What role has sexism played in the race for the Democratic nomination? Hillary Clinton answered that seething question herself in late May, telling the Washington Post that the press turned a blind eye to the “incredible vitriol that has been engendered … by people who are nothing but misogynists.” Her most avid supporters are clearly aggrieved by what they see as… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (9)Page 1 of 1 pagesTo the extent that some feminists want to make women man hating humorless people (the all sex is rape crowd, for instance), one cannot really feel much sympathy. Of course, these are the fringes, but some of their philosophy sadly bleeds into the mainstream (just as some fringe elements of radical Christianity bleed into that mainstream).
I think women should delight in their femininity, just as men should delight in their masculinity. Both are wonderful things, and when the come together just right - well then, that is one of the many things that make life worth living. And just as men can be masculine when staying at home raising children, women can be feminine running a country or a business. One need not throw out pieces of oneself in order to do what they desire.
But lets just admit - if a woman shows cleavage, men are going to notice and look (as are women, for that matter). Men are visual creatures and many love the way that attractive women look. To pretend otherwise is just silly (even for presidential candidates).
Posted by wolf on Jun 10, 2008 at 3:11 PM Why is it I have trouble finding sympathy for Hillary or Michelle (or Susan)?
Perhaps it is because on their worst day they are so much better off than 99% of the world’s people — of either sex.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM whattheheck said:
> Why is it I have trouble finding sympathy for Hillary or Michelle (or Susan)?
>
> Perhaps it is because on their worst day they are so much better off than 99% of the world’s people — of either sex.In other words, it’s pointless to combat gender oppression when there’s class oppression? I find this point of view very narrow-minded.
Senator Clinton is by no means a pitiful, helpless victim, but that does not excuse her sexist treatment by the media.
Posted by closeparen on Jun 11, 2008 at 6:17 AM closeparen,
Hillary, like Bill, is quick to claim being treated unfairly. Remember the Great Rightwing Conspiracy? Poor Bill. Poor Hilllary.
(When it comes to truth and fairness, I guess it depends on what is, IS.)
If you want to play with the big kids — don’t whine.
The best women in high and influential positions haven’t used the gender card.
Picture Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Maiden) or Joan of Arc crying, “They aren’t treating me fair!”
Too narrow a point of view when thing of broads? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 11, 2008 at 3:33 PM I have no sympathy for the estrogen or melanin arguments that have dominated the Dimocratic campaign to date. Who cares? But I cannot help but note that the Soros interests have hijacked the political process in order to promote their candidate Obama.
How else could a nobody from nowhere suddenly become an international phenomenon with millions of dollars of political backing?
Hillary may not have been the ideal candidate because of her baggage, but how does Obama, with no baggage, or resume, or history, suddenly spring from nowhere?
I don’t suppose even-handedness is a realistic possibility, much less a realistic ideal, in poitics, but this is ridiculous.
Posted by scorp on Jun 12, 2008 at 2:05 AM You asked:
“Hillary may not have been the ideal candidate because of her baggage, but how does Obama, with no baggage, or resume, or history, suddenly spring from nowhere?”Lots of charisma, a well built political machine and lots and lots of very small donors. Hell, as an outsider he is just fulfilling the national dream that anyone (anyone smart, personable and with loads of charisma anyway) can become president. Also due to the current administration, a desire for an outsider is at peak levels (certainly the current occupant is the worst since Carter, and arguably even worse than him). His vote against the war in Iraq was clearly also key.
(Frankly if HRC got the nod, it would be more amazing to me. Her resume is that of the first lady or Arkansas and the US. While she is very bright, she is not good with people and has a very limited resume. She very well might have been just as divisive as a figure as our current occupant.)
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——-
**********************************************************
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;——-
Scorp asks: “You think charisma is a good quality in political candidates?”It depends on what is done with the charisma. JFK launched the space program which i do think was an excellent use of charisma. If Obama launches a green energy independence program, that would be an excellent use of charisma.
In any case, i am very confident that either Obama or McCain will be a huge improvement over the current administration. Note the GW, a son of privilege, never had even the slightest intellectual curiosity to visit other countries! He might have been an adequate president, if not for 911, when his presidency was essentially hijacked by Wolfiwitz and Chaney (among others). Even then, if he had the intellectual wherewithal to wonder what would happen after the war, his presidency might have been savalved. Sadly, his administration has been a disaster, both domestically and abroad.
In any case, it appears to me that you underestimate Obama. Which very well might be a common theme in this election. It puts you in the company of HRC, among other things. :)
Posted by wolf on Jun 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM “...how does Obama, with no baggage, or resume, or history, suddenly spring from nowhere?”
Just to expand a bit on Wolf’s comments, I would add he got to the U.S. Senate and now to the run for the White House largely because of the weak competition he has faced. With Alan Keyes as the alternative, Obama got my vote.
I am an old line conservative (I want someone who knows and adheres to the goals of the preamble to the US Constitution.) and it has been far too long since I had anyone I really wanted to vote FOR.
In addition there are so many people without jobs or working at jobs of lower quality than they once had, so many without benefits and so many who are now trapped by the subprime real estate market, that Obama has found the magic word, “CHANGE.”
In a very general way this is how Hitler was able to rally a nation behind him. Not saying Obama is a Hitler, but he has a gift for identifying problems. Much of what he offers as a fix is without substance, but he happened along at a time which favors a speaker who is able to instill hope.
FDR did a similar thing when following Hoover who thought it was not the business of government to solve financial problems.
As “compared to what” is once gain a major factor. With the low ratings of W a lot of folks could shine.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 12, 2008 at 6:53 PM Wolf -
You think charisma is a good quality in political candidates? Perhaps charisma is a good quality in con artists and used car salesmen, but it is not a good quality in political candidates.
JFK had charisma and lied about the missile gap, and had little else to recommend him, and he still needed his father’s money to steal the 1960 election in Chicago. The results were near catastrophic. Krushchev and Kennedy had a summit, and Krushchev decided that Kennedy was weak and irresolute, which led directly to the Cuban missile crisis when we almost got involved in a nuclear war.
Obama justifies his decision to talk to Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and various thugs and criminals based on Kennedy and others, but Obama is twice the fool that Kennedy ever was.
Now Kennedy, faced with nuclear destruction, somehow grew a modicum of a backbone, but Obama has the backbone of a nematode. Witness his quick discard of political distractions: Ayres and Dohrn, the terrorist who supported his initial rise in (corrupt) Chicago political circles, Williams and Pfleger, the racist demagogues who were his spiritual mentors (and recipients of Obama’s political largesse), and Rezko, the convicted felon who raised oodles of money for Obama’s political campaigns and real estate ventures. Bonus points: can you name a single long-time Obama associate that is not criminal, corrupt, or racist? I think not.
And then there is Jim Johnson, the corrupt insider who was in charge of selecting Obama’s Vice-President. McGovern’s first VP choice was Thomas Eagleton, who was not properly vetted and who turned out to have psychiatric problems. Now we have a VP selection and vetting process led by the corrupt (Johnson and Holder) and the irrelevant (Caroline Kennedy!?!)? Are the Dims nucking futz?
The “well-built political machine” you refer to is not Obama’s, but Soros’. The “lots and lots of very small donors” are bundled money from ACORN and Code Pink, Soros’ corrupt and criminal tools.
The current Dimocratic campaign is rapidly disintegrating into a typical Dimocratic circle jerk. I do not like John McCain as a presidential candidate, but the election is rapidly developing into another “deus ex-machina” scenario where the American electorate comes out of the quagmire smelling like a rose, and the Dims just smell.
Posted by scorp on Jun 12, 2008 at 8:00 PM Scorp,
Your mention of the JFK charisma edge in 1960 reminded me of this: We went to the Museum of Broadcast History in Chicago a few years ago where they played the first Kennedy/Nixon TV debate. I remarked to my two boys that in listening to it (even after Watergate) I would still vote once again for Nixon. Kennedy had absolutely no solid issues, just innuendoes and suppositions.
There was a plaque at the theater exit stating in 1960 those who heard the debate on radio favored Nixon and those who watched were for Kennedy.
We need, now more than ever, to listen critically to what is said and decide if it is just sweet talk. The shear volume of information, data and polling thrown at us dulls the senses.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 12, 2008 at 8:47 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
