Yes, the continued use of "coronation" and "queen" is sexist.

[moriah]

Just today, this headline ran in Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/21/enough_with_the_hillary_cult_her_admirers_ignore_reality_dream_of_worshipping_a_queen/

Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen

Including such lovely phrases as

I’m starting to wonder, given the increasing dysfunction of our democratic institutions, if the Hillary cult isn’t perhaps registering an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it’s just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry.

Since 2008, the detractors of Hillary becoming President have referred to a "coronation", and as anyone who has studied actual history of medieval Europe knows, the coronation of a king was never a celebration. It meant the old King had passed, a new one had to be sworn in, and so were relatively hurried affairs, shadowed by grief even when attempts were done to make merry.

The only coronations that were the exception to such a rule were when a King married, and crowned his bride. Those were celebrations, grand affairs, and carried clearly positive connotations... except that it was obviously incredibly sexist that women were only seen fit for childbearing and not rule. And we all know what happened when there weren't enough men and Elizabeth I had to play off her people's superstition to rule in her own right (which Camille referenced with her suggestion of idolatry and cults).

Tell me, when did anyone speak of Gore's nomination in 2000 as a "coronation", or GHWB's nomination in 1992? If you're going to suggest either ran because they were "next in line of succession and thinking they had the right to the nomination as a result" certainly that would speak to the connotation of the word "coronation" in the non-sexist sense far more? What if Biden had chosen to run and been the front-runner?

Hillary doesn't need a cult, nor does she have one. Unlike the heinous suggestions made in 2008, Hillary is not a front-runner solely because she was married to a President (the heinous part being the rest of the statement, that it wasn't just that but because he screwed around on her).

If she is nominated or elected, she won't have a crown, and believe it or not, she wouldn't want one.

So even if you think you're using the term in the sense one could use against Jeb, or VPs who got the nomination on the coattails of their predecessor, please have some cultural sensitivity to the way female leadership has been treated in the past.

[amborin]

1. Nope! "coronation" is not sex- or gender-specific

[RobertEarl]

70. bush2

Was called 'king' so many times the op made my head spin reading about how lacking in historic content the op is.

bush2 was coronated as president like any old fashion monarch ever was: son of bush was made into what he operated as; a king.

[JackRiddler]

72. Obviously not - and it's either king or queen...

so if you called her king, would that be sexist?

Basically, their pathetic line is that if you think it was bad to destroy the nation of Libya, or to support the Honduran coup, and if (back in 1994) you think it was wrong to amp up mass incarceration in the U.S., you're sexist!

[CentralCoaster]

2. No it's not. That's just not objectively true.

Your opinion, that's fine, but it's not true.

Bush family dynasty had the same characteristics of entitlement and inevitability.

But they quit, Hillary hasn't.

That is all.

[moriah]

6. With the possibility of Republicans having multiple ballots...

... sadly, Jeb could win on a 3rd or fourth.

But also, the tradition so far has been no more than two Presidents from the same family. I agree the Bush III pushes suggestions of monarchy. Fortunately, Chelsea has learned the lesson of most kids raised in the White House, from her educational path -- if she ever runs, even if Hillary loses, I'll eat my favorite pair of shoes.

[CentralCoaster]

10. Chelsea doesn't seem to show the kind of ambition her parents do.

The Clintons are both very determined. I think the sum of those two parts is infinitely more interesting, and powerful, than either one.

[moriah]

17. I suspect she has her own quiet ambitions about things she'd like to do.

I see her, however, not in the elected office sphere, but more in the diplomatic one.

That is, at least, given the education she has chosen to pursue, and her relatively private life (as much as it can be with her parents). But she IS highly intelligent, and. I do suspect too much like her parents to just let it all go to waste when she could do some good.

[jwirr]

3. They do not refer to her sex. One refers to the idea that

the media etc. insisted she was inevitable. The other is talking about her supporters attitudes.

[bvf]

4. Here ya go:

Queen.

Coronation.

There's the alert button. Bet you won't use it.

[moriah]

13. Just because I have my opinion, and expressed it....

... doesn't mean I am going to waste a jury's time until the next time someone calls her a prostitute (which should definitely be against community standards, but our standards seem awful lax lately).

[bvf]

16. Way to not stand by your words. Not very admirable.

[moriah]

19. I assume you alert on everything that offends you, then?

If so, you're probably awfully busy, especially here in GD ....

Don't enter the Gungeon or you'll never stop hitting the button.

[bvf]

29. Only when I think something violates ToS.

Do you think sexism violates the ToS?

If so, you have a responsibility to alert. If not, you've just walked away from your own OP.

[moriah]

30. Not everyone chooses to use the alert system.

In GD and the Gungeon, the standards for each forum generally get "meh" responses from juries, unless it's extremely egregious. And calling Ann Coulter names no woman should ever get called passes juries, even if it's a TOS violation.

So, I save my alerts in this forum for the most egregious violations of ToS, like when I saw someone trying to suggest blacks didn't vote for Sanders because they were anti-semetic as a group. Not only was it TOS, but disruptive, over the top, and everything else, too.

[bvf]

86. So, you're just doing your part to help make DU suck.

Ah. Got it.

[moriah]

87. Naw, the people who make personal attacks without apology and juries that let even that go....

... are doing their part to make DU suck. I have lost faith in the jury system in general.

If getting accused of writing this thread as not my own opinion, sucky as a person may find it, but as some kind of assigned piece for a conspiracy of Hillary supporters on some "well-known" other forum that allegedly coordinate attacks isn't going to get hidden, why should I have alerted on your bait?

[bvf]

89. It clearly was anything *but* bait.

It was a challenge to your boneheaded OP's premise, and you failed to meet it in the most amusing way--by impotently lashing out at another poster with a bullshit alert.

What fun to see.

[dlwickham]

64. So you're being honest and you're admitting you're sexist?

[bvf]

85. Nothing gets past you, does it, Einstein?

[yuiyoshida]

140. and the results are in!

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Here ya go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1806259

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I'll use it. If someone tells you that they feel something is sexist and then without argument you just throw it in their face and taunt them... If you want to continually demean one of our candidates, expect to get alerted.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:30 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This feminist says that this is a bogus alert. Those words are in no way sexist slurs and you are not helping the cause of feminism to cry wolf every time someone says something about Hillary that you do not like.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: All you need to do is change English to have a gender-neutral word that is equivalent of Queen. Then the OP and your alert will have a point.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I hope this stupid dare gets hidden.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[bvf]

160. Thanks, yuiyoshida. n/t

[reformist2]

5. This is absurd. If we can talk about the Bush royal family, we can talk about Hillary's coronation.

You're not going to make insulting language go away by crying sexism.

[moriah]

11. Three from the same family does push limits.

Two, however, is the max our country has traditionally allowed.

As Jeb learned when he tried.

And as I said, I truly doubt Chelsea would ever run for office. Her education has not been in that direction, and the shyness in elementary school certainly wasn't helped by SNL skits and jomes about her growing up.

[vintx]

7. OMFG

[Yurovsky]

133. Sadly I think not...

These Hillary window lickers wouldn't know actual sexism or misogyny if it came up and bite them in the ass.

Instead of attacking progressives with bullshit claims of sexism they should be reaching out to us and moving away from their corporate owners. Like the old saying, too soon old, too late smart...

[mythology]

8. I agree

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that some here are willing to let their hatred for Clinton and the fact that she's winning the nomination are making them go to these places.

Also of note in that article, the author says one of her first thoughts about seeing Clinton on tv was that Clinton shouldn't be wearing a belt do to her figure.

[angstlessk]

9. WOW, you hillayrites take sexism to new heights

It's like if he says 'she' it's sexism...not any more

I think Hillary has done more damage to women than any man seeking office has ever done...

P. S. I am a 60 something woman,,,,who just loved the Clintons...not any more

[islandmkl]

12. no...and on the other hand...'anointed' was apparently seen as too religious...

and not exactly speaking to a line of succession...plus it was kind of maxed-out a couple of thousand years ago...

though i think it is a more fitting term all things considered...

[moriah]

14. I'm cool with annointed, that was clearly part of monarchy either way. ;) n/t

[Haveadream]

15. The reason it is considered sexist

is the obvious conclusion that Hillary is without merit on her own and unqualified. To compare her qualifications to that of Bush is ridiculous. To challenge her credibility based on policies, etc is not sexist. To reduce her experience to nothing more than ceremonial protocol, is. That is the difference.

[moriah]

20. Thank you for putting it into better words.

I tried to get at that with the whole history lesson, but probably sucked at it.

[Armstead]

120. Restoration of the Royal Couple

Better?

[northernsouthern]

79. So when we (democrats) said it about Bush?

Was that sexist too?

[Haveadream]

91. No because he was born into dynastic wealth, privilege and political connections

His father was responsible for getting him through school and every job he ever had. He was also a blithering idiot and had no qualifications or experience that prepared him for being in the White House. Unfortunately, that little stunt brought us Cheney to handle the reins.

That is nothing like the situation with Hillary who worked her way up, was a brilliant student, chosen by her peers to give the first ever student delivered commencement speech, a rare female at Yale Law, a career built on her own, served on multiple committees to bring about policy change for education and health, led efforts to enact the first ever major health reform policy in the country's history, had a two term career as a US Senator and served as Obama's Secretary of State.

So, no.

Not the same.

[all american girl]

145. Thank you!!!!!

stand O for you

[Haveadream]

150. Thanks, all american girl!

[KPN]

92. Nah. The reason something is sexist is because someone is and means it as sexist, not because

"her experience" is reduced to "ceremonial protocol". I doubt that many folks who have used the term coronation or queen did so because they think less of or give less credit, respect, etc., to women. But I'm sure there a few out there. The terms in themselves are not sexist ... and because someone thinks Hillary's judgement, record, or style are suspect or unappealing and happens to use the terms coronation or queen does not mean they reduce her experience to nothing more than ceremonial protocol. Coronation is what happens when an heir ascends to the throne -- Hillary, for whatever reason, strikes many people as someone who feels she is rightful heir to the Presidency, ergo, coronation. She's not a man/King, so she's a woman/Queen -- that's not sexist in itself.

If you look hard enough for anything, you will find it

[Haveadream]

98. But this is not an inherited title

and Hillary isn't running for "queen".

You said:

I doubt that many folks who have used the term coronation or queen did so because they think less of or give less credit, respect, etc., to women. But I'm sure there a few out there.

Exactly.

Hillary, for whatever reason, strikes many people as someone who feels she is rightful heir to the Presidency, ergo, coronation.

That, right there, would be the offending stereotype.

There are many people who do not experience Hillary in those terms, at all.

Very few women are who have risen to upper echelons of anything do not have those charges leveled at them. They are routinely told their confidence is conceit, their aspiration is greedy. It is a trope in the same way it was offensive to say Obama was unqualified, ineligible and dangerous when he was running for President. Using that particular stereotype for any woman in her quest for leadership will be perceived by many as a sexist cliche. Even worse, when it is an elected office and they have tons of experience and qualifications.

[Lizzie Poppet]

136. One can, however, attack that experience on its record.

And I do...

[runaway hero]

149. Enough She is qualified

The issue with some people is the Bush/Clinton trade offs for the post 30 years minus Obama. That's less to do with a woman and the fact 2 families have had control of the presidency since 1988

[Lucinda]

18. What a nasty piece of work that article is...

[LisaM]

67. Isn't it?

Someone posted it in another thread and seemed disappointed that people didn't want to discuss the "issues" it raised. "Issues"? Who is anyone kidding? Just a stream of pointless vitriol.

[actslikeacarrot]

21. Ok. I promise not to use queen or coronatio...

...when referring to hillary. But may I still talk about "regime change", "no fly zones", "business opportunity" and "war"? Pretty please?

[basselope]

22. Coronation isn't sexist and it has been used many times before.

In fact, it was used in a debate in 2003 after Gore endorsed Howard Dean. Other democrats were speaking out against Dean and said "This is a debate, not a coronation".

And yes, it was ALSO used in 2000 with Gore when Bradley was challenging.

IT is a phrase often used when someone challenges a front runner or someone who is expected to win because it is "their turn".

Clinton has acted like it is "her turn" since 2008 and yes, she does have a cult following who can't see her for what she really is.

[vintx]

24. Thank you.

It's fucking pathetic how often her supporters cry sexism.

[dflprincess]

25. She and her supporters haven't really claimed it's her turn

It's been more like it's her divine right.

[moriah]

32. Thanks for referencing that debate, I appreciate it. I mean that.

But I do disagree vehemently with the idea that she has a "cult" any more than Obama did.

[basselope]

33. I don't believe Obama HAD a cult, but he does now.

[Live and Learn]

23. I'll settle for warmonger in that case. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

28. Yeah, that one's pretty gender-neutral

[Major Hogwash]

43. As the old saying goes, "If the crown fits . . "

Or sumpting like that.

[northernsouthern]

80. Lol +1

I am still against the use of this since is is not issue related for me, but your response is damned witty.

[Vattel]

111. You know that "monger", according to the urban dictionary,

is short for whoremonger, and so your calling Clinton a warmonger is really calling her a warwhoremonger and that is about as sexist as it gets.

I am just kidding, of course, but I did actually see a Hillary supporter suggest that warmonger was sexist, lol.

[hobbit709]

123. Been around for a long time

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monger

[Vattel]

157. lol, I know what it means, but some Hillary supporters don't

[SheenaR]

26. Lol

I'm embarrassed as a woman that this is real.

I'll stick with war hawk then. Far more "muscular"

[Marrah_G]

27. Fail

[snowy owl]

31. Why do Clinton people parse words? Why not just discuss issues?

That's why people call you cults and fans. You act like you worship her but you have few issues on which you can debate so you devolve into slurs. Yeah, we do it too but mostly out of frustration for the lack of substance from you.

These words have connotations that are modern. Why go back to medieval history to find the oldest meaning you can? What's the point?

[Haveadream]

41. Probably because the reason for the post was use of an offending phrase

not a discussion of policy. Similar discussions happened when Obama was running for President because of similar use of descriptor "words" rather than policies.

[snowy owl]

46. Ok, I get that. But still, the modern connotation is relevant to today.

Returning to an archaic meaning is irrelevant. Or are we now a literary blog?

[Haveadream]

49. There is no modern connotation of "coronation" which does not mean

being bestowed with rulership by virtue of nothing other than lineage.

Challenging Hillary's run for the Presidency as a quest for a "coronation" is a by definition saying her education, work, two term Senate career and position as Secretary of State didn't happen and that she is qualified based solely on her family connections. It is a weak argument and undermines anything substantive about her you otherwise might say.

[jberryhill]

93. Nonsense. Happens at Homecoming at every high school

[glinda]

34. Is this a response to Chelsea's comment about "They are not electing a King"?

[moriah]

35. My post, or the Salon article? Nt

[glinda]

55. Salon referencing. I did not read it but found it odd

that now there seems to be this "he is not a King" and "She is not a Queen" thing going on.
Nothing about you. All's ok.

[mindwalker_i]

36. Exactly! Just like everything negative about her

Point out how she's tied to Wall Street? Sexist! Point out her ties to fossil fuel? Misogynist! It's the bag of turnips that's never empty - always another one to pull out.

And of course, calling supporters of Bernie "BernieBros" is completely non-sexist. Pointing out that he's an old white man is not sexist in the least!

Yeah, your outrage is long past its shelf life.

[moriah]

39. I never denigrated Bernie supporters in that fashion.

And when I have served on juries for people calling his supporters that, I have agreed it's unnecessary personal attacks as well as sexist to imply only men support Bernie.

But I've been accused of voting with my ovaries this entire primary season.

[mindwalker_i]

78. Cool. Many have, and I seriously wonder where the term BernieBro

came from. Regardless, I think it would be really good to have a female president. Other factors take precedence, like whether they would help or hurt the non-rich, and that's where Hill fails completely. If Warren were running I'd be all over that!

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Not really, since I have used "coronation" and "King"

in reference to JEB.

Context is everything.

[m-lekktor]

38. make sure to let Camille Paglia know she is sexist since she wrote the piece!

[Luminous Animal]

40. You might want to take a look at history….

The previous coronation, that of Queen Victoria in 1838, had been an unrehearsed and somewhat lacklustre event in the Abbey though the newly extended street procession and celebrations around the country had been a great popular success. The success of Victoria's Golden and Diamond Jubilees had created the expectation that Edward's coronation would be an expression of the nation's status as a great imperial power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_King_Edward_VII_and_Queen_Alexandra

[moriah]

42. A touch more recent than medieval Europe, which is what I referenced.

By the time of Victoria Europe had decided ruling queens were actually possible. But the "grand coronations of queens" were almost exclusively queen consorts prior to Elizabeth I, and she could barely get a bishop to actually perform hers (since they were all Catholic).

[Luminous Animal]

44. That would be the 15th century.

Why reference the 15th century when we have the century right before ours that belies your OP?

[moriah]

47. Because the Salon article I referenced was clearly, to any person with knowledge of that timeframe..

... comparing Hillary to Queen Elizabeth I, and while paying a backhanded compliment to Hillary by doing so as Elizabeth I was an extremely astute woman dealing in a man's world, did surround herself with a "virginity cult" in order to keep the Protestant Reformation, since it wasn't believed a female could be head of the Church.

But Hillary doesn't need a coronation or a cult, and suggesting she does is repugnant.

[Luminous Animal]

52. Perhaps you linked to the wrong article. Paglia says nothing about Elizabeth.

[moriah]

60. Queen, cult, idol worship.... but hey, maybe Elizabethan politics wasn't your gig. Nt

[Luminous Animal]

73. Hey maybe you should try to be honest.

[northernsouthern]

83. You lost me...

When you seemed to imply that Elizabeth the I surrendered herself as if it was a failure on her part. Do not talk smack about Liz, she was a brick, and she never surrendered but took control of the system. Plus shakespeare, come on!

Basically if you are trying imply that people are implying that Hillary is like Liz, then you are implying that people are saying she is a powerful and strong woman...How is that bad? I am positive people making that claim have ZERO historical figures in mind, they are talking about how the US threw off the monarchy...and now we are getting a new one.

[moriah]

96. She had to surrender herself, as an astute political move, into the idol of the "virginity cult"

.... which she encouraged around her to gain the support of the Catholics left in the Reformation, and to suggest that all of England was her "husband" in a time when people truly believed women incapable of governing alone.

As I said in another post, it was certainly an unintended consequence from everything else in that poisonous Salon Article, to make the comparison, but it's evident.

I have 30 more minutes before I must stop the insomnia machine!

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. There's nothing in that article which is similar to Elizabeth I

It doesn't talk about a 'coronation' at all; it talks about " an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it’s just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry". But Elizabeth I wasn't pagan. Hillary Clinton clearly won't be any part of a 'virginity cult', and no one is asking her to be; she's not some untested, unmarried young woman saying she'll only think of her country, but an experienced politician offering her career as evidence she's up to the job. It also talks about a 'queen bee', but, that's not really applicable to Elizabeth I or Hillary, either - queen bees are there to continue producing the young of the hive, and thus the hive revolves around them.

'Coronation' isn't a sexist word, and people criticise male politicians they don't like with 'king' too (plenty of that against Obama).

[northernsouthern]

139. Again...

You do a dishonor to the queen. with,"She had to surrender herself".

[frylock]

45. For the queen of the queen of the Democrats, my homegirl Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, Bill de Blasio Parody an Old, Racist Joke

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio engaged in an awkward back-and-forth at a comedy show put on by journalists in New York City on Saturday.

Appearing onstage together, the two pols exchanged friendly jabs. "Thanks for the endorsement, Bill. Took you long enough," Clinton said.

"Sorry, Hillary. I was running on CP time," de Blasio responded. CP Time, or CPT, is short for "Colored People's Time "—the stereotype that black people are always running late. De Blasio may have been attempting to be self-effacing: New York's mayor is often criticized for being tardy to press conferences and other events.

<snip>

The theme of Saturday's event was Shamilton, a parody of the award-winning Broadway musical Hamilton. Clinton's surprise appearance followed an awkward rap from de Blasio:


My left wing cred is epic, it's biblical/

You get one guess who's the most liberal/

I make Bernie Sanders look like Trump/

I'm down with Sandinistas and the Donald's a chump/

So I come out blazing with heavy artillery/

For the queen of the queen of the Democrats, my homegirl Hillary

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-bill-de-blasio-cpt-446423

[moriah]

48. I am still cringing over that one.

And also surprised at my own upbringing -- being Southern, I thought I had heard every racial epithet. That was a new one on me, although a friend explained it is less commonly used in the South from her experiences hearing the phrase used.

[vintx]

115. The most liberal? Down with Sandanistas?!!!!

This shit should be fucking insulting to anyone with a functioning brain!

[AgingAmerican]

50. Hypersensitive hyperbolic thin skinned nonsense

Apparently everything is sexist, according to Hillary's supporters.

[Bjornsdotter]

51. Wolf! Wolf!

Nice try, but no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Correct me if I'm wrong... Hillary is a woman, isn't she?

Thus, if my understanding of social studies is correct, a female ruler who takes the throne by divine right without the perceived consent of the governed, would be... a queen, empress or czarina, am I right?

Don't want to trip over any preexisting all-purpose narrative here.

[djean111]

57. I believe Hillary has actually emphasized that she is a woman - as a reason to vote for her.

So, you know - bullshit.

[Rebkeh]

54. Oh stop

Coronation is not sexist. And I say this as a feminist myself.

Queen, okay, that's arguable.

[notadmblnd]

56. boy, you're just all filled with wrongness wiht this post

You're wrong about what constitutes sexism. You're wrong about the history and your Al Gore argument is simply nonsense.

I see why you were assigned the midnight shift though.

[moriah]

65. Now this, this I alert on. Don't call me a fucking paid shill.

Fuck that noise.

[notadmblnd]

69. I didn't say you were paid.

It is well known that Hillary supporters meet on another site to plan, organize and coordinate their mischief and mayhem here.

[moriah]

71. I've been here since 2008. I have served on MIRT and have over 10k posts.

Paid or not, I am no one's shill, and you know better than to make that kind of personal attack since you're ba long-term poster too.

[Art_from_Ark]

100. If you have over 10K posts,

then why does your profile list only half of them?

[moriah]

128. Okay, I didn't pay attention to my count normally, but someone mentioned a post anniversary

So sorry, 5k. I sthink there's some serious issues when personal attacks fly, particularly accusations of shilling, when they can't come up with anything better.

[moriah]

74. Jury went 4-3 to leave alone, but you still ought to have the decency...

... to apologize for a personal attack against another long-term member without a shred of evidence.

And one edit, because my bedtime approaches (not my fucking "shift" ending) and I don't know if I'll see that apology you should know is deserved.

You may think there is a vast conspiracy to poison the Democratic Underground with Hillary supporters. You may even believe that there is some Sooper Seekrit Website where they are all getting together to try to take over the world.

If such a place exists, it's such a Sooper Ssekrit that I've never heard of it, and I don't intend on trying to find it.

But have the decency to look at a person's profile, and maybe even search their posts, before you accuse them of shilling. I'm highly opinionated, and my opinions may not always smell like rosewater, but they are MINE. I've been here a long damn time expressing them without a single post hidden. I've already revealed my full name anyway on this forum before when someone said my opinions had to be influenced, bought, or paid for. You can find enough about me easily if you actually believe that I should be reported to MIRT, rather than serve another term there.

My ideas are mine. Not anyone else's, and the only "shifts" I take promoting Hillary are when I phone bank.

[notadmblnd]

81. I don't feel I owe an apology.

My pointing out that you are wrong- and you are, is not a personal attack. Nor is my suggesting that HRC supporters coordinate the silly antics that they perform here- false.


It's unfortunate, but often we are assumed to be what and who we associate ourselves with.

[moriah]

82. Read the edit of my second post for my full explanation. I don't generally ignore LT posters...

... but I'm not going to continue to participate in discourse with someone who decides to make personal attacks undesevedly and without apology.

[notadmblnd]

84. No, there was scarcasm in your original post.

You're not innocent or ignorant of what goes one here.

[bvf]

88. Why don't you post the jury results

while you're waiting for the undeserved apology that will never come?

That would be interesting, I'll bet.

[moriah]

95. Sure, was acually tkinda confused on one answer.

But I really do need to go to bed, and the poster is already on ignore so at this point, it doesn't matter.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
On Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:30 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

boy, you're just all filled with wrongness wiht this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1806926

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Calling a 10k poster here since 2008 a paid shill by suggesting that I have been assigned a shift for posting.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Apr 21, 2016, 11:41 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hillary supporters are cheats and paid shills--a tiresome cop out employed by disillusioned revolutionaries
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: sexist.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: note that notadmblnd didn't accuse you of being paid--awful specific denial, there
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.



------

For the record, given several recent posts suggesting people will be/are being paid to ppst on DU and other places by Correct the Record, if the jumping to him accusing me of being a paid shill rather than just a shill was premature, there are reasons for it.... like this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1806013

[bvf]

107. You should learn not to alert just because your feelings are hurt.

Don't point to other posts to complain about jury results. You've been here long enough to know that only makes you look petulant, and like you're grasping at straws.

[moriah]

125. I alerted because, at oine point in tye distant past...

... calling long-term posters shills was what was grasping at straws, and against tte Community Standards.

It seems in the eight years I've been here, the community standards have changed dramatically.

But stop lecturing me when you know as well as I do your entire post trying to get me to alert was bait, because unless you actually thought I meant "queen" equalled the C word not directed at Ann Coulter and therefore even the recording artitst's name being mentioned was sexist, it was bait.

[bvf]

135. I'll say it once more: It wasn't bait.

It was a test to see if you would stand behind your OP. Believe me, I would have had no complaints about whatever the jury had decided. It would have been worth the hide just to see you back up your words.

Alas, you failed, and now you're reduced to whining about the good old days. Thank Skinner for that. I'm sure you know how to reach him.

[moriah]

137. And I will say it again: Yes, it, was.

https://m.

Here's another way to tell the difference. We can all agree that attacking Bernie for his religion is racist and highly offensive.

If I had simply said the word "Jew", with no context, not to a Jewish poster (as I am neither a Queen or looking for a coronation, so your post wasn't insulting me), begging them to alert on it because others attacked Bernie for his religion and not alerting meant that that poster would be a hypocrite, it would be the same type of bait.

And finally, to finish this, here's a nice song from Queen. Take care and have a great day!

https://m.

[moriah]

163. That alerter wasn't me, but I wish a could alert on you calling them a moron.

... in case you couldn't tell, I was trying to express both how silly I thought the going back and forth was with the cute skits, say again why context is important and given my entire post was about context, that indeed trying to bait me into alerting on the two words with no context is bait whether you, me, or any other person agree, and move on with my day.

You do get a persistence award even more so than the lady in that skit, though.

[bvf]

164. Why can't you alert? Oh, right.

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Gee. You should save those for when you've got a case, huh?

ETA:

See how easy that was? I added the period just for you.

No thanks necessary. It's more important that you just be given the chance to let off steam now and then.

[moriah]

165. Oh, since you edited it I can? Let me do that now. Nt.

Edit to add jury results.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
On Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:47 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Finished? Oh, can't argue your point, you mean.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1812836

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Calling the person (not me) who originally alerted a moron in edit.. The repeated personal attacks in GD : P need to stop.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:00 PM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: RUDE.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Grow up.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough. Grow up. Be civil.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

[Hiraeth]

58. I am sure Queen Elizabeth would beg to differ.

[2banon]

59. huh? Should she be referred to as the Coronation of the King?

Ias the term Coronation of Bush sexist?

sheesh!

[Dem2]

61. I agree

So when exactly is Queen Hillary's coronation?



Couldn't resist.

[StrayKat]

62. It was often used for Romney in 2012 . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/aug/31/clint-eastwood-chair-speech-romney

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-tot-cartoons-pg-021-photo.html

[HassleCat]

63. I think I'll keep using coronation.

It just feels right.

[northernsouthern]

66. I have been on the fence on this one.

I do not like the idea of calling her royalty as that is ad hominem and below us. That being said coronation is not sexist at all.

cor·o·na·tion
ˌkôrəˈnāSH(ə n,ˌkärəˈnāSH(ə n/
noun
the ceremony of crowning a sovereign or a sovereign's consort.

There are kings and queens all over, the term is asexual. Hillary is a woman, so she would thusly be a Queen. I love the Queen of England, well like, she visited the set of Good Neighbors. If they had called her a king then it would go a whole different route, or implied she was a drag queen. But Queens are fecking powerful, it was a queen that stopped the Pirates of Penzance and turned them in to noble gentle men.




As for GW, I actually thing I did hear of it being a coronation of his too. There are many people that were calling the Bush and Clinton houses royalty, which is sadly a bit true, they are in a way cheating the term limits. You are off by a mile on this one, or rather the article.

[tex-wyo-dem]

68. Well, jeez, you know, what isn't sexist?

Btw, The term coronation is not gender specific. But one can apply it to a dynasty or family, you know, like the Clintons. Or the bushs for that matter

[Beacool]

75. Paglia can choke on her own bile. It's not a coronation if a candidate is winning by a country mile.

Hillary currently is ahead by 277 pledged delegates and 2.7M votes. How is that a coronation???? She's going to be the nominee the old fashioned way, by earning it.

Paglia is just a bitter, nasty woman.

[rhett o rick]

76. The election system is the worst of all modern nations. She has taken advantage of

Citizens United, a decision that all Democrats rejected until Hillary ran. Now some embrace it.

Behold the new Clinton Aristocracy. The Clinton Family wealth $150,000,000 and climbing.

[Beacool]

99. Oh please, enough with the eternal whining.

Face it, less people have voted for your candidate than have voted for Hillary. It's not that complicated. After next Tuesday she will be ahead by over 300 pledged delegates.

It sucks to lose, but at some point everyone has to face reality. Just as Hillary supporters had to do in 2008. It hurts and it's disappointing, but there's nothing one can do about it. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

[libodem]

77. As in

"Balls!"said the Queen. "If I had two I'd be King."

[Splinter Cell]

90. Too fuckin' bad.

She is the worst excuse for a candidate this party has ever coughed up.

[Peace Patriot]

94. Feminism is not a parlor game.

70 year old woman here. Seen it all. Fought many feminist battles. To play these "gotcha" word games trivializes feminism.

And I truly believe that IF and when Queen Hillary is crowned, the long and noble struggle for women's rights will be besmirched, possibly beyond repair, by her wars and her corruption and and her complete disregard and malfeasance toward the poor majority in general and poor women in particular.

And further: whether she loses in November (IF she's nominated)--and I think her losing the GE is probable given her astonishingly low numbers on favorability and trustworthiness--or whether she wins (which I think is only possible with Republican meltdown), followed by a scandal-ridden, single term (very probable), she will sour the chances for much more worthy women to be elected president.

For the very reason that she, David Brock and her supporters have associated her campaign with feminism--and have used every nasty trick in the Brock playbook to portray Sanders supporters as "sexist white males"--feminism will suffer, and women in politics will suffer.

I think her queenship will be a disaster for the country, and a disaster for women--whether women in places like Honduras and Libya, or women here who aren't rich, have no servants and have no leisure to play word games, and are working two shit-pay jobs just to feed their children, or are working into their 70s because they can't eat, pay rent and buy needed medications--can't live--on Social Security, or whatever condition of poverty they are in. It's fine for privileged women not to have a "glass ceiling"--I totally support that--but most women live under a ceiling that they can't even seen through, let alone hope to penetrate--a steel ceiling that threatens to fall down on them every day and crush them with financial worries, lack of opportunity and family responsibilities.

This is the Corporate Plan--the Koch Brothers Plan, the Walmart Plan, the TPP Plan--and it gravely harms women, especially women with children, here and in other countries where "free trade for the rich" has destroyed small peasant farms and created slave labor conditions in factories, and are destroying one sacred place after another with profoundly bad impacts on Indigenous women

Hillary Clinton supports all this crushing of poor women and other poor people, and poisoning the very life out of Mother Earth. She is NOT a feminist. Yet people come here to DU and foist these stupid games on us about not calling her a "queen."

Anyone who can unleash a nuclear holocaust destroying all life on earth is a monarch, whether male or female. That has been the reality since the year I was born. Additional powers and perks and protections have been piled onto the presidency since, but that is the heart of the matter. It wasn't meant to be a monarchy, but it is. And Clinton adds varnish to that tragic reality with her imperial manner and highly rigged campaign for her "inevitable" coronation.

We may still get an anti-monarch nominated--an extraordinary man with no imperial ambitions--and he will win the GE by a landslide, with his sky-high favorability and trustworthy numbers. And he is certain to be better for women and the real feminist cause: liberation from poverty and opportunity for all. He will also act immediately on climate change and gear up the country to solve this tremendous crisis--a crisis like none other that the human race has faced, the demise of Mother Earth as a habitable home for us all. That's a true feminist.

[PaulaFarrell]

113. great post! n/t

[Bjornsdotter]

142. Well done!

[All in it together]

151. Wonderfully written post!

Hillary could not only sour the people on electing women Presidents she also could sour the people from electing Democrats, or leaving more people having no hope in our political system.

[MisterP]

155. that's another tremendously dangerous thing--that it hollows out feminism

and turns it into a campaign tool

it only allows the sort of corporate feminism that cares about what you're born as, not what your record is--Valenti and Marcotte and Dunham, not Cáceres

and it all feeds Trumpism because it ends up with only the silliest man-blaming door-barring separatist-cult feminism being permissible: by this time is over the anger-feeders are gonna be saying that Sanders supporters are privileged because of how they hang their toilet paper, and everyone with a hint of awareness that half the species is female is going to fight a long, long uphill struggle to prove that they're not WitchWind

[Amaril]

156. Brava, Peace Patriot!

A beautiful post that speaks to the heart of everything I have been thinking & feeling about Clinton.

Thank you!

[nolawarlock]

97. Agreed.

And I love your sig.

[Ed Suspicious]

101. 'fraid not.

[Bad Dog]

103. A monarchy, atavistic?

That's rich coming from a country with a backward healthcare system, laws that discriminate against the GBLT community and trigger happy racist cops.

One thing about the Queen's 90th birthday was that politicians across the political divide spoke very highly of her. She does know how to act as a head of state unlike that strange monkey creature George Dubya Bush.

[silvershadow]

104. Face it, she hung not just her hat, but her entire wardrobe, on the idea that somehow just

being a Clinton and a woman was enough. She was gonna make that "first woman President" thing the entire captivating centerpiece of her campaign. That it hasn't exactly worked out for her must be frustrating, I am sure, but I guess that doesn't exactly play in 2016 as much as it would in 1980 or something. You can't just be a woman. You have to be the right woman (which in my opinion, would have been Elizabeth Warren, had she run. She is a terrible candidate with terrible "stuff" just swirling around her, and I assume she has terrible ideas. I say assume, because she hasn't really articulated many that I have even seen, and I'be watched every debate, and I've read politics from the time I get up until I go to bed, daily now for several years. Plus, she is currently under active investigation by the Justice Department.

[TheKentuckian]

105. If everything is sexist then nothing is. This is ridiculous and a desperate shoehorn

simply to create some shield around Clinton.

I am not buying this silly reaching.

Not solely on Bill's coattails? Fine. Substantially so? Most certainly. I'm pretty damned sure Hilton Rodham, esquire corporate attorney would not be in the same place nor would Hillary Rodham Smith of Davenport, IA.

You bet your ass AND further I suspect without Hillary we probably never see Bill reach his level either.

[TalkingDog]

106. Surely you'll let us have Dynastic Presidency then.

Perhaps a little investiture on the side....

[Scootaloo]

108. No, it's not.

basically not an election has gone by in American history where The Candidate I Don't Like™ hasn't been alluded to as a would-be monarch. It becomes especially pronounced when a candidate is a relative of a former president. Adams, the Kennedys, FDR, Dubya, Clinton. if you have the look of "dynasty" about you, you're going to catch dynastic monikers. That this time it's "queen" instead of "king" doesn't change it at all. it just means that the age-old snort is keeping up with the political realities of the times.

In this particular case though, clinton, her camapaign, and her followers aren't doing much to help. I mean your attitude towards 36% of democrats and 100% of Independents is "fuck off, you miserable peasant, she's going to be president whether you like it or not!" The response to criticism of her policy is "you'll take what she gives you!" or "if she says it's good enough, then it's good enough!" And of course, the regular cries of treason, treason, treason against the... candidate. Verrily thou art insufficiently loyal to The Presumed Heir.

You combine a regular feature of American politics, with a dynastic candidate, with the fact that she and her supporters act like entitled jackasses every waking moment, and well, you end up with what you're getting, there.

Now, she can't help her "dynastic" feature. Nor is clinton going to reverse well over two hundred years of political wagging. But maybe she - and you - could do something about the snobbish, elitist, "fuck off, commoner swine" attitudes so prevalent among your camp? Maybe a cut-back on the demands of "shut up and listen!" or "She'll have your loyalty or else!" threats? maybe stop dismissing poor people seeking their fair share as "freeloaders wanting free shit" too?

[bjo59]

109. Want 'em to use the words "coronation" and "monarch" instead?

[2pooped2pop]

110. berniebros still a-ok

No one spoke of Gore with the term coronation because Gore didn't act like it was his due.

Hillary brings on her own shit.

[pinebox]

112. Sexist?

Not this again....
Everything is sexist these days. My gosh Raggedy Ann would be banned because of the first three letters of her first name.

[LexVegas]

114. Yes, it is. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. 1. "coronation" is gender-neutral

2. Hillary is female. Female royalty is ubiquitously identified as "queen" or "princess." Hillary's projected image of aloofness and entitlement makes it easy to associate her with the worst caricatures of royalty. Which is what the article is really complaining about.

If her supporters don't like her being portrayed as aloof and entitled royalty that is their problem; not ours. Hiding behind cries of "Sexism!" is a dodge that nobody believes.

Would you prefer it if she were portrayed as masculine royalty?

3. Much internet ink has been spilled fem-'splaining why it is a moral imperative to vote for Hillary based on her gender. Those who make an issue of someone's gender are not entitled to complain when that person's gender becomes an issue.

[Nonhlanhla]

117. I'm not sure if I would see it as sexist for the reasons mentioned

but the use of "Queen" and "coronation" is offensive since they are designed to demean Hillary by ignoring her accomplishments. And THAT is sexist.

[Vinca]

118. So, in a similar situation we couldn't use "coronation" and "king?"

If phrases like these disturb you so much you'd better keep medication on hand for the general election. This is beyond tame.

[closeupready]

119. Trashing thread, thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. Easily solved by the use of the gender neutral word 'Regent'

Some people wish to anoint a Regent, they wish to be subjects rather than citizens.

[DebDoo]

124. Bernie's got a solid health care plan that includes everyone, even the under insured. What's HRC

Got?

[Buzz Clik]

126. Anything to piss off Hillary supporters. It's a bit juvenile, but it motivates the Berners

[rjsquirrel]

127. Fully concur

The misogyny from the Bernie camp has always been obvious and they deciding issue for me.

[Betty Karlson]

129. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, the overeager use of the "sexism" accusation has finally been

stretched beyond breaking point.

"coronation" refers to an elistist desire for foregone conclusions. There is no gender implied. If Clinton were a man, she'd be called King. Just like we called W a King. And unfortunately, that monarchist thing is not the only character flaw Clinton has in common with the man she palled around with at Nancy ("AIDS-activist&quot Reagan's funeral.

[Lizzie Poppet]

130. Another steaming load of gender-baiting.

Princess Weathervane.

Knickers in a twist? Don't care...

[ismnotwasm]

131. Camille Pagila

Is the feminist who hates feminists, a libertarian darling. It's no surprise she came up with such an asinine grouping of words, and yes I agree sexist, but also, misogynist.

[pdsimdars]

132. Enough of calling everything "sexist". You are going to destroy that term, it will mean nothing

if you continue to use it for everything.

[Yurovsky]

134. They already have....

Another boneheaded move my the Hillbots...

By the time Trump actually says sexist shit about HRC, Americans will have tuned the Hillbots out.

[moriah]

154. Hillbot's really classy, too, FYI.

Keep up the positivity!

[quickesst]

138. Just more trash...

... made up by Bernie's supporters and repeated on a daily basis just like "It's her turn" etc in order to give the totally dishonest perception that these memes reflect the opinions and attitudes of Hillary Clinton supporters. It's bullshit and it's tacky. That's the bottom line.

[Bread and Circus]

141. Do you know what happened to the boy who cried wolf?

[LanternWaste]

143. The same lack of mental discipline and education leading to "Messiah" in reference to Obama

The same lack of mental discipline and education leading to "Messiah" in reference to Obama leads to "coronation" in regards to Clinton.

The rationalizations and pretense may change from half-wit to half-wit, but the end result stays true to its absurdity.

[Orsino]

144. Silly.

Depending on context, "queen" might be, but you have not made a case for "coronation."

[runaway hero]

146. Stop.

http://theconversation.com/the-illusion-of-choice-why-the-2016-presidential-race-looks-like-2000-42528


People used the term Coronation for both Gore and Bush Sr. This is just going too far and drives people away from Hillary.

[Cobalt Violet]

147. no it isn't. With that logic she would be above all criticism because she's a woman.

That would be sexist.

[Aerows]

148. Please ask a multitude of people

about the casual racism that occurred during the 2008 election.

[MisterP]

152. where does this pitousness come from?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511765942

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

153. Queen refers to the Clinton Dynasty. There was a Bush Dynasty and there's

a Clinton Dynasty.

There was King George and there's Queen Hillary.

Sometimes life just works out that way.

[Eric J in MN]

158. Al Gore was elected VP twice. The main job of VP is to be next in line.

People who are VPs for two terms and run for president legitimately have an advantage, through the democratic process of the previous two elections.

It doesn't mean that the VP should always be nominated. I prefer Bernie Sanders to Joe Biden. But I wouldn't have used the word "coronation" if Biden had run because he's the VP.

Someday, a female VP will run for president, and I won't use the word "coronation" about her.

[Arugula Latte]

159. Nope. "Coronation" has been used for men, like Bush. In that case it's "King."

See how that works?

These desperate attempts to stomp out any criticism of Hillary are kind of pathetic.

[Jim Lane]

162. You're simply wrong about Gore.

I mean, how hard is it to do a little work? I fired up a search engine (I use duckduckgo but I'm sure others would work as well) and searched for "Gore coronation". The third hit was an article by two very prominent political writers, Jack Germond and Jules Witcover, from July 1999: "Gore would benefit from a primary fight, not a coronation". Less than one minute for the whole process.

At any rate, it really doesn't matter at this point. Sanders will probably not win the nomination but he has at least obliterated the "coronation" scenario. To take the example of 2000, he's done much better than Bill Bradley, who didn't win a single primary or caucus against Gore. If Clinton is the nominee, it will be because she defeated a respectable adversary, not because nobody else dared to take her on.