General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSexism for the win! Could prejudice bring it home for Hillary Clinton in 2016?
Its been six years since a heckler yelled Iron my shirt! at a Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign event shortly before the New Hampshire primary. Since MSNBCs Chris Matthews called Clinton Nurse Ratched and commented on her cackle. And since a guest on Bill OReillys Fox News show lamented that a female president would be undermined by PMS and mood swings.
If Clinton runs again, its doubtful that well see the same level of sexist vitriol against her. And that makes me, well, a little sad. If the misogyny flows as freely in 2016 as it did during Clintons first presidential run, the Republicans are doomed. Theyre already in trouble with female voters, and it wouldnt take much to erode that standing further. So bring on the Todd Akins, the lifes a bitch, dont vote for one T-shirts, the knee-jerk Hillary haters. This time around, it will only make her stronger.
The world of gender politics has changed in the past six years. The sexist swipes that were normal then wont fly in a post-war on women culture. Feminism has hit a tipping point. Stories such as the rape in Steubenville, Ohio, or Mike Huckabees comments on womens libido and Uncle Sugar previously went unremarked outside of feminist circles; now, theyre up for widespread public debate.
This month, Time featured a story on Clintons possible 2016 run, with Clinton represented on the magazines cover as a giant high heel trampling a tiny man. Can Anyone Stop Hillary? the headline asked. The image, which played on old stereotypes reducing women to shoes and clothes, elicited some outrage but also much collective eye-rolling, because it felt like a throwback to another era. Slates Amanda Hess called it sexist and hacky; the Huffington Post and Marie Claire also denounced it. Mommy blogs got mad, too. Why, when were talking about a professional, powerful woman, Maria Guidoasked on Mommyish.com, do we oftentimes default to an image of her trampling over men to get to the top? .?.?. Women read your magazine, you realize this, right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sexism-for-the-win-could-prejudice-bring-it-home-for-hillary-clinton-in-2016/2014/01/24/ee61eb00-8450-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Sexism just spews involuntarily out of their mouths, so yeah I think it will be a huge factor.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who try to make Americans think that Clinton and Warren are locked in an eternal catfight..when they are not.
All done at the behest of the RW...because the idea of a Pelosi/Warren/Clinton/Sotomayor power block gives them diarrhea.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)I think it's just plain old sexism. It's a wink nod in progressive circles.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is definite RW.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)One of you sees opposition to a Hillary nomination and thinks "Left wing trolls!", while the other sees the same opposition and thinks "sexism!".
Perhaps there are people who oppose Hillary for reasons of their own, not because they are acting on behalf of RWers, nor because they just dislike women. Maybe, just MAYBE, some folks just don't care for her politics.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I sometimes get the message that if one is against Hillary and her policies that you are a sexist, regardless of her lying and taking money from wall street and all the other Provable and Real history of not so good things.
One of the vids I put up of Hillary that to me defines her inability to be Leader is this one which I will post here, with the word Cackle in it as I know it is a word assigned to women to denigrate them.
That does not mean I condone that word, I don't, and it does not mean I am sexist. I simply cannot edit the youtube video title, and that does not make the whole video a fake. It is real, and this is how she handles pressure and surprise, I don't think that is a good quality for a President.
This is a serious question about the serious problem of money and influence and conflicts of interest. It is a legitimate concern for all, or should be. But she can't answer it without falling apart - which should tell us a lot.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and the big ugly question about conflict of interest and Money.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)One being sexist bullshit. The other being policy differences.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)in that sexist way is horrible. It's horrible for Hillary and horrible for any woman who is the target of such ignorance and hate, including the Ann Coulters and the Sarah Palins.
But one day we should be able to actually talk about Hillary's policies and her past decisions, and why people loyal to her can overlook some of these things
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Same thing, but this time about Hillary.... I prefer to keep the two separate and speak out about sexism, and can accept disagreemant and agree with other criticisms.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Why the fuck does everything boil down to racism, haters, sexism,...... When we comment about 3rd way policies. The labeling around here is getting worse.
-p
boston bean
(36,220 posts)If you prefer to not comment on that and instead be silent about it, that is your prerogative.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)-p
boston bean
(36,220 posts)I was commenting on the fact that the article was about blatant sexism, not policy differences.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Policy is what we have to live with.
-p
boston bean
(36,220 posts)No policy, just more shit for us to complain at each other about.
Sorry, I've been physically, verbally, emotionally abused starting at 3, I have bad PTSD as an adult that I have to take medication for daily.
Does anyone care about that? Did I get any help? No?
Welcome to life.
All this is low hanging fruit.
-p
Response to boston bean (Reply #10)
joshcryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I couldn't have said it better.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)biggest Clinton fan, but I agree. Outside of DU circles, there is no beef between Clinton and Warren. Most people understand that they both ultimately want to achieve many progressive goals, and they are both deeply hated by the Right.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)could you please supply an example?
-p
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If you go to the handy, helpful right hand corner on top of your screen... and Google your username, along with the search terms "Clinton" and "Warren" you may decide for yourself.
http://m.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)None of it was about leaving women out of politics. I prefer Warren over Clinton's when it comes to politics. Since Warren is not available I'm searching for a non 3rd way option.
Sue me.
-p
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)They will pull the sexism card on Clinton.
And who cares, I say, she'll have a Regan-esque victory. Should even be able to pull in Texas if she picks Julian Castro.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts).....
The sniping of the "Obama vs. Warren" or "Hillary vs. Warren" crowd when by every single measure, she is a smart Democrat who strongly supports both is just bizarre. Pointless, idiotic and bizarre.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)how many of our younglings fail to recognize sexism, and the damages caused by those who persist in vomiting sexism into the MSM and our society at large.
(Just waiting for the haters to begin posting their vitriol...)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)was discovering that the Left is as sexist as the Right. I remember the comments from the pundits at MSNBC, they were just as sexist as anything heard on Fox and talk radio. Matthews was the worst.
Chris Matthews: Lets' be honest, the only reason why Hillary is a senator and a presidential candidate is because Bill messed around.
David Shuster: Hillary is pimping Chelsea.
Keith Olbermann: Someone should take her into a room and only he come out.
Mathhews also called her "She Devil", Nurse Ratched and other similar charming names.
All these folks had to apologize and a couple of them got suspended.
That is why for years I refused to watch MSNBC. I've only started watching a bit of it now due to the Christie scandal.
I don't expect it to get any better if she does run in 2016.
That's why to one and all the sexists, and haters at large, they can go and f*ck themselves. We don't need them.
kiva
(4,373 posts)And here too, which was frustrating.
I am optimistically hoping that we've been vaccinated to a degree to disappointment and can use those sexist comments to our advantage, no matter who makes them.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Look at the two covers from so called liberal media outlets like Time and the NY Times. One portrayed her as a gigantic woman who has a man holding on to dear life from the heel of her shoe (castrating much). The other one designed one of the ugliest covers ever for their Sunday magazine.
If this is the kind of reporting that she is getting already, when she hasn't even announced whether she will be running in 2016. What will her coverage be if she does choose to run?
I'm already sick of the whole thing and the campaign hasn't even started.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)There was even a Facebook page where people would tell her to make them a sammich.
Organizations like the National Organization for Women and many female writers and bloggers say Clinton's campaign has brought latent gender bias out of the closet.
They point to a number of examples: Detractors can buy a Hillary Nutcracker with stainless-steel thighs online, or join the Facebook group called Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich.
When two men shouted "Iron my shirts!" at a Clinton campaign rally in New Hampshire, she shrugged it off, saying, "Ah, the remnants of sexism, alive and well."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4964491
I also recall many sexual suggestions, including rape. What better way to put a woman in her place than to suggest that she should be raped? Fortunately, most sites deleted those types of comments right away.
I wonder if she really thinks that it's worth it to be subjected to all that crap again. Maybe she'll just say f*uck it and let someone else deal with the headache of running the country.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)But we are talking about Hillary right now, try to focus.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)I have no problem with disagreements about policy, but a lot of the comments about Hillary all over the media and blogs, were downright sexist and had nothing to do with her stance on the issues.
Read all the anti-Hillary crap right here on DU. It's a never ending plethora of nastiness, and some of it is tinged with sexism.
Therefore, I don't give a crap what they think of her or whether they even vote for her in the general. They can take their precious vote and stick it. If she runs, there'll be literally millions of us who will have her back.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)how a guy that the left on DU used to call "Tweety" suddenly became part of "the left". Hell, even in 2007 I saw him on Leno saying "I hope Giuliani becomes President".
Of course, he really was saying "I hope Hillary loses" but he didn't seem to care if she lost to the left or to the right.
Matthews is a multi-millionaire who just happens to work for M$NBC which decided to market itself to the left after 2004.
Same with LarryO. Back in 1999 and 2000 he represented the "left" on TV panels and said things like "Gore is a liar" and "I like Bush's tax plan better than Gore's". Yeah, what a hard core leftist he was. Paid good money to go on TV and say "vote for Bush".
Beacool
(30,247 posts)By the time the primaries were in full swing, he had tingling legs for Obama.
William769
(55,144 posts)Put a female in the White house as Commander In Chief to clean up their mess (and no there is no hidden meaning there).
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That, IMO is the defining issue in our politics at the moment (and for a long time).
Where does one stand in the battle between the minority with Wealth and Power and the interests of the majority of the people.
She's on the wrong side on that. Any GOPer would be worse i realize, but why can't we have someone who actually stands for the interests of the majority for a change?
But if you're looking for a woman, I know a certain Senator from Massachusetts, as well as some others who would fill that bill.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Care to comment on that?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It should not be a factor in any campaign, even a candidate is a GOP conservative woman.
But it also shouldn't be used as a protective shield of immunity against criticism and opposition to a candidate.
I don't like Hillary as a possibkle presidential candidate. We don't need anyone who is that cozy with the corporate/Wall St. elites representing what should be the party that opposes the oligarchy.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)is part and parcel of being a democrat, and speaking out about it, is not offering a protective shield of immunity.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I also believe that the Democrats should find someone who is not so closely aligned with the forces of economic and political oppression.
I don't like that about her, and it has nothing to do with her gender. I feel the same about Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent about President Obama.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)I do think he was/is way to cozy with interests financially on the right.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Sexists will oppose her on sexist grounds.
Others will oppose her for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)Or about sexism in general?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)and no one thinks twice about it or has discussions about how it will hurt their chances. Same goes for race.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)folks can f*off with any discussion of how we are post sexist or post racial. That includes Democratic circles.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)It's as if someone compared Obama to Reagan or Ted Cruz.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, for the same reasons I wouldn't vote for Hillary.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)AlinPA
(15,071 posts)convention in 2016. You can count on it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)would not give Hillary one gram more of credibility or excuse her from her past behemoth mistakes.
The article should have been about women in politics, on both sides of the aisle and about how there is sexism everywhere, and for all women and girls.
This article is supposed to make someone change their mind on her atrocious record just because she is targeted with the same shit all of us are all the time?
No thanks, I will pass.
Try being dirt poor, Hillary, and a minority and completely without influence such as you have, and come back and tell me your boo boos are worse than everyone elses.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Besides, Hillary didn't write this article, someone else did. It's obvious that your dislike of Hillary is so strong that you can't even be objective about her. Then why bother commenting?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)nice college try tho!
maybe one day you can actually talk about the issues that I clearly disagree with on Hillary instead of just eye rolling and dismissing the so many Truths about her you want to avoid.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)We are talking about sexism, not political positions.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Best to focus like a laser on anything else.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)wearing t-shirts with, "You say I'm a bitch like it's a bad thing." (I actually have this.)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The Rush to Define Hillary as a Space Alien or the 50-Foot Woman
Republicans fearful of Secretary Clinton contesting for the Presidency in 2016 are falling over themselves to define her early, trotting out tired ageist, sexist attacks while screaming Benghazi 24/7. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is their best hope to defeat her. While he works overtime to tamp down the Bridge-gate scandal that threatens his presidential hopes, RNC Chair Reince Priebus and others shout shes inauthentic, she represents the past (i.e, shes old), she has never answered questions about Benghazi! Five and a half hours of testimony on Capital Hill before a hostile Congress dont count, in their estimation.
Should Hillary Clinton choose to run, and most assume that is the case, she will once again define herself for the American people and stand before us with a fresh platform. That day, if it comes, is a long way off. Yet, the insatiable drive-by media cannot wait to jump into the fray. In their hunger to sell copy, her every hair style, clothing choice, and chance remark are fed into an endless process of tea-leaf reading, prognostication and my favorite, concern-trolling, whereby a pundit pretends to offer Mrs. Clinton sound advice while stoking negative and unflattering narratives about her.
http://anitafinlay.com/2014/01/24/the-rush-to-define-hillary-as-a-space-alien-or-the-50-foot-woman/
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The republicans are starting early and they all have their talking points. And, frankly they sound like some on this site. It makes me wonder.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Of course the GOP will use Sexism, even if they were to nominate a Liz Cheney/Sarah Palin ticket.
Hell, they would use every sexist insult in the book, invent a whole NEW book, and THEN say "we are not sexist, we have female candidates, who of course, are REAL women who are not fake ones like Hillary."
That being said, in the primary, and yes, there will be a primary, it would not behoove her supporters to repeat 2008 where some people that simply did not want Hillary was called a sexist. The good and bad news about the name "Clinton" is that it carries a meaning, just as the name "Bush" or "Kennedy" does.
I personally would love to see Kathleen Sibelius and/or Janet Napolitano run, especially as they both are former governors that made in in Red country, and both did great jobs in the Obama Administration. The fact that neither of these two are being mined for at least Veep status is shocking.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)When Bill had his thing with Monica, was it sexist to think that She was the home wrecking monster and he the innocent one caught up in something he couldn't resist? Was it sexist of Hillary to call the women Bill had affairs with 'trash'? She called human beings trash but stood by her trashy man. And she wants to wear the convenient Feminist label and get away with it? Think about that one.
Was he the one to be humiliated like Lewinski was, no, just because he owned a different set of genitals and had the power of the regular white man old boys cudgel and the whole history of sexism on his side.
So as much grief as Hillary gets on the issue by sexist wankers, the Clintons sure own enough of their bags full of sexist attitudes.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Even South Korea, a country which is much more paternalistic than the US, has a female president.
Yes, if she runs there is no doubt in my mind that sexism will be a factor with some people.
I vote for people based on their stance on the issues.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)We really don't need another Third-Wayer.
I think they're vastly overestimating the amount of damage being sexist jackasses will do to the Republicans, though. The media will be perfectly happy to help them bury it. Hell they're doing that now.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)gives her campaign a talking point that plays well in some quarters.
"These Neanderthals don't like her because she's a *woman*!"
Though being female is the least of most voters issues with Hilary.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Personally, I'm more comfortable with Hillary than I was with Obama, but nothing about their gender, race or any other superficial criteria are pertinent.
William769
(55,144 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Obvious conclusion is obvious.