Letters to the Editor
-
A while back
Salon ran a piece that basically revealed the following:
20 percent of Hillary's supporters will vote McCain over Obama.
10 percent of Obama's supporters will vote McCain over Hillary.
Now what does this tell us? It tells us that issues such as sexism and racism have got very little pull in the Democratic party.
At least 80% of Hillary's supporters are not racists.
At least 90% of Obama's supporters are not sexists.
When push comes to shove, being female or being black is not a disqualifying factor in becoming a presidential candidate.
But, and this is a very big but, articles like this, which exagerate the effect of racism and sexism in this race are too comfortable as narratives, too easy to write, to stop getting written.
Why assume that Hillary is just the inferior candidate? That maybe some people just don't like her, not because she is female, but because she has endorsed the opposing party's candidate? Or that her vote on Iraq and later on Iran really bothers people?
No it must all come down to sexism. And I am sure if Obama was behind in the delegates? "Racism still rules the roost in America" and a thousand variations as headlines, because when one candidate is female and the other is black it all suddenly devolves down into there being nothing else worth saying about either of them.
-
an elder feminist
I'm in my late 50s and I don't know if that makes me a first or second generation feminist. I would dearly love a woman president, and I would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but I prefer Barack. Why? Because I do not trust Hillary. I believe, and have since she was first lady, that she says what is politically opportune and expedient rather that what she truly believes. She also has at least one false memory that we know of, Bosnia, and I'm sure it is not alone. I can empathize with the young women who are being annoyed by the fanaticism of the Obama boys, since I remember when the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement were boys only clubs. We were delegated to kitchen and secretarial duties, and woe betide the woman who objected. However, it didn't stop me from being pro-civil rights and anti-war. That's the only message I can give you.
-
on the bright side...
While it might give the Republicans 4 more years in the White House, it is nice to see a liberal website finally with the potential to make some real advertising money.
-
An interesting theme I've seen lately
As a disgusting misogynistic male, I have a subscription to Playboy.
And sure enough if this months issue doesn't broach a very similar topic, that of the insanely misogynistic male and his need to tear down Hillary Clinton.
In both cases, clear anecdotal proof is offered to show that there are infact misogynists who despise Senator Clinton for little other reason than her lack of certain reproductive organs (or pehaps her possession of others).
The problem with this tack is that it (even though it protests it does not) paints honest criticism of the Senator, with the same brush as dishonest misogyny. Ergo, one cannot justly criticise any aspect of Senator Clinton's Resume without being lumped in with those whose criticism isn't just.
Additionally in this line of thought, and much more disturbingly is to conflate the right wing attackdogs who have torn at the senators heels for years with any and all Obama Supporters.
This is the line of thought that is most detrimental to all concerned. While I am sure there are a more than a few Clinton Haters who have jumped onto the Obama band wagon, I am unsure if they are greater in number than the Obama Haters who have jumped on the Clinton band wagon.
There seems to be a real movement towards a Damsel in Distress argument among Senator Clinton's supporters (and female journalists who state they support Obama)that while perhaps envigorating to some of her base, only further alienates independents who may well jump to McCain rather then the eventual Democratic nominee whoever it is.
I still have hope that Senator Clinton will lose Pennsylvania and be able to bow out with dignity, and regardless I am aware that Senator Clinton will campaign vigorously for Senator Obama to undo this damage to the party after her loss.
But this line of discussion only serves to weaken Clinton's image as a woman capable of handeling the presidency, and give comfort to those Democrats and Independents looking for an excuse to vote for McCain.
-
It's true- I've felt the sexism myself
I've been surprised by the "are we ready for a woman president" questions in the media, having considered us all much further ahead than that. I hadn't felt sexism at all and therefore didn't think feminism was really useful anymore... until the Hillary candidacy, that is, when sexism came up to me face-to-face, in the person of my longtime friend.
We were discussing the candidates, when I expressed my support for Hillary. My male friend said to me, "If Hillary is elected president, the rest of the world is going to be laughing at our weakness". I hoped I misunderstood and asked him to explain. He said, "Look, what is the world going to think of us if we have a female president? They're going to think we're weak." He also said, "Come on, admit it, who's dominant in our society, men or women?" I could not believe it. It was like getting a slap in the face from a guy I've been friends with for twenty years. I've never seen signs of sexism in him, ever. It's a shocker, but it makes me realize that sexism is still alive and well.
-
Salon's Brand of "Feminism" Is Total Bullshit
This isn't feminism it's just pandering identity politics in a different package. Walsh and Traister should be ashamed of themselves for this pandering, offensive, divisive bullshit. Instead of fostering more bitter intercine warfare within the Democratic camp, we should all agree that the real objective is to win in November, and not just win the nomination. Eyes on the Prize, people.
-
Hillary supporter LaCastor wrote
'I'll give you one piece of evidence that I think is really telling, though: I think most people who do studies, write newspaper articles, etc., no longer entertain the idea that blacks are inherently mentally different or inferior to whites."
I THINK is not evidence. You still gave your opinion. In fact my opinion is that most of the studies,writtings, newspaper articles that you read are probably by whites. Understand the greatest bias in the media is not conservative,or liberal it is racial. From Tim Russert,Matt Lauer, Andrea Mitchell,Hannity and Combs,Kati Couric,Keith Oberlman, Joe Scarbourgh,Matthews, Rush,Savage,O'rieliy,Mark Rich, Joe Conasen,Joan Walsh,Randie Rhodes,Glenn Greewald,Brian Williams,Meredith Vieira,etc. Most of what we read, hear and see is "colored," by the worldview and subjectivity of rich white males and females.
If you just go by the MSM you wouldn't know that black and brown people even had thoughts on subjects like education, war,health care,economic or politics. This is why I don't think many whites can believe a black man is competent enough to address any of the issues we now face. They have never seen it before. It amazes them that he is so "articulate." This is why I undertand why "many" whites instantly beleive he has to be plagerizing, he has to have had some help. He has to have come from a elite class of blacks because the common black person could never understand or think the way he does.
He is an exeception and not the rule. There has to be something other then he is a better candidate then this white woman other then he is a better candidate.
So, I understand why the talk and commentary on Salon is more about sexism then it is about race. These elitist writers know that are basically echo chambers others in the media who think like them.