Letters to the Editor
-
You can't have a reasoned debate
when the article is absent any proof of mass sexism apart from "feelings".
-
Seriously?!?
Salon.... give me a friggin' break. Gleeful? Hillary is her own worst enemy. I'd love to see a woman as president in my lifetime, but not her. Is this all salon has to offer? "Obama boys"? Grow up.
-
Closet misogynists
Indeed, many of the criticisms leveled against Hillary Clinton are ad hominem and abusive. Nobody ever says, for instance, about McCain that they would never vote for him because he's a bastard or a prick. Yet, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, men don't hesitate to say they won't be voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a bitch (other creeps even say 'c...t'). That's like someone saying they won't vote for Obama because he's a 'n...er', or like saying they won't vote for Joe Lieberman because he's a 'k.ke'. It's outrageous! Such sentiments are indeed only those a bigot would make. Not everyone is silly enough to be blatantly sexist. So, instead such people, aware of the charges of sexism that can be made against them, preface their argument by saying first of all how they've supported feminist causes (much as racists say all their friends are black); how they've marched for feminism (note they don't say women's rights, which is usually what you would march for; a slip of the tongue that speaks volumes. The person is clearly trying to establish their bona fides, and protesting a little too much ).
I'm Australian and therefore am not eligible to vote in your elections anymore than you are eligible to vote in Australia's, although I am very much interested in who will be your next president since it affects the whole world, and because of how so many poor and powerless Americans suffer as a result of conservative policies friendly to the rich. Obviously I disdain the republicans who are a corrupt lot (we hear very little about how rich lobbyists run McCain's campaign but plenty about Hillary and Barack, black vs woman!!!) To me, the attacks against Clinton are quite obviously sexist. One would expect it from the Republicans since she's a Democrat (and because they know it's permissible in a way using racist epithets against Obama are not). But, alas, much of the sexist vitriol is coming from white males, who conveniently describe themselves as 'progressives'. The fact that many of you use the term 'progressive' rather than 'left' says a lot about you. Just as you're uncomfortable about being seen as left-wing (a dirty word only in America!), which I'm willing to make a bet many of you aren't, which therefore makes your claim of being 'progressive' rather dubious too, so you are uncomfortable and ambivalent about having a woman as commander in chief (or, as you so delicately put it, that woman!) Condoleeza Rice has, as a result of her powerful position, in fact, wreaked more misery on others (Lebanon, Iraq) than Clinton, as has Albright, but you never hear the kind of murderous hate against them the way you do against Hillary Clinton (because she's the real thing, not a token. And also being president draws women closer to achieving balance of power in the world). In fact, Bill has caused a great deal of havoc himself but he is still regarded with affection and is never called a 'pig', despite the lecherous way he has treated women. Why was it alright to have a lech as president? Or a drunk? (Bush) How come their characters weren't condemned? George has killed millions. But do you ever hear anyone screaming, 'murderer', the way crazed pro-lifers do about women having abortions (notice the same hatred towards women, or, at least, a certain kind of woman---one that's clearly independent of men).
Clinton is not of my political persuasion (Kucinich is). I opposed torture and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and Clinton did not (whatever her faults, though, she's not Mugabe! The anger towards her is out of proportion). Nevertheless, if she was the Democrat nominee for president, then, of course, I'd support her (while lamenting the system that got her there). In reactionary Amerika, a radical left female candidate would be even more handicapped by her gender than Clinton is.
Clearly, Clinton is perceived as a threat. Society is still very much masculinist. Power is still in the hands of men (male elites, really). But white, middle class women are gaining on men which may eventually lead to the overthrow of masculine privilege (this is just a step, but it's still farther than we have managed to get before). Men may say they're for feminism, but what does that really mean? I doubt for one moment many of them are willing to give up the privileges they currently enjoy (but conveniently deny they have). Oh, they're happy for us to pay for our dinner (so they don't have to), have property (so they can move in but never clean), and have jobs (so we don't spend their money and pay the bills). But, demand that they do their share of the housework (and not just 'help' us do it), share power & contraceptive responsibility, raise the children (instead of taking it for granted that women will), and recognize that a woman has a free will, which is what separates her from the slave (& part of that is having the liberty to have a say over what her destiny in life will be, including whether she wants to bear a child or not)...and watch them label such women 'man-haters' (just as anti-Iraq war supporters were vilified as 'anti-American' or not patriotic by the powerful).
No, Hillary isn't a saint. But McCain is the closest thing you'll get to the devil. Be careful. Your sexism may just be your undoing.
-
ok good night to my friends and
good night to my enemies and good night to all.
-
The anger from Obama's supporters
Lets face it, we were getting called variations on stupid way back when a certain rightwinger was singing Barrack the Magic Negro.
While we were criticising Hillary, Hillary's supporters were criticising us via ad-hominem attacks. Latte Liberal, Loony Lefty, Obamamaniacs etc... all used to characterise people who ultimately agree with 60% of Hillary's policies, and 61% of Obama's policies.
There has been nothing Obama could have done to win the average Hillary voter's support. Obama's pastor is a problem? So Obama gives one of the most well recieved speeches on race. What is the response? Obama threw his granny under the bus.
Rezko? No wrong doing found after exhaustive investigation? Rezko is still being spoken about.
And lets not forget, the 20% of Hillary's supporters that will vote McCain over Obama despite Obama sharing most of Hillary's platform positions.
This is because they are voting against the young, there is a definite resentful edge against my generation. If there is a draft we will fight your wars, we also end up paying your taxes and later in our lives we will suffer the results of your polution.
And we do not resent you for this, because you of the older generation also provided us with good things in and amongst the bad. Nobody is perfect. What we resent is the outright lack of respect that you give us, the sheer stupidity you expect us to follow following your choices for the Democratic candidates up until now.
While we young liberals were screaming about how bad the beltway was, how out of touch and how afraid it was to stand up for liberal values, you oldsters went with the beltway. That is what Hillary is, just another beltway candidate.
Where you are voting for a symbol, we younger voters are voting for our lives, for our futures. We do not care what gender or race the candidate is, we care about the fact that in ten years time we may well be going through a great depression.
And while Obama is far from perfect, he is offering us an end to the meaningless nothings of modern politics. Not simply different policies, but an idea that for once we will have a candidate who doesn't wrap himself in a flag while burning the country.
For once we will have a candidate signing our laws with a knowledge as to what the constitution means right down to the case law. We will have someone who gets in on more than name recognition, who has demonstrated his ability to learn (Consider Obama on day one, and consider him now) and the candidate, to be honest, who hasn't pissed us off.
And yes, he isn't the tough candidate. We have seen what the last tough candidate did to us, and tough doesn't cut it with us anymore. He isn't the great patriot, well that isn't what we want, and no he actually isn't the champion of black America that he could be - we want somebody who will run America for all of America.
For too long has the educated vote, the young professional vote been ignored. Why? Because we are not blue collar, as if that means we shouldn't give a shit. We are the sneeringly referred to as "Intellectual elites" which is code for "Faggot for reading."
And because we have this massive move against us, in part out of jealousy, but also because there is a definite idea that education is a bad thing. Lawyers are no longer entirely joked about, people would much rather bash people for being lawyers, than actually take a second and think what a law degree means.
You wonder why science is so easily slammed in American society? It is because the so called "Intellectual elite" is seen as the villain. People seem to get their idea of how the scientific world works, from comic books and sci-fi. The mad scientist will destroy the world? No, if the world ends due to mankind, it will be the idiot with nothing more than religious fanaticism who does it.
And with all of this, you are surprised that people call Hillary a "bitch." That there are those who sink to the gutter with gender based insults? Yes, Hillary has suffered from sexism in the media, but lets be honest here, it isn't sexism that has built this critical mass against her.
It is the anti-intellectual, anti-youth movement within the Hillary campaign. It is more the campaign than the candidate that has hurt Hillary. I would still vote Obama because of my stance on censorship, but this is a minority issue. Without the anti-young anti-educated slant I am sure others would have at least thought about voting for Hillary.