Hillary Clinton-- Victim of the War on the Feminine, Just like the 9/11 Victims

[realFedUp]

Hillary Clinton-- Victim of the War on the Feminine, Just like the 9/11 Victims
February 9, 2008 at 07:16:49

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

snip...

Until the left faces this reality-- that part of winning with progressive, liberal values includes changing men's and religion's reactions to the feminine-- the left's strategy for success will be unsuccessful. That's a challenging assignment. Just look at how so many religious organzations are built upon "values" that reject equal rights and treatment for women. Southern Baptists, the Catholic Church, Islam, Orthodox Judaism-- they all require different and not equal treatment for women. Most, if not all of them, argue that women are better off that way, with more power in the home, protection from men, etc.

This is not an easy battle. I do think "battle" is the right word, because the churches, temples and mosques that oppose equal rights for women, that oppose the ascendance of the feminine, consider efforts to give women equal rights, to give women the right to control their bodies an assault upon the faith, upon the church.

When we look at the progress women have made-- that it took just 50 more years to give women the vote, then we can be hopeful, that such change has overcome the millenia old cultural inertia that has resisted the changes sought.

[thunder rising]

1. It can't be she's just an abusive disliked person

:eyes:

[realFedUp]

4. reading the whole piece is a good place to start....

for an intelligent response.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Hillary = victim?

Not a very sound political strategy if you ask me, but be my guest.

[realFedUp]

6. again, reading the whole post is a good place to start

for an intelligent response. Rob is talking
about the parallel between the response to
the feminine after 9/11 and Hillary.

[ursi]

43. not a good role for her ...loved what Bill Maher said ...cries like Bush drops "terror -terror"

women get accused of manipulating far more then men do ...

[femrap]

80. You know something...

if women don't vote, the Dems are DEAD. You got that? So just keep insulting HRC and if BO is the candidate, we'll just stay home.

So just go ahead and cut off your dick to spite you nuts.

[saltpoint]

109. That sounds a tad anti-male to me. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

[saltpoint]

3. But Senator Clinton is not applying for a job as a priest or minister.

She's stepping in to the male-dominated theater of world power, and she knew what she was getting into beforehand.

She's had a relatively simple path to two terms in the Senate. Giuliani bailed in her first contest owing to illness and some junior high kid replaced him, and she whomped him good.

There was no significant numeric challenge to her in the primaries for the second term and she whomped the Republican's pathetic candidate then as well.

The Democratic primaries have not been such a simple path. The road is rougher. She's had some significant wins, she's had some significant losses.

I believe she's about to have 2 or 3 more losses by later this evening and at least two more, maybe three more, this coming Tuesday.

The male-dominated hierarchy of The Church has been in place for some centuries. I don't think any of us should be looking forward to that changing by next weekend or the weekend after. It will take a long time to change attitudes. It's a worthwhile "battle," and should be undertaken, but it's not a quickly achievable goal.

Senator Clinton is not a "victim" of anything. She decided to go for the presidency and she's as likely as anyone else to suffer the scrapes and bruises attendant to the game.

[realFedUp]

8. "The Game"

Senator Clinton isn't a victim except by her gender in
still a male dominant culture where war, patriarchy,
snickering comments regarding gender, sexism, violence
are tolerated and even promoted.

We all can make changes to our behavior and we
should all suffer consequences to hurting someone
else because of color and or gender.

You can even be more aware of your behavior towards
others.

[saltpoint]

9. Save the lecture. If your point is that Clinton is victimized by her sex, I disagree.

She is an extremely successful Ivy League-educated career woman, a former First Lady, and a two-term Senator from New York.

I'm adding that up and not getting "victim" on ANY grounds, nevermind her sex.

[realFedUp]

16. If you are old, then you've seen sexism

Any female candidate is going to run up
against sexism, whether she's well-educated,
well-qualified and the best for the job.
In this case, the Clintons bore up under
countless investigations, media harassment
and became punching bags, not people who
have done a lot of good public service
for all in this country. Democrats seem
to forget that.

And reading the whole blogpost might enlighten
you to what the blogger's point was.

[saltpoint]

20. And yet there are more women in the U.S. Congress now than ever before.

Some states are represented by two female U.S. Sentors.

There are women govenors all over the place.

Which Democrats, specifically, are "forgetting" as you suggest? Anyone in particular?

Some of us keep up with the news. Some of us voted for Shirley Chisholm.

I reject the claim that Hillary Clinton is a victim.

[realFedUp]

22. She is a victim of sexist comments.

You spend time on DU and watch the pundits
and read the news. You are informed, so your
assertion that she hasn't been more challenged
by sexist comments and media bias just isn't
true.

A person can control what he or she says, but
not what anyone else says of them. She can
only defend what her actions are, her votes
and direct quotes.

[saltpoint]

25. I reject the claim that Hillary Clinton is a victim.

She made a career choice to seek the presidency. She ran for the U.S. Senate in New York. She won. Twice. She now seeks the White House. She is bein challenged. Fiercely so.

But not on sexist grounds.

There are women who have endorsed Barack Obama. Are they sexists? Are they woman-haters? Are they the "sexist" people you are talking about?

There are men who have endorsed Hillary Clinton. What of them? Your line of thinking appears to exclude any points or persons who don't align with your "victimhood" position.

Senator Clinton is going for a prize at the top of a tall hill, below which are strewn many a fallen soldier. She knew what she was getting into and she's surrounded herself with her husband's pals to help get there.

Sorry. She's no victim.

[realFedUp]

34. She has been a victim of sexist commentary and media bias.

It's just fact and pundits have had to appologize
for those comments. You can choose to see that or
not, but don't keep repeating yourself.

[saltpoint]

36. Sorry, I'm not seeing pervasive media bias against Senator Clinton.

I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the nomination race.

Don't talke to me about media bias.

[realFedUp]

54. Then you aren't seeing...

You have to decide to look at something before you
really look at it.

I've already made my points OC that just this
week, Shuster's and Matthews comments and the
complicity of those around them were sexist
comments against Hillary who had no control
over those actions.

It's a nice day OC...enjoy it.

[saltpoint]

56. Shuster's remark doesn't turn Hillary Clinton into a victim.

Sorry.

[Skittles]

102. you're not looking

it is obvious to me

[saltpoint]

103. Tell me what it is I'm missing that connects Senator Clinton's presidential

campaign to "the victims of 9/11."

[Skittles]

104. in the post to which I responded

there is no mention of 9/11

[saltpoint]

106. The OP began this thread with that connection.

Hi, Skittles. :hi:

[Skittles]

107. but...I wasn't responding to the OP

Hi OC :hi: - I am no fan of HRC but I see the misogyny quite often in reference to her campaign - absolutely - for us gals it really is not hard to see

[saltpoint]

108. But it doesn't make her a victim of a misogyny that pre-dated her

campaign any more than it would make Obama a victim of racism that pre-dated his.

Both knew that a discernible constituency would resist them owing to their sex/gender. Knowing this, both chose in any case to enter the race and both have significant victories to be proud of.

There is also the matter of the growing perception that these two campaigns need resonant, defining themes comprised of expressly clear ideas. Bob Herbert in the NYTIMES is one of my favorite columnists. He seems to avoid the MSM bullshit all or most of the time. This is his concern about both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.

Sen. Clinton hasn't called me up for my take, but if she does I will suggest that she lock her damn husband in a cellar until the second week of November. He's caused her enough grief as it is and daily, he's getting weary and wearing out his welcome. The Seattle POST-INTELLIGENCER ran a piece on this just this week. Also, all of his chums need to go. The woman is a MUCH better candidate when she's her own woman and not the wife of her husband or the charge of her husband's chums.

[MoJoWorkin]

44. I am a 62 year old woman that is really tired of this "woman as victim" business.

It is really counterproductive for women.

Both blacks and women have been "victims" of discrimination. We can argue on and on about who has endured more. So we should look beyond those things and concentrate on who would best lead us at this moment in time. I completely believe that Obama will make, by far, the best and most effective President. Clinton is way too divisive. Obama is inclusive.

[realFedUp]

49. Your support of Obama is well and good

but if you don't address or object to
the blatant sexism...it won't go away.
Make a stand, even though you support
another candidate, you object to
the media treating Hillary differently
because she happens to be a woman.

We can agree and disagree on policies,
votes and quotes til the cows come home,
but on sexism, all good people should
speak out against it...like we do
against racism.

[MoJoWorkin]

66. But that is just it, I DON'T think basically that the media has been unfair to her.

There are instances I have seen from individual reporters regarding both candidates that have been somewhat unfair, but overall, I think she has been getting good coverage. Especially when she uses the "victim" theme, and cries, etc. She is "using" this, using the fact she is a woman-victim to get votes. I REALLY don't like it.

[femrap]

81. I believe you don't see the big

picture of patriarchy/authoritarianism. The thought of a woman being prez scares the piss out of you...because if a woman can do the job, what does that mean to the males??? They have lost their so-called 'superiority.'

Think about opening your mind to an equality of the genders.

[saltpoint]

90. Well, I'm dumb as a post, femrap, and just can't cipher out all this

soceity stuff.

[glowing]

10. Are you a woman... If you aren't, you probably cannot relate to the stress

and pressure of competing in a man's world, yet returning home and resuming the "woman" role because you have to.. Men are getting better at helping out.. but it is hard for a woman to be looked at as an equal.. I work with the public, many men think it is ok to hit on me because I'm here.. I'm attractive, may be vain to say, but I have a lot of men hit on me... They don't see me here at work.. they don't even care about the rings on my finger... I'm here to do a job, not be hit on.

[saltpoint]

13. glowing, that's bullshit. Your post is a little grocery list of grievances

against men.

I'm male.

I don't behave that way.

You should be more watchful of characterizing someone you've never met.

[jaybeat]

23. Way off base, Crusoe.

Glowing is describing her EXPERIENCE, which, I think it is fair to say, is a pretty UNIVERSAL experience for women in our culture.

Take a look at a list of the world's highest paid men--I'd bet that most of them are CEOs.

Take a look at a list of the world's highest paid women--I'd bet that most of them are entertainers.

That says volumes about the roles we as a society are most comfortable having women fill. And the ones we're NOT so comfortable.

glowing wasn't talking about you, personally. She was talking about HER experience, personally.

You don't act that way? Great. Neither do I. But that doesn't negate the reality of what life is like for women. And to discount that reality is, dare I say it, pretty sexist, IMO.

[saltpoint]

26. Sorry right back, jaybeat. The assertion that Clinton is a victim because

other women suffer sexist advances in the workplace is bullshit.

She chose, by the way, to stick with hubby after his fling in the Oval Office.

I didn't ask her to do that.

[realFedUp]

31. Sticking with her hubby is an issue for you?

I thought people liked redemption, forgiveness
and marriages sticking together. Certainly lots
of "value" voters do but seem to bash her for
staying with what works for her and her family.

Maybe "values" voters think some of their
two time and three time married candidates
made better choices for themselves also.

[saltpoint]

35. Senator Clinton will not be carrying those "values" voters you reference.

There's no way they'll cast a vote for her, no matter what.

The Right has never been at ease with the Clintons. The Left hasn't much either.

So she's aimed her campaign more or less down the middle, and it has been pointedly and purposefully flat-spirited. It's dull. Obama is electrifying arenas and HClinton is on the defensive.

[jaybeat]

77. "Other" women suffer sexist advances???

:wtf:

Earth to Crusoe: WOMEN suffer discrimination and sexism, in the workplace and just about everywhere else. So do African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, etc.

That's a big DUH!!

What does that have to do with Hillary?

She has suffered that discrimination and overcome it more than most. But she is the first woman with a serious chance of being President. Not the 44th. That ought to tell you something.

What does that have to do with Barack?

He has suffered that discrimination and overcome it more than most. But he is the first person of color with a serious chance of being President. Not the 44th. That ought to tell you something.

It is also unfortunately worth pointing out (though this is a criticism of our society, NOT a criticism of Hillary in any way) that the first serious female Presidential candidate probably would not be where she is today if she had not been made a player on the political stage by virtue of her marriage to a former governor and President. That's not to say she doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. It is to say that I often wonder if Barack would be this year's ONLY potentially "historic" candidate if Hillary had not married Bill. That should give all of us pause regarding the magnitude of sexism vs. racism in our society.

As far as Hillary being a "victim," I think those are Reagan-era code words that play on the notion that groups who have suffered and still suffer discrimination have over-compensated and now have more advantages than white men. That we can put members of these groups down because they want "special treatment" or "advantages." That affirmative action or other EO laws are "reverse discrimination." I call BULLSHIT on that entire way of framing things. That's the Clarence Thomas view of the world. Not mine. To acknowledge past and present discrimination and prejudice is not to call those who have suffered those wrongs "victims." It is to acknowledge REALITY.

[saltpoint]

87. I'm not sure how Ronald Reagan got into this. I don't find Reagan or

Clarence Thomas -- who was not a Reagan appointee but a Bush Sr. appointee -- to be very useful in talking about "eras" of feminism as a popular movement, unless you want to frame it as being an "unpopular" movement.

If a current feminist invokes personal experience of sexism in support of Senator Clinton, then someone who is ALSO a feminist who invokes HIS personal experience may do so in opposition to that bridge. Witnessing sexism does not equal support of any candidate, per se, and there is no strong argument that Senator Clinton best represents women who are feminiest BECAUSE she is female.

Many females are not feminists.

Many males are.

See where I'm going?

And we return again to the arena of choice -- power. Hillary Clinton knew in advance what this world of politics might have in store for her. She CHOSE to enter the race, and she has to take what comes.

I see no victim in that formula of a former First Lady's decision to reach for power.

[jaybeat]

93. Criticising people for "playing the victim" is a Reagan tactic

Blaming people who experience discrimination for supporting mechanisms to overcome and counterbalance that discrimination by saying they are "playing the victim"--in Ronald Reagan's America, you're only a victim of your own laziness, lack of personal responsibility and lack of willingness to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. If government would just get out of the way, everyone would be just fine.

I certainly did not call into question anyone's "feminism." What I called into question was a way of framing the women's experience in our society that made it sound as if a woman--ANY woman--seeking the Presidency would not face extraordinary obstacles that a white man would not face. I believe that they would and that Hillary has. I also believe that Barack has.

Why do you insist on having a problem with that?

Oh, and BTW, *I* am not supporting *either* candidate in any of my posts in this thread. And I'm certainly not saying that Clinton, because she's female, is the "more" or "better" feminist, or better for women, in terms of policy.

I *am* saying that no one should discount the additional challenges that a female, or African-American person (or politician) must face and deal with every day.

Hillary Clinton knew in advance what this world of politics might have in store for her. She CHOSE to enter the race, and she has to take what comes.

You see, to me, this sounds just like the old boy's club that was the business world up until the 1970's or so, and that still exists in large areas of society. "Heh, if she wants to play in a Man's world, she's gonna have to get used to gettin' knocked around a bit! Heh, heh. If you can't stand the heat, sweet heart, maybe you should go BACK to the kitchen. Heh, heh, heh!" Someone could say the same about Obama.

But have they? Something tells me they wouldn't dare, which tells me the taboos against racism are a little stronger than those against sexism.

[saltpoint]

96. I'm curious about your thoughts on archetypal feminism. Are you

a roots feminist, or pro-feminist male, or are you draw from more contemporary models of the archetypal feminine role?

In other words, are we talking pre-Homeric feminine archetypes or historical potency (Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, etc.), or a more contemporary (if scattered and tattered) radical feminism, in which adherents advance the notion that anyone with a penis is a rapist?

Of the four archetypes, we have Athena, the sage, the wise crone, the elder visionary, the cool-browed counselor, the all-seeing wisdom giver and perspective giver. Hillary Clinton, IMO, is an Athena woman. The owl is Athena's symbol.

The political world, no matter what culture we're talking about for the most part requires an Artemis woman. Fighter, hunter, lover of animals, sister of males and teacher and protector of women and girls. Accorindg to Nor Hall, one of the best writers in archetypal representations of the feminine, Artemis' heart was the first drum. This is mythic reference, but beautiful imagery.

The OP claims that Sen. Clinton is a victim. Somehow 9/11 is tossed into the mix, unaccountably and without grounds or context, but there it is right there next to the victimization of Hillary Clinton. Athena women are not "victims." They may serve in mythic constructs to heal women who are, but they heal also males who are victims, often rewarding those women who accept adventure equal to safety and males who appear as creatively disposed, or capable of awe toward the creative energy of the world. The goddess Demeter, roaming the world trying to find her daughter (visionary role, protector of girls) comes upon a peasant family's home and asks for food and shelter for a brief respite from her travels. No one in the household recognizes that she is a goddess. The older brother, a sexist pig from the word go, ridicules her at the family supper table. Not one to tolerate fools, Demeter turns him into a lizard on the spot. The younger brother, however, Triptolemus, who is kind to this strange traveler at their table, she takes into the glens and reveals to him the mysteries of agriculture.

Artemis, Nor Hall goes on to say, "encourages women to express their masculine natures." Politics demands this nature. A woman entering a race for the presidency may strike a posture as solely Athenian, but if she is outflanked and challenged for that position by an agile male opponent like Obama, who taps into the mythic Merlin male archetype, which he certainly and successfully has, then Athena must summon Artemis, and Artemis must hunt. And the hunt carries certain risks.

That call does not come unbidden. Those are the rules of the game. Deep spiritualists become contemplatives to avoid this game and its petty, cruel edges. That's why Tibetan Buddhists sat in calm stillness as Chinese troops overran them.

Senator Clinton either fights for the nomination as Artemis or she loses it as Athena. In either case she faces a very sturdy and inventive opponent with significant popular support. Perhaps she can turn him into a lizard, but perhaps his spells are stronger and she must retreat into the vapors.

If Clinton purports to be a world leader, she has to take what comes. She knew that going in. Nor Hall isn't in the old boys' club you reference. She's as far away from it as possible, and I'm talking centuries.

[jaybeat]

114. Can't say I've thought about it for a very long time

To call me a "pro-feminist male" is factually accurate. I'm also a husband, father and currently a stay-at-home dad. I certainly don't subscribe to "he notion that anyone with a penis is a rapist," though I can't say I've met anyone who does--usually anyone referring to that type of idea is making a straw-feminist of there own...

A woman entering a race for the presidency may strike a posture as solely Athenian, but if she is outflanked and challenged for that position by an agile male opponent like Obama, who taps into the mythic Merlin male archetype, which he certainly and successfully has, then Athena must summon Artemis, and Artemis must hunt. And the hunt carries certain risks.

<snip>

Those are the rules of the game.

I guess I would object to *any* constraints that proscribe what role a woman must play if she chooses to run for political office, run a company, or hang out in a bar. Usually, these constructs are created by and for men, and often, but not always, men themselves are not forced into similar constructs.

If I were to postulate a goal for my particular brand of feminism, I suppose it would be a world in which my daughter (age 4) can grow up to be someone who can be President without having to "be" a particular way--weak, strong, male, female, emotional, unemotional, etc. I'd like a President, of whatever race or gender, to be balanced. I'd like the press to work themselves up into a frenzy because a male (or female) candidate for President *doesn't* cry.

So I don't think the black and white notions of "victim" or "perpetrator" serve us very well. Certainly, sometimes, they are clear-cut. I would say that the 9/11 widows were victimized twice: once by the planes flying into the WTC towers (by people who were in large part created and financed by our own CIA's anti-Soviet obsession in the 1980's), but then again by the Bush administration's obstruction of a full and fair inquiry into the attacks. (Motivated, no doubt, because many of those who created and financed radical jihadism are now in positions of power in our government.)

To put them and HRC in the same headline is, in my view, a stretch.

But I don't think it is a stretch to say that women and people of color are faced with the challenges of sexism and racism that white males are not, and that no amount of power, wealth or privilege can make those challenges not matter. And to insist that because they aspire to positions of leadership that they must submit to certain constructs, rules, or that they have to "take what comes," regardless of whether it is a legitimate argument against their candidacy or a slime-ball attack rooted in racism, sexism or just partisan thuggery, means that we will forever allow only white males (or people who act like them) to be our Presidents.

[saltpoint]

115. I think I understand your objection to "any constraints" for women seeking

public office, but nevertheless, those constraints and definitional limits are in place. You and I are not going to get rid of them by next weekend. I repeat the claim that the game has to be played by Artemis, and not by Athena alone. Athena may inform, may advise, may project, but Artemis must draw the bow. Senator Clinton has not met that criterion as convincingly as might be warranted against sturdy competion, IMO, and in the opinion of recent polling.

I'd like the same world you want for your daughter. IMO that world will require small, anonymous, community-based & individually-motivated change in attitudes which is a change not advanced by casting women politicians as "victims." And correspondingly, casting men as "opporessors." And that is exactly the hinge of Kall's piece, and if you explore the site the OP links us to, some other non-DU observers accuse Kall of "genocide." My criticism against the article is strong, but not nearly as strong as that.

We are in disagreement, sharply, over the origin of the 9/11 attacks. If you have hard evidence of CIA involvement, I suggest you contact powerfully placed attorneys and present your case. Short of said evidence, IMO that amounts to libel. I am vehemently opposed to initiatives of the Bush administration but in a Constitutional democracy one does not hurl accusations without evidence, and that evidence better be persuasive, and IMO you do not have said evidence.

Further, I do not believe the 9/11 hijackers flew into the World Trade Tower to strike a blow against feminism or against women. Or to "victimize" women. I don't believe a case could be made that it was.

Your last paragraph is a mess. One reads it imagining that you aren't hogwild about white males. Which is too bad because several of them comprise the citizenry.

[glowing]

38. And it is presumed by men that sexism is dead just because they themselves

may be liberated.. And all these digs at women by people we are listening to in the news.. "a place of fair and balanced news".. shouldn't perpetuate the shit.. And no, my list is exactly the shit women have to deal with daily that men wouldn't even dream of dealing with.

[saltpoint]

58. no, glowing, that's not it.

No one asserts that there is no sexism or no racism.

I assert that the persistence of sexism does not victimize Senator Clinton.

That's the hinge.

[jaybeat]

78. Asserting doesn't make it true

"I assert that the persistence of sexism does not victimize Senator Clinton."

I assert that the persistence of sexism DOES make it harder for Clinton to be elected President and, if elected, will make it harder for her to govern.

I also assert that the persistence of racism DOES make it harder for Obama to be elected President and, if elected, will make it harder for him to govern.

That doesn't make either of them "victims" but it DOES make sexism and racism factors in this election.

The fact that this is a newsflash to some proves the point even more.

[saltpoint]

88. They are elevated if someone elevates them as "issues" but to suggest

that they are a defining limitation of either of the two remaining main Democrats is not accurate UNLESS all Democrats voting in the primaries use race and gender as hinge issues.

I may assert a point, jaybeat, and if it is a point that can be substantiated, then it advances the discussion. I did so in my post.

[jaybeat]

94. Race and gender have no effect unless *all* voters base their vote on them??

Not sure how you figure that. Voters weigh many issues, impressions, feelings, etc. when making up their mind. Since racism and sexism are so pervasive in our culture, it seems outlandish to set the bar that high and say that a non-white male candidate would not be significantly challenged by them compared to white male candidates.

"I assert that the persistence of sexism does not victimize Senator Clinton."

And how would you "substantiate" that, and why are you calling her a "victim" anyway?

*I* assert that the persistence of sexism and racism have created and will continue to create significant challenges for both Clinton and Obama, both in their lives to date and in their quest to become our next President.

I also assert that to pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous.

(What's the emoticon for blowing a raspberry?) :rofl:

[saltpoint]

97. That claim isn't made. The OP is the victim-naming entity here, not

myself. The 3000-plus victims of 9/11 are also referenced, so if you want a victims list, the OP is your source and it's a long list indeed. Enjoy.

If most women are not Ivy League-educated, then Senator Clinton knows no more than they do in her chosen fields of study? I don't see that at all. It seems to me she did just fine. The persistence of sexism or racism in a culture does not mean that voters en masse bank off those frames of reference when voting. There's no reason to imagine they do, and the more individualized the consideration -- the more informed the voter -- the less likely it is. Education is our friend.

And Senator Clinton has had plenty of education, more than most Americans, in fact, and, in conjunction with a significant income and considerable influence, cannot be considered a victim.

I called into question the OP's assertion that Hillary Clinton is a victim.

She is not.

[jaybeat]

98. But does she have to overcome sexism to be elected?

Does Obama have to overcome racism?

Absolutely.

I don't care for the "victim" label, for reasons I've already stated.

But to ignore sexism and/or racism as a factor in this election seems akin to denying gravity.

Yes, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both led a life of privilege, opportunity, wealth and power, when compared to ALMOST ALL Americans. SO HAS EVERY OTHER "VIABLE" PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 150 YEARS!!

But every one of those others was also a white male, and so, no matter what other privileges they may have had or not had, they at least had that one going for them. On issues of race and gender, they were all on a level playing field.

Neither of the current Democratic candidates has that "going for them."

And THAT is a big deal.

THAT's all I am saying.

P.S. JFK was our first Catholic President. He was about as privileged as they come. But if you don't think he had to overcome anti-Catholic prejudice in order to be elected, then you are ignorant of history.

[saltpoint]

101. But he didn't whine and whimper about it, JFK. He faced the camera

and he brought HIS command of history and his classical education to bear upon the suspicious gaze of the U.S. television audience, and he did it in an era when the television was the meade hall, the family hearth/gathering spot, the technological village fire counsel. He had all our attention.

My parents, non-Catholics both, had already worked for him as volunteers.

My posts in this thread argue against the article and (evidently) the OP's claim that Hillary Clinton is a victim because sexism exists. That is a straw man theory. We can make that a straw PERSON theory if you wish. Either way, the straw is insubstantial, as the first little pig discovered when he thought no wolf could destroy his domicile.

Politics is about bricks, not straw. Either she can lay the brick or the wolf will blast her domicile as well. She has gathered around her many of her husband's political chums and there have been a few wins to celebrate. There have also been some defeats to cause consternation. She's being kicked around pretty good today, for example, and I don't think her Tuesday next will be much better.

As another poster has pointed out, no one with her bank account, her social standing, and her two-term record as a U.S. Senator from New York is a victim.

That puts the lie to the article in the original post and advances the discourse to the realm of Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency. She's still within reach of that prize. If she does not win the White House, IMO it will not be because she's a woman but because a majority of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses did not feel she was the PERSON for the job.

[jaybeat]

112. So you don't like her *response* to sexism

Now we're getting some where...

"But he didn't whine and whimper about it, JFK. He faced the camera..." He had to overcome discrimination and prejudice, but he did it in a way that YOU prefer. More "manly," perhaps?

Speaking of straw-people, when, exactly did Hillary Clinton "whine and whimper about it"?

I would also venture that not all prejudice is created equal, and until you've experienced that specific form yourself, I don't think it is wise or fair to criticize one person's response to their experience.

The argument that a member of a group that experiences discrimination is privileged and, therefore, that discrimination is not a factor in their lives, despite their success, is another falsehood.

Ask Barack. If he's honest, I'm sure he'll tell you.

It's usually told by people trying to argue that society should not take any action to overcome that discrimination. The ghost of Reagan, again. Or deny that discrimination exists at all, like Clarence Thomas.

"Backlash," anyone?

[saltpoint]

113. jaybeat, you might want to have a look at Frank Rich's column this morning

in the New York TIMES.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?em&ex=1202792400&en=8603c6542881bd98&ei=5087%0A

I did not ask Mr. Rich to raise any of the points he raises.

But he raised them anyway because he has the scope and depth on the Clintons over many long years of his paper's coverage.

I think you might find some of the points you are "raising" raised in a more convincing manner by Frank Rich.

Your most recent response is quite scattered. If you feel Senator Clinton is maligned, that's your call. I respect it.

But across a very wide and increasingly large spectrum, she is not perceived as maligned, but manipulative.

Again, I urge you to read Rich's piece in today's paper.

[femrap]

82. I am so glad that I

can hit that Ignore button so to never have to witness your WILLFUL IGNORANCE again.

[saltpoint]

89. femrap, trust me, I'd be honored to be on your Ignore list.

Good luck with the rock bass.

[realFedUp]

19. thanks for your personal reflections on this.

It's Lent for Christians and a time
to reflect on how others live and
cope with the challenges we face in
this world.

[glowing]

57. I don't mean to be devisive on this situation.. but I do see a steady

decline of civility towards women in general.. and in the way younger women than myself are treated by their male peers... I find it appalling a step back.. I'm glad that we are free to wear what we choose.. but you still aren't really that free.. there are judgements on your entire appearance once you walk out the door... I used to live in apts in South Carolina that we coined "Little Mexico".. as a college student, we lived in cheap housing.. which also meant having a lot of Mexican neighbors... There wasn't a day I didn't walk out my door that I didn't get cat calls.. Thank God most men in our society have been taught that cat call shit is unwaranted and uncalled for...

It just seems to me that people should treat others like they would like to be treated, and we'd be a world better...

[jaybeat]

79. "Backlash" Still as true today as it was 20 years ago (nt)

[donsu]

15. Hill belongs to the most oppressed group of people in the world - women

and to say she has had up to now an easy time as a politician is ridiculous.

[saltpoint]

17. Sorry. I followed the campaigns -- both of them -- for U.S. Senate in

New York and she did just fine.

Her most difficult race, by far, was the Iowa caucus.

[realFedUp]

28. outside of New York, I don't think Americans heard or read all the press

about her race.

If her gender wasn't attacked, then that says
better of the New York press and that people,
Democrats and Republicans who voted for her
overwhelmingly in her second race, were voting
for her policies and votes which is a good thing.

[saltpoint]

29. Clinton also did very well as a Democrat in the upstate counties and cities

of New York.

Her example eclipses your claim that she's a victim.

[realFedUp]

39. Definition of victim...

a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.

Just comments from Msnbc pundits have been apologized
and disciplined for.

You can still win a race, and still be a victim of
injurious actions.

[saltpoint]

47. Same's true of male candidates. Right?

[realFedUp]

50. If male candidates are experiencing sexist or racist comments...

of course.

[saltpoint]

52. Then are they, too, victims of "sexism"?

[Windy]

5. I am a 50 yo white woman and for me its a matter of policy.

To say that she is falling behind because she is a woman is intellectually dishonest.

[realFedUp]

11. As a woman, are you bothered by the sexist comments?

Even if you are an Obama supporter, can you
understand how some of the media is treating
Hillary because of her gender?
Do you agree with it just because you oppose
her?

I don't understand a comment like intellectual
dishonesty...you'd have to give an example.

[splat]

7. Over the top, but women are pissed that sexism is still okay, even on TV news

[realFedUp]

14. I think having Senator Clinton in the race has helped reveal

the ongoing sexism in this country. Women
should not be imitating it, but standing up
against it. Turn it off. Stop buying it.
Speak against it.

[DURHAM D]

48. I believe that one of the reasons Senator Clinton is running is to reveal

that ongoing sexism in this country and sadly but clearly revealed upthread at the Democratic Underground.

What keeps her going against incredible odds and the unfair assessment is not the job of President but the opportunity to start a 21st century dialog about the treatment of women. Women's rights are human rights. Until the U.S. gets its own house better in order on this issue how can it lead the world? Looks like this country is not yet ready to be honest about its problem, thus it diminishes its own possibilities.

When Hillary wanted to go to China for the women's forum our State Department and the entire W.H. senior staff told her no. Bill finally allowed her to participate against everyone's wishes. Her presence at that conference was a big big deal. Her speech gave hope to women the world over - the speech in which she said women's rights are human rights.

If Obama had anything half as courageous or important in his background it would be played non-stop and commented on daily. But, because she is a woman it is no big deal. Most people can't recognize courage and greatness even when it is right in front of them - instead they ridicule.

The unrecognized sexist attacks on Hillary morally diminish this country and keeps it from gaining back lost status in the eyes of the rest of the world.

[MattSh]

59. You believe one reason she's running is to reveal ongoing sexism??

Really?? How about personal ambition? Who the hell runs for president to reveal ongoing sexism?????

:crazy:

[DURHAM D]

62. I do - Hillary has a world view on this issue that is not understood.

Many men and women are unable to understand her in the context of public service. They only see ambition - or whatever else they decide to lay on her as a result of their personal views or limitations.

[MoJoWorkin]

53. Speak for yourself, not in generalities, thank you.

You don't speak for THIS 62 year old white woman.


I think her coverage has been exceedingly fair.

[DURHAM D]

63. Well if age matters I am 63 and I know that her coverage is exceedingly unfair. eom

[saltpoint]

69. So was the coverage of Dennis Kucinich. The cable news networks made

a POINT to ignore Kucinich and Edwards this cycle.

Was that lack of coverage based on sexist grounds?

[DURHAM D]

71. I know you like to change the subject - sorry. I don't want to play.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

72. Sounds like you won't play because there' no rebuttal.

Sen. Clinton hasn't run as effective a campaign as might have been warranted against stiff competition.

[femrap]

83. Are you upper middle income?

And did you hear what Chris Matthews said about her running for prez? He said that the only reason she is able to run is because her husband cheated on her. He later apologized.

Women are always viewed in relation to the male...

And Shuster saying that She 'pimped out' her daughter? If Chelsea were a son, would that have been said?

Our culture encourages the hatred of women...the objectifying of them as only good for sex.

Maybe you have been lucky and shielded by money...and not felt the glass ceiling or the shun by the good ol' boys who play golf.

Just look at how women are portrayed on TV...T and A...that's all we're worth.

I am fighting the same issues that I did in '60's and '70's. This is a huge Backlash that started in 1980 with Reagan. No more 'Murphy Browns' on TV...no Roseannes.

I believe you are in Denial or someone's beard.

[stillrockin]

12. Yeah, and I'm a victim of corporate democrats.

[RainDog]

18. Ever read "The Way We Never Were?"

It discusses the idea of women not working throughout the majority of human history as a myth?

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere/

I am a woman and I do not support Hillary. Not because of my objections to women's power and success, but because I do not want political dynasties. It wouldn't matter if she was male or female. I'd feel the same. I don't support her b/c of DLC issues. I don't support her because I am sick of the Clintons as the standard bearers for democrats. They aren't, for me.

I would LOVE to have a female president. But not Hillary.

btw, I'm not an Obama supporter either, so whatever insults Hillary supporters want to toss out in response, save your pixels. I'll have to vote for the nominee because I have no choice when the choice is the republican party with a base made up of 1/3 theocrats.

If you want to get past the religious crap spouted by fundies anywhere, you need education to do so. Education that teaches real history, not platitudes. Why do you think fundies want to home school? so they can indoctrinate their children with lies. they have this right in this country, and until the majority is well-educated enough to debunk these creeps, America will still be the most socially laggard nation among western democracies.

Read Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire for his demographic studies of the effect of education on women's freedom to be human. The book is about America's decline as a major power b/c of a military economy, but he has tons of good info in there about, for instance, education improving the lives of women anywhere in this world.

[realFedUp]

24. I remember Hillary in front of the 40,000 U.N. members in Beijing

Commentors have said...if you could even read any
press about it...that women came from all over the
world, men also...and were so inspired and electrified
by her presence and speech.

Women all over the world would take great strength
by her election and help themselves and their families
by her lead.

[DURHAM D]

64. Amen.

Imagine if Obama or anyone had made a speech or done something similar or even one tenth as courageous and important. We would see it on the tv constantly and the press would comment on it daily in glowing terms. Instead - dead silence.

I always watch media coverage for what does not happen as much as for what does happen. The silence on Hillary's accomplishments is deafening.

[realFedUp]

117. Maybe we'll have some good dialogue of this problem

because of her running for President.

[polichick]

21. If Hillary hadn't been so eager to trash the women Bill had affairs with...

I might be more inclined to feel sorry for her.

Where was her sense of sisterhood when she continually enabled ~ and even went into "battle mode" to rescue ~ her guilty husband at the expense of other women? Her actions are a good example of the "war on the feminine."

[realFedUp]

27. I guess she disagreed with Paula Jones who made it all up.

Women can certainly disagree but can we agree
that sexism still exists and we've see blatant
signs of it recently in NBC's coverage of her.

You can see it in the way people feel free
to disregard anything good she's done for
women and children here and around the world.

Even if you support someone else, using sexist
language, especially if you are a woman, degrades
you and other women. It makes it ok for men
to continue.

[polichick]

30. Hillary's own behavior is anti-feminine...

You've bought into the Clintons' trashing of Paula Jones ~ and there's a whole list of other women Hillary willingly trashed, including Gennifer Flowers. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is a classic enabler of a misogynist man, which is in itself misogynic.

Hillary's behavior has made it okay for her husband to continue ~ for some reason, you won't look at that.

[realFedUp]

32. A lot of name calling in this post...

Citing direct quotes about her bashing of
the women who brought lawsuits against her
husband might be the more above board approach.

[saltpoint]

37. True or not, those lawsuits were against the husband she chose to

remain with.

There's a structural problem with your defense of her as "victim."

Her husband in that respect exemplified the very behavior your condemn.

[realFedUp]

41. Nothing wrong about this blogger's argument.

But you seem to like me, really like me!

[saltpoint]

45. I'm absolutely sure we would like each other, realFedUp.

I have no doubt about that.

I think we're going to be supporting different candidates in the primary, but I think we would agree on many, many other things.


:thumbsup: :hi:

[polichick]

42. I'm perfectly fine with what I've said...

Do your own homework if you don't remember how it went down. I worked both of Bill Clinton's campaigns but have no interest in seeing this couple back in our WH, now that it's clear to me they'll stop at nothing to win.

[DURHAM D]

65. Your view that Hillary is "anti-feminine" is your view.

Speaks volumes about you - says nothing about Hillary.

[polichick]

68. Actually, Hillary's going into "battle mode" (as they say in her bio-pic)...

...in order to take down her husband's lovers says a lot about her. You can pretend that it doesn't, but that's your problem.

[DURHAM D]

70. Your comments say much about your personal experience.

This is obviously not about Bill or Hillary - it is a projection of your life.

[polichick]

75. Luckily I don't have a spouse who cheats, but I did work on Bill Clinton's campaigns...

...and I didn't appreciate the way either of them handled his problem with women. He squandered the WH, and she was his greatest enabler. Both were disrespectful and hateful toward the women who tried to warn the country about him.

[saltpoint]

33. Hillary Clinton chose to remain with her husband, despite his numerous

extra-marital trysts.

That's her call, of course. But when the subject of male behavior is in question, no matter whether husbands or "the media" is the subejct, it seems to me that her decision was to forgive the hanky-panky.

If we're looking for future models of non-sexist men and women, IMO the Clinton household is not a good place to start.

[femrap]

84. So maybe you're a proponent

of polygamy?

btw...yes you can what? What?

[MasonJar]

40. You are criticizing Hillary for trashing the women who were linked with her

husband? What a meme! Women are not equal here or elsewhere. We are much better off than the women in Iran and now Iraq (who at least under Saddam had reasonable expectations of living in a secular environment)...we, the homophobic and sophomoric and provincial US public, and our idiot-in-chief have degraded the women in Iraq by our stupid, arrogant policies of greed and hegemony so that the Iraqi women are now being murdered for not wearing scarves and other such innocent choices. What if we, the women of the US, were suddenly denied the right to vote. We would be outraged, but do we speak up loud and long for the more serious debacle which has befallen the women in Iraq because Bush/Cheney want to get control of the Iraqis' oil? The simple answer is NO! We are too busy with our current little belittlements of our two ultra-fine candidates to take up more significant problems. Women of America stand up now for the mistreated women of the world!

[realFedUp]

46. Amen, sister!

We who are blessed in this country to just have
food on our tables when so many in this country
and the world don't.

Standing up in this country to the ongoing male
leaning culture makes us stronger to help the
women across the world.

[polichick]

61. Wake up...

It starts with women respecting other women ~ NOT willfully trying to destroy them in order to rescue a guilty misogynist husband.

[DURHAM D]

67. Wow - are you even listening to yourself? eom

[polichick]

73. Only a completely blind supporter like you...

...would find a problem with the idea of women respecting other women. If you aren't being paid, you should be.

[Rock_Garden]

51. You're taking a lot of flak here, but I sure agree with you.

[realFedUp]

55. Got my flakjacket on....hehehe.

I'm going to go out and enjoy this beautiful
sunny day in SoCal.

Enjoy and blessings for a better country soon.

[femrap]

85. Why do all the smart people live

in California? I lived there for 15 years...now back in the Midwest...can't remember the last time I had a truly invigorating and thoughtful conversation.

Thank you for this thread. Have a great day in SoCal...I was in NoCal.

[realFedUp]

116. ahhhh, another wonderful day in SoCal...thanks for your comment.

back to the keyboard. I thought this
post would be archived by now....

[mopinko]

60. i am on both sides in this argument.

while i certainly do agree that much of what has been said and written about HRC is steeped in sexist bullshit, i do not support her. if she had taken this issue on, she might have won my vote. but imho, she both tried to macho her way through it, and tried to use it to her advantage. you can't go around trying to look like one of the boys, then turn around and say make history with me. pick one.
she could have really brought some light to this stuff if she had decided to actively engage on this. but she didn't. which is one more reason that i am not a hillary supporter.

[fenriswolf]

74. sorry i read this piece says it all

I do think "battle" is the right word, because the churches, temples and mosques that oppose equal rights for women, that oppose the ascendance of the feminine, consider efforts to give women equal rights, to give women the right to control their bodies an assault upon the faith, upon the church.



translation: they hate us for our freedom.

*edit: hillary is in no way a victim in any of this. She will come out of this race with more money and more power even if she looses. She is not a 9/11 victim in anyway.

[maq-az]

76. Stunning Speech

U.N. Conference
Women's Rights are Human Rights

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm

[Forrest Greene]

86. Nobody In This Country

...with fifteen million dollars & a Senate seat is a victim.

[saltpoint]

91. Agree.

[yurbud]

92. this is just sad. Can you DLC people EVER shill about ISSUES? you are so transparent with this

image and horeserace crap.

[Oldenuff]

95. Oh Brother....

What

a

Crock.

Want a woman President?

Get a decent candidate.

[sloppyjoe25s]

99. Simply the Dumbest Article I've ever read

That article is so totally out of touch with reality it is creepy.

It's her policies and her ethics people - and the fact that she is less electable. NOTHING to do with fact she is a woman. If anything that is her enduring strength.

People who keep painting her as a victim are actually doing her a BIG disservice. Just compete on facts and leadership.

[saltpoint]

100. Joan Didion's take:

* * *

To make an omelette you need not only those broken eggs but someone "oppressed" to break them: every revolutionist is presumed to understand that, and also every woman, which either does or does not make fifty-one per cent of the population of the United States a potentially revolutionary class. The creation of this revolutionary "class" was from the virtual beginning the "idea" of the women's movement, and the tendency for popular discussion of the movement to center for so long around day-care centers is yet another instance of that studied resistance to political ideas which characterizes our national life."

...

More and more, as the literature of the movement began to reflect the thinking of women who did not really understand the movement's ideological base, one had the sense of this stall, this delusion, the sense that the drilling of the theorists had struck only some psychic hardpan dense with superstitions and little sophistries, wish fulfillment, self-loathing and bitter fancies. To read even desultorily in this literature was to recognize instantly a certain dolorous phantasm, an imagined Everywoman with whom the authors seemed to identify all too entirely. This ubiquitous construct was everyone's victim but her own.

Joan Didion, "The Women's Movement," from THE WHITE ALBUM, 1972.

* * *

As a pro-feminist male who worked determinedly on the Equal Rights Amendment, I find progressive Joan Didion to be exactly right on these points of consideration. A "sex" or "gender" is not a class, and as such cannot be generalized into specific lists of grievances against which the greater society can be held accountable. That is, Cinderella is a "victim" so long as she is scrubbing the floors and her idiot, arrogant sisters are belittling her and marginalizing her. No man is belittling her and marginalizing her; her sisters were female. The Prince eventually marries Cinderella, who is elevated from scrubbing cabin floors on her knees to dazzling royal palaces and her own set of servants, but not through society-based works but through sheer magic. One wave of the fairgodmother's wand and behold, Cinderella is elevated!

[saltpoint]

105. The article cited in the OP notwithstanding, there is also this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4497661&mesg_id=4497661

--which, despite a few sharp elbows thrown under the basket, is an interesting span of comments on this subject.

[saltpoint]

110. If anyone would like to read some other women's words on HClinton --

-- here is a modest sampling:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/15/opinion/main2934136.shtml

http://www.sirensmag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=11

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/21/2003/

http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=25&pid=279745

[JTFrog]

111. She decide to run as the "first woman" to have a shot at the presidency,

instead of a great senator running for president. She used her first name exclusively in her campaign and gave herself the title "Your Girl". She touted thirty five years of experience and put the most emphasis on the years that she was someone's wife in the white house.

If she wasn't trying to play on the sympathies of women by claiming she was going to sock it to the boys and shatter the glass ceiling, then I'm not sure what the reason was for this strategy. Surely she could have found another focus for her campaign.

I don't think it's right that so much emphasis has been put on her being a woman by her or the press. They haven't done me or my daughter any favors with this campaign.

[CitizenRob]

118. Women voting for Hillary just because she's female lose us the election.

Every time I hear a Democratic woman say they're going to vote for Hillary in the primary just because she's female I feel a little ill inside. Hillary is a TERRIBLE candidate. Her Iraq vote is one of MANY politically expedient votes she made. Oh, what's that you say? You don't think her vote was politically expedient? Just ignorant then? NO? Seriously? Not ignorant either? Sorry sweetums you can't have it both ways. Either she voted that way because it was politically expedient, or she DIDN'T BOTHER TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY CAST A VOTE ON THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE ANY SENATOR COULD EVER VOTE ON.

So please.

If Hillary is a victim of anything it is her own haste and ambition.

[katty]

119. for 30+ yrs Hillary has had to make it in a man's world...

so she has been bashed for being 'too agressive' 'too manly', the usual sexist rants. Obama, by contrast is younger, very attractive, not battle weary (yet), fresh, soft, warm lovely smile--just by appearance alone he is more seductive than Hillary will ever be. She is screwed if she crys and manifests emotion (translation=a girl thing) and screwed when she is too strong. Personally, I am just observing both of them as masterful politicians/comparing their strengths/weaknesses, etc - because it is so easy to confuse the 'truth of appearances and the truth of reality'. We are so used to our choices being old, white guys at a podium that these two candidates are a real novelty.

[grassfed]

120. Hillary: NO on CLUSTER BOMB BAN

resulting in ACTUAL VICTIMS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm

and YES on Kyle/Lieberman branding Iranian military as terrorists, granting a known war criminal the authority to kill and maim more innocent women and children. I could go on.

[rosetta627]

121. "War Victim"???!!! Hillary???

The one who gave Bush a thumbs up on War against Iraq for no reason?

She's not a victim, she's the one victimizing others.

I'm a woman and I will not vote for a murderer for president whether she has boobs or not.