Let's repeat this, again. Criticizng Clinton's camapign, policy, track record is not sexist

[question everything]

and claiming this, in this "greatest" post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5426768

is a distortion of the attacks and insults hurled at her.

Attacking her hair style, makeup - did she have BOTOX - clothes, cleavage, voice - in sexist terms such as shrill and cackle - is.

Yes, many use the term "son of a bitch" and "whore" addressed at men and lobbyists.

But clearly when these terms are hurled at her with so much intensity and contempt they are demeaning and sexist.

Having websites called "Hillary iron my shirt" is demeaning and sexist.

That so many DUers do not see this, that so many in the public do not see this, cannot distinguish between a real criticism and sexist attack is really sad.

That someone on DU admitted that her voice reminds him too much of his mother nagging - is sexist.

And, yes, as we have seen with the N word and with "Ho," oppressed groups often would use demeaning terms among themselves but will bridle with an outside doing it, as happened with Don Imus.

So for Tina Fey to use the term "bitch" as an empowerment term, pointing at herself and saying "Yes, I am a bitch" is one thing. For that Dude to try a pathetic attempt to come back at SNL and say that "yes, she (Clinton) is a bitch" is something else.

I did not watch Randi's performance, only read about it, but I doubt that she declared: "I am a whore."

For the DUers who are African American males: try to imagine other DUers or people supposedly on our side - not any RWer - referring to Obama as "boy" or, yes, the "N" word. And, please, do not post whole entries from a dictionary trying to prove that the terms are not the same (and we can add the "C" word here, too).

When a person, of any race or gender or ethnic background or religion considers a word an insult, it is. It is not anyone's role to "assure" that person that the term is not offensive.

And, really, is there not enough material to criticize Clinton without resorting to offensive terms? Frankly, when such words are used, this mean that the offender cannot find issues to argue about so s/he just spits an insult. And still expect to be credible.

[dmallind]

1. I was almost with you there

But have two quibbles.

Someone whose voice reminds me of my mother nagging (it wasn't my original point and Clinton sounds nothing like my mother - just personalizing the example) is that and only that - how can it be sexist? Would it be sexist if Obama's voice reminded me of my dad nagging? Yes I see the "nag" in there but this has long been a term used for both female and male naggers. Bitch I can see as an (almost) uniquely female epithet and therefore at least stereotypical, but saying HRC's voice reminded me of my nagging mother only means I had a nagging mother (I did) and that Clinton's voice reminds me of it (it doesn't). Heck as it happens Obama physically reminds me of a guy who used to work at the same place I did who is, naturally enough, a biracial chap too and, completely coincidentally, a total moron. Would I be racist in saying a biracial guy reminded me of a biracial guy if the latter happened to have any kind of negative trait? It would be kind of weird if Hillary's voice reminded me of Paul Robeson wouldn't it? It pretty much has to remind me of a woman if it reminds me of anyone at all.

And this particular construct has always bothered me: "When a person, of any race or gender or ethnic background or religion considers a word an insult, it is. It is not anyone's role to "assure" that person that the term is not offensive."

So in other words any number of any demographic segment - even if that is just one person - can permanently render a word inappropriate and offensive in all cases regardless of context and intent?

How many times do the terms "white" "fat" "suburban" and "male", often in any combination, get used as shorthand generic insults or signs of idiocy, Republicanism, etc on DU? Since I possess all those quoted attributes can I now exercise the right you granted me to have them all considered offensive and not appropriate for use? Do you truly not consider it anyone's role to explain why that would be silly?

[jakem]

2. uh oh...

you gonna get it!


:popcorn:

[question everything]

3. Thank you for raising these two points

First, about nagging. We do associate this term with a woman. I once asked a friend, a professor in sociology, why men pour their frustration on the women in their lives. Why can't men accept the fact that a woman wants out of a relationship, beating and killing them. In short, why can't some men behave like... a man..

His reply was that, for most of us, our mothers are the first disciplinarians in our lives. We associate the first time that we were scolded, or punished, with a voice of a woman, a presence of a woman, a scent of a woman, even.

Yes, we all go through life developing liking and disliking of individuals because they remind us of someone. After all, may like and dislike Clinton and Obama (and McCain) for some affinity or distaste in our own past. This is part of life, part of politics. And I thought it was quite brave for that DUer to say that if his mom were a black man he would have disliked Obama..

A weak argument, I will accept it.

As for terms we find offensive. It is all in context, of course. "Fat," "male," "suburban" are not associated with insulting a specific group that was traditionally oppressed as the other words that I mentioned. White men are still part of the ruling class. Clearly, many here have tried to "defend" the use of "bitch" and "whore" as non-sexist and the more they try to explain, the weaker their arguments get. If one cannot criticize Clinton's candidacy without using any of these words, that person better ask himself/herself why it is so important to include them.

[dmallind]

4. Hmmm

Well aside from a bit of a quibble with the generalizations of why "men" pour out frustrations etc I'm still not convinced nagging is a gender bias word. I've been accused of nagging by my wife several times (I'm one of those perfectionist types who worries about every tiny rock ding on my car etc so she's actually probably right).

I did perhpas miss the point initially about Clinton's voice. Sexist or not, it's a damn stupid reason not to vote for a person - it would be also silly for me not to vote for Obama because he resembles Tony the brainless warehouse guy. If a person can't vote for someone whose voice reminds him of his mother's then I do see how that would be a gender bias since it's not at all likely a man's voice would do the same. The difference I guess is in whether you are mentioning the resemblance or making judgements based on it. If I assumed Obama was a moron because he reminded me of a physically similar moron, then yes I'm going to assume some biracial men and no Caucasian men are morons on that basis, which would be biased. I'll stand where I was and say that mentioning it is OK - using it as a criterion for voting isn't. Subjective, but hey it's an opinion so bound to be.

I was of course playing games with the fat white suburban analogy (although I am indeed all of them and they are indeed often used as insults) and recognize the difference. But it's not to me a question of whether I can distinguish between "whites are X" and "blacks are Y" based on historical oppression and current power imbalances - of course I can. It's a question of where you place the threshhold of determining offensiveness. If a handful of black folks are offended by the use of the word "niggardly" simply because of phonetic similarity to racial slurs even though the term was never used as part of white oppression, has never been a stereotype about black people in general, and has absolutely no racial roots, etymology or connotations, then I'm sorry but I can't go along with that pronouncement. Even if you do, this approach has a significant problem, because obviously enough, black folks are not monolithic and different terms offend different people. For example I generally use the term "black" as can be seen. As well as being obviously inaccurate in terms of palette, I am fully aware some members of that minority prefer "African American" and think "black" is pejorative because of literary and artistic association with evil and villainy etc. However some have the reverse opinion too, and prefer the term "black" because, among other reasons no doubt, "African American" implies they are something other than full Americans. Even though an anthropologist would recognize "negroid" as being completely neutral, enough people consider that term as biased because of the origins. "Colored" is too generic, passé and has Jim Crow intimations. Clearly outright racial epithets are unacceptable. It leaves us white folks completely unable then if we seek to avoid offending ANY number, however few, to refer to any aspect of minority existence by any specific name. It's flat out impossible to meet a bar that says we must adjust language to avoid offending ANYONE.