Sexism is alive and well on DU

It was directed at Hillary and now at Palin.

I am not aware of any "sex tapes" about any (heterosexual) male candidates. I am not aware of any attention given to the clothes and body parts of any male candidates. But we saw it with Hillary and, apparently - judging from DU Home Page - Palin.

We cannot stop the Republicans who publicly admit to having wet dreams about Palin. But can we here, on DU, stick with the issues and keep any post about Palin's sex life off?

I don't keep my hopes up. DUers posted sexist comments about one of our own, so why expect that anything would change about the opposition?

Perhaps we can add this to the rules and remove any post that does not contribute anything to the discussion besides a prurient urge.

:(

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster there have never been any prurient posts about, oh, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Larry Craig, or any other male politician.

I have no idea what rumors are flying around about Sarah Palin - the truth about her seems damning enough - but it's part and parcel of a political discourse that's indistinguishable from People magazine or the National Enquirer. Ms. Palin is no more special and is no less special than any of the rest of them.

I am guilty of posting photos of GW Bush looking like an Oscar Meyer weiner dressed in a thrift shop suit, and making very shallow comments.

Also, I made fun of his cod-piece flight suit.

The codpiece is off limits? :cry:

The Enquirer: how many Bill Clinton's BJ special editions were there, anyway? More than I can keep track of.

"She didn't look 18 Your Honor?!?"

Shame on me making fun of those intellectually incurious men who only seemingly think with "the little head."

FOR SHAME - how sexist against those poor men? :evilgrin:

"Are you ready boys!?!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VCHj2OSdw

This comment is off:



You may be unaware, but they exist and they exist in huge quantities. Audio tapes would include Lewinski's phone calls about Clinton; Larry Wide Stance and his testimony; telephone calls from GOP Congressmen to young male interns; and the latest being a Democratic Rep from NY firing a member of his staff after they ended their affair.

I'm sure that just a meager amount of work on Google could extract sex videos supposedly concerning male politicians.

I'm all for ending sexist banter on this board, but your premise is muddled.

were exposed for their homosexual contents by Republicans who made their names by promoting "family values" (whatever that means). Which is why I put "heterosexual" in parenthesis.

When politicians preach one thing and do the opposite then, yes, they need to be exposed.

It's in questionable taste, and totally unnecessary. And sexist.

Sorry for disagreeing with you -- you nailed it.

You don't remember people dismissing Richardson because he is "fat", or making jokes about Kucinich's height and appearance? You haven't seen countless posts about John McCain's shoes? The gloating over every Republican (all male) sexual scandals from Vitter to Craig and many more before that? Sure you can hang on minutiae and say they weren't about sex tapes precisely but if a sex tape of Vitter were even rumored do you not think there would be howling from the rooftops about it here? Do you think if there was one of McCain it would not be?

If there is ( I have no idea) an angle where we could reveal Palin as a hypocrite and knock her off the pedestal the right wing have placed her on to decrease their turnout should we not publicize it because she's a woman? Why should women get any more slack than men?

I have certainly seen real sexism on DU and I have certainly seen it in politics, but your examples don't seem to qualify on close inspection.

it must be a lie!

eh?

the Edwards $400 haircut. (There was also a confirmed story about McCain spending something like $5,000 on a make-up artist)

Republicans have tried smearing Dems as out of touch foo-foo elitists in just about every modern election. The best example was Edwards, but they also did it with Kerry and his wind-surfing and now with Obama and his arugula, etc.

I'd prefer the media cover NONE of these stories, but if they insist on covering the Dem superficial issues, they at least need to be fair and cover the Republican versions as well.

Just saying - I suspect there are more members here that get the hots over Obama than over Palin!

:P

Of the Matrix.

but I agree 100% with the sentiment expressed.

I am not trying to settle scores and I certainly have had my share of locked posts, but a few years ago, when Harriet Miers, who has never married, was nominated to the Supreme Court, I started a thread about "60 year old virgin?" No, I did not care about her sex life, but just wondered, in view of Bush and the Republicans promoting no sex outside marriage, whether she followed that rule or whether, as Republicans are known to do, preach one thing and do the opposite. And, of course, how her personal experience - or lack of - would affect her decisions as a Justice.

That thread, eventually was locked with a comment that it was inappropriate to discuss Miers's sex life - which of course, it was not.

We have moved a long way since and YouTube is now full of sex tapes of practically any public figure, I would think.

I have not read that particular post from the Video forum that got me to react, but if it is just a "sex tape" it has no room on DU, in my opinion. I don't think that it contributes anything to showing how unqualified Palin is. Discussing her daughter's pregnancy is valid. It shows how hypocritical abstinence promotion is. But showing a sex tape of anyone, for the sake of, yes, prurient reason - I would hope that we, in DU, keep a higher standard.

And the chances of having a sex tape of a female candidate than of a man are a lot higher. I would not be surprised to know that RW blogs have posted "sex tape" of Hillary.

appeal to get what she wants. The winking/ flirting thing she does is really over the top and extremely unprofessional. Also, the GOP is the supposed "abstinence only" party of marital fidelity, yet they are always the worst offenders when it comes to vow breaking. I think it's the bizarre hypocrisy of it all that grabs everyone's attention.

Lorien: " I think a big issue with Palin is that she has always used her looks and sex appeal to get what she wants."

She "used" her sex appeal no differently than John Edwards, who knew his looks attracted voters.

That's a phony statement, Lorien, IMO. Politicians try to attract voters, and I don't take any offense whatsoever in candidates using whatever they want. Taking on Palin on this issue is sexist, IMO.

at some point, the term Sexism becomes so watered down and trivialized, the charge may routinely be ignored because it applies to just about any damned thing.

I routinely call Chris Tweety Matthews the Blonde Prince of Superficial...is that sexist too?

Pointing out the fact that Palin can avoid Media questions and even ignore Moderator questions during a televised debate, but then relies on a coy wink and a knod is hardly sexism -- it goes to the substance of her qualities as a leader. Other than being powdered up to look good on the television screen, her performance in the debate, in interviews and on the stump hardly show substance or leadership -- and reveal on a deeper level the cynicism of John McCain to pass her off as a potential President of the United States.

Apparently, there are some who will take up John McCain's mantle and if the false issue of sexism works, they will use it.

is a valid criticism.

But posting a "sex tape" or commenting only on her appearance - as was done with Hillary - without a single word about her politics is sexism.

And, yes, that video of Edwards combing his hair with the "I feel pretty" background was sexist. It said nothing about his opinions, or how combing his hair had anything do do with his campaign. Paying $400 for a haircut, however, was relevant, coming from someone who championed the cause of the poor for whom $400 could provide food for several weeks.

Generally, however, such comments are aimed a lot more at women than at men. Not that I read every single post on DU, but except for that Edwards haircut, I don't remember comments about hair and makeup and clothes (and ankles) as stand alone threads directed at anyone else but Hillary.

I ask you again:
to share a few words with us about Mrs. Palin's politics.

that was a comment on vanity. Sexism is hearing "we're sorry, we don't have any positions for women here" (I've been told this) or "Why do you need a job? Can't you just get married instead"? (I was told this by a superior). You have no concept at all of the true meaning of the term "sexism".

in politics b/c he did well in the swimsuit competition.

Oh, sorry, that was Palin. My bad. People who support the liberation of women should regard Palin as a quisling whose every instinct is to uphold the patriarchy. She's a former beauty queen, for Christ's sake! That's relevant b/c we've been told (correctly, I think) that these things are sexist. Some folks feel seemingly any criticism of such a person is sexism, just because she's a woman.

The criticize Democrats first contingent on DU has scored again! The real question is why, when we are ahead, some are desperately trying to shove a wedge between Democrats. Let's focus on beating the Republicans, shall we? :grouphug:

not a wink and the tossing of hair. It's demeaning to the rest of us women, who always have to FIGHT to be taken seriously in the corporate/ business world, for someone like Palin to be playing the High School flirt in an attempt to attract votes. She's a joke and an embarrassment.

You have it backwards, robcon; she's the anti-feminist here.

it was like she was in a bar, or something. Maybe that works where she lives, but it struck me as total pandering, and totally inappropriate.



(disclaimer: I am an old-school feminist)

certainly for Independents. Not for the real RWers, for them nothing would change their mind. Or, rather, they salivate at the prospect of another pretty face like Reagan and Junior who would not bother their "pretty little head" and will do and say what the powers behind the scene would tell them.

it's like the Handmaid's Tale or something.


Who denies birth control to their teen, and then encourages her to get married when she gets pregnant? :crazy:

my grandmother was a suffragette. Palin's flirting for votes puts us back in politics, imho. I've never seen another SERIOUS woman in politics behave in such a immature and obvious manner. She uses it to try to deflect attention from the fact that she's unqualified for office, and it only makes things worse, imo.

women who had serious qualifications.

there doesn't seem to be anything about Mahoney in Florida.

Oh, wait. There is A FRIGGING TAPE.

I mean, women aren't really hurt by sexism. It's not like they are hired less often than men, or make less, or are abused more often, or beaten for disagreeing with boyfriends or husbands who expect obedience, or wind up disappearing as part of some dominant male's sexual fantasy, found later disposed of in fields as though they were items of garbage.

You know DUers wouldn't contribute to a mindset that judges a woman's value by how much sexual attraction she generates, or that singles women out as different in essence than men, to be judged by their conformity to stereotypical cultural ideas of femininity rather than neutral charecteristics of competence and ability that could be applied equally to men.

And how would you enforce rules against sexism? Next you'll suggest that people shouldn't be categorized based on race, sexual orientation, or national origin. Do we really want to start down that slippery slope?

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ceYtl2j38

John McSame Sex Video?!?!

Ah, may I be the first to say, after watching such a thing, I'd need Steel Wool, Bleach, and maybe an eyewash of abrasive cleanser to clean out my eyes.........

To say nothing of the images left to fester in my mind.....

Bleh.

The only thing worse would be private sex tapes of Lynne and Dick Cheney.

x(

That was just perfect. Talk about studly...

:rofl:

I think "we" generally don't go there.

Maybe you should PM the offender, or just alert on him.

if Palin would burst out in tears for sympathy at her debate with Biden a few weeks back because everybody knows that's what women politicians do. :crazy:

actual context to go along with it. I couldn't even find anything on the home page that would reference what you're talking about. Do you have any specifics or are you able to quote anything without including who said it?

on the right column, under latest videos: Sarah Palin Sex Tape

No, I did not open it, have no idea what's in there and were it not in that "latest" page, where many DUers first go, I would not be aware of that post.

:rofl:

Attached Message
Subject: FYI, The National Organization for Women...
FYI, The National Organization for Women has endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket for just the reasons listed below. They usually do not endorse, but in this case believed it was absolutely necessary to take a stand. If you agree, please pass this on.

Subject: Women and Sarah Palin

Friends,
We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate that has a real possibility of becoming fact.
Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters.

To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech, gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears. To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second (and possibly first) most-powerful person on the planet.

We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and altogether devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and from which we've so demonstrably benefited.
First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters.

We want to disagree, publicly. If you agree that Palin is an irresponsible, even dangerous, choice for VP, please consider participating in this drive. Gentlemen, send this to the women you know and care for. I know it's tough to understand the way this choice is impacting women, but I have never seen so many women so outraged, angry and distraught in my entire life. We'd like our voices heard.

If you agree, PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour, you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously. Stranger things have happened.

What we should be concerned is whether this will throw back a chance for any woman to be a serious candidate.

Can you hear these comments? "Yes, we tried, and look, we lost. Just as the Mondale Ferraro ticket did. American is not ready, yet, for a woman president."

Joe Sixpack, do you?

And for equal opportunity, there is a funny video of McCain up at the Video Forum... John McCain Love Machine.

Use sex to bash her because she uses sex to sell?

to children and all living things. I have no problem bashing her on any level except for certain things she can't physically change.

Not claiming by any means that you are such a person, just pointing out a weakness (as I see it) in that reasoning. Oppressors always claim that whatever person or group is so dangerous they must use any method to destroy them.

She's harmless. She's one person, and not very bright at that. The only true danger she poses is the ability to persuade others to act dangerously, and she can do that by persuading her allies to follow her or by persuading her opponents to throw out all of their values to defeat her. Attacking her empowers her, and attacking her using sexist methods validates those methods, and makes her a bigger threat than she could otherwise be.

Not that I'm accusing you of that, just taking your argument to an extreme. I've no reason to think you fall into that category.

and no, she is not harmless. She has used her power to stir hatred and incite violent speech by her supporters. Years ago I'm sure that there were people who said that Hitler was harmless too.

This woman has a Messianic complex. She believes she is our times Esther. She also believes that she will see Jesus in our lifetime and Wasilla will be important in End Times. I would not put it passed her at all to try to fulfill her "destiny".

Anyway, I wasn't saying don't attack her, don't defeat her. I'm saying don't empower one form of bigotry and hatred to defeat another. Her campaign is decidedly racist, but when people attack her in sexist terms, they don't defeat the racism, they just add to misogyny, and escalate the division and hatred we should all be fighting.

Fight her by exposing her methods. Fight her by pointing out the hatred she spews. Fight her by trusting the voters to make the right decisions when informed in the right ways. Clinton won in 92 by supporting gay rights and gays in the military, by promoting gender and race equality, by claiming his cabinet would look like America, etc. He didn't give people excuses to hate, nor use their latent hatreds and bigotry to win. He challenged them to overcome their bigotry, exactly the opposite of what Bush was doing, and Reagan had done.

Obama will not be helped by stimulating prejudice, he will win by encouraging people to overcome it.

That's all I'm saying. Yes, Palin has to be defeated, but if we defeat her at the expense of our ideals, we've not won anything. We've defeated a name, but empowered the ideology that produced the name.

Again, I hope it's clear I'm just stating my general opinion, not accusing you or anyone of anything.

:popcorn:

oh poor Sarah....so what's NEW about Palin's sex life? To avoid sexism, what's OK for Clinton and Edwards should be OK for Sarah. Prurient urges cannot be stopped in America. We need to know. :evilgrin:

But now we are instructed to

LEAVE Sarah and Britney ALONE!!!!1111!!!

:popcorn:

Is it REALLY Sexism to comment on Palin?

She uses Her Sex to sell herself. The Flirting, The Winking, the Cutesy stuff, etc. So is commenting on it Sexism?

Or, would you rather we sit silently by, Because she's a woman, and say nothing about it?

I'm all for ABSOLUTE EQUALITY. Straight Across the Board Equality. Is it wrong to think that? Isn't putting Anyone above comment, simply because of their Gender, eliminate equality?

If A Guy was running about like a Macho Jerkweed, using his over inflated Testosterone level as a selling point, you're damned right I'd comment on it!

Are you suggesting censoring posts discussing the very "selling points" that Palin uses?

Where does the bar go after that?

Yes, we do need to point out that she uses sex to sell herself. We are talking about her actions and words (if any).

But, as we've seen with Hillary, to talk about her hair, her cleavage, her makeup, her ankles, and not a word about policy is sexism.

Really? Not a word?

I guess I've been reading a different DU.

Perhaps she does talk about policy there, I doubt, though.

And if it were, then the subject line was meant to titillate. To get as many viewers as possible to start salivating to "sit up erect" in anticipation of the action.

This is sexism, as it was when the freepers, no doubt, put a video pretending to be about Clinton's sex life. I am sure there were such posts.

However, you would have to watch the video to know for sure.
There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of policy threads on DU.

Of course there are also plenty of threads on DU that are completely devoid of policy issues - including dozens of threads that only serve to laud the Obamas' good looks. Did you also condemn them for focusing only on how handsome he is or what a great dresser she is rather than focusing on policy?


Sexism: Noun: Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex

IMO, that video (if we are talking about the same one) might be discriminatory and abusive behavior toward BOTH of the Palins but not toward her gender. It is crude, and unnecessary, but not sexist. But again, you would have to watch the video to know for sure.

Superficial statements about cankles, yes, are sexist. Pointing out that Palin is a living, breathing RW stereotype of a woman with what she wears, acts and says is not.

However, it seems to me that the place to address this is with either a comment directly to the offender or hitting that little alert button, not top posting yet another in a long line of "DUers need to be more perfect" posts.

We're human and we are occasionally epic fail by nature. Can we accept that?

Every time I forget and think self-described progressives will listen and consider when a woman says she's bothered by sexism in the conversation, they remind me that they won't.

After all we're just women. How would we know anything about sexism? We need some wise male to tell us what is and what isn't sexism.

they may feel after choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

What is this, the word police? Good thing there's still free speech in this country! Why are you trying to force me to think the way you do?

/sarcasm. Well, not sarcasm, just...yeah.

I like that gif!!

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

:eyes:

That was my favorite post in your whole dismal thread.

Oh. But I'm not an attractive (to men) woman, so I wouldnt understand?
My "well tailored blouse" is a lab coat or veterinary coveralls, so I'm sure I would not understand. And no one ever called me by a husbands last name..... OMFG! How terrible! Poor fucking you! I guess you know all about sexism. No one else could possibly understand.

I'm a plain dyke living in a rural red state.

How dare you insinuate that I'm not attractive enough to "get it". That my clothes are not tailored eonough to understand.
Someone called you by your husbands name. Poor you.
Some of us are not allowed to marry.

But. I thank God, I have one thing you do not.
My humor sense is strongly intact.

Now carry on defending Sarah Palin. I will continue laughing.

Ms Palin would do us all a favor if she went back to Alaska and stayed there. She's embarrassing the rest of us women, with her ditzy interviews.

I'm glad you appreciated it!

And yes, Palin is setting back woman a hundred years.

:eyes:

oink, sexist piggy - oink!

"put your smarmy backwards IE screen" - I can't parse that at all. What does that mean?

And what is typical "mode" of reaction? That I posted something? I hope you realize that posting something in response to a post is not only the typical mode of reaction on a discussion board, it's pretty much the only available mode of reaction. What was I supposed to do - semaphore, and pray to God that you were looking my way at the time? Or is it that I used the mode of written communication? The mode of writing? Of using English? What? What is the meaning of using the word "mode" here? It makes no sense.

And typical for what or whom? For a man? If that's what you are saying, that it's "typical" for a man, then that's an utterly fucking sexist broadbrushed ignorant statement, oink oink oink oink oink oink oink oink.

I agree there is no need for sexism.

Julie

is parodying Pallin's overt use of her sexuality as a campaign tool.

As such, it is a valid use of lampoon. No one is attacking her for her gender; that would be sexism. They are attacking her for her attempts to use her "sexiness" as a campaign plank.


You're defense of Ms. Palin is misplaced.

to post my comments and, no doubt, for many males on DU and on YouTube to "sit upright" and to start salivating in anticipation.

And subject lines are an important tool as we see all around us.

Clearly you dont see it , so let me do you a favor, and tell you, This thread makes you look like a fool.

There is sexism on DU, but the video wasn't an example of it. I'm sure you've heard the term "Don't judge a book by it's cover."

I do agree with your overall point though. There's a lot of ism's on DU at times.

So... you didn't watch what you were complaining about? The subject line was enough, was it?
Mmm-hmm. I see. Well then.
Now you sound a little foolish to me.

biases and prejudices operating within this election and on many levels. Palin is blessed, in that, she's physically attractive. However, it's not sexist to observe that she is lacking both the IQ and intellectual curiosity to EFFECTIVELY SERVE the People of The United States of America as President.

as that video claims to be, or only about her makeup and hair and cleavage - as was done with Hillary - without a single word about her campaign - is.

Grow a pair of whatever and move on ... you'll never tease out "sexual identity" and this SAD attempt to censure us only makes the self-anointed "morality police" even more inane.

You want DU to discuss Palin's campain.
You start.
Tell us something about Palin's campain.

she uses sexiness as a major selling point. As if that's the way to get elected, and not talk about ideas or policy. In fact, she's so into her sexiness, the idea of Palin discussing policy wonk solutions to the financial crisis or the Iraq war, even from a conservative POV, IS laughable.

That's the very problem. And you know what, she doesn't even know the difference. She doesn't care that she's a laughingstock because of her up 'do and red high heels. It's all the same thing to her. Our political offices are just another way to be famous and rich.

We should address Governor Palin's policies and experience instead.

That'll take a few very short minutes. Then what?

ummm....what policies?

We are left with what the media presents...a foxy moosehuntin pentecostal of dubious accomplishments, ie. a female Dubya. Woulda been brilliant, except it's backfiring....

Put her on the Ice Road and slide her all the way back to Wasilla.

Sarah Palin sells herself as a vamp.

Don't be surprised when her critics acknowledge that.

It's sexist to have a lesser standard for a female candidate than a male candidate, and your readiness to "defend" Palin simply because she's a woman is sexist.

if you did, you would not conflate "sexism" with sexuality.


and yes, there have been post on DU wherein heterosexual women expressed interest in sex with heterosexual male politicians.

Starting with the not-so-subtle threads about how she should have been a "good mother and stayed home with her children."

There are, however, legitimate complaints when it comes to how Palin presents herself and how she is seemingly single-handedly setting back women's rights twenty years with her farce of a campaign.

Just like racism and homophobia. Things have improved over the years, but some things change a lot slower than we may wish for.

I have had to endure homophobic jokes from my 60-something boss in my years where I'm at now, and hear what he'd like to "do" with certain female coworkers.

I read a lot of feminist philosophy, and there are some excellent, hit-the-soul essays on heteronormativity. I truly believe that as long as Gays are oppressed and persecuted, sexism (I think of sexism as a severe society injury, but I'm a nurse so I'm like that) can't heal and Human beings will continue to be so much less than they should be.

is a bit funny to me.

unless you have taken a lot of effort to educate yourself and to a degree restructure your cognitive process, you will think in a sexist way. its because you are part of this society. whether or not you are progressive or conservative or otherwise. it aint easy to get rid of well trained bigotry and stereotypes

:yourock: :patriot:

And thank you for trying. I expect this to turn into a typical joyous DU flamefest, but what the hell, it's a message board, reflective of a small percentage of the progressive community and sexism is the norm here.

I have to say, I hate Palin. Maybe I won't hate after the election and she goes away, but I fucking hate her. Even so, on one typically bizarre thread, poster stated she "was a tease"--after the thread about her being a "cock-tease" got locked the poster changed the language-- I was pretty puzzled.


I mean, what the fuck ever. Off topic a bit, but do progressive men still think the woman who advertise their sexuality either subtly or overtly are "teases"? These being the same men that defend the sex industry and porn without question? Big disconnect for me. Either you think women and women are sexually autonomous and equal or you don't. That was a weird one.

Part of me understands that Palin is most likely a sociopath and thrives on any internet attention, including porn rumors, being called a "bitch"--probably thinks it's a compliment, or a Sign From God that the devil is working, I don't know. Part of me wishes she would speak up about sexism instead of being a goddam war cheerleader, but that'll never happen. And part of me longs for the day when a powerful woman's sexuality isn't the most vulnerable area open to attack, not to mention the first thing that comes to mind, that, I truly hope will happen some day. Maybe even in my lifetime.

When you see how they are conned by fashion designer to wear 6" high heel shoes, or starve themselves to appear like the models, or still think that they have to show cleavage and thigh in the work place - at least on network TV - one has to wonder.

All the "news readers" on CNN and on the morning shows, the supposedly "professional" women on TV programs - doctors, lawyers, police officers and crime scene investigators - wear their hair and clothes that no one in real life does.

How would you like to be brought into an emergency room and have a physician bending to examine you, while her long hair gets into your bloody wounds?

I have recently read that managers in the work place have to hint to young women employees that just because working women dress like that on TV, this is not how they should in, say, banks.

of professional women is not "a police action." Professional women have proven themselves in all types of career fields. However, PREJUDICE can't be eradicated as it is part of the human condition.

Newsflash: We all hold prejudices. It's those of us who recognize that they exist and make concerted efforts to change who are "the enlightened ones." This process is constantly ONGOING, not static. Yes, how we consider our biases - and then choose to make concerted efforts to NOT act on them and attempt to see other viewpoints that makes us CIVILIZED and DEMOCRATIC.

As in what I hope is a kind of interim state of denial. If a woman shows cleavage and the mating posture that high heels are really all about, in a professional environment, what exactly is she thinking? That her body will help with "glass ceiling"? (Prostitution or pragmatism?)Or are they really convinced is doesn't send a sexual message? Women aren't innocents and they aren't stupid, blindly accepting what magazines feed them is just bizarre. I'm hoping for some change in the next few years.

That's the part that scares me, you know, I think, wear your high heels, push up bra, whatever, but call it like it is, a way to be sexually attractive, not high "fashion" Jeez.

The CSI "dead chick" shows are messed up beyond what the leading women characters wear. The way defiled and dead women are sexualized is just creepy, especially when it involves, as it frequently does, young sex workers.

One of my favorite doctors I work with is an interesting study in self decoration. Short grey hair, little or minimal make up, very cool but comfortable shoes, and just great clothes. Skirts, shirts, blouses, she obviously loves fashion, and wears them well, without sacrificing comfort, without sending oblivious sexual messages. She rocks. Part of what her attire does for her is enhance a formidable personality. Since she is one of the best patient advocates I've encountered, it makes her choice in clothes actually meaningful in an important way. Very rare.

"How would you like to be brought into an emergency room and have a physician bending to examine you, while her long hair gets into your bloody wounds?"

HER long hair? Only women have long hair? As a women with short hair and as a women that knows many long-haired MALE doctors, nurses, paramedics and other professional types... I find your comment "SEXIST".
:P


And by the way the long haired doctors, especially in an emergency room or surgical situation, keep their hair tied back so it doesn't fall into your bloody wounds. Talk about germs and infection. However might I suggest if your own doctor lets "her" hair fall into your bloody wounds you should find another doctor... fast. But if it's a guy doctor.. well then that's alright.

I mean how ridiculous :eyes:

She is using her sexuality to appeal to the baser instincts in male voters.

She is the sexist here.

unfortunately x( and *'s un-kept-ness ie: like his messy hair, and various blemishes and scabs on his face have been talked about numerous times. And that Laura... whew... the word frumpy and drapes always come to mind. And what about cheneys' perpetual sneer. Liebermans' droopy face and pitiful voice. Lest we forget the many awkward mccain mannerisms.

Come on there's a lot of examples of males being picked on. Oh and tucker carlsons' bow tie boy comments. Are we so overly sensitive that we can't handle some well directed and most certainly well deserved catty remarks about those that absolutely make us :puke:?

We don't need no thought control!

n/t

and "sexist"...

The thought/pc police really do get droll after awhile don't they.

You don't know who is posting what. Look at your own profile once. We have no idea who you are.

You may be criticizing this site for what a couple of freepers are posting here for all you know.

Am I right?

Don

She's a slap in face to women voters. Any other sexism regarding Palin is an afterthought.

She is a total insult and you know what's funny? I didn't get that at first. I don't know if she was directed toward Clinton voters or not, probably was in part-- but at first I didn't understand that those disgusting repukes were holding up a living tee shirt that said "This is what a feminist looks like--homophobic, sexist, racist, classist, no care or concern for the most vulnerable, thinks women should be brood mares, thinks third world women should be denied contraception if abortion is mentioned, and I COULD go on-- but basically the anathema of feminism, and as anti-woman as you can get. Goddam right she's a slap in the face.

I got this from NOW today

Feminists for Obama
http://feministsforobama.org/

“Obama/Biden are running on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in U.S. history”

But clearly Humor on DU, is a threatened species.

:eyes:

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

People did talk about his hair and his clothes and his sex appeal. Then, when he got caught cheating on his very popular wife, many here went straight for the jugular. There was talk about his sex life and the pictures and why he picked her and all.

I'm not saying there isn't sexism here--just look at the sexist language on many posts--but I wouldn't go so far as to say we'd never go after a male politician in the same way.

so do you truly think if someone makes and off beat sexist comment should be banned from DU. I do see post removed as well as names for reasons unknown. However this is the moderators decision.

And it's all about marketing. Sarah Palin is a gorgeous woman (till she opens her mouth and spews that vile, of course!) who knows how to use what she has to open doors. She really has no core principals, nothing that would stop her from doing whatever it takes to get what she wants. And if that means making herself an object, then by golly, you betcha she'll do it!

People here on DU knew that the minute McLame announced her as his running mate. THAT's what were expressing here! HER use of sexism! SHE's the one who makes it more difficult for that attractive women executive to be taken seriously, or get laws passed to ensure women get paid as much as men for the same work.

The System has a place for everyone and everyone in his/her place. The System allowed women to be "liberated" in the 70s, because once a man didn't control the purse strings, women started spending a lot of money on a lot of things men didn't think we needed (the whole beauty industry exploded around that time). But women could never be truly free, because that would mean a financial loss. So even though we're not so obviously objectified, men still control our standards of sexiness.

But guys don't have it easy either! God forbid they stray from that confining box of all sex all the time, that they start questioning why they're always being exploited and treated like they have no other head except the one between their legs. The System needs straight men to become soldiers, to use weapons (gun: the most obvious phallic symbol ever created) and also to buy cool stuff to prove their manhood.

Face it: in a perfect, liberated world we wouldn't need the shit The System is selling us. And THEN where would the corporations be???

It shows.

i'm really tired of kissing ass of the other side

this person is evil, you do understand that rape victims were charged for their rape kits, under her signed orders, because there was a morning after pill in the kit to help the women avoid giving birth to a rapist's baby?

that kind of person wants to destroy me as a woman and as a person who can make equal decisions about my sex life

that kind of person is fair game and should be hung out to dry at every opportunity

hillary never did me or any other woman like that, she has ALWAYS been firmly on the side of rights for women

see the difference now?

i'm tired of being censored when it is pointed out that GOPers do the dirty with everything up to and including "box turtles" as per that rick santorum guy, they are what they are, it is not DU's job to cover up their shit

this woman didn't even give her own child proper training about sex and how to avoid making babies when you're a teen who hasn't finished her education, she is a loser who hates her OWN DAUGHTER for being female, she needs to be hung out to dry

if that offends anyone, so be it

i feel the same when it's a hypocritical man whose dirty deeds are being coverred up by DU -- the prime example being the whole victor ashe/jeff gannon/george bush crap, we all know it's true but we have to cover up for hypocrites and pretend we don't know what we perfectly well DO know?

i'm sick of it

learn how to fight or get out of the way of those who do know how

about why Palin is clearly unqualified.

I don't think the OP is saying not to attack Palin, I believe he or she is saying that we should stick to attacking Palin on the issues - like your examples - instead of focusing on how she wears her hair, or what she is wearing, etc.

Pointing out offensive body language - like the winking - is not sexist. Neither is pointing out that she uses her looks and sexuality to slide by where there are other much more qualified candidates. Or commenting on how she is willing to flirt with foreign heads of state in ways that makes them think it's okay to be patronizing (and therefore, sexist) to her, which in turn, demeans the United States. But denying her the right to own her sexuality, for example, in my opinion is sexist. So is commenting on her looks/style/etc solely to examine her looks/style/etc. in a demeaning/patronizing way. I would say the same if we were talking about a guy.

I also think that there is a big difference between saying someone is good looking (or drool worthy, or whatever) with the intent to pay a compliment or in a social and when it's said either in a professional setting or to be demeaning or to undermine someone.

His criteria, in a vain attempt at attracting Hillary voters, was only the possession of a vagina. Is that off limits to talk about, too?

which I would never do. But if I did call you an ASS wipe, which I wouldn't,
would that be Sexist?

There many of the same things were said about Edwards, some are said about Obama too.

I think the board has been remarkably free of sexism with Palin as her policy issues are so abhorrent.

I'd suggest that your turn your sites on folks who really ARE sexist, republicans and fundies like Palin herself.

If a person uses sex appeal to sell him/herself, then it is a valid topic of discussion.

wanker

I prefer TV's to be on mute when she is on. What else do we have to talk about besides how she dresses like a high class prostitute or her scandals?

Then again, I prefer the TV on mute when McCain speaks as well, and there have been plenty of posts about how he's looking sickly or stiff.

I don't see why we can't subject Palin to the same sexual scrutiny that we subject male politicians to. Clinton and Edwards went through it too. Clinton even went through the 'is he getting fat' and discussions about his current hair dye. I'd know, my mother was trying to raise me as a ditto-head at the time. I don't see any sexism in all of this, but it is a waste of time when we should really be focusing on issues. I couldn't care less if we have a president who likes to cross dress at BDSM swinger parties at the white house as long as the country gets back on track.

All I learned about sexism came during the primaries-- which is to say, there's double standards wherever we go...

r Bowl. I am going to watch the Super Bowl. I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl. I am going to watch the Super Bowl.I am going to watch the Super Bowl.

:beer:

sexist word/phrase. B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase. B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.B*tch-slap is not a sexist word/phrase.*

There, I've done my penance.

:toast:





(*There's always a sniveling little know-it-all who wants to argue about the definition of a "word" as opposed to a "phrase." Have both, asshats).

anybody think that Edwards, Dodd or Biden could have said THIS to Obama at the debates and gotten away with it?

Speaking of sexism....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5xWfEijKA

like she has numerous times. Palin is a candidate, pure and simple, entitled to no more or less deference than Biden, Obama, or McCain.

and you are calling DUers sexist?

This is no feminist. She is an affront to the principles of feminism I believe in. She does not advocate political, economic, or social equality of women. She uses her sex as a means to gain power. She is the equivalent of the black man's Uncle Tom or what Harry Belafonte called Colin Powell and Condi when he accused them of being house negroes. She's Malinka the Aztec mistress of the Spanish Conquistador Cortez who betrays her people for her personal gain. She's Scarlett O'Hara deliberately inciting the klan to defend her honor. She's Nurse Ratchet ready to destroy what she doesn't approve of. She's a one-woman lynch mob. A woman who would sleep with the boss, a starlet on a casting couch. She would sell her own daughter if it would help her get ahead.

How is any of this sexist to say about her? She is the one who acts in such a manner so as to give these comparisons validity.

I don't like her act. I don't like her wink, her beauty queen walk, her silly babytalk. I don't like much of anything about her. This is not sexist. I have been a feminist my entire life. Being like Sarah Palin is what I have been fighting against.