As a woman

I find Hillary's hysterical reaction to Barack really sad and ridiculous. The last thing a woman who is running for this office needs to do is lose her cool like that. That's just fodder for the old boys club to say that a woman can't handle the job or the pressure... As a feminist, I would love to a vote for a woman... but it will not be Hillary. Barack called her out on what is accurately her policy. The point of the primaries is to narrow down within our party to one candidate... that has to be by differences in platform. Barack pointed out a difference, fair and square. And the Rove comment?? Come on, grow up.

Leeno's Wife

fair warning.

gives the ruse away. I have a sense of humor.

I assume domestic bliss has been assured in the leeno family.

I'm kidding. That seemed strange to me too.

Or maybe she's Ofleeno (I just re-read "The Handmaid's Tale". It's amazing how the message of that powerful novel stays with you)

That is so trademark with you all these days.

I'm sure it's winning you TONS of support!

Good God. So, a woman can't get angry at what she sees as deliberate misinformation, for fear of the "old boys club"?

And I know we've seen that very club come out in force right here on DU. But that doesn't mean we have to play by THEIR rules.

how any time a woman is not sweet and smiling and nice, she is "hysterical"?

sometime instead of her canned excessive outrage.

In fact, I will be proud to vote for either one, Barrack or Hillary

Politics is politics, but the Democratic candidates we have are the cream of the crop

but I suspect you know that you sexist jerk.

Nothing substantively wrong with your post, but why don't you get your own handle and log in separately?

The worst that can happen is, that as my wife and I sometimes do, you end up accidentally posting under each others handles.

working on it.. have to wait 24 hours. I just got inspired to post :)

I'm so sick and tired of women being held up to a standard that no human can meet. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm a woman too, and there's plenty of sexism in this country. It's far more entrenched than racism because women are treated differently (inferiorly, if there's such a word) regardless of which social, cultural, religious or racial group she is. That sexism is the reason I felt H. Clinton should not run. Until both men and women learn to stop holding women up in impossible standards so they will fail, I don't think we'll have a woman president.

We're even-Steven, steady-and-sturdy, reticient cowboy types who hardly even blink, even when crucified.

If we stub our toes-woesies, we say "Doggone it!" -- quietly, under our breath -- and then move on to our local Inner Child group meetings.

I'm on step 3.

EVEN when crucified? :yourock:

factories.

It's important to value their toil.

No whimpering allowed.

:toast:

slowly....easy....go on....

But then, you miss a lot of things.

it's definitely not fair. But it is what it is for now. And unfortunately for Hillary, there are unfair standards here and sexism is alive and well. But if she wants to win, she will have to work that much harder. Sad but true.

to them.

You want to....go ahead. Fuck sad but true....if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Argentina has a women Prez...but the US can't handle it. The world laughs at us. We are fools. We are an embarrassment to the words, FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY.

like the xerox comment fell flat. She did lose her mask in NH and people loved her. The great irony in this campaign is that if she

had sent her husband away, not hired any consultants and just went out and sold herself she would be the nominee and Barack would

have been her VP. A couple of weeks ago I saw her on Nightline and she was approachable, interesting, funny and endearing. There

was no mask just a very smart engaging woman. They tried to hard to package her. The ultimate irony is that the main problem of

Hillary's campaign too many men from the old school. As Obama said words are important because that is what we use to engage the

the people. She hasn't been trying to engage she has been trying to sell.

Big deal.

I am in disagreement with you in that she did not lose her cool. What she did was entirely planned scripted and contrived and it was embarassing. And yes men do it all the time. In here though when Hillary does something silly and is called for it an automatic defense rises up. It is anti-feminist which is what the OP was saying.

Well fine she lost her cool. I never said she didn't. I just said men do that too. It's anti-feminist, and sexist to judge a woman by standards no human could possibly live up to you're right. It's what we've had done all our lives throughout the history of the time we've been on this planet and it sucks rather a lot.

that had to meet some impossible image but just ran as herself it would not have been a contest.

You said what I was thinking far better than I did.

Whoever we support, we're still women. Hear us roar! And if you guys don't like it, iron your own damn shirts. (Do that even if you DO like it!)

It makes me sick that I cannot get vilely angry without men AND women thinking I'm a "bitch" or just not being feminine, or that I'm somehow not living up to some stupid-ass standard men invented for women. It particularly pisses me off because I've never been exactly the most mild-mannered person. :evilgrin: I think H. Clinton has been positively mild. If it'd been me, I'd already have told more than journalist, host or whoever to fuck off. O8)

On the serious side though, I think there is a generational mix in all this too. So I guess we can add a dollop of ageism into the sexism mix, if that's your thing.

Someone here got lambasted for suggesting that Hillary sometimes sounds like your fifth grade teacher lecturing you on the virtues of good study skills. Or your mother laying a guilt trip on you.

For me, I think it's a way of political speech, that's on its way out. I watched 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' the other night and was laughing at some of the corn-ball dialog at the very start of the movie. A younger friend watching it with me asked, "Did they really talk that way back then?"

It is not fair to Hillary because in the moments when you see the genuine her, she's remarkably real. But she does not come off that way most of the time, and I wonder if it's due to way she's learned to communicate in her era.

I think of somebody like Janine Garafolo (off the top of my head) and wonder how she'd sound and be received if tasked to present and defend policy. Not that she'd win any office, or want one, but just that the way she speaks seems more real.

Sorry for rambling, I just think it's partly an age thing too.

:shrug:

(a teacher that utters four-letter words tho! lol). You're right that she sometimes sounds like that. Sometimes I think she feels entitled to whatever she wants, but hey, some men feel that way too. Who cares? I admire the woman. I now back Obama, but by no means do I think she couldn't be a powerful president. I just think there's still too much sexism, really. When there isn't, we women will be judged for whether or not we're good for the position, and not because we're women and must be held up to some feminine standard. :think:

NT

PUHLEEZ! I'm an Obama fan, but really, the ridiculousness of this is getting on my nerves already.

NT

as a career interest I wish John Edwards were still in the race, and Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich.

I'm glad Gravel's holding on. I'm aware of his odds but I like the guy anyway.

I'm supporting Obama because I was never a Clinton Democrat and I'm getting sick of the high schoolish bullshit Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn are dishing out almost daily.

I agree with you, leeno -- the call out was accurate based on Sen. Clinton's policy and position.

great post but way over the heads of those parading in feminist clothes looking for outrages when there are no victories.

:D

leeno's wife....

aka. barbarella

the scolding tone, and the words "shame on you".

Considering that her campaign has put out some questionable stuff itself, this was far from hysteria, but a calculated political 'tactical' event.

fuck you...you stupid cocksucking imbecile?????

I'm just asking...

I agree....'shame on you' is very harsh....scares me.

As another poster noted, I think she was just angry. But she really lost me when she said, "Shame on you, Barack." He's her competitor and she should have been more respectful. She went way overboard imo.

treated in this election cycle...babylonsister.

And let's consider all of the wives of his father...and grandmothers with no running water.

But the spin is....BO likes having poor relatives in Kenya. They allow to relate to the poor. After all she has no running water.

And since he won't send her any $$$$$$$$$$, she'll stay that way....because it helps him to relate to poor people here in the US.

Do you guys take stupid pills or something????

Kenya? Where did you hear that, and how do you know he doesn't send her money, and...I give up. Your post is creepy.

reporters asked the candidates about their foreign policy and why theirs is best....

and this was part of Bo's answer. It was a pathetic answer...but since the MSM loves BO, he got a pass. But since I live in Ohio....I thought his answer deserved some recognition.

Keep up.

mischaracterize what he said. :eyes:

Edit to add, I saw his granny interviewed on CNN a few weeks ago; she seemed fine despite the conflict raging nearby, and she loves and is proud of Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/07/kenya.obama.relatives/index.html

Have you seen how the majority of the Kenyans live?

Do you know the danger of having too many material things in Kenya? Or the warring factions of Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga?

Sending her money could seriously put her in danger.

I truly get annoyed when I hear women applying sexist terms like "hysterical" to a woman who was angry, but perfectly controlled, dignified, and articulate.

how about contrived, manipulative, and falsified, she's known about this for days and didn't bring it up at the debates. Pot shots when someone can't reply is just glorified backstabbing, which in my opinion, is what a hysterical woman resorts to when she loses her cool. Thus acting from emotion and not from her reasonable mind... i.e., hysterical.

someone is describing what they perceive as an "uppity woman."

Know all about 'hysterical women," do you?

I have to say, using the word "manipulative" about Hillary as though being "manipulative" is unique to her as a female politician is pretty funny. You think Obama, Edwards, Bill Clinton, and every other politician worth his or her salt isn't "manipulative?" Heck, it's part of the job description.

Or actually a feminist, and I've never known a feminist who would identify herself as "X's wife" rather than as HERSELF.

Or why, if you want to post here, you don't sign up yourself (it's free), rather than posting as "your husband's wife" on "your husband's" account.

Did I say posting? I think I meant to say posing.

I won't even say "nice try," because it wasn't. Not only lame, but transparently lame.

Redstone

attended them but neglected your upbringing?

Edited to add :sarcasm:

I agree with you completely.

Sincerely,

woolldog's wife

a radical, lesbian feminist and she and her partner say Hillary is an embarrassment to women.

I agree completely!

stayed in the marriage. What don't they understand? I am a woman and I don't judge others sexual decisions....

I am surprised to hear that your 'radical, lesbian feminist and she and her partner' do.


Bummer. Isn't that an oxymoron....???

eating a sandwich of some kind somebody made for her at a street fair.

I forget what the street fair was celebrating. I think it might have been like an Itaian festival or something, but there weren't any banners or signs in the photo so it was hard to tell.

She seemed to appreciate that sandwich.

but that's missing the point.

This person made the sandwich, and it wasn't a store-bought thing or some kind of drive-thru burger for god's sake.

It was you know, hand-made and all that.

So I think Hillary Clinton liked it the more for that reason. Also, even if she didn't like it all that much I'm sure she was polite and told the person thank you.

Damn it, I just BETCHA that was it.

Tell me it wasn't black forest ham & provolone.

and provolone.

I'm only saying I BELIEVE that sandwich must have been Black forest ham and provolone.

But you're going to say, "But you have no clinical evidence what was in the sandwich Hillary was eating."

And of course, that's TECHNICALLY correct, but listen, some of us have connections with Philadelphia streeet vendors.

I'm not saying who that might be, mind you. What's private should stay that way, unless you work for Kenneth Starr.

But let's just say I have a STRONG FEELING that that sandwich was Black forest ham and provolone.

On whole wheat.

Thus, my friendly story about Hillary and the Black forest and provolone on whole wheat.

but provides fantastical shock effect, fwiw.

:shrug:

As for sandwiches, extra mayo, pahleeese!

:rofl:

Chair.

"at a minimum it was a real non sequitur..." LOL! Emit, that's one of the best lines in a long, long time around here. Thank you for a bone-rattling laugh.

with my own tag...

:hi:

sign your name in relation to a male.

And WTF are you talking about? What reaction? At the debate? To the Mailing? What?

Get your own damn DU account...OK? All I can see is leeno holding a gun to your head and saying "TYPE IT , BITCH."

If it ain't your marriage, darlin', stay the hell out of it.

I just got my account up.

I love Petula Clark.

Can that woman sing or what?!

and of course lessons in literacy.

I've heard it's difficult to be italian yet appendagedly challenged. My sincerest apologies.

And the prudent linguist in you should eschew abbreviations.

for confirming the worst of the misogynist's barbs.

What feminist writers have you read? Virginia Woolf? Susan Faludi? Andrea Dworkin? Katha Pollitt?

Who?

Next?

IMHO. But then she never claims to be telling the truth.

Never claims to be telling the truth? Even in her essays? The biography she wrote? Her book reviews? Her diary? her letters?

And yes, she says several times that she makes no claims of describing the world as it really is or was.

What quotes do you have in mind where she makes no claims of describing the world as it really is or was?

but there may perhaps be some truth mixed up with them." As for the sexism, the entire essay is based on a number of false premises regarding the past and present status of women. However, as I said, she doesn't claim to be describing reality.

"Shakespeare's sister," a character who never existed, but who she uses to illustrate the often insurmountable obstacles a female version of Shakespeare would face. Surely you realize that "A Room of One's Own" is a work of NONFiction? That she was not merely babbling nonsense, but had a premise and a conclusion she considered to be true? That she was describing reality as she saw it?

What false premises on the past and present status of women does Woolf invoke? And how do these "false premises" make the essay sexist?

The only "truths" in it are personal. You didn't realize that?

consistently listed in the nonfiction, history and criticism section of most libraries rather than in fiction with her novels.

Woolf plainly meant this essay - actually a series of lectures -- to apply to the situation of women writers in general. It was not some self-absorbed meditation merely meant to reflect her own personal experience.

You still haven't explained what false premises on the past and present status of women Woolf invokes. And how do these "false premises" make the essay sexist?

You HAVE read the whole thing, right?

That fact that it's taught as anything else is frankly disturbing. But factual it is not. :shrug:

are wrong, eh?

For the third time -- what false premises about the past and present status of women does Virginia Woolf present in this essay, and how do they render the essay sexist?

which covers just about anything. The primary false premise is that English women were denied education going back to the sixteenth century. The truth is that there is an entire discourse and literature devoted exclusively to the education of English women inaugurated by Mary Tudor, who was highly educated, as were her mother and half-sister Elizabeth.

nonfiction. It's discussed and debated as nonfiction. You're the first person I've encountered, pro or con, who imagined he could get away with claiming "A Room of One's Own" is fiction.

Members of the royal family like Mary Tudor, her mother, and her half-sister were not by any stretch of the imagination representative of British or even European women. While that era did see the issue of women's education at least debated, that did not translate into equal education -- or even much of any education at all -- for women as a group. Most went straight from childhood into the marriage market. A great many were simply illiterate.

Sorry, but Woolf's observations about the short shrift historically given to women's education in general is a matter of established fact.

And while you're at it read Said's "Orientalism." There are a lot of myths masquerading as facts in academia. In any case, Woolf clearly states (to careful readers at least) that what she is writing is a fable and nothing more.

You picked the wrong person here to bullsh*t about Woolf.

I have an entire set of her diaries, her letters, her novels, just about every biography written about her, and the letters and bio and novels of her husband, the letters and bios of her sister, one of her brothers, and her father. Context I've got. And reading comprehension.

You are deliberately misinterpreting Woolf's announcement that she is using fiction to illuminate a painful reality. The single "false premise" of hers that you've cited is not false at all, but an established historical fact acknowledged by not just women's history historians, but historians in general. And you still haven't explained in a satisfactory manner how that "false premise" renders "A Room of One's Own" sexist.

She expressly clarifies the point more than once. Her characters, places, and incidents are clearly inventions. Sorry to break it to you.

The whole piece is a fable and Woolf makes that point clearly several times. Since I'm the only one that bothered to dig up an actual quotation I'm afraid I'll to leave this thread to you as I've grown tired of stating the obvious. Good night. :hi:

Run along.

Is that the only way you imagine you can "win" an argument?

No, I didn't say she was writing "history" when she wrote about Shakespeare's sister. She was, however, accurately describing the lack of educational opportunities for women of that time and up to her lifetime.

Now... Are you going to answer my question about how her perfectly accurate claim about the lack of educational opportunities for women qualifies as "sexist" or am I going to have to ask you six instead of merely five times?

And did you even read "A Room of One's Own" past the first few pages?

I'm always amazed at the audacity of ignorance. You just completely obliterated both of them.

:toast:

:popcorn: that was quite the smackdown :spank:

It's much better.

with feminist thought. You merely hang out with people who call themselves feminists.

comments are like night and day....if you met Che, you would be calling for the police...'This man is taking my freedom and money.'

You need to go to the library and read some books....Che worked for FREEDDOM for ALL!

You are a pissant....Che doesn't like you.....go away.

You harm his memory.

Bravo!

Maybe you missed it?

Now what!?!

I'll see if I can find a link.

I posted it in another thread.

Pollitt writes beautifully and wrote a powerful endorsement of Senator Obama.

and I was giving an example.

Hard to refute that.

insinuating that a middle-aged woman is a child who needs to "grow up" is...well, you can probably guess. tell you friend that too.

and sexism was briefly discussed, but the bulk of the piece suggested the broader landscape and the writer's wish to back Obama.

What's your point?

:)

of feminist thought, thinkers, and publication :rofl:

We need more woman like you!

and it is no more a part of my lexicon than some of the racist language that would be frowned on here.

is not a racist term. yes, it stems from a so called disease of the uterus which causes a woman to be pre-disposed to uncontrollable emotions. I used the term because I believe Hillary reacted rashly, badly, and fell on her face in the process.

And quite concise and clear.

But let me make it even more clear. I would no more use the word "hysterical" in reference to women than I would use racist language in reference to black people.

Its ancient history -

"This ancient Middle Eastern source furnished the basis for classical Greek medical and philosophical theories of hysteria. The ancient Greeks adopted the notion of the migratory uterus and embroidered upon the connections between hysteria and sexual dissatisfaction. In an often-cited passage in the Timaeus, Plato wrote colourfully about the vagaries of female reproductive physiology:

‘the animal within them is desirous of procreating children, and when remaining unfruitful long beyond its proper time, gets discontented and angry, and wandering in every direction through the body, closes up the passages of the breath, and by obstructing respiration, drives them to extremity, causing all varieties of disease …’
Various texts of the school of Hippocrates, from the fifth century bc onward, explain similarly that a mature women's deprivation of sexual relations causes a restless womb to move upward in search of gratification. As the female reproductive parts move or function irregularly — ascending or descending, convulsing or prolapsing — they cause dizziness, motor paralyses, sensory losses, and respiratory distress (including globus hystericus, the sensation of a ball lodged in the throat) as well as extravagant emotional behaviours. Ancient Greek therapies included uterine fumigations, the application of tight abdominal bandages, and a regular regimen of marital fornicatio."

Its modern definition -

1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.

2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hysteria

And it's current political connotation -

A descriptor used by anyone who opposes Hillary Clinton.

Most women, especially those who have troubled to read feminist history, already knows the origin of the word "hysteria."

A pleasure to have your voice here tonight.

:toast:

Love the frog.

People either love or hate Frederico.

:D

dupe.

:toast:

Like the LaDeens :party:

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

don't agree with their POV? By the way, wash your mouth out with soap, 'k?

nt

Following Maddy's point on the derivation of the word "hysterical," I might agree and therefore go instead with Hillary as Aunt Polly, Tom's and Sid's adult guardian. In Polly, there was the element of the Scold in her voice, though also a distinct and genuine component of tenderness. In a moment of resolution and belongedness, it's Tom who has to point out to Aunt Polly that no one is pleased to see Huck, no one rushes to welcome him, while the other younguns are returned to the hearth and accordingly embraced. Polly bends and makes do with this adjustment, but the reader senses Twain's characterization. It takes a village, but sometimes the village isn't up to the task.

Political campaigns often hinge on the instincts of handlers. I think Hillary Clinton's handlers have betrayed her strengths by soft-pedalling her promise and whether owing or not to her husband's connections, they have misrepresented her candidacy. Some DU posters have stated that ultimately it's the candidate's campaign but no campaign is only the candidate's operation; it's a maze of events and personalities, and is plannable only to certain limits. I agree with many columnists who have pointed out that the Clinton campaign banked on blowing everybody out on Feb. 5th and when that outcome was thwarted, nothing was in place in subsequent primaries generally and in Wisconsin especially.

The Obama ground game in Wisconsin was tight and well-funded and greatly successful. Of some 70-plus counties, Obama carried 62, I believe. 64? 62? Something like that. Had he squeaked by after carrying Dane and the lakefront, that would have retained some momentum for Clinton, some ramp. But he whomped her in the northern counties, including the Green Bay area, and landslided her in Madison and Milwaukee.

Many feminist women and many pro-feminist males would indeed vote for a woman for public office at any level of the ballot. I'd like to see Barbara Boxer in the Oval Office. I had hoped Bella Abzug might one day sit in that office. Alexis Herman deserves consideration. And there are many others. What I like about Boxer and Chisholm and Abzug et al is not that they are strong women, though strong women they are, but their insights on positions I care about personally and positions I feel are more workable positions for the country at large. I felt the same about Paul Wellstone.

Gender is not the issue; the issues are the issue.

Recent posts on DU that those supporting other candidates than Clinton are sexist IMO are horseshit of the worst kind.

I want someone like Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius to run 8 years from now, sincerely! I do not care for, HC, though.

And we need someone as veep this time who can marshall resources and focus strategies to get major legislative initiatives through the 111th Congress.

And as you rightly point out, also someone for the 2016 election.

That is crucial.

when the men physicians had no clue of what was wrong with them.

The "cure" often was to perform a hysterectomy.

I don't want my Presidential candidate blowing their lid on the campaign trail, of all places. I hope for a female President (8 years out), but not Clinton, and certainly not against Barack Obama. And she better be be a Democrat!

my sentiments exactly

:eyes: whatever..."as a woman" "hysterical" sure :eyes: