It's not that surprising that the Democratic candidates are running against Clinton. She is the front runner after. It's only natural that the people below her would want to bump off the top person so that they have a better chance of becoming the nominee.
You say that they should run against a failed President and the other Republican candidates. But they're already beating the Republicans. There's a very good chance that the next President will be a Democrat. If that's the case then from a self-interested perspective, it makes absolute sense to go after Clinton in order to be that person.
That's why I disagree with Ms. McEwan's position somewhat. Is she saying the other candidates would simply give up if the forerunner was a man with all of Clinton's leads and advantages? She underestimates then the ambition and drive to become President of the United States.
Look at John McCain. He must know by now that he has absolutely no chance but he's still trying.
Now, the way the other Democratic candidates are going after Clinton might be questionable but the fact that they're running against her at all is hardly unexpected.
I do agree with the rest of your article though, and it makes me glad that I don't get my news from the television. It's bad enough just reading about the media's stupid obsession with laughter and cleavage.
What else can they do? Their President has all the appeal of the mad aunt in the attic,
Now, now. If the house was on fire, I expect most here would at least try to save the mad aunt in the attic.
I don't see any reason to belittle the Dem. candidates; I didn't see anything substantial that was gender-bashing that you could attribute to them.
Even if we had a male with a 30-point lead, I don't remember any primary where they still didn't try to go through the motions. And here we have a much closer race, with Obama or Edwards (or both) within five points of her in each state.
I think after seeing a legacy name that was terrible that mentioning legacy is reasonable, and something she has to show why she stands on her own feet. Besides, it gives reason to define herself.
And secondly, she is the establishment candidate, in a party who is disappointed with the establishment - centrists like Sen. Feinstein and ex Dem. Sen. Liebermann.
How are those two points not legitimate points she needs to deal with?
Augh. I should've read more today before posting anything... Edwards just killed any chance of my support: http://plantsforhillary.com/
What the heck, man? 'Questions are hard...' Sexist BS, grr.
"One recent example is the McCain staffer talking about "how to beat the bitch." Once it got out, did McCain have to fire the person? No, he turned it into a fundraising event."
A McCain STAFFER??!! Where the hell do you get your information. Obviously the person was a McCain supporter, but calling on McCain to "fire" a person that isn't even on the campaign payroll is going a bit far.
Sexist? You DO realize that it was a WOMAN that made the statement, don't you?! BTW, comparing "bitch" to "nigger" is not fair. The equivalent to "bitch" is "bastard" or "asshole". The equivalent to "nigger" is "cunt".
Normally, your posts are usually well reasoned, even if I don't agree with you, Q. In this case, you didn't do your homework and you setup an non-equivalent strawman to prove your premise.
You DO realize that it was a WOMAN that made the statement, don't you?
Oh. Well, that's ok then. That's some right fine Uncle Ruckus logic, there.
you know jfh, one thing that has wearied and angered me my entire life is when somebody who has no fucking idea in the world what they are talking about explains to me the real meaning of the racial slurs that are being hurled at me and mine. i've been told that "indian" or "redskin" are not perjoratives at all, merely group descriptions. and let us not forget the nuances of the term "halfbreed" (which, by the way, is the one that specifically applies to me). after all, one would expect somebody who has been to college and shit like me to understand exactly where you belaangaana are coming from and what you mean on the higher planes of intellect. you know what?
i do. i know exactly what you assholes mean when you deign to explain to a benighted savage like myself what you really mean. when you parse the differences between "nigger" "jungle bunny" "mullatto" "creole" "bitch" "cunt" "ho" and the thousands of other terms you guys manage to conjure up in the course of conversation. and do you know how i know? i know because i have lived my entire life having to be tuned sharp into the context of what it means when white people describe me to myself. when i left the rez to go to school i usually had mere moments to figure out the context of the terms that the group of football players in my face were using. i bored right in on the context of the terms that cheerleader's father was using when he explained to me why his daughter was grounded on the night we were supposed to go to the movies.
i learned that context talking to motherfuckers just like you. one of the special contexts i've learned to jingle my alarms begins with "i'm not a racist." yeah, right.
we are so tuned to your people and the thinly disguised slights and slurs because we have had to be. for. our. very. survival. it's been around for so long that we even have a proverb just for how you folks are. it goes like this.
iichá yaa hizdah
chich'ii bitsen yénaldi'ih
(the axe forgets
the tree remembers)
taza, the son of cochise said that. now, please, just fuck off. don't explain to those of us who know and understand exactly what your meaning and context is the finer points of you bigotry. because. we. already. know.
What Minstrel said.
Parsing which word is "worse" is just every shade of jackassery. Sexist language, like racist language, is marginalizing and demeaning. Full. Stop. The people who are marginalized and demeaned by it take little comfort from the fact that the people who use it only mean to marginalize and demean us "this much" with "this word" and "that much" with "that word." Get real.
This post has yet more unbelievably sexist crap Hillary has to suffer at the hands of the media.
Think back to the Kennedy political family.
This is terrific example of what's wrong with this post! Apparently you've never heard that at the time there were snotty comments about "the hand-me-down presidency"! Whether you like it or not presidential dynasties are not healthy for American politics.
You've managed to dismiss several very real problems in the name of lambasting everyone who dislikes her as a sexist.
?????
Um, you are aware that feminst lesbian Pam Spaulding routinely refers to her as "Shillary"???
The reality is that there is a sexist problem, but that Hillary also is a very, very flawed candidate. Yes, a lot of her positions are mainstream, but at the end of the day she also is a Clinton.
That is both a blessing and also a curse, and recognizing that does not automatically make me sexist!
Um, you are aware that feminst lesbian Pam Spaulding routinely refers to her as "Shillary"???
I'm not sure why this is a "counter" to Q's post. The whole point is that Hillary isn't judged on substance as much as style, so to speak. "Shillary" refers to the fact that Hillary's a corporate shill. That's not sexist mockery; that's substantive mockery, as it were. No one (that I can see) is objecting to that.
That is both a blessing and also a curse, and recognizing that does not automatically make me sexist!
Nowhere in Q's post does it say that acknowledging Hillary isn't a flawless candidate makes someone a sexist.
In fact, I can't even tell from Q's post what Q's actual opinion of Hillary as a candidate is. For all I know, Q dislikes Hillary as much as I do. There's absolutely no suggestion that "everyone who dislikes her [is] a sexist."
It's a post about how Hillary is being judged, and you don't have to love Hillary -- or expect everyone else to love her -- to think that she's being treated unfairly.
You know I love you more than chocolate cookies, Oddjob, but it's really unfair to accuse Q of having said that "everyone who dislikes her [is] a sexist" anywhere in this post.
I, for one, dislike Hillary very strongly as a candidate, and I'm driven absolutely batty by the unalloyed, all-pervasive sexism in how the media and other candidates respond to her. It drives me mad fuckin' nuts.
"Oh. Well, that's ok then. That's some right fine Uncle Ruckus logic, there."
PLEASE, based on Q's post, it's pretty obvious that he/she didn't know that it was a woman that made the statement. So are you saying that ALL women that refer to other women as "bitches" are sexists?!
minstrel, your very nickname could be perceived as racist, given the historical context of the term. So are "Native Americans" that prefer the term "Indian" racists? What about the majority of Native Americans that are not offended by Indian mascots.
I know I'm practically talking to a brick wall when I say this, but has it ever occurred to y'all that just because you and the circles you travel in are not necessarily representive of the general population nor of any specific subset of our diverse American community.
Finally, I while I have used the term Indian and Redskin (the latter only when discussing the NFL team), I have never used the other terms you list in reference to a person or people. That said, is creole really a racial slur? Any more than calling the old communities along the SC and GA coast "gullah"? 'Cus I know people that are PROUD to call themselves gullah.
Okay, so why is bringing up the matter of a dynastic presidency unacceptable? Q's assertion appears to be that it's just the last refuge of scoundrels.
No, thanks, and I resent the idea!
'Cus I know people that are PROUD to call themselves gullah.
People are often proud to call themselves things that they would be decidedly unhappy if someone else called them.
It's completely mendacious to pretend that a black person who refers to him/herself as a n----r is the same as a white people referring to him/her as a n----r. Or, for that matter, my calling myself Queen Cunt is equivalent to some random guy calling me a cunt.
Crap, I need to modify my previous post... I HAVE called women "bitches", but I've also called men "dicks" and I've called both "assholes". In my mind, a female that's acting like a "dick" is a bitch and a male that's acting like a "bitch" is a "dick". If that's sexist I'll cop to it.
My point, 'Liss, is that the term creole and gullah are NOT racist terms as minstel would believe... They are real cultures that exist and to label these names as racist is kind of totalitarian.
That said, is creole really a racial slur?
Oy..........
It depends upon the context in which it's used. To a linguist a creole is what happens when two different languages merge into a third, the way English formed out of Norman French and Anglo-Saxon German, or the way Haitian creole formed out of French and the West African languages brought by the imported slaves.
There are other people who use the term in other ways, incluing as a slur.
Q's assertion appears to be that it's just the last refuge of scoundrels.
That's not my reading. My reading is that specifically people who have spoke admiringly about the Kennedy and Bush dynasties suddenly have a problem with the Clinton dynasty. I can't speak for Q, obviously, but I suspect someone who has had a problem with dynasties generally isn't the target of the ire here. It's the people who, for example, don't bring up the problem of dynasties when Jeb is discussed as a possible future candidate (it's always "W. ruined his chances"), but do bring it up in relation to Hillary.
You're totally right, Oddjob, that people did moan about the Kennedy dynasty, but there were just as many people who spoke (and still do speak!) glowingly of Camelot.
And some of them nonetheless moan incessantly about the problem of the Clinton dynasty.
If that's sexist I'll cop to it.
It is.
oddjob, did not know that broad linguist definition of creole (by that definition the gullah language, dialect(?), would be creole). I was refering more to the heritage of the LA creole culture as being similar to the SC/GA gullah culture.
People that consider themselves gullah are VERY proud to call themselves as such.
They are real cultures that exist and to label these names as racist is kind of totalitarian.
Bullshit. Minstrel clearly wasn't saying the names themselves are racist, but that in certain contexts they can be. Like "Indian," the example he used, which is also associated with a "real culture that exists."
There's a lot of nuance with this sort of language; it's hardly as simplistically black-and-white as you suggest.
"If that's sexist I'll cop to it.
It is."
But WHY? My wife uses the same terms, also... why is "bitch" worse than "dick"? (Granted I shouldn't use either term, but some people are just obnoxious jerks and deserve it, and yeah, I sure I've been called similar terms).
And, frankly, either we are going to judge people on their merits, or we aren't. If we are, then it does not matter who your relatives are, by marriage or otherwise.
Um, yes, it does. It does in this case and for this reason. They openly stated they were a co-presidency the first time around. They will certainly be so this time, too.
This particular candidate has already been a co-president and therefore her running as the lead co-president instead of the non-lead is problematic.
It's not sexist to acknowledge this.
(Change that to, "It's not necessarily sexist to acknowledge this and to worry about it.")
But WHY? My wife uses the same terms, also...
Oh, well, if your WIFE does it...lol.
why is "bitch" worse than "dick"?
Did I say that it was? They're both sex-specific terms. When was the last time you recall me referring to Bush as a dick, prick, cock, etc.?
MB ..so very well said, and thanks from this indan in Indiana ...
Hilary has been the catalyst for right wing rage since forever ...mention her name in certain circles and feel the hate......ask any one of them to explain their irrationality and expect to hear excuse and vitriol; seldom logic ...
by that definition the gullah language, dialect(?), would be creole
Probably. I'm not familiar enough with gullah to know for certain. I know that's Clarence Thomas's heritage, but I don't know enough about gullah speech to know for sure that it's a creole or not. I suspect it may be so.
I think August has something relevant to say here. His post is about race, not gender, but it's worth thinking about anyhow.
Good point, 'Liss, I'll start calling 'em all assholes... though I'll be honest,in my opinion, there really isn't a gender neutral term that equates with bitch, dick and prick (cock in my experience is a bit more lame than those other terms.)
And I still claim that the terms "cunt" and "nigger" are in a different class, and I'd bet society would back me up on this.
Hey, great discussion, gotta go rake leaves...
This us of 'bitch' as an epithet has been in the right-wing email ciruit, probably as a sort of product testing, for months. I get forwards from a contractor I do business with (and am sending 'em to "MY RIGHT_WING DAD), loathsome things, and last spring one was a t-shirt design, with a Hillary pic and the legend "Lifes a bitch, don't vote for one".
The bigot have called Obama a nigger as soon as they became aware of his existence, and Edwards 'the Breck Girl' and faggot. Call it 'uncivil' and the old 'political correctness card is played.
You can't call Guiliani "Mayor Soprano" without some dickhead getting offended. You can't ask Romney about holy undergarments without his getting his shorts in a twist, so to speak.
You could ask the republicans if Mrs. Thatcher was strident, and if so then why not. This campaign to demonize Mrs. Clinton has been in the offing for a while. There are still folks who belive she killed Vincent Foster, and is solely responsible for the failure of the Health Care reforms under Clinton1.
not that it has any relevance but "minstrel" is an abbreviation of "the minstrel boy" from the thomas more song. . .not that it matters in the slightest. you missed my point entirely. i knew you would. folks like you always do. it's part of your discrete charm.
Like minstrel, I too have been down the very same path, virtually every step of it and I just love it when some white asswipe like JFH defines what it means to us who have suffered it since we were little kind. And like minstrel I too am literally a halfbreed but when that term comes out of the mouth of some fucking 6ft 6in Swede logger it ain't no term of endearment I can promise you. You bastards stole our land, our identity, our language and our livelehood and since then you have blamed it all on us! Just try being called a drunken, lazy Siwash a few times and you might understand what it's like although I doubt it.
Shit, when I turned 21 I could not legally buy a beer in the state where I was born, Washington, despite being an officer in the Air Force. And every bar had a sign: WE DO NOT SERVE DRUNKS AND INDIANS. And don't think we didn't notice that we cane after DRUNKS. And you can go here and read about what happened to one of my antecedents. And another still lies in an unmarked grave at Wounded Knee.
Shit, I had to hide my native antecedents just to get into flying school in the US Air Force. And to stay in. Back in those days no blacks or brown skinned boys allowed was the golden rule. And I had to hear that kind of shit every day from my Squadron commander because the other Squadron on the field had a black commander, a left over from WWII who was universally known as Capt. Midnight. And they were NOT referring to some comic book hero I can assure you.
So you can take all your phony explnations and shove 'em way up where the sun ain't gonna ever shine!
"That's the difference I'm talking about. These days, racism has to be covered up, at least in public."
It's true. No sensible person support it...racism is quickly becoming a ugly memory.
What?
They never taught effective proof reading out in the bush where I went to school. Sorry! 
NO Problem GRUMPY, I am literally unable to proofread my own stuff effectivly. And I proofread a small town paper, once upon a time..
Crap, I need to modify my previous post
no, jfh, what needs modification is your ass and your fucking life.
get. busy.
Thanks for the kind Mr. Bill. Normally I proof read fairly well but when I am angry it all goes out the window.
quixote, I have just one quibble:
Dubya is not "George the Second".
He is the second "Bush" in office, but not the second "George".
George Washington was the first US president named "George".
Dubya's father was the second.
Dubya himself is the third, thus "George the Third" or "George III".
Setting that aside....
Of course gender bias a.k.a. sexism is not an issue when men vote for men and would never consider voting for a woman.
Gender and sexism only become an issue when a woman is running for office based on her policies, her competence, and her record of dedication to the public good.
That's why it's Hillary's own doing that gender etc. became an issue in this election.
Obviously nothing her opponents are doing, have done, or could ever conceivably do, deserve any blame in the matter.
re comments regarding McCain's supporter: my error in calling her a staffer has been fixed. That was tangential to my main point that he felt no need to distance himself from the bigotry. Yes, I'm aware she's female. Bigotry is the equally bad no matter who's doing it. Being a member of the group you're dissing doesn't give you a free pass. It just makes you look like an even bigger fool.
re dismissing real problems with Clinton: this post wasn't about the real problems. Sure there are real problems. She triangulates. She's mainstream at a time when the stream is so polluted it looks a lot like a superfund site. She fundraises wherever she can, sleazy Fortune 500 included. In other words, she's a national-level politician. Yes, those are real problems. Yes, we need to discuss them FOR ALL THE MAINSTREAM CANDIDATES. And that's my point. Triangulation doesn't seem to draw the same fire when the other candidates do it. Equal treatment is the point.
re dynasties: well, my impression of the attitude to the Kennedy dynasty was probably colored by the fact that I was a kid growing up in Boston at the time. 
I'm not saying there wasn't any head-shaking over silver spoons and getting too many breaks. Sure there were. But I don't remember any suggestions saying that a person should be automatically disqualified if they were any relation, even by marriage. That seems to have started with Hillary. And that's the part I find so symptomatic.
Grumpy, one of these days I'm taking a trip to Spain just to visit you. Funny, how people like you, minstrel, most everyone here, who've felt it, have no trouble understanding the point. People who haven't can't seem to see it with a telescope. If I was a better writer, maybe I could provide a higher-power scope....
Chet, that's a brilliant link, btw. Makes the point about what privilege means about as clearly as it can be made. Another good link for people who are interested in understanding is Robert Jensen's article on white privilege:
Here's what white privilege sounds like:
I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.
The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.
So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.
He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."
sly civilian: if you read the post, you'll notice I didn't say racism -- or any other bigotry -- is nothing but a memory. If only. What I'm talking about is the need to hide it, because *at the very least* it has become unacceptable to display in public. That's only the first step toward becoming really unacceptable, but at least it's a step.
That seems to have started with Hillary.
Running for president after having been co-president for two consecutive terms already will do that.
That seems to have started with Hillary.
Running for president after having been co-president for two consecutive terms already will do that.
Then why didn't it start earlier, say with George HW Bush after two consecutive terms of Reagan/Bush?
I hate being late to the party.
I don't speak for Minstrel or GOM any more than they speak for me, but I prefer: registered member of the Cherokee Nation.
it's interesting that sexism is the most strenuously ignored bigotry we have right now.
I hate to be the language policing type, especially since I agree with the key point, but might I ask for a little caution in declaring any kind of bigotry 'the most' anything? That invites the oppression olympics, IMO.
At least, my gut reaction was to go there. I stopped myself, realizing it would have been pointless to question if there is a more strenuously ignored bigotry. But, still, better to avoid tempting people into that distraction.
Well, Lyle, I notice that when Minstrel and GOM talk about their experiences here, they're listened to with respect and without being "corrected". As far as I know, both these posters identify as male.
However, when women talk about their similar experiences (e.g. knowing that we're being treated with disrespect strictly because we're female), it's a constant stream of "Well, no, it's not sexism, it's because of all these other reasons."
Minority men are often "heard" better than women of any race (JFH's posts notwithstanding). Therefore, it stands to reason that sexism is going to be the last bigotry to go.
Oh, and I meant "JFH notwithstanding". I know he was being particularly obtuse, whether he meant to be or not.
I also absolutely believe it WILL BE the last bigotry to go. If a man and woman with similar "oppressions" (at least any I can think of) apply for a job, the man has the better shot at getting it. A man lacking a certain kind of privilege will almost always be taken more seriously than a woman lacking the same privilege.
This is getting too tangled. 
But I think you know what I mean. If I've offended anyone trying to belabor the point I apologize in advance.
It's like no one knows who the real enemy is... or their real friends.
JFH forgot that the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.
aside to burning prairie: when the white mountain apache refer to themselves we use the word indii referring to people who are not us we use inda except for belaangaana (literally white eyes) for shithead white men. good white men are inda like other human beings.
when we introduce ourselves we use our medicine name (or warrior name if appropriate to the occaision), our clan affiliation (born to the father's clan born for the mother's) our warrior society, then any honors. we figure those trump white man's registration, but yeah, we got them too.
y'aata'alikesh, sú, cassidy, sheakah, itisgo.
that should have been súl for flute clan. . .cassidy was me da's clan.
and cara, i'm not sure which bigotry will be the last to go. i fear that you are correct.
Hey, I have a great sense of humor about it. I make their kids stop calling me by my husband's last name and teach them my impossibly long Greek one instead.
Agreed though, there really is just a nice little veneer covering the bigotry coursing under the surface, and it's cracking faster than I expected.
I don't know, Minstrel. I'm not saying I think it's WORSE than dealing with racism. I don't. That's where the yardstick Lyle was trying to avoid comes in, and I agree that it's pointless to dig it out.
"iichá yaa hizdah
chich'ii bitsen yénaldi'ih
(the axe forgets the tree remembers)"
minstrel, I love you and want to have your virtual babies.
Quixote said: "Bigotry has to be ignored to be maintained, so it's interesting that sexism is the most strenuously ignored bigotry we have right now."
This thread is proving that point, AFAIC.
"not that it has any relevance but "minstrel" is an abbreviation of "the minstrel boy" from the thomas more song"
Oh, wait, you mean a name you call yourself (or a word you might use) might be misinterpreted as racist by another person?!
If you're looking for racism or sexism in someone's language or actions you're gonna find it, whether that person means it or not.
'Liss says:
"There's a lot of nuance with this sort of language; it's hardly as simplistically black-and-white as you suggest."
And I agree. But, for some strange reason, everything I write seems to be black and white to y'all. If I say I'm surprised to find out that minstrel is an Indian, maybe it's because I don't know that he/she is Choctaw, Sioux (which is a controversy in itself), Apache, Cherokee, Hopi, Navajo, Ojibwa, etc.
Look, you've made judgments about me based on my comments in some issues... I note that even when I agree with a particular point of view, some STILL take potshots at my character. I don't quite understand that.
JFH, I find your use of he/she to be genderist, and inappropriate. If someone uses gender indeterminate, there's no reason to toss around extra pronouns when they have a name, and we have, ya know, 'they'.
The internet is a great equalizer. But yet, fewer women, minorities have access to it.
So cop to your sexist language, and get on with it. Really, I doubt anyone would be making a big deal over the bitch comment if it weren't such a glowing point for the McCain campaign. They haven't disavowed the comment, apologized, or given back any of the money garnered under it.
That's what makes it bad, not that he let some supporter say it in the first place.
Poor language shouldn't be condoned, even tacitly.
GRUMPY OLD MAN,
You're a racist, anti-white bull-shitter. You're not fit to tie the white-man shoes, you bum.
Toss-Up ...
I was pretty well convinced that sexism was the last bigotry to go, it was after all the first to arrive.... then rantyson (later than usual to the party) shows up ...held over at the klan soir'ee boy, or just wanking as usual? I'm not a bit surprised that boy needs help tying his shoes ....
I don't think anyone can successfully defend themselves against the charge of racism or sexism. Anyone who understands the effects of either is going to doubt they are talking to the first person unaffected by our social norms.
All you can do is either make the effort to keep trying to reform your thinking whenever someone points out a prejudice, or just give up on the whole endaevour as an eternal struggle you have no real interest in.
The only redeeming quality of political correctness is that it attempts to alter the message the next generation will receive from us about race, gender, etc... So, in that sense, there's some value in the 'fake it till you make it' approach.
BTW, I know too many people from India to even read the label "Indian" and think of anything but the nationality or the cuisine, it's kind of jarring to see it used differently.
You're a racist, anti-white bull-shitter. You're not fit to tie the white-man shoes, you bum.
My how charming our little Randy Dingle Dandy is today.
And that's just what you would like wouldn't you you useless racist prick. All us brown and black skinned under mench were bending down and tying you lazy, fat fucking white mens shoes. And taking it up the ass from holier than thou cocksuckers like yourself.
Well Randy old son, I've never bent over for any cocksucker, no matter what color he was unles he was someone who had my unending respect and there have only been two of those in my life. The woman I'm married to and my grandfather who raised me. But they never expected me to bend down to them which is perhaps why I respect them so much. I doubt if you can understand it seeing as how you'll obviously bend down and take a mouth full of dick from any turd if he happens to have his fucking collar on backwards or is a theiving, lying GOP politico. 
"Bigotry has to be ignored to be maintained, so it's interesting that sexism is the most strenuously ignored bigotry we have right now."
Portly Dyke: "This thread is proving that point, AFAIC."
Yup.
Toss-Up ...
I was pretty well convinced that sexism was the last bigotry to go, it was after all the first to arrive.... then rantyson (later than usual to the party) shows up ...held over at the klan soir'ee boy, or just wanking as usual? I'm not a bit surprised that boy needs help tying his shoes ....
amish451 | 11.18.07 - 9:43 am
Like I said, Amish--I don't think it's worse, by any stretch. Just a different breed (if you will) of stupid and pathetic insecurity issues.
You'll note that I didn't say "unfounded insecurity issues"--just stupid and pathetic.
Miz McEwan! Randyson's playing with his peepee again!
Wankyson, speaking as a white man, I wish you would go paint yourself green or purple or some other color. You and others like you give the rest of us a bad name.
"JFH, I find your use of he/she to be genderist, and inappropriate. If someone uses gender indeterminate, there's no reason to toss around extra pronouns when they have a name, and we have, ya know, 'they'."
This got to be parody, right, Crissa?... "they" is completely inappropriate if the sentence is using the third person singular. I should have used "he" as I know minstrel is a male...
In this case, however, I meant to change "minstrel" to "a person" because I wanted to address the situation discussed by both minstrel and Burning Prairie, but I forgot to change it before posting.
Maybe PD can help out here. Am I right in using he/she or should I be less "genderist" and more grammatically incorrect and use the third person plural pronoun.
...stupid and pathetic...
I'll not argue that ...
Toss-Up was not meant to imply a degree of worse ...as much as which has longevity ...stupid and pathetic will no doubt outlive both...
From one who knows I can tell all of you that there is no such thing as a difference in types of bigotry. You either are a bigot or you are not. And if you are it makes not a bit of difference if you hate blacks, Muslims, women or what ever the people in power have put into your mind.
No one is born a bigot. It is something you must be taught according to Mr. Nelsen Mandela, a man who spent 27 years in prison for the simple reason that he thought all men were born equal and should have equal rights.
And a person, any person, man or woman who treats someone as if they were of less value because of their gender is a bigot. And if they could get away with it they would put all of us who believe differently into prison for ever. 
my biggest problem with the whole thing is that motherfuckers like randyson and jfh think that all they need to be is white and that somehow provides them with dominion over "the others."
look, back to the subject of the post, i don't got a lotta love in my heart for hillary clinton. i've written posts about the problems i have with supporting her. it has nothing to do with her being female. doesn't figure into the equation one way or the other. my problems aren't with the tone of her voice or the look on her face or the cut of her blouse. same with barack obama. i have not gone into support for him and it has nothing to do with race. there's a lot to like about both clinton and obama. if they are the nominee i will have no problem voting for them. except while chris dodd, bill richardson, john edwards, and dennis are still going on the trail, my mind isn't made up. that's all.
note to jfh and randyson and their racist, sexist, christiopathic buddies:
IF YOU MOTHERFUCKERS SHOOT OBAMA WE WILL BLOW. SHIT. UP.
that is all, you've been warned.
One only has to look back to Gore-Bush to understand what the traditional media(especially Matthews, Maureen Dowd, etc) does to the dems, and some dems play along with the narrative! The game has just started and it will get worse.
P.S. I arrived late to the party.
Excellent post, Quixote.
Of course gender bias a.k.a. sexism is not an issue when men vote for men and would never consider voting for a woman.
Gender and sexism only become an issue when a woman is running for office based on her policies, her competence, and her record of dedication to the public good.
That's why it's Hillary's own doing that gender etc. became an issue in this election.
Obviously nothing her opponents are doing, have done, or could ever conceivably do, deserve any blame in the matter.
Pyre | 11.17.07 - 12:48 pm | #
Am I reading this wrong? Hillary has inserted sexism into the race merely by running?
Same logic as women are to be blamed for being raped.
That seems to have started with Hillary.
Running for president after having been co-president for two consecutive terms already will do that.
Then why didn't it start earlier, say with George HW Bush after two consecutive terms of Reagan/Bush?
Even as Vice President George joked about how he mostly stood in for Reagan at other country's funerals. He was hardly a co-president in that administation.
That's why it's Hillary's own doing that gender etc. became an issue in this election.
Obviously nothing her opponents are doing, have done, or could ever conceivably do, deserve any blame in the matter.
So......
That there's sexism in the society means that it's Hillary's fault for making us aware of this by virtue of her having the uppitiness to run for president?
I see............
Thanks for the language lesson, Minstrel. I find languages fascinating.
I don't think that sexism will be the last bigotry to go. Neither one of those platforms has a fat person on it.
Folks, I think you've misunderstood Pyre's point.
It's not Clinton bringing gender bias into the campaign.
It's that people don't see gender bias when angry white men are appealed to.
They only see gender bias when women are involved.
It's not about Clinton. It's about the bias of the people looking at her.
Okay, but why is their bias her fault? I agree that the best way to get a clear demonstration of such a bias is to have the bias's object run for political leadership, but why call that "her fault" as if she's guilty of doing something bad?
At worst that particular aspect of her campaign is prophetic. It's the speaking of truth to power, which is a good thing (albeit an unpleasant one).
Honestly, Oddjob, I find Hillary a bit too abrasive and always have. It's just a personal thing, and no, I don't find the more "soft spoken" types to be any more pleasant. There is just something abrasive and polarizing about Hillary, which I think leads to this view more than her gender.
I do mean "abrasive" in the a different sense than many will probably take that comment though, as I somehow find the idea of Patti Smith, PJ Harvey and Sarah Silverman less abrasive in the terms that matter to me. It's an issue of seeming honest, and perhaps I just don't trust anyone too establishment.
(For the record, I'd be much, much happier with another nominee than her, not because I have a problem voting for a woman, but because as I've indicated upthread, I have problems with her. As a gay man, I don't trust her. I accept that she'll probably, on the whole, be better for me than a Republican will, but if that's the best I can do it's hardly an endorsement of her!)
jeanne marie (11.19.07 - 8:00 am) and oddjob (11.19.07 - 1:35 pm) regarding Pyre (11.17.07 - 12:48 pm)
Am I reading this wrong? Hillary has inserted sexism into the race merely by running?
I think Pyre meant the exact opposite. I read the whole comment with heavy overtones of dripping sarcasm. Notice that Pyre followed the quote you used with Obviously nothing her opponents are doing, have done, or could ever conceivably do, deserve any blame in the matter. Now, we know that's not true; ergo, Pyre meant the exact opposite. I'm about the world's worst at reading subtext, and even *I* caught the raging scorn in that comment.
Starwatcher (11.20.07 - 8:11 am) : Yep.
Oddjob--I have horrid problems voting due to my hatred of the two party partisan insanity system. Your comment is an example of the worst of it, IMHO. You don't WANT to vote for whoever, but it's better than the other guy (not being sexist, it just so far has been the other "guy").
That's why it's good to just pay attention locally, vote based on that, and if you're in a red state like me, thank the electoral college for letting you vote for Nader without it really "giving the election" to anyone.
Commenting by HaloScan
