Sexist...that is right I said it.....SEXIST!!!

Some may wonder why do people support Hillary despite her poor record.

Hillary was married to Bill Clinton... and many(not all) of her supporters are sexist for three reasons:

1. They all say 'it's time for a women president.' (Of course this is obviously sexist as the sex of a candidate is NOT a reason to vote for them.)

2. They all say that they 'want the big dawg back in the White House.' (This of course isn't only sexist but also sets women's equality back a notch. A strong women CAN be a very success full president but her supporters seem to think that she is qualified because of her 'big strong man will be there to tell her what to do.' They should support a women candidate NOT because of that women's husband.)

3. They all say that 'she has the experience to be president because of her time as first lady.' (Again, this sets back women's equality back. They arguing not for the ceremonial roll of first lady but they are trying to tack Bill's resume of accomplishments to Hillary. She should run on her own resume of being a 1 and a half term Senator. Hillary often brags about how she and Bill balanced the budget and takes credit for the good things from Bill's time in the white house, but she denies any involvement in Nafta or Don't ask Don't tell.)


Clearly I am not a Hillary supporter. I am not saying she shouldn't be a candidate. I just feel that these three talking point should be taken off the table for being SEXIST. People should be ashamed of uttering such BS. Go ahead support Hillary but do it for the right reasons.


(a side note NO I AM NOT A SEXIST...since I know that insult is coming)

not real reasons to vote for people. But a lot of people jumped on one guys bandwagon because of it.

even her own bra isn't a Hillary supporter.:sarcasm:

You should take that one back or at least add a sarcasm symbol.

Cute. :eyes:

.

1. Are feminists sexist? After all, we're concerned about the advancement of women. Of course many would like to see a woman become president. That's about breaking a long-held glass ceiling. (Same goes for wanting a black president. Does that make someone racist?)

2. Some believe President Clinton would be an asset because they love President Clinton and what he accomplished, not because he's a man.

3. Her time as first lady is part of her life experience. She was active in that role -- I don't think it should be discounted or dismissed. I can understand people believing it's not everything or it's not enough or it's irrelevant, but it's there and I can understand others believing it counts for something (the same way other "women's work" counts).

I won't say you're a sexist, as you requested. But I don't think you should be telling other people that they are, either.

but there are some problems with it... I too would like to see a woman as president. I do not have any problem with that line of though. My problem though is with people who say we should vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman. When I ask people why they supporter they say and I am quoting 'I am voting for Hillary is BECAUSE it is time for a woman president.' Now while I agree that it is about damn time for a woman president. I don't think that Hillary should automatically be that woman.

2. Again I agree with you. Bill would make a great asset. But, when people are basing their vote on him alone(as though it will be another 8 years of Bill) there is a problem. Especially because since there are term limits (Bill should have a limited roll since he has served his time)

3. I can NOT agree with you on this one. With the exception of the Health Care debacle, no one knows what roll she played. And the letter from Bill wanting her records sealed till after the 2012 election(where presumably she would already be RE-elected) is not helping the facts come out. You can't talk about her being an active first lady if there is no proof of it.

Thanks for being civil with me.

1. People have a right to decide how to vote in the ways they choose to decide. However someone weighs Clinton's gender or Obama's race or, for that matter, a white southern man's race, gender, and geographical upbringing -- that's up to them. Not for me to say. You, of course, have a right to choose not to support her, too.

2. Again, that's your opinion. People having a different opinion doesn't automatically make them sexist.

3. And again, you're welcome to your opinion. Doesn't mean those who see her experience differently are sexist.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a progressive site. Sexism is bigotry just like racism. Your post is an example of flat out bigotry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm a feminist. I have a deep appreciation of men, and I'm close to quite a few, including my son and brother and friends. I don't put them down or dismiss them because of their gender. Your comment shows you're clueless about feminism. Labeling feminists as sexists and rude and snotty is no different than labeling black civil right activists as racist and uppity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She's that strident, hairy, man-hater who gets trotted out by insecure men to scare other women from identifying as feminists. "You don't want to be like her do you?"

Sorry bub, that stopped working a long time ago. Besides, you should know by now that the women who really hate men tend to be so-called traditional women. The ones who believe in rigid gender roles and fully bought into the Knight In Shining Armor myth. Y'all are a HUGE disappointment to them. They're the ones trashing your entire gender on talk shows and you should hear the way they talk about you behind your back.

I person (male or female) who believes that females are SUPERIOR to males, or conversely, males who think males are superior to females, would be sexist.

Comments like yours are not welcome under my post. What possibly do you think you are adding to the conversation. Many here consider themselves feminists.

"Are feminists sexist?"

That's too broad of a generalization to agree with. Sexism is understood to mean the inherent superiority of one gender. I would say that the subset of feminists who agree with the following statements are sexist.

a) we need a woman as president because then we wouldn't have war.
b) we need a woman as president because that's the only way to get family-friendly law.
c) we need a woman as president because that's the only way to get the patriarchal and aggressive men in government under control.

I don't think that feminists are necessarily any more sexist than men like me who think that most of the elements of the patriarchy which held women down have been eliminated, leaving only the ones which hold down men. Those disadvantages leave men 50% less likely to go to college, much more likely to die of violence, (leading to a nearly 10% shorter lifespan) and at greater risk of suicide and frequently abused by family court - the last intrinsically sexist government institution.

There are women out there who would make fine presidents. I would vote for Hillary in the general, but I'd be happier to vote for someone like Murray or Feinstein.

I also don't buy the idea that the office of president should be subject to (gender or any other form of) affirmative action.

Maybe my question was too broad. "Is NOW sexist?" might have been better.

I don't know the subset of feminists you refer to.

There aren't any laws applying affirmative action to elections. There's plenty of weight given to race and gender, though, when it comes to white men, no?

:popcorn:

That is just lie you made up to make your point......which is sexist in itself. Pot....meet kettle!

"1. They all say..."
"2. They all say..."
"3. They all say..."

Equality will not be real until gender, skin color, religious affiliation, sexual preference... aren't even mentioned. Hell, we're still getting stupid reports on what Hillary wears. My vote goes to the person that is closest to me in beliefs.

Gender, skin color, religious affiliation, sexual preference won't even be mentioned WHEN equality is real.

Meanwhile, not mentioning them doesn't make discrimination go away.

what I am saying is that we shouldn't have some type of affirmitive action policy in voting for president.

except in people's own decision-weighing. And that's their right. If they want an "affirmative action" vote to break a glass ceiling, and give gender, race or anything else weight as a factor, so what? After all, gender and race HAVE been weighed heavily in electing presidents all along. It's no coincidence they've all been white men.

old white men doesn't mean it's right to weigh race and gender to vote for a women or an african american.

I don't think you get to decide what's "right" for others.

I get the feeling that you would not have a problem if my post was condemning repubs that were going to vote against Hillary because they felt it was time for a man to lead the country.

Your post here puts forward a common reversal test -- switch things around to invalidate the original point. That only works if all things are equal, and they aren't.

However, you can bet people vote against women all the time because they feel it's better for a man to lead. Always have! That's why others might weigh her gender heavily as a counter-balance. That is similar to affirmative action in a small, more personal way for some people.

just because if the person elected isn't the right person for the job we end up with backlash. There will always be, at least in the foreseeable future, people that say "I told you so" about a woman being president but we don't want there to be any truth reflected in it.
I saw it happen in the local police departments, they were forced to hire women and they went out of their way to hire those they were sure weren't qualified - it didn't help that the majority of men on the force harassed the crap out of them (or stood by an let it happen). When the women quit, the men felt justified that they were right all along.

I think both Obama and Clinton are qualified. If someone thought otherwise, that's another matter.

Don't you think this incident clearly shows that people who want to be sexists will do so as long as society lets them get away with it?
Why would a sexist, with no outside pressure, begin to hire qualified women?
Isn't it clear that sexism was involved in hiring, whereby qualified men were hired but qualified women were not--with no action taken by the authorities?
If harassment occurred and was tolerated on the job, why didn't authorities immediately intervene?
Could harassment and not a lack of qualifications account for high quit rates?
Given that the sexists felt "justified", doesn't that suggest that the system didn't go far enough in enforcing the law?
Isn't the evidence stronger that the problem is that the authorities didn't do what they should have done, than that a "nice guy policy" would have been more effective?

You want true equality? Stop talking about male or female...Stop treading on BOTH men and women, stop talking about if someone's rich or poor, stop making fun of hair cuts, stop making fun of schooling. Stop making fun of accents...just plain STOP.

Merits are what counts, and merits is what is seriously being overlooked in this competition.

Now, with that said...I'm guilty of making fun of something that happened in the 90's in the oval office recently. However I wasn't making fun of race, social status, gender, education...I was making fun of the lack of common sense.

If someone acts like an idiot, no matter what their standing...fair game. But (In my humble opinion) don't rag on someone for the above.

1. All those guys from 1789 just happened to be men, it had nothing to do with their sex ;)

2. Nostalgia or delusion - it's a plus for her campaign. People don't have to imagine what it would be like to have the Clintons in the White House.

3. Hillary was a principal policy adviser to the President for eight years. In disputes between advisers she was known as they "Supreme Court" - what she said was it.

that's just silly.

I said before my points that I was talking about and I quote " many hillary supporters (not all) "

When I mention all after that point I am talking about all of the sexist supporters. Please feel free to reread what I wrote.

relates to sexism or racism?

If not, there should be.

which will be met with attacks and derision.

I can guarantee that even though I've only read the OP and not the replies yet.

(2) and (3) are so off base I do not know where to begin.

have an affirmative action policy for POTUS?

As far as your other points, which I think are equally misguided, Hillary met many people and participated in many behind-the-scenes conversations as First Lady, and I do believe that is valid experience, and a huge plus for her.

Wanting someone who has a spouse with similar experience is also a plus. I am certain that Hillary is a better Senator with a spouse such as Bill... as I am equally sure that John Edwards was a better Senator and will be a better president with a spouse such as Elizabeth. Nothing sexist in that either.

And your load of crap proves my point.

but it will not be because she is a woman. It will be because her positions are a thousand times better than any of the repugs. So tell me again how my load of crap is sexist.

I challenge you to point out how what I said proves that the US is sexist.

Someone has to represent the party and the party's ideals. It's not enough, for me, for someone to just have a letter after their name. There is no holding my nose. Holding my nose would be the equivalent of agreeing with a person's positions, voting for a person is the equivalent of agreeing with them and their methods of getting to that position in the first place.

I can't do it.

I don't think Hillary Clinton represents the best the Democrat party has to offer. I do think that she represents business as usual. This package deal she has going with Bill Clinton is looking less and less savory, to me.

I just can't do it.

Her constant need of being rescued by a philanderer husband is a slap on the face of every woman that believes in equality.

as a key adviser as Hillary has said she will do with Bill?

K&R

But if a woman leader in the corporate world or the military had a husband that happened to be a bloody genius, and have eight years worth of experience in the job she was interviewing for, I'd consider her a fucking idiot not to use that resource. An intelligent person takes advantage of the brilliant people around them, regardless of gender. A lot of the mess we're in right now in as a nation is because the Dipshit in Chief cut out all the smart people who tried to tell him things were bad. Shit, you can bet that if Lisa Leslie married a guy who was trying to break into the NBA, homeboy would have her coaching him daily--if he wanted to win.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I find this line of reasoning fucking hilarious.

Her record in the Senate is just as progressive as his was.

And what about Obama? Is it racist to say that it is time we had a non-white person in the White House?

Free Trade with Singapore and Free Trade with Chile: Clinton voted for both, whereas Biden, Dodd and Edwards all voted against them. There's a reason why he gets a better rating from the AFL-CIO than she does.

Would I vote for her if she were a Republican? Of course not!!!

The fact that she's a woman just makes her even more appealing in my eyes and my chest brims with pride at the prospect of having her as president.

Unfortunately, it's the kind of sexism upon which supporters cling to 'turnabout is fairplay', instead of 'fairplay is fairplay'.

My biggest concern is your point number three, however. That really needs to be addressed more. There are too many conflicting reports about what Hillary did and did not do while in the White House. I don't trust her candidacy. I don't feel like I'm being told the truth about what happened during Bill's years, and what is going to happen if Hillary is elected.