Well, boys, you’ve really gone and done it this time. You managed to spew vile sexist comments at a shockingly unprecedented level. With the charge being led by the media, you injected your sexist hatred into every nook and cranny of this election process. Congratulations! Great work! The so-called journalists, the has beens of the DNC and the boys who held up signs that said “Iron My Shirt” and rudely interrupted political rallies have done it! We’re very grateful to you, we women are. You’ll never know how much.
We’re grateful because you have started women talking with each other in a way we haven’t talked in years. We are talking like we have haven’t talked since the suffrage movement and since we had leaders like Susan B. Anthony or Alice Paul. We are talking like we haven’t talked since the National Organization of Women was born. We are talking like we haven’t talked since our mothers told us we could be whatever we wanted to be, even President of the United States. By the way, the dialogue and the support has been tremendous. We appreciate your help in the matter.
Personally, I have linked up with hundreds of women across the country, via the phone, Internet and e-mail, whom I never would have spoken to if it hadn’t been for your misogynistic behavior and your petty but unflagging efforts to run a female candidate out of the Democratic primary race before the buzzer sounded. Every one of those hundreds of women I talked to are each talking to hundreds more. Our inboxes are on fire, and our phones are ringing off the hook. We are organizing as I write this, and we will not stop.
Along the way, we’ve also encountered a lot of men who feel the same way we do, men who say “I will not allow my mother, my wife or my daughters to be treated like this.“ See, boys, when you treat any woman like Hillary Clinton has been treated, those men realize that you will treat their mothers, wives and daughters the same way. Notice my use of the word “men” here, boys. It doesn’t refer to misogynists like yourselves. We are also aware that you have some ‘head in the sand’ girls on your side. Notice my use of the word “girls,“ not women. Its ok that they have chosen to side with you. Keep them close. We don’t need ‘head in the sand’ females who refuse to believe that sexism still exists. Maybe they’ll hold your hand when your tree house comes crashing down. Maybe they’ll bake you some cookies. Keep the ‘head in the sand’ girls. Heck, someone has to take care of them.
So, thanks again, boys. This has been a long time coming. Women needed to start talking again. The talk is loud and will resonate for years to come. If you ever grow up into men, don’t come knocking at our doors. They won’t open. Your purpose in life has been served. You have managed to breathe new life into the Women’s Movement in this country.
Hillary can still take this all the way to the Democratic Convention if she needs to. No matter who emerges the winner, though, the real loser in this Democratic Party debacle will be the boys who tried to run her off, and the girls who fell in line behind them. The real women AND the real men who are now standing together, newly aligned against sexism, will be the winners
Ladies--we’ll be talking soon.
Sandra Moore is a free lance writer and small business owner living in PA.
Are you saying it is sexist not to prefer Hillary? She lost me as a supporter over her repeated lies about Bosnia. I am her "base"....middle aged white working woman., but would only vote for her if she was chosen the nominee. She's not going to make it.
IMO, she is republican lite. She won't end the war. She is financed by the same corporate interests that fund the GOP...oh, heck, you already know all this. It is not enough to vote for her because she is female. Sorry, but it's not sexist to prefer Obama.
by
camanokat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM
A lot of people read your article and disagreed with you, or they read it, saw your reference to Hillary and called you on your statements. Your response has been to suggest that they are not smart enough to read or you call them names. Several of your postings below have warranted being flagged and hidden or deleted for ad hominem personal attacks. My motto is that people call names when they can't engage in intelligent dialog.
A lot of women are justifiably angry about the way some of the anchors on TV treated Hillary. But, outside of the "iron my shirt" jerks, you fail to cite additional examples that the commenters ask for. That's a shortcoming you can't cover up by calling names.
Posting articles on sites like this will get you comments. Responding with the name calling and put downs you've engaged in severely lowers YOUR credibility.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1643 comments)
on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM
The women are talkng, but not all saying the same things...
I am a woman, and I couldn't agree with you less. I'm sorry, but the choosing of a president is not about gender or race. It is about--or should be about--choosing the candidate that will do the best job. (I said, "should be"--obviously that didn't work the past two times out.) For me, that person is not, never was, never will be Hillary Clinton.
I would vote for a woman for president, but Hillary is not that woman, and I would never vote for her, or any woman, just because she is of the female gender. Likewise, I wouldn't vote for Barack Obama just because he is male and/or (half) black. I have voted for him, and I will vote for him because he is the best one to handle the job...and the fact that he is male and (perceived as) black has nothing to do with it.
So, just because I am a woman, please don't lump me with whom I presume are the feminist militants with whom you've been communicating. While you've been communcating with them, my commnications have been with multitudes of women who see the wisdom, inteligence, cool demeanor and calm of Barack Obama as what this country needs far more than a token trophy with a shrill and strident voice simply to prove that women have arrived.
Please, isn't it far more imprtant to see each person for whom he or she really is, rather than as a symbol for some group that shares that person's gender or race?
For the record, I, and millions of women like me, are talking--and it has nothing to do with perceived misogyny, or anything else so far off point. It has to do with the absolute rightness of Barack Obama as the next US president, and the fact that we not only have a candidate we can cheer about, but finally we have a candidate who can appeal to the masses as well.
Please (again), don't make it sound that all women are for women and women only. Many of us make decisions based on much broader way more important considerations than gender.
by
Nancy Babcock (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 1:26:41 PM
Someone else misses the entire point of the article.....
Please reread the article. This is not about Hillary. This is not about Obama. It is about how a woman was treated and how sexism needs to be stamped out once and for all, no matter who you intend to vote for. We realize there are women out there who refuse to believe that sexism still exists. We also realize that they are part of the problem. Women like you who refer to someone like me as a "feminist militant" without even thoroughly reading and understanding the article and so quickly jumping in to promote Obama are part of the problem.
Remember the words of Madeleine Albright: "There is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women."
By the way--we're not going away and your claims of talking to millions of women who feel like you do will not deter us, because your claims are simply not credible.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 1:51:27 PM
"Hillary can still take this all the way to the Democratic Convention if she needs to. No matter who emerges the winner, though, the real loser in this Democratic Party debacle will be the boys who tried to run her off, and the girls who fell in line behind them. The real women AND the real men who are now standing together, newly aligned against sexism, will be the winners."
Sounds like it IS about Hillary to me. I did not see any sexism. Maybe because I don't watch TV or YouTube. My opinion was formed by her own words. I do read news outlets.
Your statement, above, implies that we who do not support Hillary are sexist and that it is Hillary's duty to continue to fight for the nomination. I refuse to support a candidate I don't favor simply because she has the same equipment between her legs as I do.
by
camanokat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 5:55:48 PM
Seems some women are still so self loathing they buy the lies they know they are being told. A candidate we can believe in, who inspires hopey changey feelings...never mind that he has a 20 yr history of being personally involved with criminals. Never mind his 20 yr history of being close personal friends with admitted and unapologetic terrorists. Never mind his 20 year history with racists. He said hope and change! All the while his smear team worked the internet blogs and utube releasing false and misleading items to be eaten up by his supporters who never took the time to see the lies for what they were. The edited video clip from Bill Clintons 1992 campaign falsley branding Clinton campaign workers racists, claiming they called the voters of my state Indiana a bunch of white n***ers, days before the Indiana Primary. The article on Obama's official website claiming Clinton's pastor was a convicted child molester, left there for 3 weeks after it was proven to be a lie, and only removed after other websites began reporting about them pushing the lie. The memo leaked from Obama's campaign urging his volunteers to look for statements from the Clinton campaign that could be twisted to seem racist. Even newspaper in other countries have reported that this has been the most sexist political campaign they have ever seen. But still some women choose to knowingly delude themselves into thinking Obama is the 2nd coming. He is more like Jim Jones than RFK or MLK.
by
POdVet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 1:59:41 PM
Thank you PoDVet! Your first sentence said it all: "Seems some women are still so self loathing they buy the lies they know they are being told."
I call these the 'head in the sand' females for whom its easier to believe that sexism doesn't exist than it is to fight for what's right.
As you can see from the responses I generated above, they just don't like to hear the truth. Its easier for them to forget that they even have the right to vote because of women like Susan B Anthony & Alice Paul who fought the longest and the hardest, than it is for them to believe that women are still not being treated equally.
That's ok. As I mentioned above, we don't need them. Let them follow empty rhetoric, rather than stand up and fight. They will be on the losing end as a result.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:23:39 PM
how some people miss the point of this article and think it's all about BO versus HC.
I am a BO supporter but seeing the outpour of misoginy against HC in the media has been a wake up call for me; I was not naive or deluded enough to think we are now in a post feminist era, but I thought that a certain form of basic, rabid hatred against women was a thing of the past in the US.
Well, I was wrong, and I hope this is an eye opener for women, like the Hill/Thomas case was 15 years ago. And I hope that they will not fall asleep at the wheel again because it's clear now that Sexism and misogyny are alive and well; in particular lots of white male pundits apparently think it's clever, funny and good for their career to debase and insult their female lectorate on a daily basis thru their crude jokes about HC.
I emailed the bosses of the worst offenders to ask them if they think it's smart to let those guys let their inner fratboy go on a rampage and spit in the face of 53% of their lectorate, no less. If you are really mad, you might want to do the same...
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 301 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 2:50:05 PM
John--sorry that your reading comprehension skills are not up to par, but as I've stated many times now - This is not about Hillary and not about Obama. I understand that Obama supporters tend to come out in negative force when any article even has Hillary's name in it, but you are way off base on ths one, and if anyone needs to get a point, its you.
If you need more examples of sexism, do a little research if your reading skills are up to it. I don't feel the need to spell it out for you.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:28:01 PM
Sandra, It could easily be that your writing skills are at fault.
Why should anybody be concerned that "The Women are Talking?" Talking is something that women do better than men - that's not a sexist thing to say, but a recognition of women's superior skills in that field. But are you suggesting that women stopped talking?
I don't support Obama, Clinton or McCain. Why did you assume that I did?
And since you approve of indulging in ad hominem attacks, let me observe that you're clearly a very angry person and I think that anger is clouding your judgement.
by
John Haigh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 106 comments)
on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 1:25:21 AM
I feel the same way. If it's not about Hillary, why is her name even mentioned in the article. Again, since I don't watch TV, I never saw the "frat boys" picking on her.
Maybe I'm just brain dead?
by
camanokat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 5:59:10 PM
If so many of us, including women, are missing your point, why don't you re-read your article and see why we're all missing it? It would help if you gve some specific examples. I support women..but I do not support women not best for a job--especialy as president--over a man who is. I guess you do.
by
Nancy Babcock (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:26:12 PM
This article is not about supporting one candidate over another.
Please remove your head from the sand, open your eyes and read. THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA! I know some of his supporters think the world revolves around him, but at this point, you are making a fool of yourself. Give it up.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:30:23 PM
OK--it's not about Obama....it's about your thinking--as well as other militant feminists'--that Hillary got a bad deal from the press--and all only because she's a woman. Examples please.
I didn't like Hillary before the press took off on this campaign--in fact, I read little about what they said about her...I listened for myself and heard what I heard both candidates say. Hillary lost my vote on her words alone. (Aren't you even a bit fearful that she is showing early signs of dementia? Repeatedly confusing sniper fire with little girls with flowers would indicate that.)
by
Nancy Babcock (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:38:14 PM
This is not about Hillary and this is not about Obama.
Quite frankly, the only person I am concerned about suffering from dementia is you, Nancy. Sniper fire in Bosnia? Again, get a grip. What does that have to do with anything I wrote about? Unless you have a valid argument to make, and its clear you don't, please go back to sipping your Hope & Change Kool Aid. Right now, that's probably the safest thing for someone in your state of mind to be doing.
As far as your request for examples of sexism, get off your lazy rear and research it. Its been completely chronicled on YouTube. Only someone suffering from "dementia" would be unaware of the virulent sexism, and judging from the tons of e-mails to me this article has generated, including the ones laughing about the very comments you have posted, the majority of the intelligent public IS fully aware of ALL of the examples.
by
Sandra Marcella-Moore (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:58:23 PM
Now I understand. I've just read your most recent posts to me and to the man who dared challenge you on the meaning of your article. You obviously felt the best thing to do was insult us both. Didn't work. Never does.
You might want to think a bit about who's making a fool out of herself by re-reading your own posts, starting with the original article, weak from the start for not giving specific examples of what you're so angry about.
Yes, some women are not treated fairly by men. Some men are not treated fairly by women. People in general are not fair to each other. Do you think that spewing anger and contempt is going to help? Not working either, just in case you hadn't noticed.
Now I see why you're so upset not to have Hillary in there swinging for you. Again the message--your and Hillary's methodology doesn't work--as proven by George W. Bush.
by
Nancy Babcock (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 3:54:49 PM
Thank you, Sandra. I feel exactly the same way concerning you on this very point, except that you can remove the "almost" in my feeling sorry for you. I really do.
Yay--we agree at last.
by
Nancy Babcock (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 4:20:51 PM
I believe there was a certain amount of sexism directed at Hillary Clinton during the campaign. There is some agism directed at John McCain. There was some racism directed toward Barack Obama. However, Hillary lost because she ran a poor campaign. She had most of the Blue State elites supporting her and Harold Ickes had written most fothe rules for the current primary system that was supposed to benefit her. Finally, I have to make the observation tha once again White women narrowly focus on just one aspect of discrimination. My two daughters and wife are African American and any movement that does not address racism and sexism is not worth the time or effort to get involved
by
reynaldo anderson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 8:16:33 PM
