Hillary's issues are not related to Sexism or Gender Bias

[stevenleser]

Hillary's issues are related to the fact that she has a negative/unfavorable rating in the high 40 percents http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary . The reason she has this is because of a 16 year record that she and Bill have to which people can point and either stress the good or the bad. The GOP has done a strong job stressing the bad about her and Bill. I think that is extremely unfair and unfortunate. But it has nothing to do with her gender.

There are other women national political figures that do not have unfavorable ratings in the high 40 percents. For Hillary advocates to be able to successfully argue that issues with Hillary are gender bias, they would have to explain these other women's favorability away. Even national level women who in my opinion DESERVE a massively high unfavorable rating, like Condi Rice, http://www.pollingreport.com/R.htm#Rice or Liddy Dole http://www.pollingreport.com/D.htm#Dole dont have one.

[jakem]

1. omg. reason!

[stevenleser]

4. Imagine that!

;-) Thanks for noticing.

[niyad]

2. funny how the women you mention are repukes, not dems.

gender bias exists, no matter how much people want to deny it.

[stevenleser]

3. False dilemma and straw man argument

I did not say gender bias did not exist. I said Hillary's issues are not related to Gender Bias.

And I cited Repukes because, naturally, as a Democrat, those are the people who I think SHOULD have a high negative rating. But, OK, lets look at national level Democrats/.

Madeline Albright: http://www.pollingreport.com/A-B.htm#Albright
much lower negative ratings than Hillary and the polls go back to when she was actually the secretary of state.

Nancy Pelosi: http://www.pollingreport.com/P.htm#Pelosi
Hillarys negatives are in the 40s and while Nancys have edged up, most people still have her negatives in the mid 30s.

Any other arguments you want to throw at me?

[joeybee12]

7. If you had said some of the bias or even most aren't gender related

you might have had a point, but to completely dimiss any bias whatsoever is ridiculous. Listen to the news, read what the so-called progressives write about her being shrill and cackling...see how the kool-aid drinkers heer dimss=iss any support she has as being mainly from women...then try and tell me you don't want to rethink this post.

[stevenleser]

13. I dont think so. I am sure some against both Hillary and Obama

is either gender or race related. But it is not the major issue in either of their situations. I think most people are smart enough to know what I meant.

[anamandujano]

36. Conversely, most of us dummies don't know "what you meant."

Don't take this as an insult but you are a waste of time.

[stevenleser]

41. If you see yourself as a dummy, I cant help you

and yes, you are a waste of time.

[anamandujano]

43. lazy argument

copycat

[stevenleser]

45. Yes, I copied a lazy argument, one that YOU made.

And now you call it lazy! LOL, you do realize that you just insulted yourself, right?

[robbedvoter]

5. Yup. That kinda gives away the falacy.

[stevenleser]

6. No, it doesnt, as I provided Democratic examples too...

... I know you guys want to hold on to this gender bias argument with both hands and feet but, quite frankly, there is no 'there' there.

[UALRBSofL]

11. Typical excuse

What would you expect.

[stevenleser]

14. I know, it is a typical excuse, that I didnt include

Democrats at first. Of course, when I did, what happened to the argument then?

[RC]

19. But it is Hillary's stand on major issues that I have a problem with.

Not her gender nor her skin color. Things like bu$h's war, her version for health care.

[stevenleser]

21. But as you can see, her proponents in this thread dont believe that this is possible

you have to be against her because she is a woman. There can be no other reason.

[anamandujano]

23. Now who's being "intellectually dishonest?"

Even at DU, you can find many people who were and are against Hillary's stance on some/many issues, and in fact are not voting for her BUT they cringe at the sexism she has been subjected to and defend her against it.

[stevenleser]

25. Like what sexism?

I'm the first person to defend a woman against sexism. Point me to a specific instance and I will attack whoever is responsible. The first two campaigns I worked on I chose to work on specifically because the candidates were women. I support Emilys List. I support NOW. But I dont support someone who raises discrimination issues that arent there.

[anamandujano]

34. If you're the first person to defend women against sexism, then

why are you trying to massage "pimpgate" and the withering attacks Hillary has endured since she hit the scene?

You may try to keep saying that it's her policies but you know it's that it's because the idea of a brilliant woman, working at the highest level of gov't riles the abusers. It sets a bad example.

They would have liked her as First Lady if she did what all the other First Ladies did, decorate, attend funerals or whatever Laura Bush does now. They didn't like her using her brain. If you want to be rich and famous or in any way relevant, the best way is to emulate Paris dumb@ss Hilton.

By the way, an attack does not have to have sexist code words. The simple cumulative effect of the endless slurs against her is proof enough that sexism is part of it. They don't always talk issues and dissect why her stance is bad, and you know it.

[stevenleser]

39. Who said I am trying to massage pimpgate?

I wrote to MSNBC as soon as I heard about this. It was disgusting. But how is Schusters despicable words about pimping Chelsea tantamount to gender bias against Hillary?

This is what I am talking about Ana. When someone discriminates against me on the basis of my being hispanic, or of African descent or Jewish, I dont have to sit there and wonder, ok? Other people who might have been around me at the time dont wonder. When I have seen REAL gender discrimination and bias against women I have known and worked with, I havent had to wonder about it. This stuff that you and other people are trying to sell about gender bias against Hillary isnt gender bias.

Should I sell your arguing with me about my points as racism? Anti-semitism? That is exactly what you are doing. It isnt all about that.

[anamandujano]

51. It's really hard to debate with you because you don't make much sense.

First and foremost, you started this thread because you were prompted by the response to Shuster's remark. It was really just a drop in the bucket for MSM. They were insinuating that Hillary was a bad mother for having Chelsea in her campaign. You are hoping to contain it.

Did I know that you are hispanic or jewish? SO AM I!

Trying to make that argument analogous to the sexism issues of the MSM would probably take Aristotle himself to unravel.

[stevenleser]

55. No, I didnt start this thread because of the Schuster remark.

I challenge you to find any hint of that in my OP.

Now who doesnt make sense?

[Onlooker]

8. Why are her negatives so high?

When you think about it, there's really not that much negative about Hillary Clinton relative to other politicians. Perhaps her negatives are high in part because of sexism, because she's been framed by the right (and to some degree the left) in a sexist manner. They have not done that to other women because they are not running for President. I'm sure they'll do something similar to Obama should he get the nomination.

Check out this thread, which includes an article by the feminist author Robin Morgan:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4483875&mesg_id=4483875

Nonetheless, the fact that there is so much sexism and her negatives are so high is a reason to support Obama. If we can't get a woman elected, then let's get a black man. Either case is good progress considering what came before them.

[stevenleser]

12. I think it is because...

she had as much thrown at her as Bill did during his Presidency, but she does not have the fact that she was a successful President to deflect some of that as he does. You can say all kinds of garbage about someone being a bad person and bad President, but if they presided over peace and prosperity, it really isnt going to work.

[Thrill]

9. Some Men hate to work somewhere that a woman is their boss

So lets be realitic. Gender is an issue. Sad. But true.

[stevenleser]

10. But is it an issue HERE

that is the question.

[Thrill]

17. In an election for President?

I think I just answered this. If some don't like to work for one running their place of business. How do you think they would feel about one running the country?

[stevenleser]

22. No, you didnt answer it.

the President is not 'our boss' if anything, we are theirs.

Its also interesting to examine whether someone who might not want to report to someone because of race, gender or sexual orientation feel the same way about someone of that class having a high position if they are not directly reporting to them. I dont think we can make that assumption.

But really, all of this is meaningless conjecture. When you have someone whose negative rating is at almost 50% and other members of their class dont have negative ratings near that, you cant say it is as a result of their class. That is about as simple as it gets.

[anamandujano]

15. They're issues of the good old boy's club, the MSM. That creates

a problem for Hillary.

[stevenleser]

16. OK, that is a nice nonspecific generalization. Can you cite

examples?

[anamandujano]

18. The best example would be the reason you started this thread,

mainly to massage the latest goof of the MSM.

Condi Rice and Liddy Dole are protected Repukes. The members of the MSM have their paychecks written by Repuke owners. Their negatives won't ever reach where they deserve to be. Brainwashing is quite effective and they've been working over Hillary's character unfairly since she hit the scene.

edit for spelling

[stevenleser]

20. So what becomes of your argument with the Democratic

women I cited?

As I said earlier, I know some people want to hang onto this gender bias argument with both hands and feet, but it is intellectually dishonest.

[anamandujano]

27. Stop moving the goal post. Let's talk about why you started this thread.

I say it's because you're trying to bury the blatantly sexist treatment, not just Hillary, but most prominent women get in the MSM.

Albright and Pelosi have not taken as much fire as Hillary and you know it. If Pelosi ever did anything to rattle their cages, then we might enjoy a rise in her negatives.

[stevenleser]

29. OK, lets talk about why I started it.

Hillary is playing a gender card where no gender bias exists. Next?

[anamandujano]

38. I'm happy for you that you're able to entertain yourself so easily.

:)

[stevenleser]

40. What can I say, I am a happy person.

If you arent then I feel sorry for you.

[stevenleser]

31. Albright and Pelosi havent taken as much fire as Hillary!?!?!?!

LOL. Thanks for that one. I havent had such a whopper thrown at me in a while.

[anamandujano]

42. Back up your meaningless assertions.

[stevenleser]

44. Like what?

What is meaningless to you?

[anamandujano]

53. HELLO, you might find a clue in the post I answered.

[stevenleser]

56. Nope, there is no clue in your post as to any specific items...

... sorry.

[anamandujano]

60. click here for your clue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4502927&mesg_id=4504402

Did you, or did you not, imply that Albright and Pelosi HAVE taken the same volume and intensity of the attacks on Hillary but their negatives aren't as high?

[Bluerthanblue]

24. this woman thanks you-

for expressing my perspective on this issue very well.

It has been claimed that if you don't agree that Hillary is being discriminated against in this primary because of her sex, then you are automaticly "sexist".

That statement represents a kind of bigotry in and of itself in my opinion.

Violence against women does exist. So does prejudice, abuse and oppression. I don't believe that is what is holding Hillary back.


peace~

[anamandujano]

28. They are not "holding her back," try as they might,

but they are sexist.

I can't remember where I heard this, but it was an interview on CSPAN. Paraphrasing--at least blacks know they are being discriminated against, women, for the most part, don't know.

[stevenleser]

30. Ah, so it is the imaginary or invisible sexism that gets ya...

thanks, wasnt sure.

[anamandujano]

46. If it's imaginary and invisible then tell us again why you have

worked against it your entire life.

Something like, "yes sexism is a problem in our culture but it is not used against Hillary?"

[stevenleser]

50. I dont know anything about the imaginary and invisible kind...

I have never heard about imaginary and invisible ethncentrism or orientation or gender bias before you asserted its existence.

I know about the REAL kinds of all of the above and have fought against them. But the imaginary kind? The kind only raised to sell the victimhood of Hillary? Nope.

[stevenleser]

33. Thank you for your well reasoned response too...

Its amazing. As someone who has been fighting discrimination my whole life I find this whole gender bias against Hillary thing a pile of crap. I'm part hispanic, African, aborigine and Jewish on my father's side and Catholic on my mother's side. I grew up in an all lily white neighborhood where I was the darkest person in town. One of the girls who I dated in high school was asked by a friend "Why are you dating that black guy?".

My mother took me on my first pro-feminism march in the early to mid 70's to support the attempt to pass the ERA. I have been a liberal/progressive/pro feminist ever since. I've only fired one person ever in my life and that was a male who I fired for sexually harassing one of my other staff who was female. As I mentioned in other threads, I support Emilys list and Now.

I dont coddle discrimination of any sort is what I am trying to tell people here. But the obstacles to Hillary are not about gender discrimination. Believe me, folks.

[CaptJasHook]

26. I think you are partially correct, but not completely

Because of the newness of a very likely Female or non-White candidate, race and gender ARE going to be an issue in this campaign, on many levels. Everyone needs to accept that.

I expect everyone who calls themselves a Progressive, a Liberal or a Democrat to be educated enough to see where the opposition (read Rethuglicans and the MSM) are using race and gender to create divisions amongst our own party. I also expect that neither candidate or their staff will use race or gender to their benefit. Finally, I am hoping for the day when the DU community can band together and present a united voice that transcends race and gender.

It would be great to be just discussing the issues of war, economy, environment, social justice, etc. Unfortunately, we live in a country/world that has a long history of persistent racism, sexism and a number of other isms. That history needs to be dragged out into the light of the sun and exposed.

By the way, I am just as concerned about the misandrism exhibited on these boards as I am about the misogyny. There are some outrageous and uncalled for accusations flying back and forth.

[LulaMay]

32. Really? Who needs universal health care the most? Women and children.

Obama does not want it.

He made a ridiculous remark about it, saying mandates aren't the way to solve it, because it would be like forcing people who don't own a home to buy one. Huh? Brilliant.

I guess he doesn't like FDR's Social Security mandate either.

He sounds like a moderate, even conservative on many issues to me.

[stevenleser]

35. First of all, as a former Edwards supporter, let's not forget that she

copied John Edwards' healthcare proposal almost word for word. If we are going to annoint people on their smarts and compassion about healthcare, you should be talking about John Edwards.

That being said, I think Edwards and therefore Hillary's healthcare plan is better than Baracks. But the differences when compared with where we should be ultimately aiming, single payor universal healthcare, are slight.

[anamandujano]

37. Where was Edwards when she tried to give us health care the

first time around?

Now, everyone knows we got snookered by the insurance companies and the Repukes.

Edwards, as much as I like him, could be called a copycat too.

[stevenleser]

48. You mean in 1993-1994?

Here you are, from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_family entry in Wikipedia :

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.<11> The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl<13> who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.

In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."<14> The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.<12> The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment<11> that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

[Yael]

47. Sanity returns

Thanks for the post and the links.

[stevenleser]

49. Thank you. I am not sure you saw these links further in the thread, but

here is a response I wrote to those who said my OP links were meaningless because they were all about GOP women:

False dilemma and straw man argument
I did not say gender bias did not exist. I said Hillary's issues are not related to Gender Bias.

And I cited Repukes because, naturally, as a Democrat, those are the people who I think SHOULD have a high negative rating. But, OK, lets look at national level Democrats/.

Madeline Albright: http://www.pollingreport.com/A-B.htm#Albright
much lower negative ratings than Hillary and the polls go back to when she was actually the secretary of state.

Nancy Pelosi: http://www.pollingreport.com/P.htm#Pelosi
Hillarys negatives are in the 40s and while Nancys have edged up, most people still have her negatives in the mid 30s.

Any other arguments you want to throw at me?

[Yael]

52. Bookmarking. Thanks!

[seybor]

54. Oh yeah? How old are you?

Old enough to remember Hillary came into the White House and became a prominent political figure? How many repubs were outspoken in their concern that a first lady hold that position. They felt she should be put in her place. They accused her of being a lesbian and the partnership between she and Bill was reputed to be a mere front. They hated her for it, and quickly made her the women they loved to hate. That is where the deep digging into her history began and the reason that her dirty laundry has been so thoroughly aired out. This history of hate and the subsequent digging have contributed to the outright IRE of her - and to the engrained suspicion of her every move and motive..

Sexism may not directly be why most people dislike her now, this history is probably not be why many of the people who prefer Obama but respect Clinton support him. However, her pioneering role as a first lady with a political agenda for positive change is, in part, responsible for much of the hatred, and that has *everything* to do with sexism and gender bias.

[stevenleser]

57. So, let me get this straight...

... and I am going to be 40 this year, by the way... but lets return to your argument

1. The sexism you are talking about is 9-16 years old.
2. Virtually everyone here at DU fought against it and everything else the GOP threw at the Clintons
3. You and other Hillary supporting DUers are attacking Obama supporting DUers even though we fought against this sexism when it occured a decade and more ago.

Thank you. That is about what I thought.

[seybor]

58. What I'm attacking

Is the notion that none of the out-and-out hatred, none of the "she can't beat the republicans because they hate'r too much" argument, has *anything* to do with that 9- to 16-year-old sexism. I certainly appreciate that you and others here (I wasn't here on DU, but I was right there with you in the struggle) fought against it then. It was disgraceful. I'm not attacking you personally or as an Obama supporting DUer.

Even though I prefer Clinton, and I have specific concerns about Obama, I fall into the camp that's thinking, "Holy cats! I think we're the luckiest dems in history!" This is not because they're both minority candidates, though that's certainly a major bonus, but because they are so aligned in policy - and they are both, and have both always been, committed to causes that are at the heart of the ideals that brought me to the democratic party.

So, I have to admit - I might have interjected a little snark in the title because I wanted to be read, and because the age thing is making me a little batty. I've heard a lot of arguments from youngsters that, by supporting Hillary, I'm risking alienating young voters - this implies that their vote and the party's ability recruit them is more important than my vote.That stinks, and at 35, I'm not quite ready to be put out to pasture. But, I should have thanked you, too, for your perspective.

[anamandujano]

59. Thank you. About the 9-16 years old sexism that was defended at DU.

First, thank you for your posts. I'm speaking to both of them and the response of the OP.

You're right, it's about the history. The MSM is using that as a firm base to build upon. They only need mention "a blue dress" or her failed health care effort and they're off to the races. If I may reference Obama's Harry and Louise mailer on health care. A cheap little mailer, getting more bang for the buck because it referenced and was supported by a $300 million campaign of attack.

They have made the recent argument that she does not deserve respect because she did not walk away from her marriage. Everyone and their aunt had a say in what she should have done. They have made the argument that she was ambitious and that was the main reason she stayed. These arguments are launched from the firm base of Ken Starr's voyeurism.

People defend against sexism at DU (well, maybe in the past) but we all know that the MSM has more of a bully pulpit and a lazier audience.

[seybor]

61. About her marriage and failed health reform

I'm glad you mention them. I went through a divorce, and it stunk. I had been married 5 years and had no children. They had been married for over 20 and had a child who she had to be thinking about. How she forgave him and why she stayed may be a mystery to some - that's because it's a very private subject. We don't need to know. It's cruel and inappropriate use that for political gains.

On health reform, she pushed it when it was considered a communist notion - and that was pretty bold given how recently the cold war had ended. I think it's pretty amazing that it's actually a very central part of both candidates' platform after only 9-16 years - she really paved the way. She should be very proud of that, and if Obama is elected and succeeds in bring reform about, he shoud be very grateful for the groundwork she laid. Before you think I'm attacking him, I'm not. Given his appreciation for the activists who came before him, I'd like to believe he will appreciate it.