Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,072 posts)
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 06:01 AM Jul 2016

The irony of poutrage about the use of the term girl

By a husband simultaneously referring to himself as a boy, whereas for months, even years, we've been told we had absolutely no right to object to Clinton or any other woman being insulted as c...ts, b...s, and w...es.

And that the outrage over "girl" as a justification for undermining the first woman presidential nominee, whose supporters were repeatedly maligned as "vagina voters," and the most qualified person to seek the presidency in the modern era dismissed as garnering support based on gender alone.

The problem, it seems, is not that Bill Clinton spoke lovingly about a courtship of his youth, but that he failed to insult her, to hurl misogynistic profanities. She's the nominee. She worked tirelessly to earn it, and that those who have expressed nothing but contempt for her for months on end pretend to be offended by Bill's vocabulary is not credible.


(I'm not talking about Maddow's comments, which I didn't see).

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The irony of poutrage about the use of the term girl (Original Post) BainsBane Jul 2016 OP
omg. that's right.. the hypocritical Poutrage! Cha Jul 2016 #1
KICK Cha Jul 2016 #2
I guess I thought it was a sweet story. She was a girl he was a boy. What the hell? What's wrong Laser102 Jul 2016 #3
Agree completely BainsBane Jul 2016 #5
Double shame on them BLACK4EVER Jul 2016 #15
The "Not Hillary" Party will find something to be offended by. That's their schtick. baldguy Jul 2016 #4
I'M WORRIED THAT I'M NOT OUTRAGED ENOUGH ABOUT THIS!!1!!!! Orrex Jul 2016 #6
But are you phylny Jul 2016 #10
Haha, me too. n/t prayin4rain Jul 2016 #18
Kicked and Recommended. Firebrand Gary Jul 2016 #7
K&R n/t lillypaddle Jul 2016 #8
I love Rachel Maddow, but she got it wrong on this one. Paladin Jul 2016 #9
I know... Zoonart Jul 2016 #12
Good interpretation of Rachel's comments. Paladin Jul 2016 #17
When he talked about "girl", this is what I thought about Loki Jul 2016 #11
I thought it was a sweet and loving look back. 3catwoman3 Jul 2016 #13
Is there any word that is acceptable to use anymore? Initech Jul 2016 #14
YES! That's what I thought he meant: "boy meets girl" stage of life because he described R B Garr Jul 2016 #16
I recall another conversation, different subject BainsBane Jul 2016 #19
I've noticed lots of faux outrage here like that, too. R B Garr Jul 2016 #20
.. Cha Jul 2016 #21
Perfectly stated! Spazito Jul 2016 #22

Laser102

(816 posts)
3. I guess I thought it was a sweet story. She was a girl he was a boy. What the hell? What's wrong
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 07:15 AM
Jul 2016

with that? Nothing unless you are trying to make something out of it. Shame on them.

BLACK4EVER

(39 posts)
15. Double shame on them
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 09:21 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2016, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

When Bill Clinton said, "In the spring of 1971 I met a girl," , I smiled because it as if he was remembering the encounter like it was yesterday not forty plus years ago. It set the tone for the story he was about to tell of a love that's lasted since then. As a feminist I usually take umbrage when a grown woman is referred to as "girl", but not this time the word fit the narrative. The twinkle in Bill's eyes as he told his tale of the pretty blonde girl with big glasses that he fell for at first sight. So double, no triple shame on any one trying to make something out of nothing. Bill showed us a private side of Hillary that refutes the one made up by her "enemies".

Orrex

(63,224 posts)
6. I'M WORRIED THAT I'M NOT OUTRAGED ENOUGH ABOUT THIS!!1!!!!
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 07:37 AM
Jul 2016

HOW CAN I BE SURE????/??


Thanks for a nice OP dose of sense!

Paladin

(28,275 posts)
9. I love Rachel Maddow, but she got it wrong on this one.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 08:07 AM
Jul 2016

Her copping a snarky on-air attitude about Bill Clinton's use of the term "girl" was uncalled for, and her claim that his speech was all about himself---rather than Hillary--- couldn't have been more wrong. His speech was an exhaustive cataloguing of the numerous instances in which Hillary Clinton has sought to make things better for people, over the years---his words could not have been more timely or more articulately chosen.

Zoonart

(11,879 posts)
12. I know...
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 08:26 AM
Jul 2016

I smell a rat. It was as if Rachel had drawn the short straw in the outrage pool on a night when there was nothing to criticize. Seemed like something had to be ginned up for the outrage machine. It was a perfect convention night full of fun and fact and they had to make something up to create the missing controversy.

The MSNBC coverage of this convention has been TERRIBLE!

Paladin

(28,275 posts)
17. Good interpretation of Rachel's comments.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 09:58 AM
Jul 2016

I'm a big fan of hers, so I feel bad about criticizing her on this---but she earned it.

Loki

(3,825 posts)
11. When he talked about "girl", this is what I thought about
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 08:11 AM
Jul 2016

because we are from the same generation.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

3catwoman3

(24,051 posts)
13. I thought it was a sweet and loving look back.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 08:42 AM
Jul 2016

I'm 65. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it is extremely common for people of all ages, mine included, to refer to someone they are dating as "my boyfriend," or "my girlfriend."

No poutrage here.

R B Garr

(16,979 posts)
16. YES! That's what I thought he meant: "boy meets girl" stage of life because he described
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 09:26 AM
Jul 2016

himself as being very awkward. Simple as that.

Lots of irony that the perpetual anti-Hillary crowd is so "concerned" about one little word from her powerful ex-President husband to describe a youthful meeting when they drag her through the mud about everything else. At least they aren't fooling anyone.

Great points.

BainsBane

(53,072 posts)
19. I recall another conversation, different subject
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 12:38 PM
Jul 2016

When I was expressing my dismay that a rapist with a valid arrest warrant was evading justice. A number of others insist he should not be held accountable. They were certain he was innocent, though the victim disagreed. Someone defending the accused rapist derailed the conversation by attacking me for using the world girl. That was an outrage, not the alleged rape or the popular view that he should not face prosecution.

This reminds me of that situation. Seize on trivialities to ofuscate a far more grevious sexism.

R B Garr

(16,979 posts)
20. I've noticed lots of faux outrage here like that, too.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jul 2016

Makes me think it's more about alerting than anything else. Simple concepts are lost or challenged unnecessarily and there has to be a motive for that....

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The irony of poutrage ab...