On the Subject of Sexism

[TeamsterDem]

I'm a relative DU neophyte, and I suppose owing to that I'll either be ignored or berated for this post. Oh well. Here goes nothing.

Liz Trotta is a woman I can't stand. No matter that her recent statement addressed my candidate of choice, I'd be equally angry had she referenced Hillary Clinton with such ridiculous garbage. I don't dislike Liz because she's a woman but because she's an idiot.

Condoleeza Rice doesn't pass my likability test. She's supported President Jethro while he's waged a war of aggression, has done nothing to ameliorate the Middle East situation (in fact exacerbating it), and is generally one of the worst statespersons we have in government. She's not those things because she's a woman, but because individually she's an ideological buffoon.

Karen Hughes is a contemptible scoundrel. This ideologue served on the White House Iraq Group (the folks who packaged the war to the public), and failed rather miserably to improve the US image abroad (although that was likely because of Bush's Iraq war. Then again, she helped package that war so it's fair to blame her for both). She doesn't deserve scorn for being a woman. She deserves scorn for being an ideologically-driven partisan who was a complete failure and enabler for this war.

Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, E.D. Hill, Laura Ingraham, Debbie Schlussel, and the remaining coterie of female conservative voices are also equally repugnant, but not because they're female. They're repugnant because of their dangerous, simplistic, and downright wrong statements.

I'm sure most if not all of DU joins me in my views of these women. Most of us feel this way because these individuals - all of them - have either caused harm to the United States by way of their championing of the Iraq war or by way of their complicity in polarizing the country with inflammatory and often false statements.

So why is it, then, that we can all agree as to how we view these individuals - and some of you have called them all sorts of inflammatory names like "Ann the Man" and "Condosleeza" - but when any of us dissents against Hillary Clinton with reasoned arguments that we're labeled as "sexists" and "misogynists?" Can't you see that the vast majority of us (those who support Obama) don't oppose Clinton because of her gender, but instead because of her voting record (Iraq war authorization, for the most part) and because many of us don't have fond memories of the Clinton years that she herself has promoted a return to? Seriously all, it's time that we all grew up a bit and only slapped the "sexist" label where it belongs: On John McCain's campaign - the guy who famously called his wife the "C" word.

I'd make this same post if I saw a predominance of "they don't like Obama because he's black" arguments. I don't believe that most pro-Clinton folks are racists; they just have a different view of the candidates. Not every statement of opposition to Clinton is a sexist remark, and not every opponent of Obama is a racist. Quit twisting every damn thing into "sexism" when you know damn well it isn't. And quit suggesting that a considerable amount of Obama's supporters are sexists when you know damn well they're not. It's offensive, untrue, and damaging to your credibility.

Damn, I heard that a southern KKK group is supporting McCain: That make him a Nazi, does it? Get real. McCain is a lot of things but a Nazi isn't one of them. But going by your "logic," we should vote against a particular candidate because of who SOME of their supporters MIGHT be, never mind how small their percentages might be or how strained the interpolation is.

Obama said "out come the claws," they say. Yeah he did, but in fact (I'm a guy) I was in a meeting the other day with coworkers (who are my friends) and got in a heated debate with one of them who then charged that when I'm confronted "out come the claws." Can you explain to me - a guy - how my friend was being sexist?

Obama called a reporter "sweetie," they remind us. Yeah he did. Then again I went to a coffee shop two weeks ago and the older female waitress asked me "do you want cream with your coffee, sweetie?" Why the NERVE of that "sexist" waitress!!!!!

C'mon. Let's end the charade already.

[crankychatter]

1. race/gender - race/gender - stir stir stir

what a sideshow eh?

k/r

[nichomachus]

2. They scream "sexism," because it's all they've got left

I was first accused of sexism by a woman I wouldn't promote when I was running a small operation. More than 60 percent of the employees were women and more than half of the supervisors and managers were women. But this woman -- dumber than a bag of dirty socks -- told me the only reason I wouldn't promote her to supervisor was because she was a woman.

[PoliticalAmazon]

11. The irony is that it is Bill Clinton who treats women like disposable toiletpaper. n/t

[DevonRex]

27. Isn't all toilet paper disposable? Just askin... :) nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Kicked & Highly Recommended!! Brilliant post!

You articulate everything that I've been trying to say.

When Hill enablers admit and accept the responsibility that is the Clintons--and the Clintons ONLY--we will be able to move forward. But blaming Obama and his supporters for all that went wrong for the Clintons during this campaign just sound exactly like Bush and the Republicans, who ironically blamed the Clintons for all of their mistakes/crimes.

[reflection]

4. Good grok, TeamsterDem. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

5. A little reasonableness introduced into our debates

would be welcome.

As you say, especially here at DU, racism and sexism are rarely to blame for someone's choice of candidate. And throwing those accusations around dilutes the power of the terms.

[TeamsterDem]

8. That's a fantastic point

about diluting the power of the terms; I think I was headed that way in my post but never quite got there.

It's a dangerous thing to cry wolf especially when there are actually wolves out there. By that I mean there most surely IS sexism in this country (regrettably), and there is just as regrettably racism. But when we overuse those terms we create hostility towards our cause. Just look at the hostility I displayed in my post at being called a sexist for an example of how hostility is created.

By my lights we should be careful about how we use such terms if only because their overuse has a tendency to make people angry. Of course we should call things as they are and not be afraid to challenge racism and sexism when we see it; that goes without saying. But by shotgunning terms around in such a haphazard fashion we're angering people and fostering disunity (and yes, it works both ways: Obama supporters need to rein it in as well).

In another thread someone asked how Clinton is hurting the feminist cause. I provided an answer but have thought about it some more and would like to augment my response with this: Considering the scant nature of the "evidence" of sexism, most honest observers will notice that the charge is essentially trumped up. Some of those observers will then undoubtedly blame feminists as "uppity" women who'll complain about anything, thus damaging the true cases in which sexism is involved. And since there are feminists who prefer Obama to Clinton, they resent being labeled as "inferior" feminists, thus it fractures the feminist cause. Not good things to have in your cause, distrust and disunity. I'm a union member; believe me I know.

[TexasObserver]

6. Hillary is a schemer. Part of her scheme is to capitalize upon women's injuries from sexism.

Every woman has experienced sexism on some level, and some can recall the days when certain fields were largely cut off from them because of sexism. Hillary has manipulated those women by trying to make her candidacy Joan of Arc fighting valiantly for womanhood.

She's a user, and like most users, she uses whatever works.

[NashVegas]

7. Writing "Ann the Man" Has Often Met With Criticism in the Past, Here

And while there has been gender-based criticism of Rice, "sleaze" is not a wholly female-owned trait.

Beyond that, the importance of the issue is that Coulter et al are not competing for office against another Democrat, and no one is using Democratic Underground, strategically, to oppose their promotions.

In fact, if any group of people was seriously getting together to try to get any of those women fired from their jobs and using sexist terminology in their propaganda the way anti-Clinton people have, they'd be laughed out of the room and told where to go.

[TeamsterDem]

9. Those are good points

but they miss the mark. My point is that some on this board insist on conflating terms and phrases such as "out come the claws" and "sweetie" with sexism when in fact that's not necessarily true. While I agree that "Sleaze" and your point about "Ann the Man," the fact is that some people are deliberately twisting the meaning of phrases and words to suit a definition other than the one intended by the speaker. While that's a common practice in politics, that alone doesn't make it true or honest.

[NashVegas]

14. Ah. "It Ain't Necessarily So"

Doesn't mean it's false. In debating terms, your method would be called a Fallacy of Distraction, IIRC.

[TeamsterDem]

15. Going by that MO, though

you're then putting the onus on every Obama supporter to prove they're not a sexist, something which flies in the face of logic itself. If you believe they're sexists it's up to you to prove that they are; someone making an allegation has the incumbent responsibility to prove it (that's why the prosecution goes first in a trial).

What you're saying by pointing to my "not necessarily so" is that anyone who says anything at all is then responsible for proving that any POSSIBLE interpretation of it is not a fact. That's a pretty hefty burden you're placing on everyone, one I'm not altogether sure you'd be able to satisfy.

Get real dude. It's a simple thing: If you think it's sexism (or any other "ism" for that matter), it's your burden to prove it's so. That proof hasn't been demonstrated, ergo it's sexism only in the feeble minds of those so blinded by affinity for HRC that their tunnel vision won't allow for anything else.

[NashVegas]

19. I'm Doing No Such Thing

If you feel that you have to prove you're not a sexist for your refusal to believe a certain line of attack is sexist, that's your problem that you've made for yourself - I didn't make it for you.

As a Hillary Clinton supporter, I've been called a racist once or twice, more often it's been directly implied and at other times, there are the blanket "Clinton voters are racists," crap. I feel no such burden to prove myself contrary to their opinion.

PS - I'm not a DUDE. Interesting assumption on your part, but it doesn't prove you're sexist, it just proves you're lazy.

[TeamsterDem]

20. Here's the context, genius

I said it's "not necessarily so" that opposition to Clinton is sexist, and your entire response was "ah, not necessarily so" as if to imply that in lots of cases it is just that. Problem is implication doesn't mean proof and doesn't make something so; that's the argument I just presented. I feel no need to justify myself to you - and I haven't done that - just pointing out that your banal response lacked any substance.

As to who you are, it's not laziness, it's a lack of caring. If you're sensitive to being called "dude" on a discussion board, then I can see how easy the jump is for you to assume that all Obama supporters (or even a considerable number of them) are sexists.

[NashVegas]

23. Ahem

My point is that some on this board insist on conflating terms and phrases such as "out come the claws" and "sweetie" with sexism when in fact that's not necessarily true. While I agree that "Sleaze" and your point about "Ann the Man," the fact is that some people are deliberately twisting the meaning of phrases and words to suit a definition other than the one intended by the speaker. While that's a common practice in politics, that alone doesn't make it true or honest.

I don't get "opposition to Clinton isn't sexist" from that, I get, "people are claiming something that looks sexist is sexist, but it's not necessarily sexist ... and therefore, dear reader, it's not true that it's sexist."

[TeamsterDem]

26. Well you're free to "get" whatever you selectively choose

but the fact is that I've made my point regarding how some folks are so fast and easy with determining what "looks" sexist - things which don't resemble sexism to most folks who aren't scouring transcripts for things to twist into whatever suits their agenda.

What you're noticeably glossing over here, "dear reader," is how I pointed out that as a guy I'd recently been accused by another guy of "having my claws out," and further that I'd been addressed as "sweetie" by a kindly older waitress. You obviously didn't address those things because it'd be impossible for you to demonstrate them as "sexist" remarks - and because they don't involve Obama as the speaker I regrettably understand your disinclination to address them. After all they shed quite a bit of light on the BS spiel about those specific remarks being sexist, now don't they?

[Terran]

10. "Ann the Man" is deemed disrespectful

to transgendered persons, and I agree with that (just to note that issue).

Good post, to the OP. If HRC had run a decent campaign and shown respect to her opponents and her party, it would be a lot easier to pick out the real sexism from the kind of legitimate criticism that is described above. But unfortunately, she has made that almost impossible because of what she has done and said.

Here's a question: is it sexist to criticize/attack conservative women in general (like Coulter, Malkin et al) *because* of their political/cultural positions? Me, I think not. As with African-Americans who vote republican, I view them as traitors to the best interests of their group.

[TeamsterDem]

13. I think it's altogether ridiculous

to think that criticizing anyone is necessarily done out of some insidious ulterior motive unless proven otherwise. Anyone who writes or speaks publicly is open to criticism, be they white, black, male, female, or whatever. As long as the critique is substantive and not laden with demonstrably racist or sexist remarks - not those contorted into such a meaning - it's certainly acceptable to criticize or oppose someone for their views.

[Terran]

16. True, but I'm talking about criticizing the whole group

not individuals. I feel that women who align them selves with conservative ideology are automatically open to attack. And for many that might be too broad a brush because it focuses directly on gender as part of the issue; but to me it's not.

[TeamsterDem]

18. That's an interesting question

I see your point. I get angry at union members who insist on voting Republican even though that vote costs them (and us) directly in terms of Republican hatred for unions and the working class. But then again some union members feel that their loyalties lie to the country first, union second, and that (in their opinion) the R's represent that interest better. I know, I disagree too, but they're Americans and are allowed make up their own minds.

I almost think it's one of those "novelty" things for some people in certain groups, like African Americans who vote Republican or union members doing the same. I think it's an act of defiance toward the powers-that-be in their advocacy group's hierarchy (ie "I'll teach them to tell me who to vote for!"). And there's also a required amount of stupidity involved in at least some of their decision making processes otherwise no one would vote against their own interests.

Good question though. I'll have to think about that some more.

[H2O Man]

12. Very good.

We should evaluate people on the content of their character, rather than things such as sex or ethnic identity.

[adoraz]

17. great post, recommended!

all Hillary supporters who make this argument need to read this.

[seaglass]

21. You don't get it.

"but when any of us dissents against Hillary Clinton with reasoned arguments that we're labeled as "sexists" and "misogynists?"

Nope, reasoned arguments are not sexist or misogynist - don't know where you get this.

and "Not every statement of opposition to Clinton is a sexist remark"

No shit.

[TeamsterDem]

22. Where do I get it?

From the horse's mouth. I've seen too much of this "sexist" charge parading around on here "buttressed" only by statements like Barack's "claws" remark or "sweetie-gate." As I demonstrated in my OP those simply aren't tantamount to sexism.

Twisting and perverting Obama's words - and worse: his supporters' words - to suit some agenda you're peddling is simply ridiculous. As you're apparently defending that practice, the "not getting it" is all yours, friend.

[seaglass]

25. All you have to do is place "my" in front of friend and you sound just

like John McCain.

Go do a search on my username and Obama and sweetie.

[TeamsterDem]

28. Oh God. How wonderfully trite. n/t

[seaglass]

30. Haha nice comeback. n/t

[TeamsterDem]

31. Well you'll have to excuse me

but I don't devote much time to those whose zenith of intellectual function is saying others sound like McCain and instead of making their case refer people to Google.

[Terran]

32. I just did such a search

and I fail to see your point. How does 'sweetiegate' (as I'm sure you all like to think of it) relate to what the OP is actually discussing? Do you actually think that Obama's one-time use of the word "sweetie" makes him a sexist and ergo his campaign and all his supporters are sexist, too? Somehow I feel you're smarter than that (except for the silly McCain comment above).

[Window]

24. K/R.

:kick:

[DevonRex]

29. Agreed. Let's end the charade. K&R nt

[Marrah_G]

33. Anything good in your post was swept away at the end.

If you don't get the difference between a waitress calling a customer sweetie and a business woman being called sweetie in a dismissive way in front of her colleagues then I really have nothing else to say to you. I think deep down you understand that there is a difference, especially in professions woman have been trying to gain equality in for years.

Now on the flip side Obama handled his little screw up perfectly. He apologized and I am pretty sure he won't make that error again.

I don't think Obama's screw up was that big a deal, but it did highlight a problem that we still face in America and around the world. Sexism is indeed real. It is out there. It is so ingrained in our society that even the best of us screw up from time to time.

[TeamsterDem]

35. Game?

I don't see it as a game at all, nor do I see the difference between what Obama did and the waitress's actions. It's the same thing precisely because it's simply meant as a friendly term, one attempting to show cordiality and a personal flare. I would say exactly the same thing if H. Clinton called a male reporter sweetie because it's not intended to be "dismissive," it's meant to be friendly.

If you don't get that then I can't imagine you're a lot of fun to hang around with; I envision asking you to pass me a cigarette only to have you yell back at me that you're not some "Vegas cigarette girl." I mean jeez, not everything is sexist. Often words betray only the explicit intent. This is one of those times. Get over yourself.

[Marrah_G]

37. your response is the same one women aften get when they dare to speak out.

"Lighten up" " You aren't any fun" "get over yourself" "relax hunny, I was just being friendly"

Blah blah blah.

Fortunately, at least online, I can choose not to associate with men like you.

I'm done.

[TeamsterDem]

38. Hmmm, I don't believe I uttered any of those things, now did I?

In fact I believe I specifically pointed to the hypothetical of asking you to pass me a cigarette. Yet you chose to put those other words in my mouth. At least we can count on one thing from your brand of Clinton supporter: Utter, unadulterated distortion.

Consistency is usually a good thing. Sadly not in your case.

[grantcart]

34. nice post sweetie

[TeamsterDem]

36. Glad to see your claws are retracted

:evilgrin: :toast:

[alwysdrunk]

39. Ignored or berated?

Why? That was fucking LIVE! :toast:

[VotesForWomen]

40. *IF* you saw a predominance of "they don't like Obama because he's black" arguments???!!!!

what board on you on!!!!!! those arguments are in practically every other post, for christ's sake!!!!!! get back to us when you've been here a little longer.

[TeamsterDem]

41. Really? The tired "not enough posts" retort?

Good one. Think that one up all by yourself, didja?