Letters to the Editor
-
Is it really?????
I'm a feminist, big time. It was the main thing I wrote about back in my undergrad days (not saying) and my masters degree dissertation was an examination of the way our language implicitly is still governed (by in large) by sexist assumptions.
But I think there is much more in play than Joan Walsch and articles like this tend to suggest. Here is a small example.
Ms. Traister suggests that if Bill were running against Barack we would not see the intense reactions against him that we see against Hillary. What do you all think. In my opinion: What is She thinking??????
Just read Salon's comments sections and see what you see. I see hateful things being said about him, big time. And my hunch is that IF he was running against Barack we would ONLY see this hatred amplified.
Is there any reason to think that if Bill Clinton was running against Barack we would see LESS of these reactions against him? I can't think of any. But what I find interesting is that so many women who are in my opinion over generalizing their claims of sexism find it "obvious" that Hillary is being treated more aggressively than Bill. Why?
-
I consider myself a feminist, and I am a fervent Obama supporter
A few quick words:
-- I would say I am a feminist for the following reasons: I have marched and canvassed in support of feminist issues. I support legislation that opposes discrimination against women (though I do have libertarian leanings in terms of finding a balance so that employers still have fair hiring freedoms). I find gender-based criticisms and arguments wrong, and often say so. Plus, you know, most (though by no means all) of my friends and family coworkers are pretty liberal and feminist, for whatever that's worth.
-- That said, I support Obama. I don't see any "feminist" reason to support Clinton other than the symbolic boost of a woman president. I see Obama as being every bit as feminist as Clinton, in terms of his policies and concerns. I also think Michelle Obama is probably as feminist, if not moreso, than Hillary Clinton (again, for whatever that's worth). Obama's presidency will be a huge boost to feminist causes, whether they currently acknowledge it or not.
-- Obama supporters who express gender-based criticism against Hillary are in the minority! I can't stress this enough. Obama himself has set a very strong example in terms of respect toward Clinton. Even on Salon, the posters who make sexist or sexist-style statements are the exception and not the rule. I do want to stress that OBAMA SUPPORTERS CONTINUE NOT ATTACKING HILLARY CLINTON IN ANY WAYS THAT ARE GENDER-BASED. IT DOES NOT DO THE OBAMA SIDE ANY GOOD. Thank you!
-- Clinton supporters have a right to be upset and complain about those Obama supporters who come across as sexist/misogynist. They DO NOT have the right to (1) assert that non-gender-based arguments are just veiled sexism; (2) overstate the degree or percentage of Obama supporters who say sexist things or who have sexist motives; (3) Use the sexism of a handful of Obama supporters as evidence that the Obama campaign itself is sexist; (4) Use the sexism of a handful of Obama supporters as an argument for why Clinton ought to be elected; (5) Say that by not supporting Clinton, feminists are betraying the cause. Sure, you can say those things if you like (I'm not trying to censor you!), but I find them highly odious and wrongheaded.
-- While I think Obama supporters should continue to self-police those in their own ranks who cross the line into sexism and offensiveness, I ALSO think that Clinton supporters could stand to do more to self-police their own ranks in terms of offensive statements and uncool arguments against Obama and his supporters. I have rarely if ever seen a Clinton supporter say to another one, "We're on the same side, but you know, that's not an argument we want to try to win points with." Why not? Isn't it fair to ask you to follow the same standards you expect us to follow? Just asking!
-- I want to re-state, for emphasis, that just because people criticize Clinton vehemently, it doesn't mean that they're picking on her because she's female. Not at all. There are many perfectly legitimate reasons and arguments for being against Hillary Clinton as president. Personally, I've always thought she was OK, though some of her tactics have really bothered me, and I don't think I should be precluded from saying so just because people might be offended.
-
Sexism
"I pinpoint sexism for a living. You'd think I'd be able to find an example. And I hate to rely on this hokey notion that there's some woman's way of knowing, and that I just fucking know. But I do. I just know."
The only sexism here is where some women perceive any attack on a woman as being an attack on all women. Hillary has benefited from this sexism.
The real question is has the pro female vote made as much as an impact as the anti female vote? Until analysis takes into account both these functions it all just seems like bias to suggest that Hillary has been hurt or helped overall by sexism.
-
Hey, Salon: Back off Obama Already!!! Sane Salon readers are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Hillary and gleeful bashing of Barack.
How many different ways can Salon figure out how to idolatrize, glorify and otherwise bolster up your golden girl, Hillary? Let us count the ways, eh?
So here we go, yet again, with another spin on the Salon's now daily anti-Obama coverage...
Salon has decided that even the most valid critiques of Hillary -- and let's face it, there are so many, one can't even count -- can be explained away by one word: sexism.
Hillary lies about Bosnia, and the media calls her on it. SEXISM!
Hillary votes for war and then has to answer for it? SEXISM!
Hillary greenlights racist and divisive campaign techniques, then tries to distance herself from them, but no one believes her? SEXISM!
Hillary is a forgettable speaker, with no charisma, and people disklike her personality? SEXISM!!
Forget about the actual substance of the criticisms and problems -- because if there's a critique of Hillary, then, BOO HOO, CALL OUT THE NATIONAL GUARD -- BECAUSE...IT'S SEXISM!
Talk about gleeful... Joan Walsh and her various flying monkeys on staff and from outside Salon have gleefully taken every opportunity to bash, blast and otherwise attempt to bloody Obama -- all the while turning a blind eye to the glaring defects, steady stream of mistakes, and lack of character or experience in their chosen candidate, Clinton.
Salon promotes every ugly Mark Penn talking point.
Salon rehashes every Hillary campaign call distortion.
Salon triangulates right along with Carville and his band of Machiavellian machinators.
And with every advancement of Obama, Salon finds a way to passive-aggressively "cover" the story or "concern troll blog" it -- oh, sure, they cover it, but they get their potshots in at every step.
In the end, Salon has gleefully taken up the job of doing the Clinton campaign's dirty work -- and are pretending to be an impartial media outlet, while instead functioning as an extended arm of the Clinton campaign communications staff.
It's official: Salon's political coverage has become an embarrassment.
And as for sexism Salon, you can't have it both ways.
Hillary can't run on her husband's years in office, and on the accomplishments of her husband's presidency, and let her husband do the campaign dirty work and fight her dirty battles for her, and then scream SEXISM every time someone comes out swinging at her head on.
She is using her husband in the most calculated, sexist way possible.
How pathetically sexist is it to run for president and not even have your OWN long record of political experience???
How pathetically sexist is it to run for president and let your HUSBAND run around doing all the dirty politics for you?
Hillary Clinton's approach, and Salon's kneejerk support, and the constant shrieks of "SEXISM" are about as UNfeminist as you can get.
I am one feminist who isn't buying this ridiculous red herring, and Hillary's SEXISM VICTIM pandering.
You, Salon, are promoting sexism for not judging Hillary Clinton on the basis of her character, her judgment, her (lack of) accomplishments, her (limited) vision, and her ever-shifting, every changing stories and dissembling.
I don't care that she's a woman.
I care that she's a craven, cynical, and megalomaniacal politician, who voted for the war, who lies to the public and to the media, and who has profited massively from being a politician.