Misogyny vs. Fallacy

This afternoon I heard an interview with Pat Schroeder on NPR about HRC's candidacy and the terribly sexist things that have been said to and about her. It brought home to me how some of her supporters can't see the disconnection between the issues of misogyny and sexism on one hand, and the fact that her loss was about her, not that she is female, on the other.

They played a mashup of things that were said about her in the media, and they were horribly sexist. (We have also heard some terribly racist things being said about Obama, but that's besides the point.) The interviewer asked how HRC could deal with the sexism, when part of her image is about toughness and talking about it would be seen as whining.

Sorry, first error. Obama talked about race and racism, and he did so with dignity and without playing the "poor me" card. Unfortunately, HRC could and should have done the same with regard to sexism, but she did whine and make it all about her. I wish she had dealt with sexism adroitly. She could have faced it head on and challenged how certain statements used against her are commonly used to belittle and downgrade all women. But instead of taking that high road for all of us, she complained about what the media was saying about *her*. Bad strategy, bad judgment... and a spotlight on her character.

But more disturbing to me was Schroeder's lament that that HRC won't be at the top of the ticket, because she had always hoped that she'd see a female president in her lifetime. WHAT?!? How is HRC's loss going to prevent that? What, is HRC the only high-ranking female in the Democratic ranks? Are no others capable of running a campaign? Of being tough and smart? For heavens' sakes, I have wanted to see a female president since I first understood what that meant at the age of 8 or 9. But I couldn't support HRC because her politics and her ideas just don't do it for me. Will another gutsy, bright woman give it a shot? You bet, maybe even in 4 years. She might even have the character, the vision, and the charisma to inspire a broad base of supporters of all races, sexes, and classes. She might even be able to do it without the deep connections and personal weight of the MAN behind her. Now wouldn't that be something - a woman president who might do it without the asterisk of "but remember, she was married to an Ex-President"?

In the end, the sexism that has been leveled at HRC has handicapped her no more than the racism leveled at Obama. It makes me angry to hear some of her supporters claiming that this is why she couldn't win. It's absolute horse-puckey. Folks, fight the sexism, but don't make the fallacious leap that striking a blow for HRC in the general election is a way to do that.

And a very warm welcome to DU! :hi:

And welcome to DU! :hi:

demeaning "nice enough" or "O's just a wife - what has she ever done that I heard at one early rally.

Didn't notice media males hate of women as top dog - MCNBC's witch, can't kill her, etc., and the usual jealous female's saying "she's the wrong female" (a scene from every office I have ever worked at over 50 years of watching that dynamic)?

But keep pissing on Clinton supporters - good luck getting him elected or the DNC funded.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the op clearly notes that there were sexist things said to and about hillary.
and there were racist things said to and about barack.

that sexism should turn up in a presidential campaign involving a female candidate, well, duh.
that racism should turn up in a presidential campaign involving a black candidate, well, duh.

the op was not about that these thing came up. it was about how each candidate handled it. obama handled the racism issue masterfully. just as jfk did with anti-catholic attitudes, obama managed to convince us that he was not a black candidate for president, he was a democratic candidate for president who happened to be black. personally, i think he neutralized a potentially huge negative, politically. if you think he somehow managed to turn being black into an advantage, then you have even more respect for his political talent than i do.

hillary's handling of sexism was inartful and ineffective. in an ideal world, neither racism nor sexism would have come up as a factor at all, and it's unfair to BOTH candidates that they had to give such things a moment's thought instead of being able to focus on actual issues. but it's naive to think that such issues wouldn't come up eventually and i really wish hillary had handled things better.

oh, and being disappointed in hillary's strategy and campaign performance is NOT the same thing as "pissing on clinton's supporters". usually, supporters of candidates who come in second are quite pissed at their own candidate's strategy and performance. i was once a hillary supporter. i had been looking forward to seeing her as president ever since they first spoke about her running for senate (the long-term plan was obvious). i began feel she let me down when she decided on an inevitability strategy taken straight from shrub's 2000 campaign. i felt taken for granted. i felt i deserved better treatment. i practically tossed a coin when the primaries came to connecticut. since then, obama has made me feel better and better about my vote. you gotta hand it to him, he has run an amazing campaign.

and i feel you deserve a better campaign as well. hillary's constituents and supporters did not let me down. hillary did.

What an interesting parallel this makes.

The greatest difference between how Obama handled race and how Clinton handled gender was that Obama did everything he could to reassure the white people of today they will not be asked to account for racial discrimination of the past or, of the present, as long as they voted for him while Clinton did nothing to reassure men of today that they wouldn't be called to answer for sexist discrimination of the past or present.

If you watch the YouTube video that demonstrates what wankers Tweety and Olbermann have been, a pattern emerges where they express fear of being chastised for ... well, any of the things women have chastised men for ages over. But overall, they put the emphasis on fear of having to deal with a pissed off mate.

The day after the debate wherein she was "honored" to share the stage with Obama, she put out that horrible press release:

"Shame on you, Obama. Shame on you."

Disrespectfully treating him like a teenager. At that point I knew we were going to fall into the hard-core feminist trap. You could smell it, all men are in need of a scolding. And YES, I am projecting. At least, I am old enough to recognize it. I pity the young men who don't see it.

Well at least you're aware of it.

"Shame on yous" have been spread aplenty, by all three. Shame on HC, shame on BO, shame on McC. It's all just a way of trying to stop people.

I had an unfortunate love affair once with a very angry woman. Her angry face brought me right back to that.

I know this is bullshit, but I often feel resentment toward feminists who constantly berate men. Many men in the Progressive movement are inflamed by misogyny. Yet, we see Misandronist feminists constantly putting us in the same box as all those Football playing, jock bastards that we had to "compete" with in high School and college.

I wish some of you would admit your anger against men is over the top, or at least be able to sift through your projections that you lay on every single event. You are as bad as supporters of Obama who label everything as racism.

Clinton was going to dog Obama - and every other guy she was up against - no matter what, because that's what one does when one is competing.

I am not naive enough to believe that Barack hasn't attempted to control the discussion on Race in this campaign. I hope that you are willing to admit that Hillary has done the same with gender. We are all being played.

I say again, I don't think there is a presidential candidate out there who hasn't manipulated the system. That is how they become presidential candidates in a system that values money and influence over integrity and issues. I am really not that interested in either of these two candidates, I am concerned about this country, the Progressive movement (currently aligned with the Democratic party out of survival). and, to some extent, the DU community (as I have become a member).

I share the OPs concern that Hillary supporters are collapsing their views on Feminism into Clinton, as if she shares their values. The same way that I am concerned that Barack supporters collapse all of their personal hopes and concerns upon him. Presidential candidates are fabrications. They accentuate the positives and hide the negatives.

Namely, you can't purposely set up two groups who have historically been discriminated against and set them against each other and expect everyone to come out of the election all happy happy joy joy. And now, if they want the votes of Clinton supporters for the likely nominee, they're going to have to earn it.

supporters are open to reconciliation and Obama supporters aren't complete ass-wipes.

And I do so hope that the party has learned something. However, my biggest hope is that the Progressive movement will be so strong that whether or not your group was historically discriminated against will become a mote point in the face of a lack of current discrimination.

It just sucks that in America, sexism seems to be more tolerated these days than racism.

I love your parallels but want to question a couple of your assertions. I have to ask - your point about "as long as they voted for him" comment - has the candidate Barack Obama ever called out exclusively the white vote or white voters? Has the campaign (not supporters) complained of the results of the PA, WV and KY as racist or even racially motivated? Was it not Clinton who initially made this point and her campaign spokespeople who have perpetuated it?

As to sexism, when is sexism sexist? I don't know if you are a female or not (it likely would help me if you were for this one) but are you any more offended by someone calling you a witch or demeaning your accomplishments by according them to a male partner or by someone, in attempting to praise you, notes your need for "testicular fortitude," a physical impossibility and an entirely masculinist portrait of a successful woman?

We had to know that in this primary, given the final two candidates, these two issues would come up. Some of what we're hearing is a personification of our fears and some having to wrestle with them side-by-side, for some, for the first time.

The answer to your first question. We know his campaign has called out Clinton; we know that many of Obama's supporters make a strong association between Clinton and her voters, and we know many Clinton voters, themselves, strongly associate with their candidate.

Has the campaign (not supporters) complained of the results of the PA, WV and KY as racist or even racially motivated?

I don't know, but we do know that the media has made play of it and Obama was given the advantage of being the "noble" candidate because of it, and we know this same media has attacked Clinton for noting that her candidacy has a better chance of capturing the white vote in those states.

If someone called me a witch I wouldn't be very bothered, because I'd know that only a childish idiot would use such an insult, unless that person was very well connected - because now you're talking about an idiot with some power.

Diminish my accomplishments? Yes, but again - only by idiots. Which happen to be 70% of my co-workers at this time. The kind of sexism that drives me up the wall most, where I presently am (in the south) is men who, when I state a preference, whether it be an object or a working method, immediate go, "oh no, you want *this* ..." And when I make it clear that no, I don't want that, it's demanded I justify/defend my preference. The attitude that accompanies it is never open curiosity, it's a challenge to prove to them that I know what the hell I'm doing. Then, there are the engineers and others who go, "wow, you mix really well," and we all know (for a girl) is unspoken.

"Testicular fortitude" is something I've been accused of having since age 18, but of course, that's metaphorically. But there are some places that still only take Visa, let's face it.

See, we agree on quite a bit here. My point is that as we all go forward, I'm looking for "in the candidate's words" sorts of verification. I think we've all complained enough about the lack of even the appearance of objectivity or veracity in reporting to know that what we hear in the news ain't necessarily so.

And I've been here just long enough to realize that so very few of the people on this board speak for me as to leave me fully aware that these are not the "typical" supporter for either campaign and should not mold my political opinion. I have met some very passionate people from both campaigns who are neighbors, friends and colleagues. Believe me, none of us behave like this!

What we sort of have here is politics in a vacuum: people bounce between huge doses of anonymous blogging and over-saturation by the very media we decry. I love the Visa analogy - thanks for that one. I think (hope I'm not overstating) we agree that ascribing behaviors of the uncivilized and unmannered to the character and actions of a candidate is patently unfair - whether they're calling that person a "witch," a "Muslim," or "senile." Can we agree that's fair?

I really hope we continue the dialogue! Thanks :hi:

Because that's exactly what he'd be perceived as doing if he DIDN'T "reassure the white people of today they will not be asked to account for racial discrimination of the past or, of the present, as long as they voted for him". Can you just imagine the outcry from the "hard working white voters" (AKA, Hillary's base) if Obama even suggested they were going to have to atone for the past sins of racism? OMG, it would be deafening.

Thanks.

And in a way that still has me shaking my head. He can't do anything right where you're concerned, I'm guessing.

Any unpleasant fact you don't want to come to terms with, is unfair criticism of Obama.

I get it.

Other places in this thread you complain that Obama's campaign pointed out racism.

You don't like Obama. We get it. But get your story somewhat straight, at least.

I know everybody I've spoken to about this election are astounded at the hatred shown towards women in the U.S.

Here's a more appropriate website for your condescension:

hillaryis44.com

If this is "pissing on Clinton supporters," then I guess saying anything other than "I wholly endorse HRC" must be "pissing on Clinton supporters."

OF COURSE the media hates women in the top position - you have to be blind to say otherwise. However, your statement that "she's the wrong female" is about jealousy just doesn't pass the smell test. There were a bunch of male candidates too, who weren't the "right male." Sorry, she's going to have to be judged on her policies, her politics, her character, and her judgment, just like any other candidate.

I'm afraid you can't ignore that she's Bill Clinton's wife in this equation, either. I was crushed when Muriel Humphrey was appointed to the Senate, and it was touted as such an advance for women. The fact is, despite her work for the party and with Hubert Humphrey, she never would have been appointed if she was not his wife. We have seen that pattern several times. HRC's husband is a factor in her success, between her ability to fundraise, exceptional political contacts, his direct endorsement and campaigning on her behalf, and a practically ready-made staff of folks who have run two successful presidential campaigns in the past. Absent that factor, if you put her toe to to with someone like Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, the late Ann Richards, or other female political worthies past and present, I don't think she'd get past Super Tuesday.

and you could not have said it any better;



Hillary's supporters are motivated by blind loyalty and stupidity which has been proven,
otherwise there is no way a sane human will continue supporting someone that has none
of your interest at heart.

Welcome to DU!!

:hi:

:)

Maybe she doesn't expect to live all that long. Marie Cocco was saying on PBS that she didn't see another viable woman candidate on the horizon for a while. Especially not one as favored as Hillary.

Howzabout Barbara Boxer in 2016? Shall we start working
on that now?

Tesha

BB would be a fantastic candidate, and she is far more progressive than HRC.

So many women have disappointed me for this POV, especially Schroeder, because it's about the person being a woman rather than what that woman represents. They have so little faith there is another woman out there that can prevail, or is it this woman because of her connections? That has never washed with me, and even the connection has deterred me. Maybe it's the money involved.

If there's a woman who inspires, I do believe she will rise to the top. I would love to see it.

I, too, would love to see us elect a woman as President, but for me, it's not Clinton.

And I don't believe for a moment that Clinton is the end-all, be-all, last chance cafe for that to happen.

For me, Obama is the better choice, not because he is a man, but because I think he offers the better option for change in this country, which we so sorely need.

A female President may or may not happen in MY lifetime, but I trust that eventually, we WILL have one.

spread their wings are foolish. We are WOMEN!

But Obama has a voice I've never heard in my lifetime before (I was too young to vote or think about the Kennedys and MLK at the time, but now recognize some serious comparisons). I'm so ready to embrace this change!

And I am old enough to remember JFK, MLK, and RFK.

It's been a long, long time since I've felt the kind of energy I've felt from Obama. And frankly, I love it.

The opposition of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party to Hillary has been well known for several years. It's the pundits who made Hillary the inevitable candidate - them and name ID poll responders. If they had looked at the blogosphere, the pundits would have known the great antipathy toward Hillary from the party activists.

In the end, Hillary relied upon a Name ID campaign, seeking out the most ignorant voters, and telling them whatever polls showed they wanted to hear. With R saboteurs who crossed over helping her, she appeared to win more states than she could have, a paltry number, in any event.

Hillary lost because she's a bad candidate for the Democratic Party. Well over 55% of the party participants at the primary and caucus levels were women. She appealed directly to women for their vote because she is a woman. Her appeals found some receptive ears. She has won women over 50 handily, particularly white women. As Doris Kearns Goodwin said recently, if anything, Hillary's gender increased, not decreased, her vote totals.

Namely that they originate from the winger whackjob influence on the MSM, not from the campaign of Obama or any other Dem candidate.

so I'll just say "Great job and welcome to DU!"

> Will another gutsy, bright woman give it a shot?
> You bet, maybe even in 4 years.

Well, I hope it will be more like "eight years" because I
really want to see our 2008 Democratic candidate win two
terms, but otherwise, I endorse everthing you said!

My "default anwer" for whether I'll support any arbitrary
Democrat *OF EITHER GENDER* is always "yes". And I can think
of at least a dozen women I'd be willing to support for the
Presidency of this country. I even supported Hillary back in
her Senate run of 2000, knowing full well that she was setting
out on a path to the Presidency and I approved of that.

But her votes since election have been a disappointment and
her campaign behavior has been appalling. So I no longer
support *THIS ONE WOMAN*. And it has nothing to do with
misogyny and everything to do with Hillary herself.

Tesha

For someone to read this as "Misogyny and Phallus-y" and claim sexism based on that.

Or confuse "fallacious" for "fellatious" and take issue with that.

I'm curious to see whether we've hit that level of hysteria.



Oh, and by the way, that was a very well-written analysis.

Who is going to vote for a candidate that the media and other candidates can attack with no fear of reprisal?

This very forum has provided a demonstration, since January, of what's gone on.

Someone writes an OP attacking Clinton (as you do, in this very thread) and they are cheered on, the thread gets dozens, sometimes hundreds, of recommendations and the OP is backslapped. For hitting low, on a scale of 1-10, anything under a 8 is perfectly acceptable for 90% of the posters.

Someone writes an OP going after Obama, and anything that goes over a 1 will get you basic insults, go past 2 and you're going get your ass flamed by five or more people (if you're not already on ignore). Hit a 5? Forget it, the thread will get shut down.

It's easy to blame sexism / misogyny for HC's handicapping because so many of the attacks made on Clinton and her supporters are sexist in nature.

Olbermann can call for her to get on her broom and get cheers, it sure fucking looks like there's sexism going on and no broadcaster who doesn't want to influence an election would show even 1/10 of the bias the press has shown toward's Clinton.

I feel it is incredibly short sited and ignorant for any feminist to choose Hillary Rodham-Clinton as their champion. I cannot call myself a feminist because, though I have read up on feminism, I have never done the research. But I cannot understand what women see in her.

There are so many women that I know... I know are superior to Hillary. My wife is 200% more of a worthy person than I can ever hope to be, and I have met powerful, inspiring women throughout my life. But Hillary?

I have seen woman after woman bemoan the poor Republican housewives who stand behind their men when sex scandal after sex scandal has plagued this political season. But what about Hillary? Did you all not get a clue when she stood by Bill during all that bullshit? Could you not tell that the only reason any self-respecting leader.... not woman mind you... leader would have very publically repudiated the actions of their partner. She stuck with him for one reason only, POWER. It shows a deep character flaw that I do not understand that you so called feminists see.

It is like you are blinded with ambition just like she is.


Sigh

The sex scandals?

"Hillary didn't do what I would have done." "Hillary doesn't do what I want her to."

Isn't it always man's greatest complain about women? "She doesn't do what I want her to."

That is so not a man/woman thing, that is a human thing.

I am talking about values in a political contest. Ordinarily, we pick a candidate based upon shared values, leadership ability and trust.

Are you telling me that women do not care whether or not a candidate does what they would do? Women do not consider values? Are you telling me that you do not expect your children (if you have any) to act in accordance with your values? Or your partner?

This seems silly.

Additionally, the sex scandals did bother me. Getting blown by an underling in the White House with your wife upstairs is a problem. That piled onto his history. I felt bad that the thing was used so politically, but he should have expected that. I just don't like the double standard.

What research? Is it really that hard to figure out or have you just had your eyes and ears closed for the past 30 years?

Nor am I able to coherently express all my feelings on the subject. I often need some help in seeing the deeper issues involved.

There is an entire library of research on the oppression of women in history and in current circumstances.

Sure I've endured sexism.. sometimes its blatant, but that's life. Our culture has come a long way,
and will continue to grow. Being obnoxious about it doesn't change hearts and minds.

I remind myself I'm not doing what I do because I'm a woman but because I know this is what
I'm here on this earth do be: a pastor. My womanhood is simply a perk...
I don't get angry, don't rail at people, don't 'tear up.' It isn't helpful.
I'm owed no special priviledge because of my biology.. it's my other qualifications that serve
my profession, and other people.

If I can, I simply say: I'm sorry you feel that way. Can we please move on to the issue before us?

In my denomination, pastors must be elected by the congregation before they assume the role.
I've been interviewed for wonderful positions, and have been turned down, sometimes in favor of a male candidate. Of course it hurts, but what has served me best in those situations is the thought:
"The best person for this job got this job. But there's another one around the corner for me."
And there always is.... I just have to go forward...

In every single congregation I've served, there've been folks who told me privately:
"I'm sorry to say this, but I've always been opposed to women pastors, but after
knowing you, and how you work, I realize its been my problem, not yours.
I'm so impressed with how you rise above any negativity. I am ashamed of my previous
point of view. Thank you for being you."

The issue here is: No one is owed any special consideration because of one's biology.
It's the other qualifications that matter. I believe that is the true feminist expression.

Senator Clinton is not the only woman in politics, and if circumstances exist that bring a male
candidate to the top position, then we must accept the fact that he is probably the best candidate for for this position at this time. There will be other possibilities for her gifts in the future.

Remember... a few months ago, no one knew who Barack Obama was. His rise to prominance was an incredible event in our history. Who knows what talented woman is serving our country in a state or local setting, and how she might impact our future? Just you wait...

Obama has. And maybe a little time to pick up some wisdom along the way as well. The "change" would be quite nice.

That, of course, means that I agree. :applause:

To say the media influences no one is, well, naive. :)

Of course the media influences. But the bigger issue for me, and I'd bet for many other women (not all, of course) is that these things were being done and no one chastized the doers for it. No one stood up and yelled, "Enough. You don't agree with Hillary, list your reasons, but stop the sexist insults".
THAT was the problem for me. I thought we were past using sexist insults, but this campaign has proven we are not. Our daughters, and granddaughters can be insulted in this way and no one (except other feminists, and not all of them) will step up and say..."Whatever you disagree with, state it, but stop the sexist insults."
I believe THAT is the reason so many women are so damn mad.
If the media had used every racist term to describe Obama, do you think no one would have stood up and said, "STOP"? Do you?
It's the cheering of the sexist insults made to Hillary, and seen by a large number of women as a low class way to try to discredit her. It was also seen by a large number of women as setting women's rights back years.
Even now there is no disgust with the terms used by the media. There is either cheering or denial. That says to me that our society has a whole lot of growing to do before it reaches equality.
I do believe those insults made it harder for Hillary to state her cause and be taken seriously, but that's another matter. The matter at hand is that sexism was used and no one objected except those women and men who recognized it for what it was, the ones who called it out. And it wasn't Obama who recognized it and tried to stop it. And it wasn't the Democratic leaders.

to here Pat buy into the pity party that Hillary has been throwing herself.

I think the whining she did and the whole victim position she took about the issue
plays right into the hands of sexists actually.

You know --

Pooters verus Peters
Muffs versus Schlongs
Tacos versus Hotdogs

The OP's title simply lacks that little something to give it some punch.

K/R