 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 9, 2008 at 07:16:49
Hillary Clinton-- Victim of the War on the Feminine, Just like the 9/11 Victims by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
A few weeks ago, Chris Matthews mentioned that blacks got their right to vote 50 years before women. Yesterday, Meryl Ann Butler wrote an article, suggesting similar ideas, WHEN ANATOMY TRUMPS COLOR: Race and Gender Patterns and their Possible Effect Upon the 2008 Presidential Race, saying; In race and gender patterns in the United States, men of color have traditionally been granted their rights in advance of women. Therefore, as long as this pattern continues, Barack Obama is better positioned than Hillary Clinton to beat John McCain, or any other white male Republican. One woman commented on the article, titling her comment, THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN, saying, You can argue whether racism or sexism is stronger in America, but I don't think you can argue that women - both black and white - have not been the victims of systematic violence. "The War Against Women" by Marilyn French, talks about this.
Leonard Shlain wrote a fascinating book, THE ALPHABET and the GODDESS, collecting together a report on the research which described how the advent of writing changed the way the brain processed information.
Cultures went from storytelling and oral transmission of cultural history to the more linear writing. This changed the way the brain worked and culture changed from a female, priestess and empress, earth mother worship culture to a male dominated one.
It's not that the brain changed, but the patterns of use changed. Much has been written on this by other language experts and anthropologists.
Hillary faces this and more challenges in her efforts to win the Democratic primaries and the presidency.
More recently, Susan Faludi, in her book Terror Dreams, describes how the response to the 9/11 attack mirrored, or recapitulated early America's treatment of women-- as helpless, dependent and weak. When I first heard Chris Matthews observe that black voting rights came before women's, Faludi's book came to mind. Faludi used a biomedical analogy-- the concept the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny--- that the stages of development of a fetus recapitulate the evolutional stages from single celled micro-organism to fish to amphibian to reptile to hairy mammal. It's tough to fight the tide of nature. And tough to fight the inertia of centuries old cultural habits.
Today, right wing values include rejection of the feminine-- not just women, but the whole spectrum of feminine archetypal ways of seeing, living, thinking. Bush and his machismo offer undereducated men who have lost their jobs through globalization and outsourcing a dose of viagra to make them feel more masculine.
Hillary is a huge threat to their sense of self, sense of power. There's nothing rational about it.
Until the left faces this reality-- that part of winning with progressive, liberal values includes changing men's and religion's reactions to the feminine-- the left's strategy for success will be unsuccessful. That's a challenging assignment. Just look at how so many religious organzations are built upon "values" that reject equal rights and treatment for women. Southern Baptists, the Catholic Church, Islam, Orthodox Judaism-- they all require different and not equal treatment for women. Most, if not all of them, argue that women are better off that way, with more power in the home, protection from men, etc.
This is not an easy battle. I do think "battle" is the right word, because the churches, temples and mosques that oppose equal rights for women, that oppose the ascendance of the feminine, consider efforts to give women equal rights, to give women the right to control their bodies an assault upon the faith, upon the church.
When we look at the progress women have made-- that it took just 50 more years to give women the vote, then we can be hopeful, that such change has overcome the millenia old cultural inertia that has resisted the changes sought.
This comment ought to get me in trouble. Sadly, the battle for women's rights may actually be stoking Islamic terrorism. I believe that the main inspiration and motivation for Islamic terrorism is the assault of western culture and values upon Muslim culture. When Christian missionaries attempt to evangelize and convert Muslims, it is understandable that religious leaders and practitioners see t his as an attack on their culture and values.
The fact is, Christianity has an ugly history of demonizing non-christian cultures as heathen, as despicable, and of going in and destroying those cultures, often assisted by devastating diseases carried by the missionaries and soldiers. Many cultures, even whole civilizations have fallen in the face of Christian evangelical assaults.
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 66 comments |
|
great article
I told my sister that former black male slaves had the legal right to vote before white females and she did not believe me until she researched the information. Misogyny is much more pervasive than racism, all one has to do is watch the talking heads on the so-called news shows. I rarely hear any positive remarks about Hillary Clinton and most remarks are of a personal put down and not a reflection of her stand on the issues. Athena by Athena88 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:19:15 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, this is really not right.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4502927 by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:24:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Is there anything feminine
About Hitlery ? I plan to vote for a woman this election, Cynthia Mckinney. If my memory serves me correctly we are trying to replace globalists with a more honest less greedy and less violent candidate. So now we are subjugating women because we reject the corporate beast Clinton ? Why are we hiding the real issues under the race-gender rug ? Mckinney is the perfect candidate, black and female and anti-establishment. I am going to be politically correct for a change. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:26:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yay Cynthia
Cynthia McKinney stands against everything we ourselves have been fighting against. It's about time we stand up and support her. McKinney '08! Hear what she has to say about many of today's topics: by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Hillary is no victim
Forgetting all philosophical babble, Hillary is not now, never has been, nor will ever be a victim short of her being mugged in Central Park. She's far too strong a person to ever even think she's a victim, and has used every difficulty to her advantage. by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:29:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Insightful article
...as usual from Mr. Kall. This campaign has brought to the fore the persistance of a virulent, archaic form of misogyny that liberals tend to think of as a thing of the past. The stupid questions about diamond and pearls, the comments about non existent tears, ''how can we beat the b*tch'', and ''I don't want to see Hillary Clinton's face wrinkle'' to name but a few... Hillary Clinton has been acting for years as a sort of magnet, or lightning rod, for this latent misogyny, ever since the day she claimed she would not bake cookies. For a significant number of Americans, she has become ''the woman you'd love to hate''. For some mysterious reason, she brings out the worse in some people. Why her, why not Condoleeza Rice, her ice queen demeanor and dominatrix sartorial style for instance? It would be interesting to find out why exactly people dislike HC so intensely. After, she's not responsible for any war and anyone's death, and still she is hated worse than Bush. This is totally irrational and unfair, at times it borders on lynching, but For this reason, I doubt if she is electable. And it might well be that, for the same reason that African Americans males were allowed to vote 50 years before white women, an African American male has far more chances to be elected. by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:40:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ''the woman you'd love to hate''
As I recall the first time Hillary was attacked was after proposing a national health care plan. Then suddenly came the question as to who was the real president or who is wearing the pants in that family. Then it got worse, starting with Bill's intern event where many Rovian boyscouts tried to depict her as having driven Bill to it. Thus the ice queen remarks and then the lesbian accusations and finally the Hildebeast. This woman has gone through a lot! More I think than any other first lady. Since its been publicized nationally and even internationally and across the Internet then perhaps even more than any other woman beyond being raped, assaulted or killed. Yet here she is running for president of the United States and in a dead heat too! Also had the democrats run their election under the same guidelines as the republicans, she would have a lead. Whether you love her or hate her, you would have to respect any woman who has gone through so much abuse. Since women in general are the most victimized members in our society, there is no small wonder as to why so many are flocking to her and lending her support in this crucial election. They relate to these abuses literally! That said and although I'm a male, I like Hillary Clinton. And although no one agrees with everyones policies all the time, and she was not my first choice for president, I never disliked her or hated her as some apparently do. We need a good national healthcare plan. We need a smart leader. But beyond anything else, we need someone in there with strength, like Hillary who could withstand nasty personal attacks for more than a decade and still keep her chin up and stand firmly on her feet. I like Obama too. But the media is treating him with kit gloves as they do with McCain and Huckabee. McCain is the war hero who said it was safe to shop in Baghdad while wearing body armor and being ascorted by several armed guards, armored escort vehicles and choppers. Huckabee is portrayed as a sing along Sam, a guitar toting minister rather then a bible thumping threat to what's left of our Bill of Rights. Then there's Obama, the greatest speaker and innovator since Robert Kennedy. As for Hillary, she still might be a lesbian, she wears pants suits and is the ice queen. She's still the Hildebeast! My hat goes off to Hillary Clinton. It would be poetic justice if she wins the nomination and goes on to be the first female president of the United States. Then all those bastards who went out of their way to assassinate her character will end up as the nefarious footnotes they should, along with Bush, Cheney and the entire neocon shrub factory! by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 11:12:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Rob
As you mentioned, much of the resistance to women in position of power is the result of past culture, which dies slowly. That being said, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a good example for a fairness comparison. She obviously has baggage, not the least being Bill. Mrs. Clinton also possesses a grating personality. Polls for years have shown that Hillary was disliked vehemently by some 50% of the nation. I consider the cases of Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher, in both the German and English cultures, they were subjected to the same disadvantages, but in the end were elected to lead their respective nations. We need to test the waters with a more likable candidate to get a more honest reaction. Pete Rose was a heck of baseball player...but liked? by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:58:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OMG, you and I agree on something!
Wow. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:23:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How about a full disclosure
of where the 250 million went from the Childrens Fund ? Do the priveleged dynasty globalists have some right to our treasury money? I can feel absolutely no sympathy for the monster and its high time the Clinton mafia gets more and more pointed criticism. Real estate swindlers, murderers and the worst of all, attorneys, gag me with a spoon. No sympathy for the devil here, just heap on more brimstone. The traitors that brought us NAFTA now want to finish the job by completely destroying the middle-class. To even consider that thing as a leader means that those who accept her deserve to go down under the jack-boot. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 6:41:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Who got the rights first?
Hi Rob, After the African American males received the right to vote came the Jim Crow era with all its trimmings. At least, as far as I know, when women got the right to vote they kept it. African Americans still suffer from racism at the polls. White women don't suffer sexism in this same venue. So how does that affect the outcome of the upcoming election? Without having read the rest of your article (which I will after writing this), I agree that Hill will get stoned to death by the Neocons. It's hard not to be in Washington long before the skeletons start hanging in your closet, and Barack just hasn't been here that long. And now to your article and then my blog. Cenerentola by Marta Steele (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 48 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:00:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Aw c'mon
Rob, Your're right again without citing the compelling evidence: that the root of bin Laden's enmity toward us--he was an ally in the eighties--was the American military's "casual" treatment of Muslim women when they were in Saudi Arabia. As far as Hillary is concerned, the question concerns not so much her gender as her closet full of skeletons, a glorious feast for the Neocons if she wins the nomination. Cen again by Marta Steele (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 48 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:06:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Rob, this post is genocidal hate speech
I share many of your values and your general outlook, Rob. I've read Schlain and I think he's mostly right. And it's true that American culture has a deep antifeminine streak that manifests politically--just look at the way Cynthia McKinney was assaulted by a male "security" icon and then victimized again by the media because she resisted the assault. by Kevin Barrett (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:50:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I Agree with Kevin - stop with the Al Qaeda BS
The entire National Security doctrine is predicated on the existence of Al Qaeda. The history of this organization is inexorably tied to the CIA since the Soviet-Afghan war - although we of course will never hear about any of these facts through the propaganda machine known as the mainstream media. The US intelligence community created Al Qaeda, nurtured it, and is now utilizing it as a central proposition for their "war on terror". Even among most of the dissenters of the current administration, the tendency to blame our protectors for security failures which allows terrorism to thrive is in itself a ruse - if you demonize the government for ineptitude you still buy into their myth and central premise regarding Al Qaeda. Once you apprehend the basic fraudulence of the US government's claims about this mythical organization and their omnipresent threat to the world - the entire "war of terror" unravels and we can clearly see it as a system of lies, hatred and fear promulgated to benefit a small, malevolent group of psychopaths. by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:33:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please see the writer here Muhammad Kurshid and others
... its fine to have a conspiracy theory that these groups dont exist, but we have real people reporting here on how the existence of these groups is creating a hell for them, their families and their communities. I think it is no longer a cute exercise when you have real victims right here you can speak with and discuss. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 3:27:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: whoa
Except for the most extreme fundamentalists in Islam, I don't have a problem with women enjoying the culture they choose to live. But I think it is true that American culture and values are offensive to them and that it can and does inspire anger, hate and worse. I find western culture and the desire to evangelize its religion, it's economic system, it's materialism and all the other parts that go along with the cultural package to be destructive and dangerous. I live in it and, with some complaints about the politics, generally accept it. But I don't believe we have the right to shove it down the throats of other cultures. I actually believe that the UN should set up borders around the remaining indigenous, preliterate tribal people, with armed guards to protect them from missionaries, lumber mills, miners, drillers, etc. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:23:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rob, you are missing the point
Rob, Casazaza and Kevin Barrett have made points that you are not addressing (even if it started with just a slither in your initial article). You seem to start with a premise (too widely embraced) that the US was attacked on 9/11 by Muslim extremists. We have ample evidence that 9/11 was something VERY different. I urge you to look at it if you are unaware. www.journalof911studies.com is one place to begin. I won't go into details here, but you have got to stop springing off this terribly wrong premise about 9/11. Much of what you say generally re Western culture may have merit, but the 9/11 comparison is just awful. Al Qaida was creeated and funded by US intelligence. It was used on 9/11 to create an illusion that "America is under attack" by Islamist extremists. But the stand down of the US Air Force was not an al Qaida directed phenom! Wake UP! I agree with the poster who said Cynthia McKinney is closer to the feminine ideal than Hill Clint. Both Clintons are charlatans. Had any ordinary high level staffer made the gaffs Bill C did before AND AFTER the So Carolina primary, the candidate would have SACKED them. That Hill didn't tell Bill then to "take a walk" shows that she does not know how to be an executive we can trust. There is no salvaging Hill Clint now as anything remotely progressive. Sorry. I think it is time now to begin to roll the drums for an Al Gore draft. Do we want to win against McCain in November? Draft Al Gore to break the deadlock! Quite honestly, anybody today who WANTS to be president is disqualified by having the desire. One not seeking the office is far more suited to the job. Obama can be a good VP running mate, ready in 4 yrs or 8 to step up. Hill can be given the next Supreme Court vacancy and she could be quite good there. And Bill could butt out very easily. We need at least two women on the court. This is where the feminine impulse can have real voice and in that position, Hill Clint might even be able to find hers. Offering that might be a decent way to get her to step aside. It gets very ugly if she can't. by Carl Weis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 5:29:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, you are missing it. We have real people here who are
reporting on dealing with these groups in person. At that point, it stops being an intellectual exercise and starts being how do we help people like Mohammad Kurshid and people like him. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:53:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, you are missing it. We have real people here who are
reporting on dealing with these groups in person. At that point, it stops being an intellectual exercise and starts being how do we help people like Mohammad Kurshid and people like him. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:02:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Good Article Finally
Rob, you are finally getting closer to getting it right. I've been reading OpEdNews for a while and have never heard you say a good thing about Hillary. In fact, I've seen you jump on the anti-woman bandwagon lots of times. You have helped feed the anti-feminist flames. But maybe now you are seeing things as they should be seen. I teach sex and gender classes and have been published in the field. So, I'm not just blathering as so many Hillary haters here are doing. And this list is full of them. I'm amazed how the supposed left wing can be so sexist and misogynistic. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, as many of the left wing movements in the past have been abysmal on the issues of equality for women and even moreso on the issues of equality of gays/lesbians. Hillary has been unfairly accused of many things, not only by the right wing hate fest, but also by many on this list. I am appalled and that's one reason I always hesitate when thinking about telling others of this list. There's a lot of hate going on out there and much of it has seeped into this list. As for the comment that someone made about skeletons in HRC's closet -- I'd say that after being in the public eye for so long, she's been tested and they will have very little to throw against her. BO on the other hand has a book filled with skeletons which he gladly offered for the right wing to use against him. They want him to be the candidate because they know he will easily be beaten in the fall. They are playing an old game - pretending to gleefully want Hillary to be nominated, pretending that she will be divisive and make it easier for them to win, so that Democrats won't nominate her. And may nominate someone weaker. And with the help of the MSM some idiots are buying this load. And that's another point: with all the railing against the MSM here at OpEdNews, it is astonishing that so many OpEdNews readers/contributors have bought the MSM story on Hillary. And not just bought it but repeat it word for word! Are you guys distrustful and disgusted by the MSM or are you just tools of it? Think about it. Hillary is the best of the best candidates we have had in a long time. We're ready for a female President and I, for one, am delighted by the prospect. I do not fear it as do so many men (even the so-called liberals/progressives on this list). Hillary for President -- Now! by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:51:26 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How is Hillary the best candidate we have had?
Are we forgetting that Rupurt Murdoch fundraised for this candidate? Does that alone not tell us something about her and her agenda and ties to the mess we are already in? The MSM didn't *sell* me that. by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whitewater anyone ?
I am channelling Vince Foster right now and he says for YOU to read this, http://www.skolnicksreport.com/mrich.html and this http://prorev.com/connex2.htm To be ignorant of the truth is just ignorance, but to puposefully avoid the truth is to be a Democrat or a Republican. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: There are no skeletons in Hillary's closet
John, by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:24:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: huh?
You wrote: >>In fact, I've seen you jump on the anti-woman bandwagon lots of times. You have helped feed the anti-feminist flames.<< Please cite these to me. I'd like to wake up a bit more if I'm blowing it somehow. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:54:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Let's not get stupid
I have a far right-wing friend who told me that he learned all he needed to know about politics from his Mormon mother. I would guess that he was about 14 years old and therefore extremely vulnerable to the blandishments of Republicanism. His mother taught him that he was special and that educated people and Democrats were just Commies that were out to get him. You can always tell a mental and emotional 14 year old by the fact that he or she has love-hate relationships. His mother taught him everything and yet she was unsuited to do much outside of the home. He lives on social security and retirement, and yet these should not be afforded to anyone else. Blah, blah, blah. The 14 year old at work. Talking points and dittoheads were invented for arrested blockheads like him. Sexism is simply a manifestation of the general stupidity. There are many others. I don't like Hillary because I think she is a pandering crook. She reminds me of Romney (male). Obama will meet the 14 year old mind in the form of racism. The basic assumption must always be that the world is made up of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards (most are 14 years old) by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: what a way to view the world
My condolences. You view the world through less than rosy colored glasses. Methinks you need to clean them off. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:56:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Trying to tease it all apart
Wow, Rob. You cover such a broad range of issues here, it's hard to tease it all apart. Perhaps each one needs to be written about in more depth. I think the story of how various U.S. administrations & the CIA have stirred up ill well in the Muslim world throughout the 20th Century, is more complex than just the role of women, tho that may have been a major factor. Interestingly, what you're talking about is two sides of the coin of sexism. Cultures either view women through an oversexualized lens, or they are so afraid of women's sexual and procreative power that they prefer them covered up and silent. by Amy Fried (45 articles, 127 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 247 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Hillary abrasive
Hillary is just abrasive. I am an independent so I don't care for either the repubs or democrats. I look for intelligent people who understand current issues (RP is one example). As for the Islam holy text "debunking"... that's not a fact. Tons of room for interpretation in Torah, NT and Koran (including modern spelling). Don't start with your degree nonsense, I have my doctorate as well. Hate people trying to push their opinions as fact or to say their whatever (religion, car, penis) is bigger or better than everyone else's. Do the world a favor and be a good person. (Hillary doesn't fit that bill). Learn something about the world, listen to Jim Puplava and his free podcast... you'll learn volumes about the environment, politics and the economy from true experts. Peace all. by deecee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM (0+)
|
|
RIGHT ON
Rob Kall, you've just exposed a great portion of America. Great notes. Peace by deecee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Rob, I think you should heed the words of Kevin Barrett
Basically, we are not going to get a truly pro-life and human empowering candidate from the duopoly party. They lie about everything, and they use the media they control to put on a psy war show on the rest of us, a deadly one as Kevin Barrett and CasaZaza above point out. by BroadsideBalladeer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Good Expose'
Your article is very good and an appreciated exposure of the sexism on the Left. And of how deeply subtle and pervasive it still is in the whole American culture. Thanks. Unfortunately by not sticking to the topic of the election and bringing in 9/11, it gave people the opportunity to veer off subject and not understand your main point. I thought what fou said reflected my points perfectly. I too come 'credentialed' and have experienced the sexist Left. Sadly, a core value of the Left, women and men, is beliving they are personally true egalitarians - this means that it is unlikely they will 'see themselves' in your article. Thanks fou for you comments. by Sharon (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 33 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Response to Sharon
Sharon -- Thank you for bringing this subject back to Rob's point. I, too, have worked in a nearly all male environment, and the two I had the most problems with pride themselves on being 'feminist', but are two of the most chauvinist of all! Hillary Clinton is not my first choice by a long shot, but my decision was based on her votes for the Iraq war -- nothing else. It took me years to realize that a very agressive woman may not be domineering in the least. An aggressive woman sees a problem, works with other men and women to devise a solution, then goes for it. A domineering woman will insist that it be done her way, or not at all. In our society an agressive woman is seen as domineering, ipso facto. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some may be -- most are not. Ironically, although there are many words in our language for an individual woman who is a 'go-getter' such as 'ball-breaker', there is no cooresponding word in our language for an individual man who is an abusive chauvinist. The reasons for this anti-feminine bias are many, many, and many more, some pre-dating Christianity. It is irrelevant to try to determine at this point why this anti-bias. The point is to overcome it in our thinking, as well as the thinking of the culture as a whole. This bias is so ingrained in our bones that it will be difficult to eradicate -- but for our entire world -- eradicate we must. Thanks Rob and Sharon. by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Misogyny or realism?
Certainly, our society still has major misogynistic sectors, as well as misandry in other areas. Bur as for Hillary Clinton: Her real record, in the White House, in the Senate, and as First Lady of AK, is just horrible. She never saw an American war she didn't like. She has voted, over and over and over and over again, to support the Iraq war, and has said she'll continue it if she becomes President. She has refused to have anything to do with impeachment of Cheney. While in the White House, she fully supported her husband's five separate overseas bombing ventures, including his 5 day bombing of Iraq to take the heat off his domestic problems as the impeachment hearings began. Her financial shenanigans as First Lady of AK would have landed her in jail if she weren't so skilled at using, and abusing, her political connections. Her main job during her 8 years in the White House was to facilitate some sort of national health care plan, and on a scale of 0 to 100, she clearly gets a big "0" there. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that Hillary's record - her REAL record - is one that should be opposed by all progressives and humanitarians. Blindly supporting her because she has a vagina, is no better than opposing her for that reason. by Ray Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I agree
It's irrelevant that she's a woman; what matters is that she's corrupt. It's hard for me to disguise my contempt when I talk to people who say they are going to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman. Neverminding her criminal background. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:08:42 PM (0+)
|
|
This election shouldnt be about gender or race
Condi Rice is an African-American woman of great accomplishment: But I wouldn't vote for her if she ran for local dog catcher.......Nor would I vote for ANY candidate that is a vetted choice of the corporates. Because it should be very obvious to many here by now ANY candidate that is in their camp will not have the better interests of the people at heart. Oh they may think they can "get around" them somehow, fooling themselves and millions along with them that it is possible to change things once in power...... But all we need do is look at the last President to believe that: JFK .There is only one way to take back this country (peacefully that is); and that is to reject the 2-party system and form a coalition of reformers to end the control of the mainstream media, end the corruption of lobbyist money, end the slide into fascism. Howard Dean can parse on that.... Whether he was "clever" or not is not the issue imo: When the game is completely rigged it doesn’t matter, it's not a factor. Yes, I'm claiming that the entire Democratic primary system was rigged from the start to get exactly these results we have now: As a means of distraction and illusion. Many of you are falling for it: You believe these candidates have some hope of being "different". They do not. If they did, they would not be in a position to gain power through one of the Parties. If one tried (such as Dennis Kucinich), they would be eliminated via mainstream media and Party blacklisting or by other means. Look at it this way: How can we trust the candidates that are ALLOWED to be heard on MSM; the ones THEY TELL US to vote for ??? So imo there can be no sense in supporting a mainstream candidate, whoever they are. They gave us a "dream team" of a Woman, and an African-American. How nice; we can even choose between one or the other. A perfect illusion. But if we want a real choice; there is none available.... Because we have to create that real choice ourselves; not wait for it to be handed to us. An all-new reform coalition third party is the only answer to take back our government: It needs to be done THIS YEAR. Before it is too late. by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Smug Psychoanalysis of Hillary Critics Won't Change Minds
Sheesh... are there actually progressives still forming ideas based on this silly and wholly discredited idea of some mythical ancient matriarchy toppled by evil men and their malicious war-mongering ways? This is the left's version of Creation Science, and it's just as counterfactual and counterproductive. There are 150+ Million women in the United States; disliking one of them as a presidential candidate doesn't prove sexism and, quite frankly, a lot of us are tired of having our opinions psychoanalyzed away because they are unflattering to some woman. It almost makes one wish that Condi were running on the GOP side to demonstrate the absurdity of this Rove-ian Neocon tactic Hillary supporters use when reducing all substantive criticism of their candidate to "bias" and "bashing." What's particularly telling about Hillary and W is that two politicians who, in a tight race are squeaking by on the un-democratic boost they get from family ties to another president, both shield themselves from criticism behind this "bashing and bias" nonsense. It reminds me of the Speaker shouting "Treason!" to interupt Patrick Henry's complaints about King George. Not only is what we're getting from the Clinton camp more of the same, it's more of the worst of the same: the monarchist sense of entitlement and immunity from criticism that typified the Bush II White House. And, the foregone conclusion that criticism of Hillary must be an assumedly male, anti-female, sexism in action is itself a sexist prejudice: the prejudice that sexism is something men do that women suffer. Considering that, on the Democratic side, Clinton and Obama are splitting the white male vote 50/50, while women are swarming to Hillary... who is really making their decisions based on sex? by John Leith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: nice to verbally swagger
How about an iota of evidence that Shlain, Ong and other's theories on the effect of changes in the use of language and tools of communication on culture? Any? Because just saying it's disproven isn't worth a damn. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:03:18 PM (0+)
|
|
This woman will decide on the issues, not on gender
I am so sick of this. I'm a woman, a feminist (trational) and that means equal rights to me. Hillary has her equal rights, and she's chosen to use her strength and power to be as corrupt and bad as George W. Bush. I've read about her working for Monsanto, long before Bill took the presidency, and how she and he helped empower that chemical corporation to impose pain and misery on the most powerless here in the US and around the world. I learned from a story on NPR about how farmers in India are committing suicide after being tricked into going with genetically modified cotton seeds that would never have worked out well for them. They were too expensive to grow and they can't harvest the seeds from what little managed to grow to plant in the new year. Laws Hillary helped push through allows Monsanto's corporate lawyers to sue them merely for gleaning seeds to replant. Her fundraiser "Rural Americans for Hillary" She's allied herself with outsourcers, and foreign governments and multinationals. Our constitution and bill of rights means nothing to her. She works to diminish the rights of citizens, and lest you believe that isn't important, women have no rights, when there is no civil rights. I am not some fool who believe minor differences like race or gender trumps everything else. I make decisions on who to vote for based on the issues, and the candidate's history, their record. Talk is cheap.. walking the walk is what matters. Hillary Clinton is not some victim, there is no war on the feminine, and it is crass and exploitative of you to compare what is going on in an election to 9/11. It shows that you just don't get it. Hillary Clinton has perpetuated a glass ceiling, along with others like her. She has been a regressive politician and bad for women and the generations of women to come. I don't consider someone who rationalizes enslaving the poor to be any kind of ideal candidate. by J Perry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:25:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Missing text, re: Rural Americans for Hillary fundraiser
I had written about the Hillary Clinton fundraiser, "Rural Americans for Hillary", which she held at the lobbying headquarters of the chemical corporation, Monsanto on K St. in DC in 2007. She is also receiving massive amounts of money at the direction of Alan Quasha, who was George W. Bush's bailout buddy and business partner at Harken Energy. Tell me, do you know actual rural Americans? I do, and they aren't corporate giants, they don't own 56 brownfields across the United States. They don't poison and sicken people, air, water and soil. Monsanto does, and Monsanto isn't a rural American. It tells you all you need to know about Hillary Clinton that she thought a Monsanto bought and paid for fundraiser had anything to do with rural Americans at all. Mr. Kall is obviously either too ignorant or lazy to research the facts about candidates, or he simply doesn't care. He is no one to listen to. by J Perry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:35:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dear troll
First, you are too rude, arrogant or hiding something, so you don't provide a bio, and state, "I don't do bios." On this site, that's the rule for commenting. Do one or begone. You have 48 hours. You also fail to read to look beyond this article in insulting me. The fact is, Hillary has been, since the first candidate decreed his candidacy, my last choice, somewhere after "other." I wrote this article, as I said, in response to Butler's article on anatomy vs. race. To suggest, blinded by your hate for Hillary, that there's no war against the feminine, disregarding masses of evidence and mountains of books on the subject, I have to wonder, behind your bio-less handle, whether you are even a female at all. Mysoginists and other right wing trolls have been known to pretend they are all kinds of things. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:14:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: HOLY SMOKES!!!
I never knew Hillary worked for MONSANTO!!!!! She's even WORSE than I thought!!!! Thanks for letting us know, J Perry. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:32:23 PM (0+)
|
|
The Clintons have milked the Victim card for decades
As a woman, I am not going to endorse Hillary's victim hood. I would rather see a woman get a job based on her qualifications, not on pity, guilt or their victim hood. Hillary is also no feminist, having let Bill use her as a rug to wipe his feet on. After 8 years of apologizing for Bill CLinton while he destroyed the democratic party and left it in waste until 2006, I have no appetite to apologize for him or HIllary again. No more "poor Clintons everyone picks on them". by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:27:15 PM (0+)
|
|
The essential issue facing voters in the US,
in my humble estimation, is war or not war, i e, whether the Empire will be dismantled through a (relatively) peaceful process, and the Republic restored (or created for the first time, depending upon one's point of view) - or whether it will collapse into murderous chaos and take the rest of the world with it. Leaving aside Mr McCain, who everything indicates would adopt the latter course without vouchsafing the matter any thought at all, the question boils down to which of the two Democratic contenders, Mr Obama and Ms Clinton, both strongly beholden to the US corporate elite, not least its armaments industry, represents the best chance for the world to make it through the coming decade. Aside from Ms Clinton's shameful vote to allow the US Senate to abdicate its responsibilities and give the Bush/Cheney «unitary executive» unconstitutional power to go to war - for which, nota bene, she refuses to apologise - and which Mr Obama to his credit opposed, the declared positions of the two appear to be more similar than dissimilar. How then to choose - if one must - between them on this vital issue ? To my mind, a better technique for doing so than looking at the candidates' own declared positions - products of committees and focus groups, which often tell us little about what these candidates would do in the event they come into power - is to closely examine whom these candidates have chosen to appoint as their advisers, and the known positions of these men and women. Stephen Zunes has recently published an article on this matter (http://tinyurl.com/23y37r), which I think will repay conscientious study by all concerned. The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence presented by Mr Zunes is that Mr Obama represents a far better bet for world survival than Ms Clinton. Read Mr Zune's article and draw your own conclusions !... Ceterum censeo, I think many of us - not merely Rob alone - should take a closer look at our own reactions to the constant demonisation of Islam and Muslims, purveyed with, obviously, such great success in the corporate press, both in your country and here in Europe. I can think of no better place to begin than Kevin Barrett's incisive reply above to Rob's original post.... Henri by mhenriday (0 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 157 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:36:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The problem, Henri is that any argument you make against ...
Hillary is often spun by her supporters as gender bias. That is their answer to just about everything. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:38:27 PM (0+)
|
|
H. Clinton as a candidate
My wish is that voters consider H. Clinton's policies - not her sex - when considering whether to vote for her or not. IMO, her policies - let alone her history - are more than sufficient reason to NOT vote for her. [Not that any other corporate-backed candidate - which each of them is, apart from Mckinney & Kucinich - can be recommended either. There's not a single one who will serve the people.] by Isabel Hutchinson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 1:47:44 PM (0+)
|
|
The Source of Hillary's 5 Million Dollars
It has been widely reported that Hillary Clinton loaned $5 Mililon to her own campaign. Where did she get the money? Well, Bill Clinton is being paid $20 Million per year by the Emir of Dubai for nothing. The Saudi Royal Family gave $10M to the Clinton Presidential Library. Think George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton arm in arm on the board of the 200 member Saudi Royal Family. The Clintons refused to ratify Kyoto. The Bushes gutted Bali of all substance. All we need is another President who is a puppet of the real oil executives. The world cannot afford another 8 years of inaction on climate change. The last time I checked Bill Clinton was not a woman. by Karen Fish (55 articles, 14 quicklinks, 41 diaries, 106 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:12:21 PM (0+)
|
|
I think you are all wet here, Rob...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4502927 Hillary's issues are not related to Sexism or Gender Bias by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:25:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Rob - As someone in the mental health field, what do you
think of this: by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 2:52:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: victimology
What you say makes sense, but I don't think Hillary herself is claiming victim status, though possibly some of her surrogates are. I'm sure Bill has, but he's tripping all over himself, screwing up. My point is that this is a cultural thing that ALL women have to deal with. I don't argue with your points about Hillary's liabilities. But it's not fair that on top of that she has to deal with the war against women. For example, when she gets hoarse, her voice drops to be a sound that is pretty unattractive. When Obama's gets hoarse, his voice gets deeper, which is actually a positive. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 7:51:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well, the point is not that sexism and gender bias do not
exist. The question is whether gender bias and sexism are significantly impacting Hillary's chances in the Democratic nomination process. I dont think that they are. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 6:38:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Empowerment of muslim women
by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 3:01:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, the way some progressive conspiracy theorists have spun
this is unbelievable. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:45:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Ditto
You've just stated succinctly what I wanted to say. Thanks! by paz love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 3:43:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: oops!
I iintended this to post in response to Isabel! Sorry for any confusion. by paz love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 3:48:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Wake up, folks
I originally supported Dennis Kucinich but, alas, the traditionalists drove him from the race. Why? Because he was even scarier than Hillary Clinton. He actually had positions written down and was the one true real agent of change running in this race. I will end up voting for either Clinton or Obama. I am not a Republican, will never be a Republican, so there's no question. Although not my first choice, let me say that Hillary Clinton is as viable a candidate as any man in this race. She is as bright and capable as the men. I agree wholeheartedly that there are many, many people -- men and women -- who feel threatened by a woman in the White House. There is indeed a "gender bashing" feeling to many of the criticisms of Hillary. The mainstream media doesn't help. Instead of challenging Hillary Clinton's record or position, they spend their time analyzing her bitchiness, or her crying, or her becoming whistful when talking to supporters. Of course, the mainstream media has forgotten how to challenge anybody. Have they actually challenged George Bush on any issue since 9-11? Nope. You know, Americans are always so smug about being ahead of the curve in women's rights, human rights and almost every other right. It's all spin. Here it is 2007, and we're still not ready for a woman in the White House. Women can manage the family finances, take care of the kids, still get their butts to work, then come home and finish up what they didn't get done before work. But they can't effectively run the country? Give me a break. The men have had hundreds of years and have screwed up royally. Move on over, boys. by Deb Della Piana (31 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments [2 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:15:48 PM (0+)
|
|
the right to vote
I told my sister that former black male slaves had the legal right to vote before white females and she did not believe me until she researched the information. Yeah, the legal right, but by 1920, when women won the right to vote throughout the U.S., black males had long since been unconstitutionally disenfranchised in the south, where the vast majority of them still lived. The states that didn't ratify the 19th Amendment were overwhelmingly southern. Apart from being against women's rights on cultural conservative grounds, southern legislators explicitly argued that it was none of the federal government's business to impose voting rights within any state. They even claimed, implausibly, that the 19th Amendment would allow black women to vote in their states. Of course it didn't -- black people remained almost totally excluded. But the most successful argument against the 19th Amendment in the south was its unmistakable resemblance in wording to the 15th Amendment. The few southern African-Americans who were not disenfranchised by literacy tests, polls taxes, racist registrars, and K.K.K. terror were still excluded from the lilly-white primaries of the Democratic party, defined as a private club and therefore immune to the 15th Amendment. Thus only whites could influence who got the Democratic nomination. And since nearly all whites voted for the Democratic nominee even if it was, as the expression went, a yellow dog (now better known as a blue dog), even if a few blacks could vote in the general election, it made no difference. As one Louisiana legislator put it during the debate over the 19th Amendment, "in Louisiana there ain't no such thing as a general election” (or words to that effect). by Michael Lubin (17 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 49 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 4:16:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Very controversal article
you sure do know how to steam a crowd Rob lol Hillary is no victim,she is privileged if anything.Her making it to the primary is proof of that. She has to ride on Bills mistakes that for sure ,but she was as much apart of those mistakes as he was.Once the people understand ,if they ever do ,that it was Bill that changed the laws to allow this financial debacle to exist, they won't want Hillary. She has managed to attract most woman at least the ones that do not vote sensibly, which it seems is the case for most of them.that is her real base.The religious arguments you mention ,while there is some justification it is grabbing at straws .Muslims may despise America for their evil ways but so do real Christians. They are no more fanatical than hardcore Christians.One just has to recall how Christians murdered abortionists etc... Hillary has a hard fight ahead of her ,or does she.As long as E-vote machines exist I do not believe their is Democracy in America .Should we expect another court selected president this time. Democracy has been castrated in America.The constitutional Republic in no more.What is the next political ideology to be mounted in America ? by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 5:53:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Terrible Choices
If you accept the argument that you are define by who you vote for then the choices for the Democrats must be horrific: am I a sexist or am I a racist? If gender or race are all that matters then those are the choices you are left with. Of course neither matters. The choices Democrats face in choosing a candidate are truly horrific.: Obama basically has about the same level of experience as a Wal-Mart Shoe Department Manager. Hillary is so ethically challenged she has spawned an entire book publishing subcategory devoted to her crimes, near crimes and gross incompetencies. The big thing that distinguishes one her from her honorable opponent is that she comes with a 'husband' who is probably more ethically challenged than she is and could be radioactive, if you get my drift. These are 'great' candidates for Leader of the Free World? Folks, we can see the bottom of the barrel and it ain't pretty. And then we have some scary talk of the MI and FL delegates being recognized. And we have the ultimate political wildcard - the anti-democracy Super Delegates. Gov Dean is going to earn his paycheck this year. Rioting, fist fights on the convention floor, mass mayhem and chaos, all brought to you in your living room in living color. It will be great!! Can' t wait. McKinney, sitting there sweetly on the bottom of the barrel with her hands around the throat of a Capital police officer, looks good to me at this point because by supporting her no one can label me as a racist or a sexist. Where is Al Gore when you really, really, really need him? He would win hands down. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 6:00:28 PM (0+)
|
|
You cannot give the left or yourself a free pass
Intersting and good article, but the left has been bashing Hilllary and loving it, especially the straight white men of the left, and the women have been very awful too Without including this in your article, you are glossing over the truth and also you need to point out your past bashing The misogyny of the country continues as does the war on women And the left is part of this The second wave of the women's movement came out of the misogyny of the Vietnam movement. Maybe the Hillary hating of the left will strengthen the women's movement I suggest reading Robin Morgan's superb article on why she voted for Hilllary I voted for Hillary in the early morning, and had to drive a long distance to do so. Then I went to work to read Morgan's incredible essay See if you can post it on oped news Why do so many hate a strong women, including so many in the left? Sheila Parks, Ed.D. by Sheila Parks (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 9:29:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why so many hate Hillary
Hillary's gender has nothing to do with why people 'hate' Hillary. I noticed that Shelia and other Hillary supporters do not ever offer any substantive reasons to vote for Hillary. Their arguments usually are based on two things: 1 - misogyny has existed in the past and/or exists now therefore we should vote for a female (Hillary) because of that fact and 2- Hillary is now a victim of misogyny therefore we should vote for her. This is misguided at best. Most reasonable people would vote for an experienced, ethical, and honest candidate with good ideas no matter what their gender and reject someone who is inexperienced, unethical and dishonest no matter what their gender is as well. People might 'hate' Hillary because she has committed a series of what most people consider criminal or borderline criminal acts and gotten away with them. They also might 'hate' her because she and her husband exhibit a annoying air of entitlement and privilege. To some she might appear to act as if she knows what is best for us, the uneducated and unwashed. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:26:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Since everybody is offering their opinion...
...I'll offer mine. I don't really care whether people are being sexist towards Hillary or not. I know sexism is rampant in America. I also know that Hillary is the wrong person to be playing the sex card to move forward in this election because her past and her politics do not and should not make it into the White House (again). People ask currently if America is ready for a woman president. Yes, but that question is no doubt being asked with Hillary in mind. And, if she's to be the first woman president, than no, America is not ready for a woman president. I'm not willing to break the sexism barriers in America by voting Hillary because I don't think Hillary winning this election will do anything for women. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Ms. Clinton was endorsed by the "newspaper of record"
She has been in receipt of $100 million in contributions from the white guys who have all the money. She is supported by a lot of powerful/dreadful people. What does this have to do with being a victim? That she chose to be a part of what they represent? She is a CFR member. Is she a victim of that membership? She is going to be president. Is she a victim of that too? I know people who have served the Clintons in Secret Service details and Marine guards. I wouldn't leave my dog alone in a room with these "victims." by tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments) on Saturday, Feb 9, 2008 at 11:51:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Golden Phrase
May this phrase be carved in gold for eternity : " ...how can we trust candidates that are allowed to be heard on MSM; the ones they tell us to vote for" Bravo jibbguy. As for Hillary's chances for presidency, it is as much as Segolene Royale's in France's race. In male chauvinist societies of US and France the odds for a female to make it to the top are quite narrow. She may quite likely be the democratic nominee, and this would be a very ominous outcome as McCain will then be the sure winner in the race. Isn't this the fix programed by the powers that be? Those running are the ruling Elite's picks imposed upon the voters. Supposing the votes are counted and count, what difference would it make at the day's end as far as the general public and the environment are concerned? same corruption, same cronies, same fearmongering and warmongering, same neglegt for public transport and wellfare, same urban violence, same pollution, same sprawl, same disasters. The entire system needs to be overhauled. Let us not waste time with elite's game of cheating the gullibles through election circus. The debate has to move beyond Elite's reach and manipulation. by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 3:28:49 AM (0+)
|
|
The Election isn't about Feminism
It's about a whole lot more. I agree that there is a lot of anti-feminist hatred out there, but it's also inextricably mixed up and inflamed, among Repubs and conservatives with anti-Clinton feeling. The comments in this thread demonstrate this. This is one of the reasons why Clinton is not the right candidate for the Democrats right now. I like the idea of putting her on the USSCourt, but I think she'd be super as head of HHS. As nominee, she'd bring out the conservatives in droves--to vote against her--and McCain would likely win a squeaker. As a NY Democrat I have experienced how Hillary operates, and I don't like it much. Here in the Hudson Valley, a large multinational corporation wanted to replace a small cement plant with a huge one. The environmental impact would have been very damaging to the river and the air (already among the worst in the nation). Activists here pleaded with her for years to come out against the plant (it would have added one net new job), but she never did. Then, when local pressure forced the corporation to abandon their plans, she came in and tried to take credit. It's not that she's a woman; it's that she's a polarizer, just like Bill, and that she has no more vision of where we should go than Bill did in '92, which is why we have W now. We need someone who will not set almost 50% of the people against her automatically, but also someone who not only has a vision of something beyond slice and dice factional politics, but who is comfortable with bottom up organizing and political action: in other words, Obama. My wife, very much a feminist, a novelist (known for The Passion of Mary Magdalen), really wanted to vote for Hillary because "she looks like and sounds like me," but in the end she couldn't because of Hillary's polarizing persona and triangulating political history. And finally, because what's most important right now is to defeat the Republicans and undo the terrible damage W (and Bill and HW and Reagan) have done to this country, and Hillary is unlikely to win, since so many hate her, not just because she's a woman but because she's a Clinton. There is one other reason I'm against Hillary; it's called dynastic politics. Why must we have a succession of Bushes and Clintons? by Douglas Smyth (27 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 90 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:49:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Get Serious
Normally, I wouldn't comment here since I'm not a US citizen and don't have much time to get into debates on sites like this, as interesting as that might be. And normally I find Rob Kall's articles quite interesting and reasoned--until this one. Hillary Wal-Mart Clinton a victim? Is this the same Hillary who I have read sat on a senior advisory board for the union-busting child-labour-supporting, consumer-gouging, community-wrecking, predatory-pricing tyranny? The same Hillary who has supported just about every major horror-story initiative of the Bush Administration (including the Patriot Act, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, sponsoring terror groups, bailing out huge corporations, tax breaks for the wealthy elite, gutting funding for public education, sticking up for price-gouging by pharmaceutical bosses, etc.)? That Hillary? Sorry, Brother Kall. But this type of bourgeois liberal guilt is something I would not expect from you. So Hillary is getting a run for her money (and she seems to have lots of it--mainly from corporations) from the other sad case Barak Obama. Is she a victim because she didn't get crowned like a princess? So she's once again talking about national health care. So what? Talk is about all that is, just like before. As someone who is from a country where we had to fight like hell to win universal quality public health care (and is slowly losing it due to multinational corporate pressure and their political puppets here), I can say for sure that in order to do this in the US, you need to take on, and eventually take down, the tyrannical private insurance and HMO and big pharma lobbies.That's not going to come from Hillary, who apparently has been taking more than a couple dollars from these same lobbies and elites. Come on! You got better things to write about than this type of pap. The only time Hillary seems to care about the welfare of working class American women is when she looks down to see what she's stepping on. I think I should retreat back across the border where we got more than enough problems to solve. But just in closing, it looks like it will be McCain for the Republicans and Hillary for the Democrats and regardless who wins, not much will change—and that will be really sad, not just for the US, but most of the world. by Steppenwolf (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:50:31 AM (0+)
|
|
It's time for the feminine be reawakened
I believe Hillary mentioned a right wing conspiracy against them and even that in a very Rovian way was used to ridicule her. However it is true big money was directed against the Clinton Presidency from the beginning unrelentingly until it's end. Hillary's advocacy on issues was used as a weapon again her and her husband from the beginning. The excessive impeachment process stands on it's own as totally inappropriate to the situation and destructive to their ability to serve the interests of our country and it should not be said to be their fault unless you believe in blaming the victims. by shylove (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:40:09 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
