2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI have a VERY serious question about political discourse for the next four to eight years.
How is political discourse supposed to occur without being stifled by accusations of sexism or "dog whistles"?I am being dead serious. I would appreciate serious answers without the usual snark and baiting that occurs here. I will either not respond, or be as reasonable as possible if I do respond.
It is a fundamental question that transcends the primary here on DU and in the larger world. It will impact both the presidential election, and also the nature of political discourse for the next four to 8 years if Clinton becomes president.
I got raked over the coals today for stating my honest opinion that I would have preferred that Clinton stayed in the senate because I believe her talents would be better applied there rather than pursuing her ambitions to be president. I said I thought she could have been a really good, possibly great, senator.
I also questioned the nature and potential impact of the ambitions that she and her husband have pursued. I will not go into the weeds of why I believe what I believe about the Clintons. Those things get hashed out endlessly and you can read the post in question here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1904731
I realized that many people would disagree with that. That's okay. Par for the course. Some people think she would be a great nominee and president and others do not. Same with Bernie. I'm used to the flack here.
However, it provoked a flurry of charges that I am being sexist.
That response really disturbed me. This was personal.
How is anyone supposed to be able to say anything critical about Clinton as a candidate -- or if she becomes president, discuss her performance on the job, if everything critical is construed as sexist and based on her gender?
I was criticized for using the word "Ambitious" and "be content with" as using sexist dog whistles.
If every word is "loaded" and sexist, and everything that is not fawning praise is branded as a "dog whistle" how are we ever supposed to be able to communicate and debate honestly and fully?
Let me put it another way. Variations on these statements (and sometimes harsher versions) are stated repeatedly about Bernie Sanders, here and elsewhere.
"Bernie Sanders gets on my nerves. I can't stand his voice. I can't stand his yelling."
"Bernie Sanders does not have the temperament to be president. He is so grouchy and nasty."
"Bernie Sanders is only keeping his campaign going to satisfy his outsized ego. It's just a giant ego trip."
"Bernie Sanders should have stayed in the senate. He's overreaching.He has no business running for the presidential nomination."
"I used to love Bernie Sanders, but I can't stand him as a presidential candidate."
"Bernie Sanders is a shameless opportunist. He's only out for himself. "
"Bernie Sanders is not electable. He just isn't."
"Bernie Sanders is just keeping his campaign going to bilk money from his followers."
Now, we're all entitled to our opinions about the candidates. And opinions will obviously differ, and people will express those differences.
But there seems to be a double standard here. Why are statements like these acceptable? Why are they considered to be legitimate opinion, rather than reverse sexism, or anti semetic? If similar things are said about Clinton, are they sexist? What is the difference?
I would appreciate any serious considered answers people choose to offer.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)But seriously, what you are seeing is very calculated behavior. Right and wrong does not matter. All that matters is us vs. them and no concession, no quarter, no nod to truth or shared values or respect for the people one is communicating with is either required or desired.
You are simply witnessing a goal-seeking political machine. By attempting to engage honestly and have a real discussion of issues with such a machine, you're basically being a sucker.
The machine doesn't care if you're right.
The machine doesn't care if the world you envision is a better one.
The machine doesn't even care for its own internal consistency.
These are simply bludgeons and tools designed to demoralize opposition and shut down any conversation on a topic or of a direction that is not desirable to the machine.
Imagine trying to have a moral argument with the Inner Party in 1984. That's what you're experiencing. Right and wrong are a joke to those consumed with the will to power. Their value system does not run from right to wrong - it runs from strong to weak.
According to the machine's value system, attempting to have honest discourse makes you weak. That you are not thuggishly bludgeoning your opponents is proof of your weakness. After all, if you were strong, you'd simply bludgeon your opponents into submission because you can.
arendt
(5,078 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Trying to reason with narcissists is an exercise in frustration, they just don't engage, they are wholly phony.
Basically living on the emotional level of six year olds.
We'll be lucky if we survive these next four years.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)followers that care nothing about those among us that are struggling. They instead romanticize about the life of the Wealthy. They envy the wealthy and want the wealthy to like them.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)because you had some half baked theory people who did did not care about your issues as much. You kept an authoritarian style list of people who complained about sexism and racism and imagined them being in "a group". That group would be progressives.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Using as a weapon is sleezy
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)4 chan is thataway ---> !
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)this particular slough. As so often, reading to this point reminds me of trying to spend time with the schizophrenic daughter of my MIL's best friend who has an unfortunate obsession with politics, only in this case a roomful of Marys.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Oh bravo!!
So many discussions here are exactly that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Maybe you have to dehumanize people who disagree with you to sleep at night? Bizarre theory.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It's just like talking to W supporters.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Check it out and tell me I'm wrong. There is a difference between us. Pictures often speak louder than words. Therein lies the proof of the negativity and flaming from centrist supporters over we Progressives. Try to post anything of substance and you get back personal jabs and unsupported opinion. When you poke back, you get hidden. Too many C supporters who are toxic and the first call out B supporters for same when not justified.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)much of the anti Hillary here is because of her stances on issues, her lies right to your face, her constant attacks (yes she was first) and then to act like the victim. I am afraid she will continue to use the sexist card. I am a woman and did not vote for her.
They are constantly putting Bernie's character, his age, his experience here down. Insulting him all the time with out regard. Hillary has a lot of stuff she caused herself that is brought up here. Bernie has been steadfast in his issues and stances for decades. She has not. This is not sexism this is a ruse to look like it is when having to view or face facts about Hillary and her husband.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)And those old Tories love things like oligarchies and dynasties.
Well put.
amborin
(16,631 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)quality strikes a chord for you as being displeasing. (And the context being that she is in a category of people who certainly ARE ambitous- SBS included, whether you want to admit it or not)
Your protests to the contrary, this "ambitious" thing is actually an extremely common complaint for men in the workplace against their female peers, while men get a pass or are admired for being ambitious- and women punished. It is something so pervasive that most working women have experienced it, and many studies back it up. Yet it was very difficult for you to accept these truths and that it read very sexist to us. You needed to be right, and for us to be wrong. That is worth thinking about.
To say she should be content to "stay in her place" was loaded, and I think you damned well know that. I think you also know not ALL criticisms loaded as you have done plenty- and have not been accused before. You are generally regarded as a good person here. It is nonsense to pretend you do not - or cannot know better or that women are being unfair to you.
If you seriously want to understand how and when criticsm seems like it has sexist dog whistles, there is plenty of interesting stuff on the web to read that may raise your consciousness. If you want more resources, just ask. Hope that helps.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He ran for governor and won. He ran for reelection and won.
And almost the day after, it became clear that he had only run for governor to have something on his resume for his presidential run. In his second term that was his focus.
In other words, the nature of his "ambition." He is a male.
As far as the otehr, I never said "stay in her place" in a dismissive way. And I have nothing against healthy ambition. I have had it at various points in my life. (Now that I'm an old fart I just want to retire.)
People have their own set of talents, and shortcomings. That is what people generally go with. As i mentioned on the other thread, I am very good at my job. But i know I would be lousy if I took the next step upward to managing what I do. So I am content to stay where my talents are strong, rather than to seek something different, where I would be doing and failing at things i am not good at.
I would say the same about many politicians. Harry Reid has been a pretty good Senate leader. But he has seemed to know that is where his talents are, and he has never (to my knowledge) made noises about running for president. And if he had run for that, he would likely have been criticized for not being presidential material.
I don't care whether people agree or disagree with that assessment of her. But to automatically assume that it was sexist....I mean what can we say? And why are the things said about Bernie acceptable?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I will try again. One feature of sexism is that you hold women to different standards them men for the same behavior as men.
Comparing some one who actually has worked super hard, is incredibly intelligent and makes (most) progressive issues a priority to a lazy silver spoon slacker like Mitt Romney is beyond the pale. You may disagree w/ Hillary with what she has done, but you are attempting to discredit a fuck ton of hard work, and pretend it never happened with that comparison.
If you reread my earlier post, this idea that ambition alone is ugly in women in extremely pervasive in our lives- and has a huge negative impact in the workplace. Maybe you need to do some independent reading on it, because I am seeing you;re not able to trust me on this. A second very pervasive attitude that negatively effects us in the workplace is not getting credit for our work. You just did exactly that by comparing her to Mitt Romney. Seriously give that some thought. Bush or Trump yes, they are lazy ass morons, Hillary is a hard worker who know her shit. What possessed you to compare the two and erase her hard work?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He was very successful in business, and for a while he was very effective as a governor.
He's a dickhead (a sexist term I approve of in this case) and he's wrong about everything.
But the comparison on the basis of achievement and hard work is not off base.
But his political ambition, and his opportunistic use of the state to further his own ambition was offensive to many people.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)At any rate, as I was trying to explain is that despite your intent, your criticism was of a hot button issue. despite many people in this thread trying to claim women are just being oversensitive, I think you do realize it was a hot button issue- right? and that we can assume you know that all candidates are by fault ambitious- so maybe that was a weird thing to pick up on as negative?
And since you asked, there are obvs some other things people will say that is sexist- the other day it was sexualizing her greeting foreign dignitaries. Sexualizing a woman at work because she has a smile on her face at work - de facto sexist. Doesn't matter the OP did as a tit for tat revenge because someone did something similar to Bernie. It harms all working women to joke about working women that way. Women get fired for not fucking their bosses every day in America. This very very rarely happens to men- it used to happen to almost ALL women 40 years ago- now it is less frequent, and we still get fired and driven out because we won't do them- and we have no recourse. We can't even complain because no one will hire you. It is not funny when people post pics of her saying she should get a room with Netanyahu because she has a smile on her face. She HAS to have a smile on her face when she meets him. You guys can't even let her meet someone without inferring she is literally a whore. That is sexist.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm not defending sexism. And yes, i know that because of discrimination and bad behavior, there are certain limits to things that are acceptable and not acceptable. I do try to catch myself when that temptation arises.
I wasn't personally offended by the photo you mentioned, and I got the point of it. But you are right. It was inappropriate.
However, here's an example that's difficult.
People complain that Sander's voice is annoying and they don't like that he yells all the time. Okay that's a fair criticism, if someone responds to him that way.
But God forbid anyone should say something similar about Clinton. They get jumped all over with charges that it's sexist.
It's frustrating because on one hand we're supposed to treat equally. But somehow there is this large code that kicks in when we actually do that that, sets off "you can't say that because it is sexist."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)happens a lot here, because women get fed up with that tone shit. I honestly think it's bullshit and most people do not mind him being loud and enthusiastic.
You reminded me of a conversation I have had with quite a few people.
Them: I don't like Hillary - I can't even listen to her. Bernie had good ideas.
Me: So did you hear Hillary's policy ideas too- what did you think?
Them: Well I really didn't listen.
Me: Maybe you should force yourself to listen (or read) before deciding anyone has better ideas?
I have had that exact conversation 4-5 times. Because people are turned off to listening to opinionated, s strong women. It is human nature. Most of us have that culturally appropriated defect. I am fighting to overcome my own.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)trudyco
(1,258 posts)She gets too nuanced. That's the criticism I've heard from ... I think it was an article I read and it resonates with me. That wouldn't be an explanation for her speeches, that would be in reference to your frustration with people who don't read her policies. Her website is too convoluted. Her speeches are clearer.
I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)I must have worked in a bubble 35 years ago. Almost all women did not have to sleep with their boss. Not 35 years ago, not my mom's generation in the 1940s, not my grandmothers in the early 30's. There was (and is) sexism, unequal wages, sexual harassment, etc. But almost ALL women??? Nah. I'm not sure what posting you were referring too but I think you exaggerated a bit.
I think some people here want to use the sexism card when it benefits Hillary, yet they think Bernie Sanders can be a punching bag any old time. The Peter Principle can be applied to a woman just as much as a man.
But I really enjoyed your reasoned discourse Bettyellen. Most of the time it seems like Snark and people trying to psych each other around here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)who it hasn't happened to, honestly. Every time it has ever come up, every woman in the room has a "me too" story, that I have never heard them speak of before. I got flat out fired the day after refusing to date a boss, could no to a thing about it.
Most guys assume those days are over, or you can just go to HR but they are there sweep shit under the rug mostly and warn you not to make trouble- IF you have an HR dept.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)In their personal scale balancing -
Critisism of woman - sexist
Critisism of man - appropriate
The terms may be identicle, the source concept the same, but your privilage blinds you to the fact that one is entirely justified while the other males you a misogynist pig.
Any critisism, any time, of a woman (of the right political stripe) is sexist and you'd better check your privilage and be ready for her. 
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)even did a little of it yourself when you made the claim that you were afraid ALL criticism would be deemed sexist. You knew better than that.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Critisism from (insert gender) of a Woman using (critical terms used for politicians in general) will always be (disqualifying implication or accusation of socially unjust privilage and applicable ism ).
I just not looking forward to the point it loses all its bite in 4 or so years when it's used to attempt to discredit anyone that would challenge her.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hope you can get your money back for it- it's defective.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I do however believe that the language of social justice has been coopted by the powerful, and that when they're used to deny conversation or valid opinion then we all loose, and that's most of what I see coming from her camp "you have a point of disagreement? Well your a priv misogynist and you don't know it" when more arguments are ended with that then they're begun with, we have a problem.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)about making a mistake in choosing word that he was called out for by about a dozen women as sounding sexist.
So you'd like to weigh in here and say the dozen women were wrong (oversensitive!) , and he was correct. The OP, being a decent and open minded man, sought clarification. You sought to twist things into warfare against "SJWs".
You don't get to make this call- we are voicing our opinions without ever asking yours. Get used to it.
We are discussing it with the guy rationally like adults among the harangues of a dozen people begging him to ignore it all and write us of, because a little conversation would what- damage them? LOL. Nope.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Hillary is, in my opinion, self-centered and her egotistical ambition is destructive. I would say the exact same thing about Trump, or Romney, or Margaret Thatcher.
And I would say the same of several concert pianists and violinists I know - male and female. It affects their playing. I prefer to listen to the ones without that ego-centered, selfish ambition; the ones who truly wish to serve humanity and the music.
In fact, I just returned from 4 days in Seoul where I traveled to listen to a world famous female violinist without an egotistical, selfish bone in her body.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)It's also a common complaint from normal people about those who overreach and falter to the detriment of everyone else, regardless of gender. That complaint isn't automatically sexist just because the person being criticized happens to be female. Females are just as capable as males of biting off more than they can chew.
So there must be more to it. What tips us off that OP is going beyond mere criticism and actually being sexist in this case?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and how they have participated in fostering it. The tip off? That all running for POTUS are- by definition- ambitious, and he found it unappealing in her. In Bernie, you don't even "notice" how ambitious he is, because it is okay for him, even admirable and good.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Clearly OP's opinions of the two candidates differ, but you have not shown anywhere that the difference was selected by gender. OP laid out a list of reasons, and whether anyone agrees or disagrees, OP at least has reasons instead of a vague, "I just don't like her," that's the usual fill-in for excusing all forms of bigotry.
Actual sexism is a gender-based decision at some level. A behavior happening to match sexist patterns you've seen elsewhere is certainly a good reason to check for sexist motives, but if they aren't there then it's just not sexism.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Actual sexism is often a subconscious thing, I know people have a very hard time accepting it, but it is what social scientists have found time and time again.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)You're using conspiracy theorist logic now.
Sexism does follow an actual pattern and it can be discovered deterministically. At no point in the process do you need to suspend your disbelief and assume facts not present in order to find the truth. But you'd have me believe that anything that resembles sexism is sexism and all lack of evidence is somehow just more sexism--possibly even my own.
What you guys are doing is using a baseless accusation of sexism as a smear to attack someone. That behavior is no better than the sexism you pretend you're fighting against.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They are an adult with an important question- seeking to understand. It is a million times better than defending the sexism we see every day as "unprovable".
I am familiar with this "just as bad as the sexist" bullshit, and no. Having a civil conversation with someone about what offended an entire swath of members here (a conversation THEY sought out to boot) does not make me as bad as a sexist.
Spare me your legalistic mumbo jumbo, and give it back to the MRA buddies who wallow in their childish "ha ha, you can't prove it" crap. It's no different from the racists laughing you couldn't prove they intended to fuck up things for POC. This ain;t court- we are not bound to your standards of discourse. Grow up and stop trying to stifle adult conversation.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Nope. I'm having a conversation. Criticizing you is allowed.
I did no such thing. I only pointed out the gap if your logic. Your claim appears to be unprovable, but that might just be because you went straight into ad-hominem mode before even trying to prove it.
I wouldn't be surprised if you've gotten push back for weak reasoning before. Either way, that has nothing much to do with us now.
I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about reasoning. You've failed to provide any reasonable justification for the assumption that OP is sexist. The fact that you'd fare even worse in a court doesn't somehow make your argument more sound here.
Condescension and throwing insults in all directions isn't going to make up for a failure to support your argument.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and so you are promoting standards where men get the benefit of the doubt- and women disbelieved- at every moment.
Yeah, I'm sure you think that is how shit should work, LOL. Silly you.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)That still doesn't establish that OP is sexist.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Your "I'd like Hillary better if she'd have just stayed in her lane" thread was so gender tone-deaf that I felt actual pity earlier today, and I'm not really a pity kinda dude.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)What is sexist about the notion that people should stay in their lane...at least where the fate of the country is at stake?
Michael Dukakis was a great governor. Should he have been the Democratic presidential candidate? Naw. He was a lousy presidential candidate. He should have stayed in his lane. He's male.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Suppose i said that I dislike Clinton as a candidate because I think she tends to change her stated opinion depending on her audience.
That can be construed as sexist. A "devious woman."
Or it can be construed in a more gender neutral way as a politician who will say anything to get elected. Many politicians of both genders have been accused of that over time.
If every time people say something, are they supposed to take out a guidebook to see what might be considered sexually loaded or not?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)his book!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)too bad he actually cared to discuss things like an adult, right?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)"you guys" ?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)personality disorder. A politician who is female and uses their sex to excuse anything they do should find another job. Either step up or get the hell out. She is bringing women down and making us all look bad with her antics. (See what I did there?) I'm a woman, she's a woman and that doesn't mean we have anything else in common, at all. Anything I say about her performance is about her performance, not her fucking sex.
Oh, I'm a feminist too, just like you Armstead. Thanks for trying, but you're up against the wall with people that don't give a real damn.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's a learned manipulation tactic that they think entitles them to their own way. It's bullshit gaslighting. As said above, there's no point in treating it as if there was any substance to it, because there isn't.
What they don't get is, labeling somebody does absolutely nothing. Nobody cares about their labels except them.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)legitimate claims. But, as an abuser of these labels to get your way, and as a supporter of a candidate who abuses these labels to get her way, you don't care about that, do you, bettyellen?
Btw, when I use the label "progressive", I don't mean to apply it to folks who just call themselves "progressive" because it's a popular term. I apply it to folks who ARE progressive and believe in progressive principles.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)some personal defensiveness that is pretty ugly and closed minded. Much like the bullshit claims that anyone here called SBS a racist. Being tone deaf does NOT mean you are racist. Why do you guys go all in with this bullshit? It's embarrassing.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)It doesn't matter the identity (gender or ethnicity or religion or etc.) of the target of that post because the meaning remains the same.
You crying wolf about it, HURTS equality movements for *all* identities.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 01:00 AM - Edit history (1)
do nothing but hurt women and people of color, IMO. For just one thing, the incessant use of them dull their power.
This to me has been a hallmark of both Clinton primary campaigns and, while the buck for a campaign stops at the candidate, I suspect Bubba has been the source of a lot of the divisive identity politics stuff.
Just one carp. If you discriminate against any person solely because of his or her sex, it's sexism, not "reverse" sexism. If you discriminate against any person solely because of skin color, it's racism, not "reverse" racism. Bigotry is bigotry, not reverse bigotry.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... from “the other side”?
"Hillary gets on my nerves. I can't stand her voice. I can't stand her cackle."
"Hillary does not have the temperament to be president. She is so arrogant and insincere."
"Hillary is only keeping her campaign going to satisfy her greed and lust for power. It's just a giant ego trip."
"Hillary should have stayed in the senate. She's over-reaching. She has no business running for the presidential nomination just because she was married to a president."
"Hillary is a shameless opportunist. She's only out for herself. "
"Hillary will lose the general election – she just will."
"Hillary is just keeping her campaign going long enough to ‘steal’ the election."
It goes both ways. Of course, given that DU has been 85% BS supporters since last summer, the HRC supporters have been attacked more frequently and more vehemently than Bernie supporters simply because the BSers are the vast majority here.
With all due respect – and I do respect you – you cannot complain about how badly Bernie has been treated on DU when 85% of the posters here defend his every utterance, while bashing Hillary 24/7, non-stop.
” Why are statements like these acceptable?” Why is calling Hillary a Wall Street whore “acceptable”? Why is an OP about “Hillary’s felonies” acceptable, when she’s never been charged with jay-walking, no less a felony? Why is it “acceptable” to quote RW anti-Hillary sources as fact? Why is it “acceptable” to speculate on Bill’s sexual escapades, while talking about Jane Sanders’ financial shenanigans as a college president – sourced from public records – is “not acceptable”?
This could have been a great primary season on DU. We could have argued issues, defended/promoted where our candidate-of-choice stood on those important issues. Instead, DU became a Bernie echo chamber, where all dissenters were hounded, ridiculed, and told they were low-info voters who stood for everything that is wrong with the Party, and with the country as a whole.
I truly appreciate your disappointment at the way things have turned out for your preferred candidate. But claiming that there is a double standard on DU that somehow persecutes Bernie while favouring Hillary is truly beyond the pale.
You Bernie people have had 85% of the say on this site, and 85% of the jury pool to ensure that any anti-BS posts are immediately hidden. So forgive me for not buying into the “why is this acceptable” argument, as though your candidate was the one being maligned on a daily basis.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sometimes he is. Sometimes Clinton is mistreated. That's part of the give and take of politics and discussion boards.
But my point is not that. It just seems that there is a double standard that often places legitimate criticism of Clinton off limits because anything can be subject to some hidden "code" we're supposed to avoid.
That goes beyond DU, and it also impacts what happens if she becomes president. Of course the GOP will say awful, and sometimes sexist things. But what about the rest of us. Will we not be allowed to criticize her performance or policies because we are being "sexist"?
.
I do recognize times when criticism against Clinton is sexist. But it's tossed around in a vary fast and loose manner sometimes.
If, say, someone complains that they can't stand Sanders voice, for example, their reaction is legitimate if that is how they respond to it.
However, if someone says Clinton's voice is harsh and unpleasant -- immediately they are susceptible to claims that they are making a sexist comment.
It's like my post that got all the flack. I was totally prepared to get criticized for the actual content. I fully expected that people would say that she is the most qualified person in America to be president, that her alliances with Wall St. are no problem, etc. That's fine. I'm a big boy. (I hope that is not a sexist statement.)
But my comments were not oriented to her gender. The only gender related aspect of it was the partnership between she and Bill. And that was directed at both of them equally, and is about political dynasties (i.e. the complaints about the Bushes for dynastic politics.)
But immediately it was swarmed and all of the actual content was swept away by the simple "You're being a sexist jerk."
If we have to go walking on eggs for the next eight years, that's not going to be good for political discussion, and I think ultimately it will breed resentment among many people against the very legitimate goal of overcoming sexism.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)As an HRC supporter, I have been called far worse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1910012
Let's stop pretending that being labelled as a "sexist" is somehow equivalent to, or worse than being called a female who is - like all us wimmin folk - just voting with her vagina.
Let's stop pretending that linking to anti-Hillary RW sources has a place on what purports to be a Democratic-supporting site.
Let's stop pretending that poor Bernie has had to endure the slings-and-arrows of the anti-BS hordes on a site that is 85% in his camp.
Let's stop pretending that being called a "sexist" - deserved or not - is the epitome of disrespect on a website that has labelled HRC supporters as Republicans, paid trolls, warmongering 1%er-loving traitors who are supporting HRC because we are intent on destroying democracy as we know it.
Here's a not-so-heartfelt boo hoo hoo for all of you BSers who have been so unfairly persecuted. If you can't hold your own on a site that is 85% in agreement with your beloved candidate, how do you fare in the real world where you are in the minority among your (alleged) fellow party members?
The voters have spoken- loud and clear. And if what you're down to is whinging that you've been called a "sexist", that you have been treated unfairly by those you demonized and maligned for a year now, that's too fuckin' bad.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Also, FYI I have always hated that "voting with the v..." or voting based on ovaries.." phrase, because to me that's vulgar and sexist and grates on my nerve. I'm not a completely insensitive boor.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)That if I dislike something Hillary has herself called for, then I can get labeled, even though I can say it is not due to her sex.
For example : calling for a no fly zone in Syria, where American and Russian planes could fight, is a bad idea, regardless of what gender race, or insert variable here wants it. Ware eats men and women alike.
Is my wanting her to get rid of that policy sexist?
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... with people suddenly concerned about being called sexist?
You are acting like every attack on HRC has been called-out or challenged on that basis alone.
Last night I saw a comment that saying Bernie was staying in the race to keep the money rolling in was anti- Semetic - because, you know, the only people who are ever accused of putting money first are all Jews.
As an HRC supporter, I have been called a Republican, a low-info voter, a female voting with her vagina, a warmonger, a water-carrier for the 1%, a lover of the status quo, a propagandist for the oligarchy, and a citizen with her head too far up her ass to recognize that Hillary Clinton is bent on the destruction of all mankind.
So excuse me for not crying my heart out over the fact that you've been called a "sexist". It's hard to imagine the depth of your pain.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)The writing is on the wall. Pretty typical for DU actually.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)right on time. They LOVE free speech, except when it is yours or mine.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I have to be totally honest with you. I saw the thread you're talking about and my immediate reaction to your thread title was "oh so she needs to stay in her place?" Then I clicked on the thread and that was literally the first reply to you. So I didn't reply or read the rest of the thread. But that was my honest immediate reaction and I'm a straight white man. I'm not a paid employee of her campaign. I'm not trying to score points or anything and to be honest I don't even really like her, but that was my instant reaction.
I don't know, I've been here on and off for 12 years and have made a few posts here and there and I don't think anyone has ever accused me of racism or sexism. I think as a liberal or progressive or however you identify yourself, the cool thing to do when people tell you that what you're saying is hurtful or insensitive is to say mea culpa and try to understand where they're coming from.
That doesn't stifle political discourse. It is political discourse!
merrily
(45,251 posts)needlessly just so you don't have to watch your (generic you) nasty mouth. That's the very least we can do for each other, IMO.
I do, however, have a problem with spurious and specious claims of bigotry.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)"I'd have liked Clinton if she had been content to become a good Senator... if she had stayed at her level of competence and been content to be a Democratic warhorse Senator from New York." sounds an awful lot like decades of shit that misogynistic men have said about women in the workforce? Know your place. Be content with what you have. Be a good little girl. Stay down at your level. You're not competent for this job. Let "more experienced and capable" people (men) take that job. Don't be too ambitious.
Why can't Sanders be "content" to be the "amendment king"? To be a "good Senator." Because women shouldn't aspire to be something great, merely competent. Wait sorry, I should say "to become a good Senator." Implying that she wasn't already good at her job but that she should have stuck around and learned the ropes from more experienced men, with the hope that she could one day become competent and content. Not great and powerful. That's not a woman's place.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In Hillary's case, I would not have even given her Senator. She did not manage to get a single substantive bill or amendment that she wrote passed into law.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)and I hadn't realized that he mentioned the Peter Principle because I was turned off already by the subject line and first sentence. We're talking about language. You could make the Peter Principle argument without using language that falls into sexist cliches.
It's funny though that you say you wouldn't have even given her Senator. The Peter Principle is about how you perform within a given job and you're saying you wouldn't have given her a job at all! You have to admit that it's entirely subjective. Sanders hardly accomplished more than her, and he certainly didn't manage to get a single substantive bill passed (oh right, the "amendment king"
even though he was in congress far longer than she was. You could just as easily say that he was a great mayor but an undistinguished congressman who has already reached the level of his incompetence in congress.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, I would not have given her credit for having done a good job as a Senator--and failure to get substantive legislation passed was certainly not her only lack as a Senator.
Also, your post assumes that elective office is the only "job" there is, which is massively untrue.
For example, given that the job of a director is to maximize profits for stockholders and the Waltons still contribute to her campaigns, I am guessing she did her job as Walmart director very well.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)So you think she was ok as a senator, but incompetent as Secretary of State? Then say that and explain why. Don't say that you would have liked her better if she wasn't so ambitious. If she was "content" to stay in her place and learn how to be "competent." Do you not see the difference?
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, you are characterizing my comments on her job performance, and nothing but her job performance, as sexist. Do you not see your characterization as specious and spurious? And potentially harmful to women seeking a job or promotion? If not, why not?
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I thought we were talking about that thread that Armstead started.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)It's crazy right? Oh no, what will happen to political discourse if we spend all of our time talking about serious political issues!?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that is their whole entire point. It is never serious or real- only a "tactic" or wedge driven by "identity". As if we women were meaningless- and not the fucking majority of Dem voters.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I think I've heard of that. It's some kind of card, right? 
But yeah, I agree with you. One of the things that has saddened me the most this election is seeing the term "identity politics" thrown around on DU like it's a dirty word. I honestly don't understand if it's mostly rw trolls, or some kind of angry white man branch of the democratic party that is suddenly feeling emboldened.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)who embolden each other with that crap. This place used to have standards. I think it will again.
Prism
(5,815 posts)So maybe you should head on down to Ace, grab a step ladder, and gentle descend from that mighty high warhorse.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)She was attacked by a group of people who claimed to have sprung from the womb with perfect thoughts and feeling toward social issues? None ever had to learn a lesson or have a change of heart. (Just like Bernie!) I have never seen such a bizarre group of phonies with misplaced outraged. Every one of them should be embarrassed for ganging up on her. Nasty bunch of phonies.
Prism
(5,815 posts)You unilaterally decided Clinton calling heterosexual relationships sacred wasn't homophobic.
You've set yourself up as an inquisitor in search of sin. Fine. But then you decided you, and you alone, understood what sin was.
Ah. Bad form. It doesn't work like that.
Sexism is important to you. Known. But homophobia apparently isn't. So you're interested in social justice at your convenience. If you feel it affects you, it's important. If not, then not.
Have you . . . read a social justice pamphlet? Because I'm pretty sure, "What privileged white women want above all else," isn't in the top ten of social justice goals.
But, hey, I only read intersectionality in glancing. I'm sure you know better and will now attempt to not explain yourself at all.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Why don't you get yourself some placards like the Westboro folks and picket me? My sin, my ASS. LOL.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)If you look at the 2008 campaign, those were the same "approaches" used to denigrate. It is not personal, it is automatic. Hillary Clinton utilizes two people who are known for this type of shall I just say political advocacy: David Brock and Mark Penn (the man in the middle). Mark Penn is someone that some on Hillary's staff refused to work with and said if he came to join the team, they would not work on her campaign -- he is that repulsive. He advises her on polling (from a distance). You know Brock's reputation, I am sure. I could say more but it is better to just stop here.
Sam
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
elleng
(131,096 posts)I hope you (and others similarly calm and rational) stay around, to help try to maintain civil relations here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sucks that the majority of people here are giving that crap a pass. I know you both see sexist shit daily. Why not acknowledge and condemn it too? That would go along way to heal things.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)they are sensitive too. And unless you are in their shoes it can be difficult to understand.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BootinUp
(47,186 posts)I have not engaged in that discussion. Some buttons were pressed and people reacted. I seem to recall something similar happened in '08. Using the term racist is probably overboard. Insensitivity to race issues is probably a better way to describe them.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I believe the term "racially tinged" was invented, just so media would not have to use the word "racist" in connection with a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)please clarify what happened.
merrily
(45,251 posts)memo would be a good start, though. Then, Kennedy Clinton getting coffee for us + Game Change
But, I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)recall all the play by play so I needed to refresh my memory. I reserve using the term racist for blatant clear language directly attacking someone on race. Not for percieved slights or insensitive remarks. Bill was painting a picture that had nothing to do with race from his view but everything to do with race from many of the listeners. Just the fact that he was battling Obama (the first black man with a serious chance to be President) so hard magnified it. Made people more sensitive.
merrily
(45,251 posts)primary campaign Hillary ran. So right for it, that media had to invent a new term to avoid using the word racist because racist was the only theretofore known term that fit.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)a strong Clinton supporter? Seems you are itching to prove the inevitable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You should think about that.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)differently? I will point out that all was forgiven by the main actors involved. And the Clintons retain their close association with the Black community and its leaders. The actual harm must not have been that serious on either side. Perhaps you need to do some more thinking.
merrily
(45,251 posts)OF COURSE her campaign was not going to go further than dog whistles. It was a Democratic primary in 2008, not 1864. You have no idea who actually forgave what. Obama and Hillary cut a deal after the 2008 primary and, as they say, politics makes strange bedfellow. But, since when does Obama forgiving something make racism ok?
No, I'm obviously not the one who needs to do more thinking about racism.
BTW, you do realize that you're posting the same lame excuses and rationalizations that have been posted for at least two years on DU and responded to for just as long? So, that in addition to not excusing anything, they are also tedious at this point?
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Thanks for exposing yours.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)such a sweeping statement about me and think it makes perfect sense. I sense that I am wasting my time though.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Your statements have been clearly to protect the Clintons, no matter what.
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)You on the other hand can see nothing positive about them. You might find that I am rather forgiving of many people in the public spotlight.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's not even "modified limited hangout."
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)what I think and what you think. Perception is something that fools us humans far to often.
merrily
(45,251 posts)labeling that forgiveness of the Clinton's missteps is not truth. Man, you've even been defending the airport fairy tale and a "racially tinged" campaign!
BootinUp
(47,186 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Nothing about defending the wrecking of the economy (our first convo), the airport fairy tale or a "racially tinged" Democratic primary campaign to the death, calling it forgiveness and then claiming a clean conscience is truth, IMO, though. When internal inconsistencies exist, both things cannot be truthful. But, I think you know that--and that's the worst part, IMO.
Bye for now.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)was somehow not as good as say Utah was viewed as a racist meme and probably cost Sander votes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)from the Hillary campaign in 2008?
Sorry. Either I cannot discern the comparison, or they're not comparable.
Besides, as has been posted scores of times, that is spin. No one but Hillary supporters said the Southern state don't matter because those states have African American inhabitants. News flash, people of all colors and no colors live in the South. And in the North for that matter. You'll even have to link me to where the Sanders campaign said Utual mattered more than the South because I don't recall that.
To me, doing that is very similar to what the Hillary campaign did in 2008, namely divide people along lines of color and religion. In 2008 it was to win white votes, and votes from people frightened by Muslims. Now it's to win votes from people of color and people biased against Jews, but they are different sides of the same coin. Both reflect racially divisive, "good ole boy" kind of thinking and, IMO, both are shameful.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I have things I am sensitive to. ...Ponies!
But seriously, I have my share of hot buttons, and sometimes I get ornery when someone hits mine.
I don't know if there is a way to have freeflowing and honest give and take without that happening to some degree. That's one reason I posed the question.
amborin
(16,631 posts)policies, actions. So when HRC or her supporters accuse critics of sexism, it is they--HRC and her supporters---who are being sexist
moriah
(8,311 posts)I'll see if I can explain this aspect of male privilege, but if I fail, maybe othrrs can.
When I said I wanted to be a doctor when I was young, my grandfather said "No, honey, but you'd make an excellent nurse."
---
I had to work twice as hard in some situations as techs taller than 5'1 (I envied the 6'5 guys when no adequate ladder or lift is available, even though I got the job done). But I still heard the comments when I walked in as the only woman on a 100 person rollout -- "No fucking way she can do this." "Did they have to hire her, you know, legally?"
----
When I led a team I was also apparently good enough that name recognition helped get me my next hirem. I got pissed when I learned how drastically underpaid I was compared to other leads on that project (between a 25%-$40% discrepancy) and managed to request and get a bump to make it better, but still not what men doing my job were getting paid.
------
Another woman ended up being hired at the same company a bunch of us got hired on maybe a month before, so little appreciable difference in seniority. About a year and a half later, a female manager for the higher-level techs was conducting interviews for a customer-facing position that also required excellent technical skills. The newer female hire was chosen.
She had equal certificates, degrees, prior experience. Personally, listening to her on the phone compared to him in the main tech support area, she had better people skills -- I heard him get rather abrasive and when that's your customer...not good. But I had no input.
He couldn't say she had slept her way to the top, so he filed a complaint with HR that the female boss was reverse-discriminating, because he was obviously more qualified. Worse, he'd never had a bad thing to say about the woman who beat him out of a job before, but started publicly questioning her competence to have even been on the group we worked together on before. Really seemed to just HATE her all the sudden. "Bitch" was commonly said by him about both of them.
He did get a promotion himself when one was available, but it didn't involve anything like the customer interaction skills needed for the original position. But he was still bitter.
---
You haven't been in my shoes to experience or witness these things. That's your privilege -- to know that if someone is questioning your competency/giving you promotions it's not about your gender, and have others know it too. To rarely, if ever, have much in your life be about your gender, particularly when it comes to achieving something.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I thought it was "all about the issues" and Sanders supporters didn't like her because of the Iraq war vote, her supposed corruption, etc. But he's saying he would have liked her better if she had just stayed in her place and let the man be President?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The difference?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it was very much about you thinking she should know her place.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)satisfied with, focused on?
Lemme put it another way. (Sorry if you have seen this example before.)
I am very good at what I do for a living. I would be very bad at trying to move up into a position of managing what I do. My talents are doing what I do. So I am content with doing what I am best at, rather than pursing an ambition that is not suited to my talents.
I can't think of alternative wording for that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)content". Perhaps if you had an entire lifetime of people weighing in again and again, where you should be content- despite your talents- then you would get it. Since that is impossible, how about just taking the word of many people here who obviously mean you no disrespect? I know you don't "have to" because we can't "prove it" - as you can see, that ALSO gets pointed out to us gleefully a dozen times every time we raise a point.
It's like the women who used to audtion for orchestras, they could not prove they were being discriminated against- they just weren't getting any jobs. But once they were behind a curtain for auditions, they were hired. They never proved any single event was sexist either, but they saw the cumulative effect of it every day.
Autumn
(45,120 posts) auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Self-reflection is a valuable quality. Just saying.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I've had more than a few conversations about it over the years, and my female acquaintances are not shy about calling bullshit on sexist statements and actions.
I don't claim to be Alan Alda, but I've gotten a lot of feedback on such things over the years and try to be sensitive about it. That's one reason the whole tone of this campaign annoys me. This kind of thing puts people who are progressive and try hard to do the right thing into a corner simply for not supporting a particular candidate and stating why honestly.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I've read a lot of your posts. I've never thought they were sexist before. Believe me, I'd have said. I've disagreed with a lot of the things you said about Hillary, but I've never thought, "sexist". It's not a knee-jerk reaction and I DON'T make the accusation of sexism for every criticism made of Hillary.
But that particular post you made was sexist. The fact you can't see it is not due to people's irrationality in their responses to it or the "tone" of any campaign. I don't even think it's due to YOU being sexist. It's due to the fact that you genuinely have no idea what it's like to be a woman.
My husband is about as sensitive and progressive as a man could be. But he truly will never understand what it feels like for me to walk down a street by myself at night. The hyper-vigilance, the constant awareness of who's around me and where they are and how close and how fast they're walking and whether their path is on a trajectory with mine. It's automatic; I do it automatically, and I assume nearly all other women do too. But it would never occur to a man.
Your post and confusion about the reaction to it is an example of that fundamental divide. I was raised in a blessedly progressive household, but I still lived in the world. So even though my mom told me I could do and be anything I wanted to be, the rest of the world was there to remind me to stay in my place. In millions of different ways, every single day.
It's one of the reasons (ONE of the reasons) I support Hillary - because she is a woman. She is pretty much my ideal candidate politically, but it's a bonus that she's a woman. Because one of the ways the world tells girls they can't be whatever they want, not really, is the simple fact that a woman has never been president.
I am ambitious, and I have a loud mouth. I am no stranger to getting the message, verbally or non-verbally, to sit down, shut up, and know my place. But all women get it. You don't even need to be particularly ambitious. It is woven into the fabric of society from top to bottom.
As I said in my post on your other OP, I am willing to believe that you didn't mean to be sexist. But you were. It's not an overreaction, and it's not irrational, and it's not trying to cover up for Hillary's many perceived sins. It's the language you used, it's the way you said it. I can't explain it any better than that.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)When considering where a person's talents are best suited, if you believe a man is better suited to remain a technician (or whatever) and a woman is better suited to a promotion to management, you are ok. If your assessment is the other way around, you run the risk of being accused of sexism. The history of "keeping women in their place" is too long. Someone looking from outside can point and say "that action" (failure to promote or whatever) is sexist -- it fits a pattern that has long been unfair.
The person accusing doesn't know what's in your mind. That's why it is such a frustrating thing to be accused of. When I decide that Mark should be promoted instead of Sally, maybe the decision was influenced by some sexist thinking I'm not aware of. But it seems that sometimes, not matter how rigorous you are in reviewing the basis of your decision to assure yourself it was made for "good reasons," you are still open to being accused.
In other words, I don't have any easy answers. All we can do is carefully review the basis of our conclusions, and do little thought experiments. (Would my assessment be any different if Sally were male? Or transgender?). If you are confident that a person's gender, or race, or religion, or hair color, or weight, or whatever, played no role in your reactions to, or decisions about, another person, that's all you can do. If you are accused, explain. Have a conversation about it. Perhaps it'll help uncover a bias you didn't realize you had. Or perhaps the accuser will come to understand that bias played no role in your thinking.
That's all you can do.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)If you can't make a well formed argument without drawing the ire of some people, Then just make the argument anyway.
People calling names shouldn't be a concern.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and you can't be labelled sexist for posting it. Not honestly any way. Feeling that someone's talents and abilities better suit them, individually, in a certain role isn't sexist. If you think an entire group of people are better suited for certain roles exclusively, that would be sexist. Those attitudes do exist, but I haven't seen them here.
It's been like this the entire primary season, though. Every criticism of Hillary gets accusations of sexism thrown at it. Regardless of what you say to back it up (like quoting her or outlining her record on a subject) you're still just a sexist. It's stupid and stifles conversation.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)You stepped in a pile of shit and then traipsed it all over the place and now you're trying to blame the dog for the shit pile that you spread.
In the future, watch out for piles of shit to avoid stepping in them. If you do ... stop ... and clean it off before coming inside. If you bring it inside, don't use the carpet to wipe your shoes. If someone standing near you says "ewww, something smells like dog shit" check your soles, and if it's you, take off your shoes and help to clean up the mess you made. (Cleaning means actually cleaning ... not pushing it into the carpet fibers to try and blend it in with the pattern in the hopes that nobody will see the stain. That won't work because it still stinks like shit!)
Next, apologize for the mess you created.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"I disagree with Clinton's foreign policy."
"What you're claiming a woman can't be a strong commander in chief?"
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... code words that have been used forever to shame and suppress and which suggest that she's risen above her "station" or "role" or "capacity" ... and that she should simply be content and have no ambition.
You're clever. You're smart. You know how to step over the shit in the walkway and still manage to reach the door.
I know you're smart because you're spending a great deal of time and effort trying to argue your way out of this. Such intelligence could have been just as easily used to avoid it in the first place.
Now ... clean up your mess. Apologize.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Whether or not you intended to sound sexist, comments about a women being ambitious and how they should be content with rising to a certain level and no more exist within a context and that context has historically been sexist. The glass ceiling is still real. And the MRA "movement" underlines how many men are upset that women dare to step out of traditional roles and social subservience to men.
It may not seem fair to you, but it DOES matter how you speak about woman as compared to how you speak about a man. The same way how you speak about an African American as compared to a white American matters.
It reminds me of my racist cousin talking about a black guy being lazy and spending his lunch breaks eating fired chicken. Even if the dude IS lazy and eats fried chicken for lunch, those comments play into stereotypes.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)he deserves to be called on it. The fried chicken part is racist, because it is a stereotype that has no bearing on anything except his own cholesterol.
It's a difficult balance. I don't object to people reasonably pointing out the need to be more careful...For instance, perhaps my Op could have been worded slightly differently. But people should also be able to make their points without worrying that every phrase might be jumped on as sexism.
The problem is related both to the campaign and the presidency -- as well as how politics can truly be gender equal, and allow honest opinions to be expressed. (Within the bounds of reason, obviously).
Sanders is called all kinds of things. Grouchy, narcissistic, ineffective, unqualified, yells too much, uncompromising....etc. that's just accepted as part of campaign argument.
Someone might disagree with those characterizations, but it's considered fair game to criticize a candidate's personal characteristics. Any complaints or counters will be focused on the specific characterization. "No he knows how to compromise and has shown it.....etc.'
But when someone characterizes Clinton for her personal characteristics .They may get jumped on, even if they are simply describing a human character trait that they don't like.: "So you're saying the little woman is grouchy? That's unfair because assertive women are always described that way to keep them in line."
It gets more serious if she becomes president. Suppose, for example, she gets angry at the GOP and pulls a Ted Cruz and does something with a budget that shuts down the government....And suppose some Democrats disagree with that approach and believe it is an overreaction that does more harm than good.
And if they express that displeasure -- and do not use overtly sexist language -- it is possible such dissension and debate will be stifled with "You can't talk that way about the first woman president. You're just accusing her of being an angry hysterical female." And thus the conversation becomes deflected from the actual merits or negative effects of her action....and rational discussion of a legitimate becomes even more difficult than it is inherently.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you just want to justify your comments and not reflect on why they bothered people, I cannot help you.
Your comments DID strike me as playing into sexist stereotypes. I didn't make a fuss out of it (I did not comment in that thread) because I thought you wouldn't be receptive to criticism. You made this thread specifically asking for feedback. Well, I gave it. The words we use exist within a context, even if you didn't specifically intend it. You can use that knowledge to your profit, or not. It's up to you. If you just wanna say folks shouldn't be offended, I can't help you.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It was a honest question.
I will phrase it simply. If so many ordinary human qualities can be attributed to gender, how can people's actions and candidate's qualities be discussed or critiqued, if a large majority of people's actions and behavior are considered off limits?
(I am not referring to the obvious gender slurs or deliberate stereotypes.)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We live in a world full of racial and sexist stereotypes. Part of the problem is, of course, that your opinion of her qualifications and qualities is in the minority, at least within the Democratic Party.
The part that bothered me most about what you wrote wasn't that necessarily questioned her qualifications, but rather yopu chose to highlight that you would have liked her if she had been content to stay a Senator. That plays into the DECADES and even CENTURIES of women being told that they should be content with the positions offered to them in life. That they should be content to be wives and mothers. They should be content to be simply be near men of great power and not demand that they get a shot at holding the power themselves.
As I said, I do not question that you had no intention of evoking such mantras. But they exist, and the title of your OP fit very neatly into that narrative. That a woman, the FIRST woman, on the verge of being a major party nominee for the Presidency should have been content with the position of U.S. Senator. Surely, you could have framed your criticism in other terms?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)We know this from all verbal acrobatics and hoops you're jumping through, and with all the hairs you're so delicately splitting.
Deliberate or not, you made a mistake, you were wrong. Stop pretending like you're some misunderstood victim.
You now know you made a mistake. You now know how offensive you've been, and you really do need to apologize.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)
This is Bread and Circuses.
Wall St, MSM TPTB have zero intentions
of allowing political discourse.
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...and I commented. I stated that I did not agree with you and was happy Hillary decided to move on and consider running for President. After my comment was posted, I went back and saw how many took your statement as sexist, which I did not note in my reply... now, after reading them, I saw how they saw the post as sexist. This probably gets into thinking ahead. I often consider how something may sound bigoted, before making a point. I'm sure I err, still, but I try to be sensitive.
It could also be timing. After Hillary lost to Obama, saying she should have stayed in the Senate made sense. Now that she is on the verge of winning the nomination for President of the United States, wishing she would have remained in the Senate seems odd.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)can you imagine the hue and cry about political dynasties, and ambition there would be on DU constantly?
I realize there would not be many (probably none) posts saying, "I kinda liked Jeb, but it's not appropriate for him to run, and I don't think he's suited to be president."
But there would be endless "I'm sick of the Bush family trying to start a monarchy"...etc.
Or suppose Joe Biden had decided to run. I am positive there would be a lot of posts saying "I really like Joe, and he's been a really good vice president.But i don't think he's cut out to be president. I wish he'd just retire and sit on his laurels. It's time for him to stop his endless running for president. "
Or other variations. How many people would be complaining such posts were sexist?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)as Hillary has, solely for being ambitious. It is not a meme that is really going to damage a male candidate, but makes Hillary so very unappealing. You don't "like her" on a visceral level for having the quality of ambition. I invite you to look around and reflect on how pervasive that notion has been in your life, in the workplace, and how many women have been damaged or vilified for being seen as "ambitious". I bet a light will go on, and you will start seeing what you have long ignored. It is a very prevalent attitude and most guys don't ever realize it. Us women live with the knowledge, and many "stay in line" because the price is too high.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Have had a couple of girlfriends (hope that's an okay term) who are ambitious, and other male and female friends who are ambitious. I've had ambitious periods myself in the past, though not so much these days. (I'd retire if I could afford it...But I am ambitious about art, which is a sideline.)
The nature of ambition, and how it is expressed, what people do to attain it, how they treat people and how they handle power... and the consequences and how we respond to it is a perennial issue -- for both genders. and is often based on individuals.There is also different types of ambition...political, power, creative, business, social change, greed....etc and all of the possible combinations that are expressed in different ways.
It also has to do whether we are talking about public figures, people we interact with personally, whether one is a boss or co-worker, etc.
As for the Bushes,they were regularly attacked for their dynastic ambitions....Jeb was a fizzle this year, but if his campaign had caught on and he was a contender, can you imagine the fuss and feathers that would raised here on DU about the Bush Crime Family (an old nickname for them) and their monarchical ambitions? GW's nickname (among otehrs) was the Dauphin.
Just saying, I think that goes way beyond gender images, roles and stereotypes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)people the benefit of the doubt, that their judgment is untainted by any sort of bias. The thing is- it is rarer to have no bias at all than it is to have some biases. We all do. It does not make us horrible people, it makes us partially blind. Listening to other people with some trust instead of predjudice is what it takes to see the whole situation.
Isn't it interesting in this thread how many people are telling you to summarily dismiss what I and other women are saying? That is why you rarely hear us complain about this shit at work- it gets twisted that WE are the problem, we are not to be trusted, we just want things (like common respect) that we somehow have not earned. I think looking at some of the responses here angrily discouraging you from even engaging in conversation is pretty enlightening. That is how we get treated 24/7. If we are not content and complacent- this is how we are dismissed. It is as common as dirt- this smug "you can't prove sexism and I'm thrilled you can't" attitude. We wish we could be judged blindly- like orchestra musicians are. Because we know the atmosphere within which we are judged is much more often than not toxic. Explaining to us how we can never be right about feeling something is sexist, we are always wrong. And these are self professed progressives. This thread is toxic, so much distrust of women, so much dislike for us as people. Ick.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)That's the game.
Tell people to shut up, get in line, and hold their nose to vote for the neo-liberal nominee now, and to work for change from within!!!! once that candidate has been elected, inaugurated, and is in office.
And once that happens, stifle all dissent because it's disloyal and unsupportive of the Democratic!!!! POTUS, who can't be held accountable because, you know, Republicans.
Race or gender issues simply add some spice to that recipe, but the recipe doesn't change.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's simply not difficult to write clearly and without ambiguity. I have seen few comments doing so accused as such.
It's also not difficult to include dog-whistles and pretend they are something else. Sincerity in writing is much harder to fake than most people realize, and it is these disingenuous sentiments that are being denounced and mocked for what they are, rather than what they pretend to be.
I promise, with just a little bit of concentration... it's just not that difficult to see a giant building in broad daylight.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Including the...I won't go into the weeds...here is a link nonsense which I won't read by the way. You all call juries for most Hillary posts, make vile accusations against her,post crap from right wing hates sites and then complain about your supposed mistreatment. There is no doubt the jury system is stacked...little better now but still favors Bernie supporters.Here is the bottom line, Hillary has won the primary and bashing her at this point only helps Trump. Trump has already used Bernie's words. So all the negative post concerning Hillary are smoke in the wind...immaterial and potentially damaging in the general. Nothing any of you do or say will make Bernie the candidate. As for the emails, that was always right wing crap and nothing will come of it. As many posts noted yesterday, the FBI has found no reason to think Clinton did anything criminal:certainly, both Rice and Powell sent emails on regular Gmail...I would say a private server with protection is much better. And ironically had she used the state email, she would have been hacked as that archaic system was hacked by China. Those of you who posted long self-serving posts about this should be ashamed to join with the right wing for political expediency. You say Bernie is different...a decent candidate: not your average politician. I thought so at first, but not anymore. He and you have wallowed in the mud just like they all seem to do. I would say Hillary Clinton has run a much cleaner campaign than Bernie. I have been online when Hillary supporters said that some negative information concerning Bernie should not be used because it is wrong...but on the other side, there is no discrimination about what is posted and where it comes from...it is a negative article about Hillary...that all that is needed. I suggest you re-read some of the stuff you all have posted...including 'the I would have liked Hillary better is she had stayed a Senator post'...condescending tripe.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)It's the-boy-who-cried wolf syndrome. The push to install a protective bubble around Hillary through false charges of sexism is counterproductive to fighting REAL instances of sexism.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)have also been leveled at Clinton...especially the ego and out for herself and temperament and voice/yelling and electability and lets us not forget ageism leveled at both.
The only one I see uniquely leveled at Sanders is he's just keeping his campaign going to bilk his followers. I see the point of letting everyone have a vote so thats fine...but not if he overstates the likelihood of success.
You can have political discourse as long as it about the polities and actions.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)to consolidate control of the party by the corporate state.
Any criticism (real or perceived) is to be crushed
The speaker if that "criticism" is to be labeled and dismissed (ie. sexist, misogynist, pony loving hippy)
Only supportive statements are to go unchallenged unless they are not supportive enough
The only consistency shall be "YOU MUST ASSIMILATE" reason logic and ethics be damned.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You have some supremely nutty ideas about us, and I am truly sorry someone sold you that bill of goods.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)We had a long back and forth the other day about a phrase you chose that was insensitive. I believe you misspoke. All you needed to do was say, "Yeah, my bad, let me rephrase that" and then restated your opinion (which was valid, though still wrong) in less offensive terms. But instead, you argued on and on about something that was not defensible. IMO.
Also, grow some skin. No one is oppressing you. If you feel the accusations are ad hominem, strawman (woman?) or invalid in some way, then argue THAT. And argue with the people who made the posts that bother you. This he said, she said crap is too confusing. When my kids do that, I EVERYONE gets a timeout.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Drown out legitimate discourse under shouts of "sexism!" and "dog whistle" and hope nobody notices that Hillary's actually pretty terrible for the rights of the people they purport she's defending. Forestall progress and hope it withers on the vine so their corporatist friends may have the Democratic party unimpeded.
This is the face of the enemy of the Democratic party.
CBHagman
(16,987 posts)Was your original post removed?
