General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsgateley
(62,683 posts)progressoid
(49,969 posts)AnneD
(15,774 posts)I scored high in science, history, and creative subjects like art, writing.
They kept trying to place me in home ec and typing. College was no better. This was in the early 70's.
Women such as myself ended up in the only option afforded us at the time: teaching, secretarial, or nursing. It changed shortly after that and if I had to do it all over again, I would not be a Nurse but would have gone into business or engineering.
We are all better off when people are allowed to be true to themselves and utilize the gifts God gave them.
AAO
(3,300 posts)LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)barriers to their futures were huge. Imagine all of the bright women who turned away from something possible into something predictable.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Run Hillary, run and win!
calimary
(81,197 posts)Glad you're here! I couldn't agree more. I hope she runs, 'cause she'll get my vote. I can't think of anyone more fit and ready and qualified to break that last glass ceiling - as the first WOMAN President!
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It is up to her. But if she wants it, I know a good many people who will cheer!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)calimary
(81,197 posts)And frankly, the appellation "Madame President" sounds kinda nice too. And it fits her WELL!
I WANT the sharpest knife in the drawer to be president! I WANT someone with killer brains and powerful intellect as the Problem-Solver-in-Chief. Not some snickering dumb-ass or entitled "it's OUR turn now" dilettantes.
She'd be fabulous, I think! And I'd be utterly delighted, thrilled, and honored to vote for her!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Love this OP.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)there are no more "we landed under sniper fire" moments...Those kind of comments (LIES) can wreck a campaign & that would suck to lose over something like that. However, I do think she would be an extremely strong POTUS who I am sure would bring the hammer down on the GOP!
UrbScotty
(23,980 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to say nice things about a great many rather unsavory people, governments and practices. In that office, Thomas Jefferson even had to be polite regarding the French revolutionary government during the reign of terror. Do you think that was really his personal opinion? Hillary has not made fortunes by shipping jobs overseas, like Mitt Romney did, and what she will do about free trade agreements when she becomes President is yet to be seen.
antigop
(12,778 posts)increase in h1-b visas.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)However, I will not join you in "Clinton bashing."
antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)
Still I think that kind of comment is what the office she currently holds requires of her.
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)with John Cornyn.
And perhaps you need to read up on the DLC.
btw, Hillary never stated, exactly, what engineers and IT people are supposed to train for after their jobs get outsourced?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There is nothing wrong with being a good friend to India. That nation can be an important ally for the U.S. in South Asia. Letting our billionaires ship American jobs there is another matter entirely. And on that latter point I could not agree with you more.
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)You think Hillary would be different? (I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96 and Gore in 2000.)
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)That President Clinton left office more than a decade ago. The times have changed, and we now know much more about the harm unregulated "Free Trade" can do to people who need jobs in this country. Do you think Hillary Clinton is incapable of change as well? Perhaps she will have something very different to say on that subject as soon as she is no longer Secretary of State and can truly speak for herself. Let's wait and see, shall we?
antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't dismiss Hillary until we see what kind of a beast the Republicans decide to run against her. She may well start looking damn good to you in about three years from now.
antigop
(12,778 posts)As if she will be the nominee -- there is no one else.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We will have to wait and see.
antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Feel free to empty out your purse again whenever the need strikes you.
antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If you can't vote for Hillary Clinton, then don't vote for Hillary Clinton. She'll do just fine without you.
antigop
(12,778 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't try to be coy.
antigop
(12,778 posts)It worked so well in 2008.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You have nothing more to say, so see you later.
antigop
(12,778 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Back then a black President, women astronauts and a female SoS were unthinkable.
Progress is a good thing.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Permanut
(5,598 posts)This is way too cool. K & R
JI7
(89,244 posts)if she still wanted to be an astronaut i'm pretty sure she would have been.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I know that there's supposed to be some message there, but I don't get it. Is it:
1. Girls shouldn't try to do what men tell them they can't do, but it's ok, because they can do other things!
2. Girls can't be astronauts, no matter what history might tell you. Facts, schmacts.
3. As a child, Clinton was interested in being both an Astronaut and Secretary of State (and maybe other things too?).
Seriously, I'm at a loss with this one.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Nothing too unusual about that sort of thing. Just about any episode of Gomer Pyle or Prince of Bel Air, or any other TV show, can be described that way.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)that a lot of what's in that grab bag is pretty negative... or maybe I just don't get it.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Girls were not supposed to aspire to be astronauts, and I believe it that females were not even allowed into the space program until fairly recently (I don't actually know the specifics in terms of which year official rules were in place, etc. but it is believable).
Girls who said they wanted to be scientists were corrected, and were told to instead dream of becoming nurses. That's just something that happened as an everyday occurrence.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)but Clinton was already a teenager when the first person went into space. It's not like she was some naive little girl. She was in her 20's when the first person went to the moon, and even younger when the first woman (Russian) went to space. She's only four years older than Sally Ride.
Now I'm thinking the point may just be that someone thinks NASA used to be full of assholes or something - but all of that changed for someone only four years younger than Clinton.
Or maybe it means that if she were born in Russia she would have been a cosmonaut, because they didn't have problems with things like that.
*sigh*
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)would never be a female pilot of an Air Force plane. I'm one year younger than Hillary Clinton. I was 19 and attempted to join the AF ROTC at Ohio State University. They actually laughed and told me to go join 'Angel Flight'.
http://afrotc.com/learn-about/history/
As you can see from the above link, the Air Force denied women's entry into their cadet progam until 1969/1970. NASA began hiring women for the Johnson Space Center in 1977, when there were 6 out of 4,000 employees. Sally Ride didn't get to space until 1983, 20 years after the Russians.
You seem to believe that there wasn't a time in this country when women were denied opportunities or that those barriers came down within a matter of years or months. Maybe, you just had to have been female and to have been there.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Of course there is still terrible discrimination against women - I'm not kidding myself about that.
What I'm not getting is this Secretary of State/astronaut dichotomy. There wasn't a female Secretary of State until her husband was president.
I'm just saying that I think the post is absurd... I don't get the point of it. I really, really don't. Seriously, the first message I get from it is "Listen to what people say. If they say you can't be an astronaut, you can't, kid. Now fuck off. Just do something else." I mean, what on earth is the connection between Clinton and NASA?! I would get it if the little graphic said she'd written to the White House as a child because she wanted to be Secretary of State and they told her that women couldn't do that... but, as is, how is this about anything?
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)that disappointment and went on to become SOS, almost an equal accomplishment to becoming an astronaunt. It's a wonderful, inspiring thing for little girls to know.
whopis01
(3,508 posts)When Hillary Clinton was a child, girls (and women) were told that they were not able to be a great many things (astronauts being one example).
Today Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State, one of the highest positions of leadership in our government. Something that would have been as unimaginable a position for a woman when she was a child as a woman becoming an astronaut.
The change from then to now is due, in no small part, to the efforts of women like Hillary Clinton.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)She wasn't the first female astronaut, Senator, Secretary of State, etc.
What's inspirational about that?
whopis01
(3,508 posts)to achieve something? Do you feel that the second person to do something hasn't really made any achievement?
If so, then I understand your point.
It's simply a story about a young girl who was told what she could not do because of her gender who went on to do amazing things.
Yes, you can look at this and say "oh she didn't follow her goal of becoming an astronaut. This is a story of failing to achieve one's goals". Or you could say "oh she wasn't the first to that. This is a story of someone who just follows the path others lay down".
Or you could look at it and say "Here was a young girl who was told there were things she couldn't do because of her gender. And now, she has become the third woman to hold the position of Secretary of State. And thanks to the lifetimes of work by women like her we now have had not our first, not even our second, but our third female Secretary of State. What a change they have made in our society that such an event has become practically commonplace".
I suppose that like beauty, inspiration is in the eye of the beholder.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT OF THIS GRAPHIC?!?!
I'm sure there are many successful women that were told they couldn't do a bunch of shit that they didn't fucking do but then did other things while women who weren't them also did the shit they were told they couldn't do.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)on what our society has formally and informally dictated to women (and men also, for that matter) what careers they should pursue.
There are also other subplots in this message that you can take in, similar to an episode of any tv show. No need to be so dense about it! Edit to add: it's not rocket science.
whopis01
(3,508 posts)There is apparently something offensive to you about it that I just don't get.
To be honest, I was shocked at the anger in your last response. If there was something that upsetting in what I wrote, I apologize and ask that you please understand that there was no intention on my part to upset you so much.
I am not trying to convince you to feel any different about it. I only responded to your post because I thought you were trying to understand what others saw in the image and story.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I'm just sick of little graphics like this on the internet taking the place of substantial content. I just found this one to be poorly executed, because I really don't think it sends a positive message unless one is preconditioned to read it as such, which then makes me think it's completely ineffective.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I know girls mature faster but it's kind of eerie.
hamsterjill
(15,220 posts)I love it. Go, Hillary. Somehow, I don't think she's finished yet. I'm anxiously awaiting her next accomplishments.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)but the powers that be freaked about that and decided only air force pilots could be astronauts. Since only men were air force pilots at that time, that neatly excluded women, and gave them the 'proper' astronauts they wanted, rather than those best qualified.... I wish I could remember where I read that.
EC
(12,287 posts)to change that.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)when we'd just watched a science film that detailed how difficult it was to find astronauts because they had to be such small men.
I asked "so why don't they use women?"
You can always tell when a conventional thinker is rebooting...
Bette Noir
(3,581 posts)I wrote to an astronaut when I was about 7, which would make it about 10 years after Ms. Clinton's letter. I got a nice letter back telling me to study science and math, and wishing me well.