"Could there be some type(s) of self-reinforcing feedback loop(s) going on? Hutman once mentioned he is more likely to respond to some body he doesn't agree with. I think I'm the same way."

Me too, though I try to respond only if have something to offer that I think might help move the conversation along or open it up somehow. I try to avoid responding to polemic; I nearly always live to regret it.

As to econ, I agree. It's a great deficiency in my education. Back in college it just seemed unspeakably vulgar to me! If only I'd sucked it up and taken a course, I would have benefited from it. As it is, I've managed to pick up some basic stuff like Marx and theory that comes out of what's known as "material culture," but I sure would like a solid grasp of econ 101.

Oh well, you can't know everything in this life.

"Lastly, we all have experience with sexism and racism in form or another, and we have an activist audience."

Yes, this is true, but as with economics, just because we all have experience in and with the economy, doesn't mean we're all equally qualified to analyze the economy, its ways and dynamics, etc.

Likewise with racism and sexism, we all experience it, but raw experience doesn't necessarily translate to productive insight, especially once you scratch the surface. That's all I'm saying.

Ha ha hah ah ah !!

I know, I know!!

I despise the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma, so whatever I do, it won't be easy.

Let's not jinx anything, though. We can cross that bridge when we come to it, eh? And if all goes according to plan, we won't have to.

Of course, of course. To which I'd respond that, of course one is entitled to speak, but I'd suggest that in some cases not speaking is perfectly noble as well. Just because I do have a voice doesn't mean I must exercise it.

I'd never want to discourage anyone from speaking but only encourage them to listen with discernment, when the situation calls for it.

Or speak whenever, it's not the speaking I object to, it's the apparent lack of deliberation over issues that scream out for deliberation, for all our sakes.

Hats off.

"Did anyone see that little performance where she recounts where she was the day that MLK was assasinated? It was cringe-inducing."

Good God, was it ever.

First of all, yes, that telephone image thing is repellent and the response that a commensurate caricature of Obama is "different" reveals a deep ignorance.

What can you do?

I remember going on a bus tour of black colleges back in high school and was appalled by the rampant misogyny and homophobia expressed by that segment of "the black community," the very people you'd expect a bit more from when it comes to sensitivity to the corrosive power of bigotry.

What can you do?

Hang in there and do your level best to educate people like your colleague in an honest way, making an effort to meet him where he is, which it sounds like you did.

Bravo.

As to this:

"I firmly believe that the root of all this derision is not the Clinton legacy, or Hillary's poor choice of pantsuits. The root of this is primal male fear (and that includes you, Jack Cafferty) that if a woman becomes commander-in-chief, he will no longer be able to achieve or maintain an erection. It's always about the penis, and this is no different."

I'd caution against grand, unifying explanations like this.

Certainly, certainly misogyny is a root of this derision, but you have to account for diversity.

I despise Clinton, but my reasons have developed over a period of sixteen years. I even liked her once upon a time, when she was defiantly feminist.

When she became Clinton instead of Rodham was perhaps the first in a long series of events that have turned me against her.

I'm just trying to say that for myself, and I'm pretty sure for lots of others right here on these pages, as best I can tell, it is indeed because she's "a Clinton" that she incurs such hostility.

I'm just as hostile towards him as I am towards her. In fact, it's that whole damned machine, of which she's the standard-bearer. Carville, et. al. I just find them all pretty odious, for a variety of reasons.

The things I despise in Hillary Clinton are the same things I despise in Rudy Giuliani, George Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. The hubris, the smugness, the inability to admit mistakes, the siege-mentality...

I could go on, but the point is, there are many of us for whom misogyny really doesn't come into play, at least, not in any kind of a substantial way, so far as I'm aware.

I appreciate your concern. And because you shared something of your background, I'll share something of mine, fwiw, before getting to my point.

I'm a 35-year-old black male academic, a medieval historian, to be specific. I have two children and an eastern European spouse.

Again, that's just fwiw.

Now, your point:

"My question is: Can't the men (who are otherwise considered "intelligent") see what is happening? Don't they see the terrible sexism in what they're saying/doing?"

While I agree that many people apparently refuse to admit the obvious, namely, that misogyny has ravaged Hillary Clinton since before she was Hillary Clinton, and continues to dog her steps to this day, I think you should be mindful of that fact that many, many men readily recognize this.

Please do not allow the willfully obtuse, or the cynical, or the misanthropic, or those who simply can't see past the dynamic of winning and losing, to color your view of men in general, men here at Salon, or Hillary detractors, in general.

Again, this isn't to say your interpretation is wrong, just that it's only a fragment, not the whole picture.