Assaulted or Unassaulted?
Sure, there'll be Hillary nutcrackers. But I prefer to think that such an election year novelty speaks more to her Olympian quads than the assumption she would subjugate all men, geld them in a secret ceremony (tastefully lit with tuber rose-scented Jo Malone candles) and lead them around in studded dog collars like moist, smoothly complected capons.
I mean, it's not like there would ever be similarly outrageous paraphernalia that inanely caricatures Obama, right? After all, there's been so little of that kind of thing over the years. But lately Hillary's fiercely loyal base insists that her negative treatment has been due to the fact -- and only due to the fact that: she's a lady, whoa-whoa-whoa, she's a lady.
The truth is, her gender was and is helpful in her rise, but not as much as her intelligence and ability. And it should be an asset when 110% of the world is run by men. She, along with millions of women, has had to work much harder than her male counterparts to make it, to achieve anything approaching parity. There is rampant, maddening sexism. But Hillary's latest claims are simply not credible and in fact go a long way to diluting the scourge of daily, routine oppression against women. It is her sophisticated feminine talents, her truly advanced power of reason that propels her to her rightfully earned heights. If nothing else, during the episode involving Bill's legendary satyriasis, Hillary was far more understanding and/or forgiving than perhaps a marital partner of the opposite sex would be and effectively put to rest any insinuation that she'd be an unholy, testicle-mashing harridan. Bill had to be grateful for his wife's strength and wisdom. All men are. They are also, however, scared shitless.
Men, with their incessant chest-thumping; their insatiable, sloppy libidos; their back hair; their gas; their drool. Men, with their vein-popping, hyper-competetiveness, their Saturday afternoon scrums around the plasma watching ESPN and "300" and guzzling Red Bull and pork rinds, all because their days of trampling villages with severed heads on wrought iron pikes are gone. And though the hunter gatherer lies a-mouldering in the grave, men nonetheless require ersatz prey for their perpetually cocked shafts.
Wow. I just soiled myself.
What has effectively killed the enthusiasm for her as the possible President of the Re-United States is not the fact that she lacks a Y chromosome. Rather, it is her use of tactics culled from the pages of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for Dummies, her not-so-subtle pressing of buttons calculated to catalyze knee-jerk responses from the sea of supposedly loyal Democrats but who seem to be nothing more than cultural automatons ready for a shiny penny to be slid into their slots, apparently as vitriolic as the Repuglican somnambulists that made Hillary's life a misery and whom they so rightfully despise.
But like the attacks on Obama that highlight his scary sounding middle name or his scary sounding pastor or his scary sounding wife (and she's a WOMAN!!!!) categorizing Hillary as a victim of sexism shows there is nothing else to be said that cogently criticizes her qualifications, nothing of any substance that is assailable. Like all the bloody invective launched at Obama, the Hillary nutcracker exists because her actual ideas are unimpeachable. That she is using those low-brow tactics herself, or that her surrogates accuse the media (inarguably culpable for much that is low-brow and divisive) it is the fact that she is cannibalizing her own integrity by invoking sexism as a ploy to get herself elected that indicates her unsuitability as a genuine force for change.
So, it's not the gender, stupid. You'd have to be nuts to think so.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Regarding the issue of whether Hillary has benefitted as a result of her gender (or for that matter, whether Barack has benefitted because of his race), the question I' always return to is whether we are naive enough to think that race and gender wasn't an issue in choosing the previous 43 presidents? Clearly all the other presidents have been white males, 38 of the 42 have even had anglo-saxon names. During the previous elections, are we saying the race and gender of these men didn't matter? Now, suddenly, in 2008, women and minorities have an unfair advantage over poor, downtrodden, victiminized white males like me? That's ludicrous. After all, the status quo is the status quo is the status quo.
To suggest that both Clinton and Obama have suddenly benefitted from being a woman or being a racial minority clearly has absolutely no historical precedent whatsoever. Frankly, it should be considered an affront to the skills, intelligence and educational achievements of two very extraordinary individuals, both of whom have fought hard for their party's nomination. It also is an affront to the history-making campaigns both of them have run. Regardless of the outcome in November, because of these two very impressive people, America will never be the same: we finally have reached to point where, yes, anyone can become president, regardless of race or gender. We're finally growing up and realizing our full potential as a nation and how absolutely unique we are in the world.
"The truth is, her gender was and is helpful in her rise, but not as much as her intelligence and ability. And it should be an asset when 110% of the world is run by men. She, along with millions of women, has had to work much harder than her male counterparts to make it, to achieve anything approaching parity. "
????
Hillary Clinton owes everything to her gender; a man with her CV wouldn't have been taken seriously as a candidate at all.
I'll give you that one.
Any man who had been married to a philandering 2-term President would have "issues" for most of the country.
Hillary Clinton has one problem and one problem only;
SHE WANTS THE JOB TOO MUCH!
She is willing to do ANYTHING, no matter how low, to get elected.
That is why she is not qualified for the position, and why SHE LOST the nomination.
Get over it.
Her gender "was, and is, helpful in her rise"? Please. Her gender was indispensable to her rise. Without it, she couldn't have become First Lady, could she? And without that would she have become anything other than a another very successful, conniving corporate lawyer?
That's Hillary alright.
Of course there is ignorant or insulting gender stereotyping in some of the anti-Hillary attacks. Of course there are voters out there who wouldn't vote for her or any other female candidate under any circumstances. But I remember a time not so long ago when the idea of a serious female candidate for any public office higher than, perhaps, mayor of a small town would have been treated as so preposterous and against the natural order of things that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. For all the talk of antifeminist backlash, there has been a profound change in how women are treated in American society and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Bravo! Very Well Said. Thank You!
>Hillary's latest claims are simply not credible and in fact go a long way to diluting the scourge of daily, routine oppression against women.<
And that is quite probably the worst effect of Hillary's cause. As a role model for young women (and men) in the area of gender bias and its handling, Clinton has shown herself to be a negative. Sure, there will always be the "Iron my shirt" idiots out there, but the way to handle them is by doing your best while maintaining your dignity and sense of self--losing with the same graciousness with which you win. Can Hillary call up an army of women who've been treated unfairly to fight for her? Sure she can. Is she in turn victimizing them by manipulating their anger and sense of sisterhood? Yes, she is.
There's no getting around it. Gender and what we call race are an important factor among many Americans in this current presidential campaign. But did you know, there are more people out there that won't vote for a woman than then there are who won't vote for a Negro.
Sadly enough, the differences between the candidates don't seem to play a role anymore in reporting this campaign. While both candidates agree on many points domestically that are standard democratic positions there is a big difference between them on health reform. And in foreign policies there are also some differences especially Iran. Obama speaks of change. Hillary counts on her experience. But these differences seem to be no longer important.
By repeating the claim that Hillary Clinton is too Republican in her thinking and actions (Bush and Cheney Lite) and to say that is the main reason people are switching to Obama shows only one thing. You're attempting to deny or at worst accept the hatred fostered by sexism being shown against Clinton. With such hatred it is easy to convince people to believe in something negative against her. There are more than enough examples out there that pass off as political commentary exposing the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.
I'd like to leave you with this advice on sexism...
"If we would only stop thinking that women have the secret to the universe then perhaps we could get along with another."
I completely disagree. The way this whole thing has evolved, valid criticism and disagreement with Hillary's votes, her positions and political affiliations is Sexism. There can be no other reason for not supporting her. Hillary could make one of her campaign platforms killing kittens and eating them for breakfast but if you disagree, you're a sexist. Weber is dead on with that.
I am a 42 year old woman,liberal/progressive feminist that has fought sexism my whole life.....I just do not agree with her positions, her votes and her political affiliations - especially the DLC which were huge proponents of invading Iraq and capitulating to Republicans. But I have been called a sexist and a traitor because I don't support Hillary because we're both women.
Calling everything and anything sexist when it's non-sexist valid criticism dilutes what really constitutes sexism. Bullying other women into voting for someone who they do not agree with politically for the sake of gender is sexist on it's face.
I'll leave you with some advice. Feminism is about equality, not superiority. If Condi Rice was the Republican nominee, I wouldn't vote for her either.
That is exactly how I think too. I cannot vote for a woman who voted for the war in Iraq and Iran. I also do not think that Hillary is a good role model. Stand by my man when he is humiliating her publicly over decades and getting positios because you are married to a powerful man, is not my idea of a powerful woman. I know, that this is the way the world works, but I do not have to be for it.
Spot on. The only person taking advantage of sexism for her own benefit is Hillary; the rest of us have no need to stoop so low because she is destroying her own brand, yet we suffer the excoriation of her followers because the only way Hillary can keep them from seeing how unfit she is to be our president is by pretending all the evidence against her is merely a product of sexist pigs out to get her.
You just hit the nail on head !!!! Is the "poor me" and everybody stops thinking.
How this woman can or at least plan to fix the financial situation of the country, if she started as a number one on a list, with the most money, highest donations and her campagine is always in debt???
How can she claim to be "for a small businesses and poor people" and at the same time not pay them for feeding her people on a road???
But, she is a woman, and there are planty of other women who would like to "see a woman in WH in their lifetime".... God I am sick and tired to hear this ....
So you would vote for someone, who is going to if not destroy more, do nothing about improving the domestic and international situation, just so you can "see a Woman in Withe House in Your Lifetime". Why don't you concentrate to live longer??? instate to vote selfishly to ruin fututre of your kids and grandkids....
When she is president will she use her own money to keep the country going the same way she used it to keep her campaign going?
She was entrusted with the people's money during her campaign and she blew it.
What will she do with the people's money when she is president?
Her supporters should take a deep breath and take a serious look at how she conducts business because the financial health of the nation is at stake.
Choosing someone for their gender is the most asinine way too choose a leader.
Their brains and their capability should be the deciding factors.
Not how slick and wily and divisive and arrogant and untruthful they are.
One thing McClelland's book does, in fact, indicate is that there was (and probably still is) a vast right wing conspiracy.
You are absolutely correct, that's is the exact problem with Hillary Clinton, she is completely inconsistent on that point, she has chose to attack Senator Obama, instead of the bad guys... I mean really what's up with that? She's one of the insiders that's why.
She was intend as a spoiler from the day before she entered the Presidential race, that a fact, make no mistake about it.
"That she is using those low-brow tactics herself, or that her surrogates accuse the media (inarguably culpable for much that is low-brow and divisive) it is the fact that she is cannibalizing her own integrity by invoking sexism as a ploy to get herself elected that indicates her unsuitability as a genuine force for change.
So, it's not the gender, stupid. You'd have to be nuts to think so."
Beautifully written.
Racism and sexism are present in this primary and neither side is void of blame for that.
The best way to see who the instigator of it is to look at who benefits from it and on both accounts that is the Obama campaign. He is as decent a man you'll find from those insane few who want to be President but the campaigns want to win by any means necessary. The first time the race card came into play was after NH when the press said Hillary only won because of racism. Then Hillary made comments about Johnson passing the civil rights act (because she was making a point about the powers of the presidency) yet failed to mention the huge role MLK had in the act and Obama surrogates ranaway with manipulating her intent. They new they were heading into primaries where they needed to win over large AfricanAmerican voting blocks, like SC, and pressed the story relentlessly to paint Hillary as out of touch with and disrespectful to AfricanAmericans.
In terms of sexism you can refer to my previous post.
The Clinton campaign is not short on questionable tactics but we hear about them plenty on this site. The thing that just kills me is that they both play dirty but nobody will call Obama out on it. The Clintons take the role they have for many years now, great public servants who end up being the punching bag for everyone including those in their own party.
Good call, Steven. Hillary is an un-assaulted, but highly roasted nut. And her other half is just a shell of his former, raw self.
Hillary, you can't be a victim and a bully at the same time!
Exactly. Hillary wants it both ways like many women; a bully and a victim. How about just being a grown up?
Independent for Obama '08
Hillary Clinton has used her gender for advantage far more than any discrimination it has caused her. Her entrance to the political scene came as the wife of an Arkansas Governor who became the President of the United States. Prior to moving to New York as a precedent to running for a U.S. Senate seat that was to soon be vacant, her only political claims were garned though her marriage, not through public election.
The time in this primary for everyone to stop giving Mrs. Clinton a free pass for all that has occured in her life, private and profesional, has long passed. She needs to be evaluated on her merits and how she was able to obtain the ability to accomplish them. Playing the sexist card goes both ways: Hillary can continue to claim bias towards her gender, but in doing so she fails to realize that were she not a woman married to a man who was once the most powerful in American Politics, it is highly unlikely she would have ever attained elected office.
As much as it grieves me to say this, your comments are, I think, exactly right. As a woman of more than "a certain age" I wanted to be able to support Senator Clinton...but I found that the longer her campaign went on, and the more she dissembled, and the nastier she permitted her spokespeople to be, the further from her I became.
At this point she is, in my mind anyway, not worthy of the Presidency, not worthy of the faith so many women of my generation wanted to place in her, and not worthy of the passionate defenses of her unsuitable behavior.
She has become a political charicature and an embarrassment. And in her willingness to rip the Democratic Party apart in quest of her personal goals, she has shown herself to be self-centered beyond all morality.
This "Sexism" claim is dangerous, but TOTALLY unfounded. It's POLITICS. It hit's a nerve with women. It's designed to make women say "YEAH THEY'RE PUSHING HER AROUND BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMEN". With emotions running high everybody immediately forget what really went wrong, and when. There will be plenty of books that will lay it out clearly what happened. My humble suggestion is this, don't get caught up in believing that Senator Clinton really believes that Sexism is the reason for this outcome. Because she does not. Remember a drowning man will grab the end of a sword. If she was a women with blue skin she would be claiming "Blueism". What needs to happen now is that we all come together behind Senator Obama so we can defeat Pops in November. If not we'll all be crying come January.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
