Is the following statement sexist?

[TwilightZone]

"Hillary is just Bush in a dress."

That statement and several variations (in a skirt, in drag, etc.) seem to be used fairly often around here.

So, I'm curious...what do you think? Sexist or not? Feel free to explain why or why not.

[loveangelc]

1. um, no.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Would it be if you just changed it around to say Bush is just Hillary in a suit?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. How about "Bay Buchanan is Pat Buchanan in a dress."

Sexist?

[Azathoth]

9. Actually, you might be on to something there...

It occurs to me that Pat and Bay are never on camera at the same time...

[lapfog_1]

15. Has anyone ever seen Bay Buchanan in a dress?

[Jai4WKC08]

104. Or Giuliani is Bush in a dress

I think that one might be more accurate.

I voted that the line about Hillary isn't sexist, but I probably should have said it's more complicated than yes/no. On the surface, it isn't sexist. But it is grossly wrong, and I think that many of the people who have come to that conclusion have done so for sexist reasons.

[robbedvoter]

4. No. Just over the top.

[The Magistrate]

5. Sexist, Homophobic, And Transphobic, Sir

No serious argument can be made otherwise.

The fact that the parlance is fairly common does not alter the bigotries at its root.

[aquart]

12. Yep.

[TwilightZone]

13. ...

As you might have guessed, I intentionally left my opinion out of the OP.

I agree with you. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can truly believe otherwise.

Edit: Especially a bunch of self-described "progressives".

[Lerkfish]

18. "no serious argument can be made otherwise"

that's a common weak debater's tactic: preemptively announce that anyone who disagrees with you cannot be serious, accurate, reasonable, rational.

[The Magistrate]

22. Proceed, Sir....

"I'm your huckleberry...."

[Lerkfish]

27. Sire, we were instructed not to use such empty arguments when I was on the debate team

"everyone reasonable would agree with me" is not an argument, we were taught instead to actually demonstrate our point of view is correct rather than simply chiding the opposition for disagreeing with you -- that basically the ad hominem fallacy.

if it pleases you, sire. I was just reminded of my debating days, and commenting on a tactic that does little to advance an argument but is instead intended to publicly shame your opposition for disagreeing with you.

but sire, please carry on, do go ahead.

[The Magistrate]

33. So You Are Not Going To Demonstrate The Weakness Of My Position, Sir?

"The only rule is there are no rules."

[Lerkfish]

37. as soon as you demonstrate the strength of it I will, Sire

thus far, Sire, you have not.

regardless, I have addressed your point or lack of it further down the thread, Sire.

if it please you, Sire.

[LanternWaste]

79. And calling someone 'Sire'...

Did you learn in that same Debate Class that calling someone 'Sire' is an appropriate response to a logical fallacy?

[Lerkfish]

80. it is a positive honorific, is it not?

[LanternWaste]

100. Not as much honorific as it is petulant.

Not as much honorific as it is petulant. But then I read for context and don't hide behind what I say.

That being said and going back to my question-- is that in fact a tactic you learned in debate?

[Lerkfish]

111. nope.

but are you saying that consistently referring to someone in a thread by an honorific is petulant?

Hmmmm.

interesting.

[TwilightZone]

83. I doubt it was debate class. Probably more like "The Art of War"

[Azathoth]

21. Precisely what 'bigotries' are at its root?

Aside from the generalization that women wear dresses?

[The Magistrate]

24. The Thing Has No Weight As An Attack, Sir

Without reference to ideas of female inferiority, of the generally wrongness of effeminancy, and of crossing gender boundaries.

[Lerkfish]

30. I would posit differently, SIre

I would put forth that the comparison, the actual comparison, is one of policies, and that the "dress" is incidental to the main point: that there is a lack of distinction between two individuals.

to intentionally bog down the debate, Sire, into the "dress" portion is to avoid the elephant in the room, and address the substance of the comparison: in what ways are Bush and CLinton SIMILAR, since the only state difference is what they are wearing?

perhaps argue from that presumption and go from there, Sire.

[The Magistrate]

44. You Quite Miss The Point, Sir

And seem to have very little understanding of moving mass opinion, which is always done by appeals to emotion and prejudice. The dress, and the base and reactionary attitudes it appeals to, is the whole point of the statement, which is designed to move people to accept an identity as existing without making the least real effort to demonstrate such an identity actually exists, by uniting the feeling of contempt felt for one end of the thing in the target audience with the object of the attack, using the easy lubricant of contempt for homosexuality.

[Lerkfish]

47. No, Sire, it your lordship which has intentionally bypassing the point

and are jumping to conclusions based on your own prejudice and assigning intent in an overreaching manner on the sparest of evidence.

In fact, the point is, as I stated, to compare the ONLY difference between them would be clothing: clearly you are inferring that as a SIMILARITY for some reason.


if it pleases you Sire, for me to disagree with you.

[The Magistrate]

50. Wear It In Good Health, Sir....

Darker delights than this await me elsewhere in the house....

[Lerkfish]

62. If it pleases you to do so, Sire

But your lordship has not succeeding in providing a sufficiently strong argument for your point, yet.

If I were judging this debate, you would not have been the victor, Sire.

[The Magistrate]

71. Oh, It Did, Mr. Lerkfish....

"Marriage succeeds because it provides the maximum of temptation and the maximum of opportunity."

[Lerkfish]

72. I thought you had retreated to darker delights, your lordship

instead, I see you're simply avoiding the debate and going to lick your wounds, Sire.

better luck at our next outing. If you like, I could give you some debate tips.

if it pleases you, Sire.

[Azathoth]

74. *chuckle*

Well fought, sir. :thumbsup:

[Lerkfish]

77. why, thank you, sir, you did not disappoint as well.

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. The thing has no weight as an attack on persons who wear women's clothing...

which is why people seem to be believing that it's neither sexist nor transphobic.

It has some weight when it comes to politics, which is why I think people are getting their gender-neutral undergarments all in a bunch.

[The Magistrate]

35. It Is Simply An Attempt, Sir

To cast a woman as a sort of inferior male, and plug into a ready pool of prejudice to rouse an emotional reaction against the object of the slur. That is the general aim of propagandists.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Ah ha...

but it has no "reference(s) to ideas of female inferiority, of the generally wrongness of effeminancy, and of crossing gender boundaries."

You're simply reading into them.

In this context, the person was comparing two people with arguably similar politics and remarked on an obvious but irrelevant difference.

Calling George W. Bush a 21st century Attila the Hun is not a slur on the 21st century.

[Lerkfish]

45. Sire is not ready to actually debate you, but I applaud your argument here

well done.

[The Magistrate]

46. No, That Would Be A Slur On Attila The Hun, Sir

And the usage is resorted to precisely in order to prompt people to read those things into it, and share in them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Agreed.

And comparing Hillary to Bush is a slur on Hillary, not women.

[Lerkfish]

61. Sire, if I may, your lordship:

By the mechanics of your own argument, here, then, you are implying the original comment is a slur against Bush instead of Clinton.

This works against your premise.

if it pleases you, Sire.

[hfojvt]

38. it has a lot of weight as an attack

because of the idea of George W. Bush's clearly demonstrated inferiority. And since it is an insult of Hillary rather than Bush, I do not see how it depends on the idea of the "wrongness of femininity", nor how it says anything about crossing gender boundaries. What boundary is crossed if George Bush puts on a skirt? It's only clothing.

[Azathoth]

58. Why are you attempting to interpret a metaphor literally?

I doubt the original author of the quote (whoever that is) intended to suggest that Hillary was actually a man wearing women's clothes.

A reasonable interpretation of the metaphor would be: "Hillary is a female version of Bush." Its meaning and effectiveness is not predicated on a notion of female inferiority, nor does the argument attempt to invoke such ideas in the reader. To the contrary, it explicitly compares a particular man to a particular woman and concludes that they are the same in all but the most superficial of ways.

[hfojvt]

28. You have not made a serious argument to show that it is.

Is it sexist then to insult a woman by comparing her to a man? What if somebody said that Hillary was more like Al Gore in a dress? I can see how calling John Edwards "the Breck girl" is sexist because it implies that being a girl is demeaning. It doesn't just insult Edwards, it insults all females.

The OP's comment however, does not call Hillary a man in a skirt, it calls her a very specific man. It is George Bush's "chimpiness" that makes it insulting, not his maleness. It's a comment about politics, about policy, not about gender. It's similar to saying something like "Michael Moore is just Noam Chomsky with a beard" or if you wanted to insult him, you'd say he was "Rush Limbaugh with a beard". The comment does not say anything about all women or all men, it is restrictive to Hillary and Bush.

[Lerkfish]

34. You're looking for an honest debate

from those whose intent is otherwise.

:)

[hfojvt]

96. I think he has debated at least as honestly as you

but has not bothered to engage me. It may be kinda hard to battle four opponents at once. Lord knows I have been there too. He probably just went after easier prey, since I am such a formidable intellect and debater. I'm like Hillary in blue jeans, or Rocky Balboa with glasses.

At least we are both legends in our own mind. And Rocky, he usually leads with his chin, doesn't he?

[Lerkfish]

113. LOL!

well, that made me smile.

[debatepro]

73. Hold on there... I disagree

I think it is only sexist, homophobic, and tranphobic if the author intended and/or readers interpreted the claim that "Hillary is just Bush in a dress." is worse than "Hillary is just Bush."

If the author intended and/reader interpreted "in a dress" as a negative then I would agree. Look at another example:

"Hillary is just Bush with a brain." Is better than "Hillary is just Bush." Because (for the most part) we associate having a brain as a positive. With your example, I don't assume that wearing a dress is a negative (while the assumption on your part that wearing a dress is negative) for a man or a women so I wouldn't consider it "sexist, homophobic, and transphobic."

So my answer would be yes, no, and maybe!

[TwilightZone]

98. A thought...

If all someone means to say is "Hillary is just Bush", why the need for the "in a dress" part?

It changes the intent of the statement; in what way is where the debate lies.

At the risk of repeating my comments made elsewhere in this thread, I agree with you that context and intent have much to do with the interpretation.

[TwilightZone]

97. A bit of an afterthought....

Curious that a yes or no question on sexism turned into a debate on Mrs. Clinton's record, hmm?

[truebrit71]

106. Complete and total bollocks, Sir.

Anyone who seriously argues that it is needs their head examined.

[TheWraith]

117. I don't often disagree with The Magistrate, but I have to here.

There's nothing inherently sexist in that statement. Inaccurate, perhaps, in that Hillary isn't as bad as Bush (and in any event, rarely if ever wears a dress), but bigoted it isn't.

[spooky3]

118. A statement that calls attention to one's gender where it is irrelevant

in the workplace sets women apart in an inappropriate way, and undermines them, particularly in male-dominated environments, even when well-intentioned. That's one reason why it is sexist.

Another example is for a man to open a business meeting by saying something like, "We're delighted to have the ladies with us today."

And, the specific statement is insulting to Clinton in other ways because she very clearly differs from Bush.

[Recursion]

6. Statements aren't sexist, people are

or something like that

[robbedvoter]

Camille Paglia begs to differ....

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. Not sure.. can't remember last time I saw her in a dress.

Ya, probably.

Especially since women had to fight for the right to show up on the senate floor in pants.

[TwilightZone]

86. Interesting point.

Context and intent certainly seem to play a part in its interpretation.

[Egnever]

8. Sexist is losing its shock value

Its been trumpeted so many times here by so many posters that it is getting to the point where i am becoming desensitized to it.

[TwilightZone]

81. Interesting perspective.

I ask the following question in sincerity. It is not meant to be sarcastic.

Considering that there have been similar declarations of "racism" on DU in reference to Mr. Obama, are you becoming desensitized to those, as well?

To me, repetition should not change the interpretation of a statement. If it's racist, it's racist even if it is repeated ad infinitum. What I do tend to notice is that the interpretation of a statement often has more to do with one's impression of the target of the statement than on any societal norms.

[DissentIsPatriotic]

10. Yes, it implies that being a woman means wearing a dress.

Now go iron my shirt.

[maddiejoan]

11. Question

How often does Hillary even wear a dress? She generally wears a tasteful pantsuit.

of course it's sexist.

Not to mention incorrect as Hillary is nothing like Commander Chimpy McCokespoon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Well, they both thought Iraq would be a good idea.

But disregarding that, well... and the nepotism, they're mostly different.

Different genders, f'rinstance.

[maddiejoan]

20. yeah

they are soooo alike!

a weak brain addled fascist puppet is just so much like a strong intelligent progressive woman.

Thanks for setting me straight!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Bush is a strong intelligent progressive woman?

Because Clinton sure isn't.

[maddiejoan]

26. She sure the hell is.

she damned sure the hell is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Well, she's a woman.

But she's certainly not strong, progressive, or intelligent.

[maddiejoan]

39. she is everything I said

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Nope.

Progressive, intelligent, strong people don't support the war in Iraq, even for political gain.

[maddiejoan]

49. You are rather a one note Johnny then

and I don't see where Hillary is supporting the "war" (it's an Occupation BTW) in Iraq.

Is she still funding the troops while calling for their withdrawl if she is elected?
Yes. She is doing that.

Was the IWR a call to war? No --that was never it's intention.

Did Bush misuse the IWR to invade. yes.

I'm curious --who are you supporting as our candidate?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. OK, lame excuse Sally.

The thing I like about all this is it really seperates the people who are against the war, and the people who just pretend to be.

[maddiejoan]

53. who are you supporting?

you didn't bother to tell me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Obama.

The guy who's been against the war from day one.

Back before it was popular.

[maddiejoan]

56. But you are okay that he helps fund the war?

and you are okay that he signed an identical resolution to K/L even though he uses it as a bludgeon? A bill he didn't even have the courage to vote on?

and you are okay that his plan for withdrawl of troops from Iraq isn't even as aggressive as Hillary's?

mmmmmm --okay.

Pretty easy to say you are against the war when you are not sitting in the Senate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Obama doesn't fund the war.

He's been signing against it.

"A bill he didn't even have the courage to vote on?"

So because Obama didn't vote for the K/L bill, I should vote for somebody who did?

:rofl:

"and you are okay that his plan for withdrawl of troops from Iraq isn't even as aggressive as Hillary's?"

I don't think Clinton wants to leave Iraq at all. Her comments about "beginning to leave" :spray: sound like Nixon in 1968.

[maddiejoan]

60. 60 days from taking office

she plans on withdrawing troops.

what's Obama's plans?


and you seem to ignore that Obama voted yes on R 970 which is identical to K/L.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. The dextromorphan distribution act? Huh?

"60 days from taking office"

Yeah, she plans on coming up with a plan after being in office 60 days.

Obama had a plan four years ago- don't go into Iraq.

[maddiejoan]

67. what's his plan now?

Hillary has a plan already. That's why she can be so specific on dates.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. No, Clinton doesn't have a plan.

She's got a plan to come up with a plan within 60 days in office. Just like Pelosi.

:eyes:

[maddiejoan]

70. and you are basing this on what exactly?

[TwilightZone]

105. Are those crickets I hear chirping?

;)

[maddiejoan]

115. It's like shooting fish in a barrel

:)

[krispos42]

76. Then argue that Hillary is different from Bush

Argue that the premise of the statement, that Hillary's views, opinions, and plans are little different from Bush, is incorrect. Argue that the effect of Hillary Clinton on the country will be different from the effect that Bush has had on the country.


But the generalized comparison "X is just Y in a/with a Z" is a common saying. Putting aside the correctness of the statement, how else could the comparison be done in a comparable manner?

"Hillary is just Bush with long hair"? Long hair = feminine generalization = sexist
"Hillary is just Bush with breasts"? Breasts = feminine sexuality = sexist
"Hillary is just a blonde Bush"? Blonde = presumption of both female and idiocy = both superficial and sexist

The pool of quick comparative terms seems to be on the small side. I suppose "Hillary is just Bush with a brain" can be done. Again, putting aside the correctness of the comparason for the moment.

[Azathoth]

82. The entire purpose of this thread is to avoid arguing that premise n/t

[TwilightZone]

85. No, my purpose was to see where the line is drawn on sexism.

Based on the responses, the general interpretation of whether or not the statement is sexist seems to have more to do with one's impression of Hillary than it does with societal norms.

I do, however, find it amusing that it has turned into a debate about her record.

What does her record have to do with whether the statement is sexist or not?

[Azathoth]

87. Out of curiosity, why do you find it sexist?

It is the generalization that women wear dresses, or is it something more?

[TwilightZone]

89. Look at it this way...

If Trent Lott made that statement about Hillary, would it be sexist? He's certainly not talking about her clothes.

Context and intent have a lot to do with it.

I'm still curious about how a yes or no question turned into a debate about her record. If the response to a simple question on sexism is deflected to a discussion with no relevance to the issue, that deflection would seem to answer the original question more fully than a simple yes or no.

[Azathoth]

91. Trent Lott wouldn't make that statement

Trent Lott would say, "Hillary is just Ted Kennedy in a dress." In other words, Hillary and Ted are essentially the same politically; only superficial differences distinguish one from the other. I fail to see how that is sexist.

Your thread turned into a discussion of Hillary's record because the original statement is itself a scathing critique of Hillary's record and political positions.

[TwilightZone]

101. If all someone really means is "Hillary is just Bush", then what is the need for the addition?

If Trent Lott *means* "Hillary is just (like) Ted Kennedy", what is the point of adding the "in the dress" part?

Hillary is just (like) Ted Kennedy.

Hillary is Ted Kennedy in a dress.

You don't really think those two statements are equivalent, do you?

[DissentIsPatriotic]

16. Slippy McFallsdown n/t

[TwilightZone]

17. Good points

And, I agree with everything you said.

[Azathoth]

19. It's sexist if you're predisposed to reading sexist subtext into negative comments about Hillary n/t

[Lerkfish]

31. DING! DING! we have an astute winner

it has nothing to do with sexism, but a transparent ploy to distract from valid and legitimate criticism of policy.

[TwilightZone]

63. Or, perhaps it's sexist or not based on preconceived notions about Hillary?

[Azathoth]

65. Maybe, but no one has even attempted to explain why it would be so

Other than the generalization that women wear dresses, that is.

[Vilis Veritas]

25. Sexist amongst other things...n/t

[Occam Bandage]

36. Absolutely.

[Nailzberg]

40. What about "Guiliani is just Bush in a dress"

[TwilightZone]

68. Depending on context and intent...

that could be sexist. Again depending on intent, it could certainly be homophobic.

[Barack_America]

42. Why don't you tell Hillary that she's supposed to wear a dress.

FWIW, she prefers pants.

Yeah, it's sexist.

[TwilightZone]

84. That's part of it, of course.

Context and intent are key, and the intent of the people using it certainly seems to fit the description.

[ronnykmarshall]

51. No, just stupid.

Now RUDY is Bush in a dress.

[ShortnFiery]

54. This proud liberal "pushy broad" would beg to differ

:crazy:

[jakem]

57. No. Because Giuliani is also just Bush in a dress....

[TwilightZone]

75. Depending on context and intent...

That could probably be considered sexist or homophobic.

[jakem]

114. well, seeing as he wore the dress

im not gonna sweat it.

[TwilightZone]

116. Good point.

[CTyankee]

102. I like that! It should be a bumper sticker! n/t

[bvar22]

66. James Carville IS Mary Matalin with a penis!

Is this sexist?
.
.
.
.
.
.
I don't care?
I'll say it again.
James Carville IS Mary Matalin with a penis!

[cgrindley]

78. Hitler is just Bush in lederhosen (nt)

[vee]

88. Context people.

Words are meaningless unless you put them in context.

"Hillary is just Bush in a dress" is funny on a SNL Skit.
"Hillary is just Bush in a dress" is sexist if said during a political debate.

another example

"It's a man's world" won't raise too many eye brows in a James Brown song.
"It's a man's world" would be sexist if said during a political debate.

Racial example

"shuckin and jivin" wouldn't be racist if said during a poker game.
"shuckin and jivin" would be racist if said by a prominent democratic politician during an interview.

[TwilightZone]

90. Agreed. Context and intent are certainly factors.

Good examples. They do a nice job of defining the issue in context.

Welcome to DU, by the way!

[Barack_America]

92. I'm really surprised by this poll. I'm learning a lot about Democrats today.

Specifically I'm learning how different I am than "Democrats".

[TwilightZone]

94. Careful...

DU is not representative of Democrats or of the Democratic Party.

Not all DUers are Democrats - there are a lot of Green, independent, and other third-party members here, and they would not, of course, really be representative of Democrats.

Also, please understand that the approval of Hillary on DU is very low, around 10% if the DU polls are to be believed. I'm surprised at the outcome of the poll, but I think the results might be more about Hillary than they are about sexism.

[moriah]

93. I don't think it's sexist -- and I'm a Hillary supporter

I think it's an incorrect statement as I think their policies differ in many ways, but no, I don't think it's a sexist comment.

What it's saying, and again I think it's an INCORRECT statement, is that the only difference between Hillary and Bush is that Hillary is a woman.

[fightindonkey]

95. No. Next Question.

[LanternWaste]

99. Well, my understanding is that if we make a implication

Well, my understanding is that if we make a implication regarding something about a person that they cannot or are unable to change and dress a derogatory statement around it, then yes-- for all intents and purposes, it would be sexist, racist or any of the other -ists.

So, yes-- I do believe that is a sexist statement.

That being said, I've never heard a valid reason as to why it's not okay to make fun of a person for something they cannot change yet maintain that making fun of a person for something they can change is somehow... more moral. To me, at the end of the day, both paths take us to the same destination-- hurting someone.

[TwilightZone]

103. Your response indirectly made me think of something...

Do you suppose the people who are indicating that it's not sexist would find the following statement racist?

Barack Obama is just a black version of George Bush

Sounds pretty racist to me, but isn't it essentially the same thing? One is claiming that the only difference is racial. The other is claiming that the only difference is sexual.

Or maybe I'm nuts.

Somehow, I think that the poll results on that question might be a tad different.

[LanternWaste]

108. I think you're right.

"Somehow, I think that the poll results on that question might be a tad different."

I think you're right (which doesn't preclude you from being nuts :) ). Maybe we (as a culture) are more 'tuned into' what is or is not racist and less tuned into what is and is not sexist...? :shrug:

[TwilightZone]

109. I think that's an accurate statement

I think that we are better tuned in to racial issues than sexual ones.

Edit: posted a poll on the issue

You're right about being nuts, too. My wife's favorite response to me asking an "or am I crazy" question is "Well, you are crazy, but that's beside the point."

[TwilightZone]

112. Should've known better.

I started a poll, but I should have realized the possibility that people would mess with it just because of this thread. Should have waited a day or two.

Oh, well! :)

Edit: then again, maybe I'm just nuts and I'm seeing something that isn't there.

[THUNDER HANDS]

107. sexist? that's subjective.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Clinton is Bush with more brains, better judgement and more insecurity.

[rAVES]

110. No opinion, but dam.. was a job reading the responces..

I was starting to think I was in early 19th century England..