hillary the woman have been made?

[stevenleser]

191. It really looks like you dont understand the OP

and what you do understand of it angers you because it interferes with you ability to shut down criticism of Hillary by blanket labelling each attack as sexist.

[Why Syzygy]

254. He doesn't get it at all.

Sounds like sexism is going to be the rationalization for every reaction to Clinton's despicable actions and her inevitable loss.

[eridani]

132. I think that McCain's shows of temper demostrate that he is an unbalanced whackjob

Gender neutral, no?

[MADem]

189. Wow. Hit the nail right on the head with that post. NT

[Why Syzygy]

251. No. I cannot agree.

Again: Would you claim that women who complain about HC being criticized in terms including "shrew," "harpy," "fucking whore," "bitch," "witch," "cunt," etc., etc., are seeing something that doesn't exist?

We are not seeing things that don't exist. She exists in all her many forms.
When she drops out of the race, we won't have to mention her any more.

[Skittles]

104. I love it when men define sexism

:puke:

[Political Heretic]

109. ...and some women agree with him. Turning this into a issue of sex IS sexist on your part.

Sexism goes beyond the marginalization and oppression of women as a population. It touches on false generalizations and assumptions, or marginalization (intellectually, socially, politically) made based on any PERSONS gender.

That would include you.

[saracat]

106. I think it is even more offensive to be constantly using "racism" as a" politcal tactic"

[Political Heretic]

111. Why is it "even more" offensive?

That seems odd and inappropriate.

[saracat]

115. Because all chrages of alleged 'racism " are considered "valid" no matter how absurd while sexism is

routinely dismissed out of hand.Sexism is so commonplace that it isn't even recognized yet just expressing non support of a candidate who happens to be black is considered "racist". The most disgusting appellations describing women are allowed and defended but innocent decriptions of children are enough to get folks to step down.

[Political Heretic]

119. Hmm... that has not been my experience. Could you give some examples (don't have to be links)

I've never actually seen anyone call someone a racist for not supporting Obama. I keep hearing about this, but I've never actually seen it.

Of course, I've also heard of women who are supporting obama being called traitors and other kinds of terrible things too, but I've never actually seen that. Still, its no more or no less anecdotal than your example.

"The most disgusting appellations describing women" are not allowed. They result in locked threads and often the banning of posters. I'm sorry, but anyone linking to locked threads doesn't convince me at all. The thread was locked - that means what is supposed to happen is correctly happening. This is a public forum... its not possible to stop the universe from coming in and making horrible threads. If you want to convince me of a problem, show me OPEN THREADS, or threads allowed to go on for days at a time and that will be more interesting.

[ksquire]

110. This is so sexist that it makes little babies cry. NT.

[Political Heretic]

112. lol - cute.

[PeaceNikki]

114. Sexism will only ever cease to be relevent to a man.

Regardless of how watered down the term 'sexism' has become to you or others, those of us who have experienced it firsthand would never EVER dream of making the claim that it's "ceased to mean anything".

You can claim all day long how it has some "deep meaning to you", but after you just claimed it's "ceased to mean anything", I somehow doubt that you ever took it seriously.


Unless you were just being overly melodramatic in your thread title.

[Political Heretic]

117. Of course, I never said anything about sexism ceasing to be relevant. In fact I said the opposite.

I said that the seriousness and severity of sexism is being done a huge, colossal disservice by turning a marginalizing experience of oppression into a political tactic. It is watering down the T E R M sexism to the point where the T E R M is becoming meaningless HERE.

The reality of sexism, gender stereotyping and gender-based oppression (which includes both men and women by the way) will never be anything other than serious.

EDIT - I notice how you potentially come to your conclusion about my post if you only read the title and then clicked reply. But that would be a really foolish thing to do that could end up being embarassing, now couldn't it? :)

[PeaceNikki]

192. Yes, I read the whole post, not JUST the title.

Hence my comment on how it has such a "deep meaning" to you.

However, you set the tone with the title, in which you explicitly state that sexism has ceased to mean anything. One typically posts a title with content to support the premise.

If your intent was to take the topic seriously, a different title may have been more appropriate.

[Political Heretic]

288. The word "here" matters. I choose words for a reason.

My title says we have so distorted the meaning of sexism here.... here. This is not a statement about the reality of sexism becoming meaningless in society.

And not even my title supports that claim. My content, supports my premise just fine. You need to admit that you gave a knee jerk reaction and jumped to conclusions.

[mhoran]

121. Excellent post!

Thoughtful and well reasoned. Thank you!

[fascisthunter]

123. Nominated (nt)

[Elspeth]

127. Political Heretic, if Obama supporters would quit calling Hillary a "whore" or "bitch" and

concentrate on real issues, then I would agree with you. Unfortunately, disagreement for political reasons is combined with misogynistic language and then it's hard to tell how people really feel.

For the record, I was an Kucinich supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and now it doesn't really matter to me one way or another: there's no one representing my ideals.

[femrap]

130. When you are

reincarnated as a woman, we'll chat.

It's like you are some white dude telling black people what racism is.

Get a uterus and a brain.

[bliss_eternal]

134. Thank you....

:yourock:

[femrap]

198. Hey there!

Of the 3 replies I received, finally one that sees my point! I am so sick of this 'reverse' sexism declared in a patriarchy.

Well...I'm off to Lobby Day at the Statehouse for Prevention First Legislation along with NARAL and Planned Parenthood and others. I'm sure I'll get assigned to one of the worst twits in our state government. I go every year and this year my attitude is: NICE IS OVER.

Take care!

[PeaceNikki]

199. I'll be 4th to reply and see your point.

:thumbsup:

[femrap]

277. Thx....

PeaceNikki.:hi:

Take care.

[Political Heretic]

229. Once again, you conflate institutional oppression with individual prejudice

You should answer my questions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5426768&mesg_id=5434938

Now, I'm off to work at the Idaho Women's Network, today's agenda will include a coalition meeting with Planned Parenthood, IWN and the American Civil Liberties Union if Idaho to review legislative accomplishments from the concluding session and plan our agenda for next year.

I'm not really "off" to do that today, but that's what I used to do - worked for the Idaho Women's network and sat on the women's coalition. I was also a speaker and public policy panelist at the Idaho Women's network statewide annual conference and multi-organization sponsored public policy forum.

What I'm off to do today, is continue completing graduate work in social work, focusing on institutional oppression and gender studies, practice in community development social work.

Did you know all that from clicking my profile and seeing "male?" What about the other questions I asked you?

[femrap]

275. I don't have to answer any of your questions....

Sorry you don't like my use of the word 'off.' How 'bout this: Fuck Off....nah, I take you more for a Go Jack Off kinda guy.

Go pat yourself on the back with someone who gives a crap about how you get to push your way into women's groups and attempt to take over. I've met your ilk. Can't make it in the men's world so decided to go take care of the little ladies.

We know you grew up with all of that privilege and no one would ever stand up to you and dare question your authority. Look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself some questions.

Get OFF of my skirt....and ON to the Ignored list. buh bye.

[Political Heretic]

285. So when confronted with rational questions that challenge your assertions, you resort to "Fuck Off"

and a string of ad hominem attacks.

"go pat yourself on the back with some who gives a crap" ..funny, since you were the one who was talking about all the work you were doing. Oh wait, what's the difference between the work you listed and the work I am doing? Wait for it.... wait for it.... nothing but my sex. Hmm, we have a term for that....

Didn't push my way into groups, and I don't take over. I was invited. I don't sit on the board, but the Women's Network isn't stupid enough to think for a second that men concerned with social equality and human rights don't belong working with the organization. :)

But what would you care...when confronted with fair questions that rationally challenge your irrational position, you do what most ignorant people do, revert to silly name calling and petulance. Exactly as I predicted.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

145. sigh.

Sexism goes beyond the marginalization and oppression of women as a population. It touches on false generalizations and assumptions, or marginalization (intellectually, socially, politically) made based on any PERSONS gender.

Think about what it says when you take the time to use the profile function to find out if I've identified as "male" or "female." You're looking so that you can categorically dismiss points based on no other criterion by my sex.

That would be gender bias, otherwise known as, well, sexism.

[femrap]

197. I think you mean 'reverse'

sexism....you do realize you are a member of the ruling class in this patriarchy, don't you? You seem to forget that basis of our culture.

Your ilk sets the rules...and changes them when it sees fit. You poor widdle boys. How dare you say sexism goes beyond the oppression of women. Sexism is the oppression of women. PERIOD. Look at Darfur. Open your eyes.

When I look at the gender of a poster, I see the privilege or not that the person grew up with.

[Political Heretic]

201. You are confusing institutional oppression with incidents of individual prejudice.

No, I don't mean "reverse." There's not such thing as reverse. Sexism is sexism.

I don't, and never will experience institutional oppression based exclusively on my gender. Anyone can experience prejudice, which includes things like having your content be judged exclusively on the basis of your sex, rather than on the content. That's the example of an individual to individual prejudice, and that's possible regardless of privilege, patriarchy, institutional oppression, and the like.

Sexism is exactly what it sounds like - discrimination and prejudice based on someones sex. Institutionally, in a patriarchical society such as this one, that means discrimination and prejudice against women. On a personal level, it means whenever an individual disparages someone's output or actions exclusively on the basis of what sex they are.

When you look at the gender of the poster, you make some assumptions about privilege. Did you stop to consider that I might be a gay man? That's a bit different than the privilege experience of a heterosexual man, full of a mixture of sexuality prejudice and gender role prejudice as well (also known as sexism, "you're not a "real" man, faggot") Did you assume that I was white? Why did you do that? That changes the privilege experience as well. Did you consider that I might be transgender? What if I had completed transitioning to male identification from female? How would your you can't know anything because your a man fit then? What if I was beginning the transitioning process to female? Or female transgendered people not "really" women in your book?

That's why its better to accept or reject an argument on its CONTENT not on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS about the sex, gender or race of the author. Makes you look foolish.

[Political Heretic]

287. No answer. Says a lot.

[Bette Noir]

173. You win the prize!

That's the most sexist thing I've ever read!

[Bette Noir]

174. oops

It's hard to tell. Comment #173 is in response to #130.

[ShortnFiery]

207. You got it right the first time. :-)

Welcome to DU and please consider that when these discussions get too nasty, the IGNORE feature is our friend? :hi:

[femrap]

196. A widdle newbie...

Are you another one of those RNC moles??? How much do they pay you to write such stupidity?

You do realize that we live in a patriarchy, don't you? Go away....

[ShortnFiery]

203. "Get a uterus and a brain."

The above statement is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

Suffice to say that I'm an former Army Officer, Wife, Mom and American.

I was challenged as a member within one of the first groups of Women Officers to be integrated from the WACs to the Regular Army during the late 70s to early 80s.

Yes, it is wholly unfair, but WHINING about any damn thing gets you no where in either business or military organizations. I had men insult me to my face, some senior officers demeaning the fact that WOMEN can go to Airborne School or serve as Officers along side their male peers. But I did not complain because NO ONE CARED - they only cared about performance and I was tested often.

If I defaulted to what HRC is encouraging her surrogates (and sometimes herself) to do NOW by "Playing VICTIM" it would have branded me as both "worthless and weak." Blacks, Asians and Latinos, et. al., have also ENDURED their share of discrimination and they protest, but for "the larger group cause" and not for personal gain.

A great leader, male or female, focuses on OTHERS. They motivate people to WANT TO ACHIEVE (vote for them) because under such strength and demonstrated empathy, they know that THIS TALENTED LEADER will ensure that their BASIC needs are addressed. Further, those rare GREAT LEADERS in history are quick to not take the credit for successes but instead, conveys their gratitude to be blessed with such fine subordinate people who are part of "the team."

IMO, the best gift that we can give to our daughters is to teach them cooperation within groups. For my daughter, it's team sports now in Junior High. But IMO, it's essential that young girls LEARN to function cooperatively in moderate to large groups also, i.e., Language Clubs, H.S. Newspaper, etc.

HRC is a talented "small group" manager but she can NOT be said to demonstrate the capability to consistently inspire and motivate large groups of people.

Simply put: You can't MOTIVATE and INSPIRE voters much beyond "Identity Politics" if you allow your surrogates to default to OPENLY playing "The Victim Card" when things go wrong for your candidate.

[texastoast]

136. Is sexism one of the main issues?

Facing the candidate, whoever is elected?

I've noticed a dearth of commentary in GDP about many issues that will face all the new voters, whoever is elected. Maybe I'm not looking in the right forum?

:shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

141. K&R . Beautiful! Thank you so very much. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

143. I first was an Edwards supporter. I'm now an Obama supporter.....

I never wanted Clinton to run for a million reasons. One of them was that because (due to the fact that she was female and outspoken), the Repukes had spent decades degrading and ridiculing her, lying about her, and dragging her through the mud. Her reputation has been sullied over decades by Repuke males and their parroting, bobble-head wives, wives that would slash their wrists to make their men happy. But I digress. Basically, I don't want someone representing me whose reputation is sullied. I don't care that it's not her fault. Yes it's sad, but that's life.

Another reason I didn't want Clinton to run was that this country is one of the most highly ignorant countries of the planet, where idiocy rules and sexism coexists right alongside with the lie and pretense that sexism is a thing of the past. I did not want a woman running and risking the only chance we have of taking back this country and reversing the damage done to it by Repukes. Ignorant sexists in this country would no more vote for a woman than they would bother to read a book or learn to read. Ignorance is what sexism is about, and this country is ignorance par excellence.

Both reasons that I did not want Clinton to run for office, have to do with the kind of damage men do to women. Sexism is a very real thing. We females live with it and have learned to internalize it, and go through the days just living with it, sometimes unaware of it, the way someone without limbs might go for a moment without thinking about his/her limbless condition. If a woman is conscious, and aware, and is not brainwashed, she is aware of how sexism affects her every waking moment. Never is there a time when sexism does not exist. It is ubiquitous. It exists for women whether they're born black, white, yellow, green, red, tall, short, rich, poor, intelligent, dumb, or what have you.

Sexism is very real, and the same way no woman can know what a man feels, no man can ever know what sexism 24/7 feels like.

[Political Heretic]

148. You've completely missed my point.

The statement "sexism is very real" is the exact purpose of my post. So deludingly the term "sexism" by turning it into a political tactic - labeling any criticism as "sexism" - sets back honest examination or understanding of actual sexism.

I wish more people would take the time to read this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5426768&mesg_id=5427775

When someone checks my profile to see if I'm a man, then automatically dismisses the OP content on no other grounds that my sex - that's gender bias, otherwise known as... sexism.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

151. Nono, I understand that you're saying, "Don't hide behind sexism to avoid being attacked"

All I'm saying is that despite my being against Clinton running, I also know that she, as a female, has to deal with constant, 24/7 sexism and perhaps her vitriol and vile responses and acts have a lot to do with the fact that yes, we women just CANNOT run a normal campaign like a man would, because we get attacked for every F thing, from a color of a suit, to whether we F cry or not, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. And again, I think Clinton is unsuitable for nominee. But she's still had to endure and has to endure a lot of shit like the rest of females on the planet have to, and the more we are in a man's field or career, the more we get torn into little pieces.

[Political Heretic]

157. Yes, I agree with you there - like I said in OP, never was that more true than in the texas thing...

...all of the media coverage and interpretation of her fiery public address condemning Obama for the content of certain ads.

If she had been a man, that would have been reported totally differently. And when she was in the debate right before that - all the media attention on her "conciliatory" tone? Maybe.... maybe it would be the same. But I note a serious tend of media coverage of Clinton's "moods" that I am not comfortable with. I ESPECIALLY felt that way with the media circus around her "crying" (quotes because of media depiction not a statement about Clinton herself) in NH.

In fact, I think someone should write a book about this campaign and what it has to say about gender issues in patriarchy in America in the 21st century. But I SINCERELY HOPE it is someone who can have a critical, fairminded eye and not attempt to lump any or all criticism into the category of sexism.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

158. Hopefully someone will, but it will be difficult to do, given that she has a bad

reputation thanks to the Repugs

[efhmc]

208. Now this comment should have been on the home page for

the reality it conveys and not this thread, which is so shallow and so superficial that it upholds all the sexism that is here at DU and in our country and which is so deep and so ingrained that I fear it will never lose power.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

281. Thanks. I worry about sexism being too ingrained as well. nt

[OzarkDem]

146. Your post mostly discussing politics and campaigning

and shows little insight into the issue of sexism. Not surprising since its something you've never had to deal with personally. And since the issue of sexism and gender discrimination has been virtually ignored since the 1980's (the Anita Hill incident was like a blast from the past) its not something that those working in social justice or public policy take into account any longer.

That doesn't mean its gone, it just means that since the issue has been "out of fashion". The widening gap between rich and poor has also blurred the lines. The glass ceiling is still there, the statistics and demographics still show it at every level of society. If not, we would see women earning the same wages, holding higher positions in business and public office at levels equal to men and exerting greater leadership and influence.

Just because its become invisible to you doesn't mean its gone away. It still means a great deal to women who are experiencing its effects and our country is much poorer for failing to give women equal power in guiding our future.

[Political Heretic]

153. This response bears no connection to my original post in any way.

And since the issue of sexism and gender discrimination has been virtually ignored since the 1980's (the Anita Hill incident was like a blast from the past) its not something that those working in social justice or public policy take into account any longer.

Do you work in social services or public policy? I do, and I don't agree with your assessment in the slightest.

Just because its become invisible to you doesn't mean its gone away. It still means a great deal to women who are experiencing its effects and our country is much poorer for failing to give women equal power in guiding our future.

Great, than you and I are in agreement. Reading my post would have shown that. I agree completely that it hasn't gone away, I don't even agree that its invisible. My point was that the politicization of the term "sexism" used as political tactic as response to criticism cheapens the seriousness of sexism and helps to make it invisible.

[OzarkDem]

194. There's a big glass ceiling in politics

Its fairly obvious, just look at the numbers. Its also obvious in the scope and focus of our own misguided public policy.

There's no more appropriate arena for discussing "sexism" than the political one.

[Political Heretic]

290. No more appropirate area for real discusssion of sexism, but not for useing the label "sexism"

as a political tactic.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Political Heretic]

149. What does this have to do with my post, and does it sever any purpose other than to be offensive?

[mkultra]

150. its on topic and contextual

It speaks directly to the meaning of your OP regarding the definition of sexism and responds to mid-thread assertions regarding the use of specific words. Its a straight forward discussion, try to read it without applying your own current emotional state.

[Political Heretic]

154. What current emotional state would that be, exactly?

I don't remember discussing that word.

[mkultra]

156. whichever one your in that caused you misinterpret my purpose..

as something malicious. I was simply making an observation and opening the discussion based on known definitions.

[Political Heretic]

160. I didn't interpret it as malicious, I just didn't (and sort of still dont) understand

But I'll do my best...

The C word, which I'm sorry I don't even like to say... but that's my personal issue, seems to be unambiguously connected to women. Men don't get called it with enough frequency to make a dictionary definition of the word, and its always said in a derogatory way.

Now, I get your point about bitch and how it could in some sense be more sexist because of its connection to powerful or "too" (in the opinion of a sexist) assertive women. Strong women are bitches... that implication. Good point there. The reason why I would think that the C word would be considered sexist by most is because of its targeted nature - apply to women in a negative way with near exclusivity.

For my part, I was trying to avoid the complexities of these issues by just saying that either way, words like bitch, whore or worse really just have no place in political discourse anyway.

[mkultra]

161. thanks for responding

I think that the core of my point is that i do not believe that insulting words that are only appropriate to one gender are inherently sexist.

I think that to qualify as sexism, the word or phrase must stimulate or reinforce a negative stereotype.

This speaks directly to the your OP which seeks to discuss that nature of sexism.

[Political Heretic]

163. That's interesting...

I don't have much more yet... I'll chew on that for a while. :)

[beachmom]

169. That word is always offensive in all cases. Kindly refrain from typing it.

In fact, may I propose that the word be retired from DU for good. I am more appalled about the discussions about the word than whoever used the word first. No discussion is needed -- the word is off limits in all cases in our language.

[mkultra]

209. well, im not so sure that your offense merits a ban

Let me start by saying that im not trying to be disrespectful of you by discussing.


That said, I believe it is incorrect to assume that because something is offensive to an individual, that it should be banned. It is a vulgar word, no doubt, but i would say that you have to have some principles when shoosing to limit speech and i do not feel that "crushing offensiveness" is an appropriate principle to function under. I agree that elimination sexism and racism are valid as i think these are true social ills. I disagree that offensive language fits that category.

[bain_sidhe]

166. Great discussion! Coming in late because

it's taken me some time to put my thoughts together on this. The reason for that is that, for me, whether something is sexism or not is more complicated. In my experience, there are things that look like sexism that aren't, and things that don't look like sexism that are.

Examples: In a previous life stage, I was working for a young, up and coming company, and was in competition with a guy from another department for a promotion. That guy made some quite blatantly sexist arguments for why he should be the one to get it. But the guy himself wasn't really sexist -- I knew him, that wasn't his problem. He was just using the best tool in his tool box to win the promotion, because the v.p. making the decision *was* sexist, and everybody knew it. It worked, I didn't get it, and that was at least in part due to the sexism of the v.p.

But the guy I was up against? I didn't view his argument as sexism, I viewed it as cut-throat competition. If I'd been a man, he would have had to use another tool. And he would have. (IMHO, *that* was his problem... he'd do and say whatever he had to to "win" at *anything*. That, by the way, was the "tool" I used - he was in sales, where that ... er... skill, was relevant. The promotion was to supervise a sales-support department, and I argued that his "skill" would hurt him and the department.)

Anyway... it looked like sexism, but it wasn't.

For the opposite example, I was actually thinking about this a few days ago, but in terms of racism... I have people in my family who probably won't vote for Obama. It won't be, in their minds, because of his race. They aren't racist in the classical sense, in that they think black people are inherently inferior. But they do think of black people as "other" and voting for a black man is outside their comfort zone.

But they will believe with their dying breath that they wouldn't vote for him because of some other reason. His lack of experience, maybe. Or his occasional air of arrogance/elitism. Something. Not his skin color. But whatever reason they don't vote for him wouldn't be as important to them if it didn't give them a "real reason" not to vote for him.

Note: This is indistinguishable from people who actually ARE against him for those reasons, and don't have a comfort-zone problem with voting for a black man. So you can't call them "racist" unless you know them really really well, the way I know those members of my family.

The same is true of sexism, IMHO. Many people may say, "it's not that she's a woman, it's just..." whatever their "reason" is. IWR vote, campaign blunders, whatever. But what makes that "reason" important is their lack of comfort in voting for a woman.

Again, this is indistinguishable from people who actually ARE against her for those reasons and really *don't* have a comfort-zone problem with voting for a woman. Calling it sexism requires an act of mind-reading that simply isn't possible.

But... those forms of racism and sexism DO exist, and I have encountered them. So I can't call complete bullshit on those who think sexism is a factor in opposition to Clinton.

So... like I said, it's complicated for me. SOME of the people who oppose Clinton for "other reasons" are actually latching on to those reasons to mask sexism. Some aren't.

Heh.

Upon re-reading for typos, I must say, this post ramble may be the best illustration of why I should stay out of the "sexism" debates. ;-)

[NashVegas]

200. When Sexism Is the *Means* of Attack

It's still an attack, and it's just as wrong as offering to give the manager a blow-job in exchange for promotion.

[beachmom]

167. Thank you for saying it better than I could. The constant cries of sexism

have been leveled for far too long. A stray nasty comment from a poster who ends up tombstoned does not mean that sexism is prevalent. The fact that Hillary is rightly criticized for various TRUE THINGS is not sexism.

[Bette Noir]

170. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'm anti-Hillary because she is, IMO, a war monger. While I have no reason to believe that she is personally a racist, she has certainly used racism as a tactic and a tool to attack Obama and solidify support in the less-evolved demographic.

I'll thank whoever lets me dislike Hillary for these impecibly non-sexist reasons, and not accuse me of being a self-hating woman for not supporting her.

I am, BTW, an older, Hispanic woman, who *really* wants to see Barack in the White House.

[ShortnFiery]

182. HRC openly admitted to admiring Margaret Thatcher in 2003. But Maggie never played The Victim Card

NOT EVER! :nuke: For all her horrific faults, Britain's "Iron Lady" did not ever stoop to such basal levels for sympathy. I absolutely deplore Thatcher's political views, but since I have found myself in Army Courses where 1 in 30 were women, I admit to admiring Thatcher's demonstrated traits of tenacity and toughness. Albeit there was plenty of "sexism" to spare in the 1970s-80s world, it would have done *no good* to claim SEXISM by women political figures nor Army Officers. Why? At the time, "nobody cared."

Margaret Thatcher KNEW that, in the long run, it would only make her "look weaker" to throw up silly quips such as "how long it took to get ready in the morning compared to the boys" OR "rue how the media over analyzed her hair and dress." Albeit a horrific right wing warmonger, I do admire Thatcher for just *outperforming the men* at their own game.

I have much more respect for HRC's political views but NOT her demonstrated behaviors during the course of "campaigning." However, she's proven to be an exemplary Senator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29977-2003Jul8.html

Other Thatcher

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, July 9, 2003; Page A27

snip

While flogging her book in London last week, Hillary Clinton unexpectedly revealed her admiration for a great British political figure. Curiously, her kind words were not for Tony Blair, who is often compared to her husband, but rather for one of his illustrious conservative predecessors. Clinton has, it seems, been a fan of Margaret Thatcher's for many years. Following the Iron Lady's career from afar, Clinton particularly admired Thatcher's ability to adapt herself to fit the job. "My goodness, she changed her hair, she changed a lot of things," Clinton told a British interviewer, who gleefully described the junior senator from New York as a woman with an "iron simper."

Pondering her remarks, I couldn't help but wonder whether Clinton has gravely misunderstood a few things about image-making in British politics. Leaving aside the political issue -- does Clinton realize she's aligned herself with a woman whose best friend was Ronald Reagan? -- she also misses an important point about the Thatcher era. Surely, from Clinton's perspective, the real role model for all of those years as wife of the governor and wife of the president should not have been Margaret Thatcher, but rather her husband, Denis, whose funeral was held last weekend.

... even Lady Thatcher's political enemies sang her husband's praises when he died. "Although by no means a Tory myself," someone wrote in to a BBC Web site, "I always admired Denis standing aside to allow his wife to shine in public." Wrote another, "I hated the politics of Margaret Thatcher, but I always had a soft spot for Denis." He had, in other words, no "negatives": Nobody hated him.

And Hillary Clinton? I hardly need to spell it out. Clearly, she made a big mistake many years ago, when she identified with the wrong Thatcher.

[Ian_rd]

190. Love ya, Heretic. But you need to consider your audience

You went to great lengths to explain and prove something that is common sense. When you need to do that, you've already lost. The Clinton supporters that remain have reverted into a knee-jerk shallow-thinking mode where all criticism is sexism. Nothing will penetrate this haze anytime soon.

[stevenleser]

193. I agree, very well put. It's like Newton trying to explain calculus to people so enraged

they cant remember how to add. Hillbots are enraged that their candidate is losing. This rage limits their otherwise higher order thinking skills.

Perhaps, a few months after this is over, some of them will begin to see how insane this whole knee-jerk application of the sexism label has been.

[stevenleser]

195. K&R, it may do no good as those who need to internalize it are too angry

that their candidate is losing, but well done nonetheless.

[mkultra]

210. you know, i dont think thats correct

I think the more reasonable Clinton supporters(the majority) Have simply gone silent. All that we see is the lunatic fringe.

[Political Heretic]

202. That's a good point.

It was more of an exercise in catharsis, though. :)

[lukasahero]

283. Ah yes, the "irrational women incapable of logical thought" argument

Always a winner. :eyes:

[Ian_rd]

286. Point proven.

Thanks.

[Evergreen Emerald]

204. ignoring sexism reminds me of historically how women bound their own feet in China

You agree that the media is harder on Clinton than others but dismiss any idea of sexism. Yet, there is proof in the language used that sexism is at the root of some of the bias.

There are many reasons for the attacks on Clinton. Some of them are based on sexism. The power structure is being threatened. And as one Ed Schultz caller said: "we don't want a skirt in the white house." Yeah, that has nothing to do with sexism.


I will not shut up about the reality of sexism. And I am so so deeply offended when people attempt to deny the existance of it. Because it will only perpetuate it, and send women back years and years.

[mcollier]

205. Thats right

acknowledged and practiced equality will enable us to more quickly resovle other serious matters humanity needs to address. America can lead the way, we need leaders to show us the way... Vote for true leaders this time please...

[mkultra]

213. i agree and i am

Thanks

[ShortnFiery]

211. IMO, bless you for supporting equality for *all women.* But not specifically for HRC - a politico.

Even IF (and that's a big IF) there may be more demonstrated sexism than racism in this political season, you can NOT change the dynamics of "the population" by getting angry. It will only serve to HURT the standing of your candidate.

However, I fully agree that we should stand up for "equal rights" for women in every career field.

Personally, I think that ARMOR (tanks!) MOSs should be fully open to women. Call me a silly broad, but I'd love to drive a tank almost as much as I have enjoyed firing a Cal 50 or a LAW. :blush:

[mkultra]

215. Women should be allowed on the front lines

I see no reason to deny women the right to fight on the front if necessary. In fact, i think that allowing them to serve only in service based roles would be insulting to me if i was a woman.

[mkultra]

212. Well, i think that your are about half right

The media is hard in Hillary but i do not think that a majority of it is due to sexism.

Much like racists in the republican party who oppose affirmative action. I think there are many that think that it is sensible to drop any regulation of the field and let it manage itself no using the legal system. The racists have simply "hitched their wagon" to that convoy.

i think the same example holds true for Hillary and the media. Saying that we dont want a skirt in the white house is clearly sexists, but claiming that she lies is not. I think there are many sexist that have hitched their wagon to the convoy.

On the other hand, if you overreact and put to those who oppose Hillary as sexist with little evidence but your own emotion, you essentially undermine your own case and probably the cause of feminism at the same time.

Many people would love to just turn away and ignore sexism. If you shine a light on sexism where it exists, you raise awareness and force them to look. If you shine the light on everything and call it all sexism, they can easily dismiss you as a unreasonable to devolve further into their ignorance.

please consider.

[Evergreen Emerald]

217. I agree with you

And as I stated, SOME of the bias is based on sexism.

You highlight her "lies." I submit to you, for your consideration, that she has done no more inflation of experiences than Obama has. Yet he gets a free pass. Every stoned is overturned in an effort to find dirt on Clinton, and without a thorough investigation, the media attacks her. The best example is the hospital story. Shouting liar from the rooftops, and retracting with a whisper. Indeed, this morning on CNN one of the talking heads called her a liar and pointed to the now debunked story.

Bosnia: I saw the news story--from the time--and there was sniper fire when the reporter was talking. They were at the front lines, and I have no doubt that they entered the front lines cautiously. This is another story overblown and distorted and she is called a liar by reasonable people who should know better.

Why is she targeted and the other candidates not? Well, in the beginning Timmy and Tweety said it was because she is the front runner. Later, when the sexism became evident by the language Tweety used, we knew it had to do in part, with sexism.

Shinning light on it does not mean women are victims. It means we cannot fight something we don't acknowledge.

I do not know why intelligent people want to deny that it is a part of this campaign. Except that she is attempting to upset the power structure. And change is scary.


I believe that America is ready for a black president, but not ready for a woman. And that makes me so sad. I have fought my whole life to pave the way for our daughters. As has Hillary. What a shame that our daughters should have to see the ugliness that is sexism in our society.

[ShortnFiery]

218. HRC does have some "issues" that her negatives can't be fully categorized as *sexism*

I've grown cold toward Bill Clinton before his last days as President. There are also demonstrated behaviors that HRC has on record that goes to "character."

No, we can't deny that, for some, sexism plays a significant role. However, it is impossible to tease out what is due to HRC's traits and behavior and what can be specifically attributed to "sexism."

Just perhaps it could be: America is ready to elect a woman President, but THAT woman is not HRC?

[Evergreen Emerald]

219. I believe that is a cop-out.

And a way to perpetuate sexism: "we are ready for a woman, just not her."

I don't buy it. No one is perfect. She is human. We are demanding perfection from her, and forgiving every misstep and misspeak of Obama, after all he is only human.

Backwards and in High heels. She has to be perfect or she is not the one.

More sexism disguised.

[ShortnFiery]

235. I've been repeatedly insulted to my face, with raw sexist rants, yet I SHED my anger.

Being only 1 of 30 women in a Army Course of 300 troops, the thought of protesting because I knew FOR A FACT that I was being TARGETED because I was a woman ... was NOT and option. :shrug:

My "former" name (because as a feminist I despise the word "Maiden") was VERY COMMON and there were three of us Soldiers/Cadets who shared it within this large class: myself (a woman), an African American man and a White man. Every day during "Mail Call", the instructors would only call-out the person's SURNAME. Well, every time they called our (the three of us listed above) surname, we'd all run up to the front. EVERY TIME the person who wasn't the recipient of the mail (2 of 3) would have to do 20 push-ups.

The exercise above is a little "mind game" that the military runs with us to make us work as "a team." The three of us got together and determined who was to go forward each day so that the other two would NOT be punished. A woman, a black man and a white man formed A BOND because we all shared the same last name. We worked TOGETHER to achieve our goal, i.e., escape punishment.

My point: If you allow yourself to get enraged by the fact that politics is a dirty and unfair game you will lose sight of our larger goal of human rights for all. There are some *very real* FACTORS having to do with HRC that may make her lose this nomination.

This is not a "cop out" but IMO, cold hard realism. :shrug:

[mcollier]

224. I believe America is ready for

A qualified president, what ever they may look like. Can't we all agree on that? Let's stay focused.

[Evergreen Emerald]

226. I will stay focused, if Obama supporters stop calling Clinton a whore.

Deal?

[mkultra]

242. No deal required

I personally feel that calling Clinton a whore is clear sexism. I think that a reduction of hostilities on both sides would do us all a world of good.

[mkultra]

236. well, here we depart

I, as you can imagine, have a different opinion of her honesty. Without getting into it to much, let me just say that i loved the Clinton's for many years. I thought Bill was the best modern president we have had and i thought that Hillary would be about the same. Something happened though. Their campaign jumped the track from my perspective and became hyper negative. This drove me away from Hillary.

I do think that the high levels of media attention may be due to sexism. In fact, before the election started, Hillary had high negatives. Republicans hated her with a passion and i never understood why. I personally feel that that initial hatred was rooted in sexism.

The way i feel about Hillary now has to do with her direct actions. I can say with a clean consciouses that it has nothing to do with sexism. I reject anyone who claims that i must vote for her to forward womens rights in America.

On a side note, i also feel that a much larger swath of America would stand against a woman for sexism than would stand against a man for racism. It is a sad measure of American temperament but it is true.

[NashVegas]

255. I Think It's More The Means Than the Cause

I'm speaking more about the media and LW attacks than RW ones - we KNOW how they feel about a woman in the White House.

The sexist attacks on Hillary have been more about the means of taking her down. When an announcer or a writer makes a habit of speaking of her in negative gender terms, that's sexist attack - the static noun moved into action. In this case a tool to denigrate the target.

[Political Heretic]

225. You misrepresent the post.

I don't dismiss any idea of sexism. In fact you'll find the exact opposite in my post, both about the media and otherwise - in fact I gave concrete specific examples of sexism in the media.

You won't shutup about the reality of sexism? Great! Neither will I! And no one has asked you to!

You're deeply offended when people try to deny the existence of it? Wow, ME TOO! Which is why I think its such an incredible tragedy that the charge of sexism is now being wielded as a political tactic and thus becoming trivialized.

I'm glad that we are in such agreement.


EDIT - fixed "not" to "now"

[Evergreen Emerald]

228. No. You and I do not agree.

I am not "wielding sexism as a political tactic." And neither is Clinton. Obama is tho--he and the media have made sure that he can use race all he wants, but the minute Clinton mentions that she is a female, the shouts of "weilding sexism for political purposes" are raised.

You are completely wrong. Sexism is one of the major reasons Clinton is behind.

Shut up. You say. STop trivializing sexism. You say. Bullshit. SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

Shine a light on the reality that this tough strong woman is fighting barriers thrown at her because she does not have a penis.

[Political Heretic]

230. I didn't say you were. I didn't say Clinton was.

I said that's what's going on here.

I didn't say sexism wasn't one of the major reasons clinton is behind, though that seems curious to me since she was leading by massive margings over an entire field of men for so long. Either way, I didn't give an opinion on that.

Shut up? Why, we have yet to disagree. I don't trivialize sexism, that's why the politicization of oppression disturbs me so much, because that's the danger it creates - that the reality of sexism will be trivialized. Scares me.

I believe I did comment that Clinton has had barriers thrown at her because she does not have a penis. In fact, I said it right in my original post, WITH specific examples.

[MethuenProgressive]

214. That's telling 'em! Hey little wimmin, get back in the kitchen! Shut up and get pregnant!

Man, those broads, eh? Thank God for Midol!

















:sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

216. Hyperbole does NOT help your candidate: Prejudice, in general, exists - fight it in ALL forms?

Well, that's just this little broad's opinion FWIW. :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

220. You need to look up Hyperbole and Ridicule.

Hyperbole: OP.
Ridciule: What I responded with.

[Political Heretic]

223. Your post has no connection to the OP other than precisely proving my point.

Thank you!

[MethuenProgressive]

227. I could tell by the OP you had no clue. And you just proved it.

You're welcome.

[Political Heretic]

289. Yes, well argued.

:eyes: Another post with nothing but a personal attack and zero substance.

[rAVES]

221. The Left is inherently sexist..

:sarcasm:

[Evergreen Emerald]

222. that is part of the betrayal.

You would think "progressive" people would not be sexist. But, you only have to look on this board to refute that belief.

[ShortnFiery]

231. I'm "liberal" enough to embrace the fact that we ALL, by being human, have *prejudices*

in a myriad of areas.

If we can step back and reflect on "our inner progressive" it is only through vigilance and continued struggles to improve on ourselves that we can MOVE CLOSER to true equality for all peoples.

Because of many hard knock life experiences - with MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS than those we neatly fit into - we all stereotype "The Other."

It's how we process this information and CHOOSE to treat individual members of a group that emotionally "wronged us" that we can begin to heal from our deep seeded demons.

Anyone who says, "I'm not IN THE LEAST prejudice (sexist, racist, classist, etc), and that's that!" is lying to themselves and society.

It's a constant struggle to stay aware of "the little assumptions" that humans often subconsciously make. We can either be happy with a country that is torn apart via separatism or we can choose to integrate and understand one another's plight. It's up to us - as individuals and as a nation as a whole. :shrug:

[mkultra]

244. sexims is just as complicated as racism

If you want to help people see the light, jamming a stick in their eye will not work. It makes you an unreliable source in their "world view". for example, consider the two following pieces of the same advice:



1) If you weren't so buried in your self absorption you would see that your behavior is causing the very problem you seek to fix.


or


2) I think that we should all understand that people are flawed and we need to help them see the light night hold their head to the light bulb.


both items essentially communicate the same idea but the later has the possibility of helping someone grow.


please consider that there are a lot of people that would like to help address sexism in the world and in America but they do not want to be aligned with extreme behavior. I for one am willing to be an advocate for womens rights but im afraid i will stop short of being a zealot.

[GrandmaJones7]

232. The Obamabots ARE being sexist which is just pushing me -

-further towards HILLARY!

I have been SO offended by all the sexism and hate on this forum that I will WRITE IN HER NAME if she is not nominated!!

Spew all the psycho-clap-trap you want; the attacks on HRC are SEXIST!

[Skinner]

233. Narrowly speaking, your post is correct. But IMHO the overall effect of the post is not.

Allow me to (try to) explain.

I think if we narrowly focus on your specific statements, there is little that a reasonable progressive person can disagree with. You clearly took care when choosing your words, which is important -- especially when discussing an issue like bigotry where people are especially sensitive. And if anyone is to pull out a specific sentence or idea from your post, it would be very hard to find fault with it. What reasonable person could disagree that "Criticizing a person who happens to be a woman does not equal stereotyping or attacking women"? Obviously nobody. Criticizing any woman is not automatically sexist. Otherwise, it would not be possible to criticize any woman. What reasonable person could disagree with the statement that "The media is not 'blatantly sexist' because it reports Clinton misstatements, Clinton attacks, Clinton's finances, Clinton's campaign health, or Clinton's delegate status"? Again, nobody. (You give yourself a great deal of wiggle room here by using the adverb "blatantly" -- thereby shielding your argument from unexpected situations where the media might be acting a little sexist. It's a deft rhetorical move, but probably unnecessary. Most people agree that criticizing a woman for her misstatements, attacks, finances, and the like is not in itself sexist, "blatantly" or otherwise.) I could go on, but I think everyone gets my point.

But here is where it gets complicated. And confusing.

Unfortunately, this discussion does not exist solely within the carefully-crafted parameters you define in your OP. In a way, the OP is a kind of straw-man argument, where obviously non-sexist things are held up and then knocked down as obviously not sexist. But the overall effect of the OP -- which in my opinion was not intentional -- is to make all claims of sexism suspect. You will, of course, deny that that was your intent. And I will believe you are sincere when you say so. In fact, you took great care to point out that there have been plenty of comments about Hillary Clinton -- both here on DU and elsewhere -- that in your opinion do cross the line into sexism. I want to be clear: I am not accusing you of dismissing all claims of sexism. But I think that the bottom line is that this discussion -- like all discussions of bigotry -- takes place within in a larger context that is so complex, far-reaching, and emotionally charged that it is impossible to avoid it.

We all bring our own experiences and perceptions. Put bluntly: We say what we want to say -- sometimes very carefully -- but others will hear what they want to hear. Only a very minuscule minority of people will be able to narrowly focus on your comments and completely disregard the context and experience that they bring to the discussion. But I am not sure it is even desirable or even honest to do so. For example, If I responded to your post by saying, "There is little that a reasonable progressive person can disagree with," I would (narrowly speaking) be correct. But nobody would have any clue about my personal thought process or context that informs that single sentence, and I would (rightly, IMHO) be accused of taking your side and dismissing legitimate claims of sexism. I have to write a long post like this one if I want to have any hope of making myself understood by a significant number of people. (And as we will likely see from the replies -- plenty of people will read into my post whatever they want to see.)

And this whole discussion is made even more complicated by the fact that it is taking place through the lens of a presidential primary campaign, which would be dominated by nasty, misleading, and irrelevant attacks even if the two leading candidates weren't a white woman and an African-American man. Typical human in-group/out-group dynamics inevitably lead many of the supporters of either candidate to be hyper-sensitive toward allegedly bigoted attacks toward their favored candidate, while simultaneously discounting allegedly bigoted attacks against the candidate they oppose. (In fact, I believe that in the discussion of Democratic presidential primaries here on DU, now and in 2004, the dominant dynamic is in-group/out-group. Heck, the entire reason for existence of DU is in-group/out-group dynamics, except the in-group is usually Democrats/progressives, while the out-group is Republicans/conservatives.)

To give some idea of the strange context of this discussion, here are some statements about the discussion of bigotry here on DU which, in my opinion, are true:

  - Sometimes people post things on DU that are bigoted.

  - Sometimes people accuse others of being bigoted.

  - Sometimes people unfairly accuse others of being bigoted when no such bigotry exists.

  - Sometimes people say that others are unfairly accusing them of bigotry when no such bigotry exists.

  - Sometimes people falsely claim that that others are unfairly accusing them of bigotry, when in fact they really are acting like bigots.

  - And so on. (Confused yet?)

Here's the kicker: People sometimes post these things because they believe them. And sometimes they post these things -- fairly or unfairly -- because they know it benefits them, their argument, or their candidate to do so. And sometimes it is a combination of the two. Sadly, it is all part of "the game." Humans are by nature political creatures, and I believe we are hard-wired to play this game. In fact, we get so wrapped up in it that sometimes (in fact, often) we do not realize we are playing it, and we do not realize how it affects our perceptions, or the perceptions of others.

In conclusion: The OP is arguably true. But its overall effect -- whether intended or not -- is arguably false. And a cynical person might see this as just another round in the DU presidential primary "game," where the ultimate effect -- again, intended or not -- is to benefit one candidate (and that candidate's supporters) at the expense of the other (and that candidate's supporters). So even OPs like this one can be seen as a "political tactic" (to borrow your phrase). Sadly, we have come to a point in our society where cynicism is often the default position.

I guess the only thing we can know for certain is what is in our own hearts. And most people are not very good at that, either. Maybe the only thing we can do is try our best to take responsibility for our own actions. If everyone did that, imagine how different this website (and this world) would be. I have a number of thoughts on that issue as well, but that is the subject for another post, I think.

[mkultra]

237. Very zen of you

It is and isn't while being meaningful and senseless. nice.



he is trying to tear apart the argument of sexism against Hillary and examine it piece by piece, which is of course flawed in the overall sense as it negates any evaluation of degree which is pertinent to identify subversive sexism which is the form most public sexism would take.


In summary, is the degree to which Hillary is attacked due to inherent sexism or her own short comings.
I guess your answer to this question decides your vote or your chosen vote decides your answer to this question.

[Skinner]

253. Since I am the administrator, I have to use extreme care when I speak.

That is especially true on matters as sensitive as sexism, racism, or other bigotry, and even more so when they intersect with the Democratic presidential primary. The end result of this approach is sometimes so carefully parsed and balanced that my core point gets obscured, or even lost. I assure you that my original goal was not to be so zen-like as to be utterly lacking in meaning.

If I were to try to state my post in a more direct way, I might say this: Yes, sometimes people yell "sexism" (or "racism") when it is not fair to do so. But there are also plenty of times when the claim is warranted -- including some times when it might not be so obvious. How one perceives bigotry in relation to the Democratic presidential primary will often have a strong correlation with which candidate they support. And it is further complicated by the fact that there exists a strong political incentive to cast one's own side as being victimized, either by bigotry or by false claims of bigotry. This OP could easily be seen as part of that game -- particularly considering that it focuses on allegedly questionable claims of sexism by the Clinton camp, while virtually ignoring allegedly questionable claims of racism by the Obama.

[mkultra]

265. sure, i understood

I was dogging you for your verbosity. Are you claiming victim status due to your position. I am not an Anti-Adminite. Dont tas me bro!

[Political Heretic]

238. What a great post! I have a bunch of questions....

First, thanks for such a thoughtful and compelling response. It gives me much to think about, which my brain craves.

I have a couple of questions. About the overall effect, am I reading this correctly that its not relating to content of the post, but the way in which content will be received?

My thinking when making my OP - and realize that I've now had a day to respond, examine, reformulate, etc. - was to say that one of the interesting and disconcerting obstacles to really confronting and addressing sexism specifically while participating in this political race, is that on top of a layer of genuine sexism, built on a foundational base of institutional patriarchy, we have the politicization of sexism (I also referred to it as the politicization of oppression) which covers real sexism and patriarchy under a blanket of sexism-charges-as-political-tactic.

The same thing happens with race I believe, and another example of the politicization of oppression. I am of the opinion this is currently a less frequent occurrence here at DU - but of course I'm sure others would disagree with that assessment. What concerns me is this process of using race and gender as a political tool - and I tried to limit my focus away from the candidates directly and focus on my community here.

I've been debating using this example, for fear it might do more harm than good. But I'm going to try it. You can summarize my OP into a story of the boy who cried wolf. Essentially my concern and worry is that the evolution of "sexism" accusations into a political tactic runs the risk of desensitizing people even further to the real realities of institutional and individual sexism.

And the point in posting these theories, other than to flesh out ideas in my brain, was to possibly raise attention to this risk so that we could collectively combat it by being very careful with our accusations of sexism (or racism, classism, ageism, and the like) against other people.

A point imperfectly made to be sure.

Again, in reflecting on your post - at this point in the primary process, it seems impossible to avoid the impression with at least some people that anything said, no matter what it is, is only said to benefit one "side" or one candidate. So the point is not lost on me, that while talking about the danger of politicizing sexism, it can become part of the very thing being criticized. That seems difficult to avoid, unless one choses complete silence, which I think its probably a mistake.

Again, thank you for such a thoughtful post. That's more than I can fully digest on one reading. And I look forward to re-reading it here in just a minute. In my view, any post of mine that can generate this kind of discussion has achieved my hopes.
Cheers,
PH

[Skinner]

260. I think, perhaps, I might have taken such care with my words that some of my point was lost.

You said: "About the overall effect, am I reading this correctly that its not relating to content of the post, but the way in which content will be received?"

When you state it like this, it sounds as if I am saying your post is fine, and others are going to misunderstand. That isn't really what I meant. What I was trying to say was that your post was technically correct, but the unspoken subtext -- either intentional or unintentional -- is to dismiss many claims of sexism as baseless.

It is my impression that that yes, some of the claims of bigotry here on DU (including sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry) are in fact bogus. But I also believe that many of them are legitimate -- including some that many DUers dismiss as bogus. Much of this is vague and open to a great deal of interpretation, so we can't just call it sexist and delete it. If I had to put it in one sentence it is this: I believe that many DUers do not fully appreciate the difficult compromises that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been required to make in order to be considered viable presidential candidates.

Is a lack of appreciation a form of bigotry? Maybe. I don't know. I think reasonable people can disagree. Bigoted or not, I think it is unfair. But this is politics, and politics isn't fair.

But instead of going off on a long monologue on that, let me just cut this short and say this: I think your OP would have been stronger and more fair if you had not limited it to one candidate. The focus on sexism, and on Hillary Clinton, guarantees that many will interpret it as a political tactic to support your candidate. Whether that was your intent, only you know for sure.

[Political Heretic]

263. Ahh I understand, and I think the missed point was my fault.

Between this post and the last one you've given me so much to "chew on" right now that there isn't a great deal I can respond with at the moment. I get to mull all this over today, which I love. But I take your fear, that the (unintended on my part) subtext is to dismiss too many legitimate examples of sexism, to heart.

In other exchanges, the utter complexity of the issue has been described, and you describe it as well. Things that aren't "overtly" sexist per se are built on a framework of institutional sexism. Other things are subtle - for example omissions in the media where the absence of something is in fact sexist, or instances where every word someone says or writes cannot on their own be called blatantly sexist, while the summary of the ideas, innuendos or implications certainly are.

Even if no one ever said a word, the fact of the matter is in total silence Hillary Clinton would still be at a disadvantage against a white man - because thus is the reality of our society. Having said all that what do we do? Because I don't see the use of gender as a political tactic as doing anything other than diminishing sensitivity to actual sexism.

Perhaps the answer is, just accept that as the cost of doing business - that sometimes that will happen. Maybe trying to address it does more to diminish a sense of the seriousness of real sexism than the reality of its politicization does itself? Perhaps the unintended message of my OP ends up being (sexism, smechism, blah blah blah). That makes me sad, as the precise opposite was my intent.

But... like I said. Excellent thoughts. I'll be thinking about them today. :)

[mkultra]

266. sounds like your ready for office :)

[question everything]

258. Thank you, Skinner. You described it in a way that no one could (nt)

[stevenleser]

291. I don't see many posts from you Skinner, and...

... I wasnt around at the beginnings of DU and thus didnt know how it became such a successful enterprise. After seeing the thoughtful way you put all of that together, I wonder no more.

Again, exceptionally well done, as Wayne and Garth would have said "I'm not worthy!!!!!!!!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

234. I don't think one needs to squint, and tilt ones head sideways to see this for what it is.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lying+bitch%22+hillary+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS221US221

And it isn't Hillary supporters who have developed the caricature of the "ignorant white fucks".

"Racists, Right Wingers, Dumb White Fucks and Hillary supporters" don't have a monopoly on shameful behavior.

[Political Heretic]

239. Do you realize that most of those phrases are used in contexts criticizing calling her that?

Or did you just glance through the list, see what you want, without reading?

[eracerx]

241. The continued divisions

are not going to bring solutions to the pressing challenges America faces. If not now, When?

[lumberjack_jeff]

268. It is true that many are posts critical of posters who use the phrase.

Compare that search to this one for "affirmative action candidate". Although it yields 4x as many DU hits, it appears to have been said twice, by a subsequently ts'ed poster. The rest of the posts containing the phrase are referential - generally used as allegory - reflective of the views of the "Racists, Right Wingers, Dumb White Fucks and Hillary supporters".

So long as we're using bandwidth denigrating the supporters of the other candidate over their selective outrage (which is in ample supply from both camps) we are not discussing issues, nor are we positioning ourselves to defeat McCain.

The intent of the OP may have been to change the nature of the debate, but despite it being well-written, still misses the mark.

All too many posts criticize the opponents candidate using right wing paradigms (including race and sex), and all too many posters here tolerate it (at best) or encourage it (at worst).

[question everything]

243. And your post is distorted. No, criticizing Clinton's campaign, policy

track record are not sexist.

Criticizing her hair style, cleavage, makeup (did she have BOTOX?) voice - using sexist terms like shrill and crackle - her sexual orientation, her sexuality - are.

Forming website called: iron my shirt, or make me a sandwich are sexist.

And, yes, calling her a bitch or a whore are. Sure, you can pretend to play dumb and say that we often use the term whore directed at men, like Joe Lieberman, and women use the term "son of a bitch." However, just as, in the 90s, Rush used to declare Hillary! and Feminazi! with no additional words, so is spitting "bitch" and "whore" in a clear intention to demean her - are.

[mkultra]

246. angry much?

[OzarkDem]

272. And similar attacks have NOT been made against Obama

imagine the howls of outrage if anyone here said anything comparable about Obama.

Double standard? Yes.

Sexism? Yes

Denial by many at DU and Obama supporters? Of course

[atal]

269. K&R nice post....

[Writer]

273. It's not who you attack, it's how you attack her.

And it's not just about names but also about subtext. When you make a comment such as, "Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, so Hillary Clinton should be ashamed for taking jobs away from Americans" you have to ask yourself what your implication is here. You're saying that because the husband believes this, so does the wife. That she doesn't have her own mind.

That is sexist logic.

Now you can say that a person is dishonest or that she doesn't have the gumption to be president. But when you say that she's "shrill," "conniving," or a "harpy," then you are using her gender as a means to demean her. This has been especially prevalent when she cries or tears up on camera.

That is sexist rhetoric.

When people are protesting Clinton's nomination by using sexist phrases such as "iron my shirt" and "make me a sandwich," and there is no earnest public outcry, then that alone forms the atmosphere in which she is running.

THAT IS A SEXIST SOCIETY.


It's truly ugly that many people in here are dismissing pointing out these realities as "playing the victim." If there are no victims in this world, then let me ask: Who, then, IS a victim? Anyone at all? Perhaps only those examples that are politically convenient for you?

[VotesForWomen]

274. a lot of straw-women there, don't you think? nt