Reply #34: After reading your full post, this is where we disagree:

[Political Heretic]

I've read very few, if any, people around here accusing all attacks on Clinton as sexist. Usually when I see the word used, it's appropriate. Sexism is there, and it doesn't have to be blatant and overt to still be present.

That's where we disagree. I have read many posts making blanket accusations of sexism against Clinton criticism. I disagree that the word is used only when appropriate. And the discussion of institutionalized oppression is irrelevant to my post. This board isn't hiring women and paying them a lower wage than men, or other examples of institutional oppression that are real.

Saying that Hillary Clinton has only been as successful as she is because of her husband, I'm sorry to tell you, IS. NOT. SEXIST. If Clinton was a man, and Bill Clinton was her partner, the SAME CRITICISM COULD BE MADE - that her own professional accomplishments have been mostly aided by the legacy and accomplishments of her partner. It has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the context of the person Hillary and her partner Bill.

You don't have to agree with the criticism, and in fact I don't think I agree with it.

In order to call "whore" a gender-specific attack, you have to completely ignore the number of times it is used generically (i.e. corporate whore, media whore) and the number of times it is used to refer to MEN (again, corporate whore, media whore - as a verb, as in he's out whoring for votes from big business." Whoring, being prostituting yourself - something applying to both men and women - and in a political context, referring to sacrificing all principles to achieve a tactical end.

As I said in my OP, can whore be used in a sexist way? Yup. Is it always? Nope.

Other candidates don't have equal examples of lying. Period.

You haven't heard similar arguments from Mississippi because the arguments aren't the same. I say falsely claiming sexism where none exists and using oppression as a POLITICAL TACTIC hurts women. In mississippi people were arguing that giving blacks equal rights and equal access hurt blacks. Same? Nope.

Hiring practices aren't the issue. No one is disputing institutionalized sexism, nor overt and covert sexism. And we should talk about sexism in the political process, because its real. Remember when Hillary Clinton angrily condenmed OBama ads down in Texas? Media coverage of that was some of the most sexist I've ever seen. If a man had said those things, it would have been covered completely differently. We should talk about that.

But there is an ongoing tactic used here, to characterize all opposition as "Clinton hate" which is then twisted into "rampant sexism" and its categorically false.