And it's also a ginormous strawman. The gender of the presidency has zero to do with T&A offensiveness and all to do with that individual's own insecurities.

The world is not their psychologist and has no obligation to be one.

What an odd thing to say.

what does that even MEAN?

you said: (emphasis mine)

It made no sense.

Never say did I stutter.

Always say, I never stutter. Works like a charm, nothing they can say to that!

Love, ya!

.....instead it's yet some more gender wars bullshit. Thanks a lot.

Trash thread

Until women have a President....WE still don't feel like full fledged card carrying members of this country....as the second group of people that WERE denied franchise in this country....YOU would think more males on DU would be sympathetic to that feeling...

and no one bats an eye about it.

The fact that there hasn't been a female president is the RESULT of sexism in this country, not the cause.

The last woman who ran for president didn't get the support of many because of her politics, not because of her gender.

I'm saying that it took a very long time for women to even get the right to vote in this country, and that there must be SOME element in American society that has kept otherwise qualified women from ascending to the highest office in the land, not to mention positions of leadership in corporations and so on. Yes, there are some female CEOs, but those positions disproportionately go to men.

do you tell Black people what IS or isn't racism too?

She ran for president.

That argument is horrible.



Why didn't you vote for Sarah Palin for VP?

thinking? Are there Black people that deny racism too? Absolutely!

Since we have a President Obama....does that mean that all racism ceases to exist?

You're a tired old record player and obviously have no interest in discussing anything.

Ignored.

would you support her?

I can't think of a Democratic politician I've ever heard who was/is as blatantly stupid as Sarah Palin.

Surely we are free to use those standards to judge whom we will or will not support for elected office.

woman who could have been President or Vice President.

but as I read your post I was thinking about Vice Presidential candidates in the general election. I can think of two who were women - Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro. I can't think of any black (or non-white) Vice Presidential candidates, yet we elected a black (male) President before a woman President. Kind of weird.

I remember when Ferraro ran and there was serious discussion about whether women's menstrual periods made them unfit for high office. Too emotional, you know.

I was young enough in 1984 that I missed a lot of the political discussion regarding the election and Ferraro. I guess I didn't realize enough people in the 1980's still had bizarre beliefs about women like that to make it a serious discussion. I know there are still nutjobs out there now who have those beliefs - I work with a few - but I hope their numbers have dwindled significantly, otherwise it's going to be a wild ride through 2016 (and maybe beyond).

of either major party because of sexism.

there was a segment of Democrats that did not vote for/support HRC in 2008 BECAUSE she is female.

Can't swing a cat without hitting one...

T & A photos even in progressive websites, has helped to ensure that we've only had male Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Good gods.

Oprah said when Barack Obama was elected....she felt like she could finally put down her suitcase and feel at home...

But of course a White Male could NEVER understand that feeling because he has NEVER been disenfranchised in this country

I see London I see France....I see someone's underpants..

And I certainly don't need a Sarah Palin in office to make me feel "full-fledged." Or a hawk like Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

That should be "Until we have a woman President..."

Remember, not only are Women people, but so are men. Some people around here are in denial about that last part lately. WE are ALL people, deserving of Equal Rights. It would make more sense to be railing against the 1 and 2% and our bought-off politicians of BOTH genders and political parties, as the cause of inequality, not men in general. And especially not the men of DU.


But whatever, nothing will change when we do have a woman President. They will be from the same pool of bought and paid for politicians, regardless of gender.
As mentioned below, having a Black President hasn't helped the poverty level of any minorities, now has it?

Straw man!

Don't dare tell me that there isn't sexual intimidation going on....

Demanding that men be allowed to objectify women in a political forum (when I just discovered there are three thread in a Mens group devoted to nothing else)In the main freaking forum.....


THAT is the epitome of intimidation!

Until today I thought it was just misguided men who just don't believe women are harrassed that much....but NOW.....after today's discovery....there is not a doubt in my mind just WHAT is going on here...

Why of course you do. That is how you try to win arguments and derail the subject. Keep throwing things till something sticks then attack with that.

Oooh, "epitome of intimidation!" Impressive!

There is sexual intimidation going on here on DU, alright, and you are part of the problem. Your posts are in themselves evidence.
Those Mens groups are Safe Havens, I assume? Then so what? They don't normally show up on the Home Page. It is another group, one that you support, that is trying to treat General Discussion as their own Safe Haven. And it is not the Mens Group.
I do not go into the Mens groups, so I am not familiar with what goes on there. I don't normally go into the HoF either. But nobody has to. They come to the rest of us by constantly appearing on the Home Page with stuff that would be better left in the Safe Haven of HoF.

but objectifying women.....that's not dehumanizing AT ALL!!!

that makes perfect sense...

Blacks have "their" president and this country is still racist as hell. Shit, there are Black Republicans decrying the racism in the Republican party.

simply having a woman as president will not change the gender wars.

Holy shit, Hillary ran and what did the GOP do? They got a Woman to run as a VP. It didn't matter she was an idiot and ignorant, the GOP believed that any female would draw votes from Hillary even if their candidate was brain-dead vacuous as hell and incompetent.

What did they do when Obama ran? Appointed a black man as head of the GOP. When that failed, they put in Reince, the white guy!

This country is far from being over its racist, misogynistic history. Hillary won't change that one bit. That doesn't men women shouldn't run and win offices across the country. Just don't think that will change decades of bigotry and hatred in a term, or decade, or generation.

disenfranchised....Black people should understand that feeling.Its about feeling like a REAL citizen.

It was it's posting on a progressive political site that both women and men come to.

I don't have a problem with people buying the Swimsuit Issue or viewing it on entertainment oriented sites.

And it will take the election of more than one female President before I wouldn't regard a T & A photo as inappropriate on a political website that purports to treat men and women as equals.

In fact, if she is elected, I expect there to be a backlash and a resurgence of sexism, just as there was a backlash and a resurgence of racism after President Obama's election.

Its like talking to a gun-humper!

Any sort of regulation at all means someone wants to "take away precious"!

And if busty bikini model and a couple of 20-somethings in thongs really make women question their "place," we have much bigger problems.

Those threads were posted to provoke. And provoke they did. The "usual suspects" took the bait, and one high-profile poster managed to find herself on "vacation" yet again. Well done.

The T&A threads should have been moved to the Lounge, rather than allowed to dominate GD.

and DU is OBSESSED with SI and boobs-in-space. It's ridiculous.

Some putz posting T&A on a message board has absolutely no impact on how I feel about "my place" as a woman on DU, or out in the real world. Why do you, and so many others, let it get to you? Why let them have any influence on you at all? Especially when you KNOW they did it to, um, get a rise out of DU's "feminists"?

My biggest gripe is that the OPs, along with their numerous spawns, were allowed to dominate GD for so long, to the point that hide/trash/"X" was becoming an exercise in futility. Perhaps the Thong Trio and Miss Space Boobs should have been relegated to the Lounge or Sports group.

And here we are... still talking about it.

Last I checked, we rank 85th in the world for proportion of females in national legislature.

Consider that for a moment.

The scariest part is that they aren't.

Fuck the double bind.

that just don't "get it"

I made great strides today in learning about objectification because a couple of posters engaged me like a human being and didn't talk to me in a snarky, condescending, accusatory, or judgmental way.

Here's the subthread if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4549705

And there are those of us who have explained it, over and over again, often to the same people, who inevitably "forget," that it's hard to keep the smiley face on when laying it out.

Seriously, this is stuff you could get from a basic work on socioloty. Or even just googling "objectification." It's extremely frustrating to have to lead people through liberal kindergarten, often to end up - as you are doing now - being told "I won't listen unless you're super-duper nice to me!"

If people don't treat me with respect, I won't listen to them. No, I refuse to listen to them and I get pissed.

Treat me like an adult and I'll do the same.

Simple concept.

You've already lost me.

by denying their plight.

maybe because you think women should STFU about their problems you deserve no better than snark and condescension....

And making baseless accusations, btw.

Are they bona fide liberals? Many come across like bored Caver Dwellers stirring the pot. It's an open site -- anyone can join with no money down. Why are you falling for it? Or is it just a convenient, and tiresome, way to take yet another swipe at nasty ol' libruls?

In places like Sweden, which prides itself on being progressive on gender issues, women make up 45% of the legislature. And the prevalence of rape in Sweden is actually higher than in the United States. The statistics that I have show 1 out of 5 women in the US will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. In Sweden that number is 1 out of 4 and it's rising at a pretty alarming rate.

The point is that there doesn't seem to be a correlation between women in leadership and how women are treated by the society.

Which is actually an indicator of progressive gender equality politics and laws (Sweden being considered the most gender equal country on Earth).

So your gigantic, and it is truly massive, leap of logic between your initial statement on rape in Sweden and dismissing the importance of female representation in national legislature is extremely ill advised.

First off, im responding in regards to the claim that if more women were in leadership, or encourgaged to seek leadership positions in government, that it would change how women are viewed in the society. And my point was that even in societies with high female participation in leadership, there exists many of the same problems. No matter what stats you want to look at, rape in Sweden is high. There is a lot of pornography in Sweden. There is a lot of prostitution in Sweden. I'm in no way suggesting women shouldnt be in leadership. I am saying that the correlation that is attempting to be made is not there. You are mixing a political issue with a social issue.

Plus, rape is a crime of violence and power, not sex. Rape tends to mirror other violent crime statistics as far as trends go. So its not necessarily related to how people view women in the media. That is an entirely different problem. There is no proven correlation between rape and racy SI magazine covers.

Or even that Sweden is some sort of feminist utopia because of higher female representation in national legislature.

And when you give up on that I'll then engage you in a discussion on how your dismissal of rape culture is complete and total nonsense.

You can easily find famous people are related too, if you go back enough generations.

This crap has been nothing less than bizarre. Let it all drain into The Lounge if (some) think the associated topics are worth something.

Oh good grief.

Well, we will all feel so much better when Margaret Thatcher-lite gets elected in three years, won't we.

Excuse my privilege, but I will take a male Democrat over a female Republican any day of the week.

And I will also take a male progressive over a female DLCer any day of the week.

From your link:

I was responding to him saying someone to the Right of Old Maggie!

there isn't one for Margaret Thatcher...

who thinks that Hillary is way to the left on economic issues.

So I think their ruler is kinda faulty.

If you actually looked at the graph and then at HOW they came up with the figures....you will see where she is economically....


Click here for 30 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts. (Feb 2008)
The economy is not working for middle class families. (Jan 2008)
We need immediate relief for home heating & housing crisis. (Jan 2008)
No evidence as to how Obama would pay for new programs. (Jan 2008)
Foreclosure moratorium mitigates agony; doesn’t prolong it. (Jan 2008)
90-day moratorium on foreclosures; freeze interest rates. (Jan 2008)
Call for a moratorium on housing foreclosures for 90 days. (Jan 2008)
Freeze mortgage interest rates for five years. (Jan 2008)
Look back to 1990s to see how I’d be fiscally responsible. (Dec 2007)
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks. (Aug 2007)
Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages. (Jun 2007)
2000: Eight years of a great economy is not enough. (Jan 2007)
Last six years were challenging; let’s try a new direction. (Oct 2006)
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005. (Oct 2006)
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium. (Oct 2000)
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget. (Sep 2000)
Stimulate upstate economy by more local decision-making. (Sep 2000)
Supports Niagara casino, but prefers job creation strategy. (Sep 2000)
Protect next generation by paying off national debt. (Aug 2000)
We have outlived the usefulness of Bretton Woods. (Jun 1999)
The economy creates consumers but cannot create citizens. (Jun 1999)
Invest in people instead of “smokestack chasing”. (Feb 1997)
Voting Record

Voted to limit credit card interest to 30%. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Consistently against making bankruptcy stricter. (Jan 2008)
2005 bankruptcy bill was by big credit cards & lenders. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)



they have quantified their opinion.....you are just repeating a lie you have been told...

so what link was I supposed to check.

As for a lie, I have been told, I have done my own analysis since I have an education in economics.

for example
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65

although Obama, seemed to echo some of what I said there

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2618869

What will there be left to talk about then?

#Hillary45

I expect a backlash against HRC, too.

And the death penalty, fracking, keystone xl, drones, etc.....


Don't let those pesky facts get in the way though! More PUMA bullshit already and it's not even election season.

It means shit to the dead Iraqis and soldiers. Fact is she listened to and trusted Bush while hundreds of thousands of men and woman took to the streets to say how wrong the war in Iraq was. Her judgement is poor and cannot be trusted.

I hoped for a better comeback (or even a defense of Hillary's support for the war) but I guess even you could not stomach defending that vote.

It's all well and good though, fuck all those dead brown people on the other side of the world, it's all about your team winning the political football game, right?


The countless dead Iraqis are just inconveniences getting in the way of what this country owes the Clinton dynasty.

You don't have to agree....

http://hillary.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15

She voted for the Iraq war "with conviction". She trusted Bush over the anti war left. I don't give a shit about a few quotes from ontheissues I give a shit about the dead children, dead men and dead women (I thought you cared about women?). She sold us out once, she'll do it again.


If your conscience allows you to vote for her, fine. If Hillary being the first female president is a victory for you, fine. It's not a victory for me. I'm done voting for privileged elites who vote for death and destruction and aren't held accountable because they have the right letter after their name.