'Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of her gender'
February 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Phil, a longtime reader, sees pro-female sexism in the controversy over Bill Clinton's recent role in Hillary's campaign. He writes:
"Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of her gender. While the former President is widely condemned, Hillary is even portrayed sympathetically for 'putting up with Bill's antics yet again.' In contrast, when Elizabeth Edwards criticized Ann Coulter for Ann's distorted criticisms of her husband, John was ridiculed as hiding behind Elizabeth's skirts."
I think he has a point. From the beginning I figured it would play out like this. Bill and Hillary work to get Hillary elected. If Hillary wins, it's Hillary's win. If she loses, it's Bill's fault, at least partly. I don't know how far this will go, but I think the post-South Carolina events Phil mentions support this theory.
On a related note, during the recent California Democratic debate the following exchange occurred:
Moderator: Senator Clinton, your husband has set off several firestorms in the last few weeks in early primary states with the way that he has criticized Senator Obama. Greg Craig, who was one of your husband's top lawyers campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?
CLINTON: Well, one thing I think is fair to say, both Barack and I have very passionate spouses...
OBAMA: We do, no doubt.
CLINTON: ... who promote and defend us at every turn. You know, but the fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign. And I have made it very clear that I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues that I'm concerned about, the kind of future that I want for our country, the work that I have done for all of these years. And that is what the campaign is about. And of course, I'm thrilled to have my husband and my daughter, who is here tonight, you know, representing me and traveling around the country speaking with people, but at the end of the day, it's my name that is on the ballot, and it will be my responsibility as president and commander in chief, after consulting broadly with a lot of people who have something to contribute to difficult decisions, I will have to make the call. And I am fully prepared to do that.
CLINTON: And I know that as we go forward in this campaign, it's a choice between the two of us. And we are proud of our spouses, we're proud of our families, we're proud of everybody supporting us. But at the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House, and it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do.
What Hillary said was OK, I guess, but I thought it was a little underwhelming. I would have been more impressed if she defended her husband more directly.
Phil also writes:
"It was particularly evident in the Nevada debate that Hillary's sex afforded her the special privilege to preempt her male opponents, and the moderator, if she chose to speak out-of- turn. There are numerous examples, but consider that she was permitted to ask two debate questions of the other candidates although the moderator enforced a limit of only one to the male opponents."
I didn't see the Nevada debate, but I did see the last New Hampshire one and then the California one this past week, and I didn't see Hillary preempting her opponents or being treated with any extra deference. If readers have seen this during the debates, feel free to chime in.
"));
19 queries. 0.416 seconds.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
If Hillary is other than comparatively nice (compared to Bill) to Barrack Obama in public, she can perceived not only as a racist, but a 'bitch'. I think she is both to great extent because she has allowed Bill to engage in the facade of seeking Afro-American votes in S.C. while they were getting trounced in S.C. so that they could potentially get at least some kind of white reaction elsewhere especially in the South. As for being a 'bitch', WHAT I MEAN is that she is overbearing, scornful, and vendictive by nature based on what heard and read about her over the years, the female form of the term 'bully'.
By the way her sitting in silence on the corporate board of Walmart is very hypocritcal in the sense that she claims to be this big supporter of unions. Apparently that is only at presidential election time. (I myself have mixed feelings toward unions.)
Mike
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Check out all the Ron Paul videos on YouTube.
I think he’s the only one running who deserves the job.
If you don’t like what this man stands for, then I think America is not your kind of country.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul&search_type=&search=Search
Kevin Merck
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I agree in virtually every aspect! I used to vote for Libertarians before I ever got close to being divorced.
Mike
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Ron Paul used to be a member of the Libertarian Party and its presidential candidate a number of times if I remember correctly. Unfortunately, to be a person who actually believes in the U.S. Constitution in terms of more than lipservice makes you a radical today. And conversely, to believe in 'from each according to his (or her) ability, and to each according to his (or her) need' is referred to as 'for the common good' primarily by Democrats and especially Hillary. (Not that Barrack isn't at least publicly to his left, and that most Democrats are the foremost sexists and presumably the foremost racists as well.)
Mike
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hillary is a manipulative hypocrite in every sense. Just like your typical feminist she has entitlement/superwoman issues that conflict with her victim issues. She's playing the public like a fiddle. She doesn't care about women's rights. Like your typical sociopath she doesn't see women or anybody else as worthwhile but as a means to an end. Obama is not only more stable but also more honest than Hillary. And he doesn't indulge in crying jags. I personally vote conservative. But if I had to choose a democrat it would be without a doubt Obama.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It helped this lady when she cried - her support seemed to go up since then.
I think she's a pig. Anyone who would say "women are the primary victims of war" will never get my vote. Maybe she should tell that to a guy who's had his legs blown off.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I don't like Hillary for some things she has said, like the 'primary victims' quote that Norman mentions above, and the ideas about gender that are behind it.
But when I watched the California debate earlier today, she came across as a very good candidate, a good debater and very much acting as an equal. She was not treated with extra deference, and I suspect some people are reading gender into some actions slightly too much.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
George, Hillary is a professional con artist. A good con artist wears a suit and says all the right words. Plus, politicians are packaged. Her campaign manager/strategist probably told her to stop speaking her mind because she was burying herself and to start saying what the public wants to hear. But it's too late. The cat's out of the bag: she's schizo. But give it time. I'm sure she's going to slip up and show her true colors. Like all feminists who read from a script, she doesn't know how to act any other way for very long. She can't suppress the monster much longer especially as we get down to the wire.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
George and Glenn:
The California debate is not a good example of deference to her because only Obama was on the stage. By contrast, in Nevada she had to face-off against both Edwards and Obama. When the three of them tried to speak simultaneously to make a point, the gentlemen nearly always let Hillary have the stage. Also, as noted, the moderator held both Edwards and Obama to the limit of a single debate question for the other candidates, but Hillary got two...she just took the extra one.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hillary, much to my disgust, has an excellent chance to become the next President; it is her race to lose at this point, it would appear. That notwithstanding, the woman operates under a world view that, as a woman, she is and has been oppressed and is the victim of the patriarchy which still has a misogynistic stranglehold on our society. In her mind, there is no conflict or contradiction involved -- no cognitive dissonance at all. Is it a coincidence that she is also reported by many to be a mean, nasty, bullying harpy personally? Do any of the candidates have the same reputation for personal callousness? Not to mention domestic violence? She is a scary person already, even as I shudder to remember that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Bush has been a disaster, but I have a sinking feeling that we are headed from the frying pan into the fire.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Jay R, the frying pan analogy makes me shudder. I look at the aftermath of feminism and if you go to a feminist site you find women who have no problem with the feminist nightmare that we're experiencing. You mention a lack of cognitive dissonance. Anyone who would vote a woman into office simply because she's a woman is a threat to any nation. These are the type of women who would marry Scott Petersen if given the chance because they think he's cute. In other words important decisions are being made by mindless people.
You mention absolute power corrupts absolutely. The presidency is one of the few jobs that is truly more than it is cracked up to be. Just look at Bush and how the presidency has aged him. Imagine Hillary confronting the bully nations of this world. Imagine what might have happened if Hillary was the president during 9-11. i believe that her outlook is too narrow to take on rogue nations like Korea, Iran, Syria, Germany, Venezuela and Russia. But I fear that she will become president because too many feminists only want power and damn the consequences of their actions.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I have met some women during my life whom I would trust without reservation to be president of this country.
Hillary is not one of them.
She does not seem to be motivated by anyhting other than her personal ambitions.
She does not seem to be interested in the opportunity to improve this country -- she is interested in the opportunity of being elected.
Big difference.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I heard one of Billary's propossed agenda's is to get a small army of Bloggers (for information disemination purposses).
Guys, the Now girls may have contacted her, and told her there are serious information leaks that they cannot handle in the blogshere.
I'm in no way a conspiracy type guy, I just think now that men are communicating again with each other on the internet, It's somewhat scary to those that want all the communication to flow from a large media source one way into the man, and not from man to man.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I'm counting on the Freudian factors to rescue us from the prospect of a Hillary Presidency.
She reminds way too many men and a surprisingly large number of younger women of the hectoring, lecturing, arrogant Mommy Figure who just could not shut up and stop giving instructions.
Having Hillary give a State of the Union Address would be like listening to your Mom harangue you to go clean up your room, saying the same thing over and over for an hour and a half.
I just cannot believe America has devolved to this level to believe that this particular individual deserves to be President because of her genitalia.
What qualifies her, other than that she has consistently had the good grace to be out of town while Bill has sex with his bimbos?
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Stephen is correct: Clinton IS a professional con artist. She's every bit as much a "very good candidate" for POTUS as Stalin was a "very good leader".
Most, if not all candidates lie to some extent or other. Clinton merely takes her lying to new extremes. And for "very much acting as an equal", how many MALE candidates feel the need to employ their spouses as "pit bulls" against the opposition? For an "independent, strong woman", Clinton certainly doesn't score points there........ Hell, if she had not married Bill Clinton, she would not even be a senator, today!
And then there's her outright pandering to women to vote for her, simply because she was born with a vagina. Worst part of THAT is that many women will do precisely that...... not to mention more than a few vaginized men.
But it's her hectoring, nagging voice that ought to be the dead giveaway to you, George. Any long-time married man ought to recognize the voice of any angry, resentful middle-aged woman when he hears it.......... and with quite a few of those men yearningly fantasize about eating a bullet rather than be forced to listen to it.
And then there's her REAL political perspectives that BIGGER government is GOOD government. Perhaps you don't mind government agencies involved in many aspects of your life, but I do. In her "Hillarycare" blueprint for socialized medicine, she would have imposed MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCES for anyone who sought private healthcare, outside of a socialized network.
And that's the sort of critter that you would vote for, George? Oh yeah.......... Trying to pawn off women as "primary victims in war", as Norman points out - isn't that obsession with female victimhood at the very limits of fantasy?
And let's not forget her performance onstage. Most of the leaders of the rogue nations of the world are not going to have much in the way of respect for any superpower's leaders who cry on camera. Jimmy Carter wasn't particularly impressive with respect to standing down the world's thugs, resulting in an emboldened U.S.S.R......... Imagine how little similar thugs would be impressed with Clinton's tears!
Would YOU want such an individual in charge of our armed forces?
I can imagine anti-Clinton bumper stickers that read "Anyone BUT the b*tch!"
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
AP, she's no Margaret Thatcher. A lot of people fail to realize that Margaret was a great leader. First of all she's not a feminist. While in office she was strong, fair, level-headed and she put the well being of her country first. She is still one of the few people who warned us about Germany leading the European Union. Sorry, but of the 4 remaining candidates Hillary is the least qualified to be a good president.
I'm going to go out on a limb with this one. Hillary is going to become president and all hell is going to break loose! Sure, America has made some great strides against racism and stands as a good role-model in that area but it's still not ready for a black president. Hillary is going to win the democratic nomination. She's going to get the feminist and mangina vote to get there.
Romney is going to drop out soon so McCain is going to get the republican nomination. The rest is a no-brainer. America is obsessed with looks and sorry but John McCain doesn't "look" presidential and women don't find him sexy. Sorry women, but Clinton and Kennedy got by on their looks. When Arnold was elected governor out here in California an ecstatic woman newscaster said "Arnold and Maria make such a glamorous couple. We all know the importance of glamor in government. Factor in the liberal backlash against conservatives and you have your man. Er uhm I mean you have your woman. I don't know about you but I'm headin' for the hills.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
"Bush has been a disaster, but I have a sinking feeling that we are headed from the frying pan into the fire."
100% correct.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
"That notwithstanding, the woman operates under a world view that, as a woman, she is and has been oppressed and is the victim of the patriarchy which still has a misogynistic stranglehold on our society."
If she truly operates under this belief then I would love to hear her explanation of how society held her down yet she's a potential presidential candidate and has been a senator.
By all measures she has been a privileged member of this society for the majority of her life. For her to believe anything else is an outrage no different than Britney Spear's assertion that a homeless man was better off than she was.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Stephen, I truly hope your logical prognosis proves to be wrong.
South Carolina aside, Obama is still not being perceived as the "black" candidate.
He's got the Kennedys endorsements, won whitebread Iowa, and with Edwards waiting on the sidelines for a V.P. offer, the independents go to Obama, right?
I completely agree that McCain could not even stay awake long enough to win the election.
America will celebrate whoever gets elected next, because we are all so ready to be done with The Shrub.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I don't think you're making any startling predictions on who the nominees will be.
Hillary supporters must love the dialogue going on here .... it reeks of sexism, and I'm sure her campaign guru's will use it to their advantage.
"Anyone but the b*tch" bumper sticker"? they'll eat it up.
Not ONCE have you expounded on what Obama or McCain will do for the MRM. All you've done is denounce Clinton, but your reasons are ambiguous. If "feminism" is all you can come up with, no wonder she's ahead in the polls. And she's got you scared~!
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Are you saying that Obama is not perceived as a "black" candidate because he got the Kennedy endorsement?
I give up
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Clinton is a strong, forceful candidate, and a very effective speaker ...
Thanks for helping me make my decision on WHO to vote for in november!
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Obama or McCain won't do squat for the men's rights movement. That is the job of MRA's. But Clinton and her cronies will work against our movement. That's a problem.
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Well, speaking only for myself, it's not Hillary's strident feminism that puts me off.
It's her total inability to be in any meaninful way ... feminine. Or authentic.
The crying episode in New Hampshire was not persuasive.
Hillary is a complete simulacrum... "an insubstantial form or semblance of something" (Webster's dictionary).
Every glance, gaze, utterance, faux-emotion, earnestly pantomimed statement ... completely simulated.
I have seen animatronic puppets at DisneyWorld more human than Hillary.
It is not Hillary that scares me.
It is the idea that people would actually believe in her that does.
PS - Georgia, what happened to your insouciant southern accent?
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Okay Roy, that prompts another question.
What if Hillary conducted her debates with mockery and sarcasm ...... as McCain does? You'd crucify her even more.
Think about it ..... when during any of her debates has she initiated an attack against any of her opponents.
Without a doubt, presedential material ....
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
presidents don't cry? how about reagan, carter, rosevelt ..... well, certainly not tricky dick .....
But god forbid, a tough woman should never show emotion, right? :)
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
rosevelt [sic]
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
okay, i've calmed down now
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Hillary is incapable of expressing sarcasm, because that depends upon having or at least appreciating a sense of humor.
The woman is a robot.
She is like the dude in Men in Black who peels his face back and is revealed to be an alien insect.
How could you, as a self-respecting women (my assumption), vote for this female who to this day looks the other way while her husband shows his contempt for her by repeatedly screwing other women?
Is that the quality of character and resolve you seek in a Commandress-in-Chief?
A public doormat?
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
We’re headed for a frying pan alright, but you can’t blame it on the president-elect no matter which faction of our one party system gets elected.
America needs to “drastically” change course in order to avert disaster and that is going to take a spiritual awakening of at least 34% of the American people.
It doesn’t look like Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, so if people want change, they need to vote for a third party candidate.
We are responsible for this mess, not public servants, and “we the people” are the only ones who can bring about change.
This ignorant, criminal and wasteful government is only a reflection of the populace it serves.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Georgia Girl, I'm not sexist towards Hillary. I'm against the fact that she's a lousy candidate. There are numerous women leaders that I admire and would vote for if that were possible. Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria for instance. And we've had some fabulous first ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, Mamie Eisenhower...etc.
Norman L, cleared up the MRM thing. Hillary will set men back so far that it would be detrimental to the nation.
roy nails it with the "animatronic puppet" quote. The woman just ain't for real. She is what is commonly referred to as a phony.
One of my problems with the feminists in the electorate is that they don't concentrate on real issues and vote with their emotions. I'll bet that if they had Hillary for a personal friend that they wouldn't like her. They would probably call her a b*tch and steal her boyfriend. So why can't they see through her disguises? Because they're delusional and suffer from "you go girl" syndrome. (YGGS). If they can continue supporting feminism, even after being shown the facts then they aren't stable enough to possess the right to vote.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Georgia Girl,
What bothers me most about Hillary is there seems to be strong evidence suggesting that she is an abusive individual... this includes her husband as well as those who have worked for her in the past.
The same way I would not associate myself with someone who was rude or obnoxious to a waiter in a restaurant, I don't want someone with an abusive personality in the white house... and that goes for men and women alike.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Ya'll need a refresher course :)
The Commander and Chief of the United States ..... a long history of infidelity!
Why do you want Hillary to defend herself? She did nothing wrong.
As far as being phony, is there anyone running for office who is not a phony? It's called "politics".
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
How in the world do you think carter got elected ..... he had the best media man in the south .... Rafshoon.
I swear, i don't mean to get off on a tangent .... it's just that if anyone disagrees with me, they're wrong .... lol
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
i have to stir the grits now
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Georgia Girl, if Hillary conducted her campaign with mockery and sarcasm she would prove that she is a real human being. And I might consider her. She doesn't have to be pleasant for me to like her. Reagan was macho and couldn't care less about what people thought of him. In other words he didn't play nice. Mockery and sarcasm would be a plus for her.
So presidents cry on occasion. Big deal. But look at what they cried about. It wasn't anything so flimsy as a primary election. And it's not our fault that Hillary portrays herself as a "strong" woman. She set herself up. And the same rule applies to men. I'm willing to bet that John Wayne never cried on screen. But Clark Gable did and they don't get much tougher than that. John Wayne promoted himself as a super tough guy so that means no crying aloud. Bet you $50 that Ahhnold will never tear up in public. He knows better.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
oops forgot..... somebody mentioned mamie ..... i can't remember what Mamie's "theme" was as first lady, but her husband, Ike, was screwing his female driver (during his military days).
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
but Stephen, i'm not talking about old movies
Besides, John Wayne doesn't really count in my book .... he was an alcoholic who held up production and drove up costs like you wouldn't believe. Off thread.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
G-girl,
How long do you have to cook grits?
Honest, I'm a yankee boy with a sweet spot for southern gals, but really?
Can you talk politics and stir grits at the same time?
What the heck are grits anyway? ;-)
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Georgia Girl, I consider Mamie great because she supported her husband and said that his job was more important than hers. And she put his considerations before her own. It takes a brave woman to submit to her husband which I believe wives should do. You'll never hear Hillary say such a thing. But then again she probably has a good reason.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
grits are great, but you haven't lived til you've had boiled peanuts ....
Yes, Stephen, she was a nice lady who supported her husband and kept her cool in public.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
enjoy the super bowl~~ rah rah giants
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Norman L, thanks for raising the Hillary quote about women being the primary victims of war. This woman spouts so much crap that it is easy to lose track of it all. Has anyone got a Hillary claptrap database to keep track of it all?
I believe Hillary said that women are the primary victims of war because it is women's husbands and sons who get killed. This statement is remarkable on so many levels. First of all, she is saying that male lives only matter insofar as they impact on women. If a man dies without leaving behind any women who might miss him, then his life obviously didn't matter.
The other point is that if women were more likely to be killed in war, I doubt that Hillary would argue that men are the victims of war because it is men's wives and daughters who get killed. So she is really saying women are the victims no matter what.
The logic of her argument is that men die, therefore women are victims. Therefore we must have more discrimination in favour of women and against men. It is hard to imagine a more twisted, insane logic as that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
What can you expect from a woman who memory only recovers on the very day she can no longer be subjected to criminal prosecution in a felony fraud case, which I recall as Whitewater. Before Hillary became a politician she appears to have been clearly involved in white collar felony crime.
Mike
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
(I myself have mixed feelings about unions)
Mike, I've been meaning to get back to you on unions and here's my chance. Like it or not, we need them. If we didn't have unions we would probably lose 3 quarters of our current pay. In short, sweat shop fees. But like all other movements, unions follow the natural law of corruption. They start out with legitimate claims or grievances and when those are settled they keep taking until everything unravels. I've seen unions that wouldn't back off their demands even if it forced the company into bankruptcy.
I remember in 1981 when Reagan fired all those air traffic controllers. An their was a rash of jet crashes immediately after because of so many rookie air traffic controllers. Sort of a breaking-in period. At first I was angry at Reagan and said that it was typical conservative bias against unions. But a couple of years later that the air traffic controller unions were holding the nation hostage. I learned that if you shut down the airline system that our economy would collapse overnight. Just like if you shut down the interstate highway system it would be the same thing.
The airline system is not just a typical corporation. It's infrastructure. But the unions didn't care less about the nation. They just wanted fatter checks. So Reagan did the right thing by firing them. Sure, there were a few deaths because of the rookie controllers. But imagine all the deaths that would have resulted from shutting down the airline system.
All this relates to feminism in the sense that they got more "right" than they could dream of or deserve. And they're not about to stop yet. And when Hillary becomes president feminists are going to see another round of undeserved "benefits." She's going to give them the moon and the stars. At men's expense of course.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Typo. I was meaning to say:
But a couple of years later I learned that the air traffic controllers were holding the nation hostage.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
"Mike, I've been meaning to get back to you on unions and here's my chance. Like it or not, we need them. If we didn't have unions we would probably lose 3 quarters of our current pay. In short, sweat shop fees."
Sorry Stephen, but this won't wash. The above statement is a bit like feminists who claim that if it wasn't for the women's movement that women would still be living in the dark ages, chained to the kitchen sink barefoot and pregnant. Nonsense. One of the mistakes that ideologues of every persuasion make is attributing every last gain or development to political factors, while ignoring the importance of economic, scientific and technological developments that would have occurred regardless of politics.
Workers will no more be transported back to the 19th century in the absence of unions than women will be transported back to the 19th century without feminism. If wages would be 75% less without unions, then presumably this could be emprically proven by comparing wages and union membership levels across different states or countries. Many economists have found that, in the long term, there is little difference in wage growth between countries that are highly unionised and those that aren't. Even though unions deliver higher wages in the short term, in the longer term economic factors are more important.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
roy, I'm a yankee myself, and don't eat the boiled peanuts!!
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Nick S, you make some good points. But I really don't think employers would play fair if their wasn't a minimum wage. Look at how politicians of both stripes gutted the middle class. And look at how corporations have all but abolished retirement and medical benefits. Governments and corporations are fueled by greed and workers are just numbers to them. Take corporate downsizing while a CEO's pay upsizes for instance. But I think that there are some good men running corporations today and in the past. Henry Ford was the one who raised the pay of his workers so that they could afford to buy the cars that they manufacture. But men like him would be a minority today.
But as for the feminists, they don't fear being chained to a stove, barefoot and pregnant. First of all their revised history never existed. What they fear is that society will "regress" or devolve back to the days of common sense, decency and personal responsibility. I agree with you that feminists really can't take much credit for where women are today. Technology and prosperity were the real liberators.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 am
"Hillary supporters must love the dialogue going on here .... it reeks of sexism, and I'm sure her campaign guru's will use it to their advantage."
LOL.... g.g. Clinton's supporters no doubt want people to be walking on eggshells, afraid to call a spade a spade (or in Clinton's case, a b*tch). They just may have suckered you. That's your problem, not mine.
When Clinton exhorts women to vote for her simply because she has a vagina, does that reek any LESS of "sexism"? Hint: that's NOT a trick question, dear.
""Anyone but the b*tch" bumper sticker"? they'll eat it up."
They would not be the ONLY ones to "eat it up". Plenty of people who understand what a damnably poor POTUS she would make for the nation.
Mind you, there are plenty of abject "geniuses" who would vote for her vagina, but who's afraid of offending them, anyway?
"Not ONCE have you expounded on what Obama or McCain will do for the MRM. All you've done is denounce Clinton, but your reasons are ambiguous. If "feminism" is all you can come up with, no wonder she's ahead in the polls. And she's got you scared~!"
Focus, Einstein. Neither Obama nor McCain, nor any of the other candidates are likely to do much for the MRM..... but none of them are bona fide femin*zis like Clinton, and none of them are likely to be such unmitigated disasters for the nation as Clinton would.
And no, "feminism" is not the ONLY argument against Clinton.... and for you to ASSume as such shows that you're not paying attention.
And no, actually femin*zis like Clinton and yourself do not "scare" me, my intellectual powerhouse. Try to keep up, dear. And try not to be "scared" yourself when I address and correct your nonsense.........;-)
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 am
Hillary also had on her campaign web site, the myth that women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.
Let me clarify that: she's a bald-face liar.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Regarding the claim that women are paid far less than men for doing the same work, I have always thought it funny that many leftist politicians and commentators who claim that employers are constantly trying to drive down wages and conditions also go along with the myth of the wage gap.
So on the one hand employers are desperate to cut labour costs as much as possible. But at the same time employers are happy to pay men more, when they could get the same work done at a lower cost by simply employing women. Go figure.
This concludes today's lesson in liberal (il)logic.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Georgia Girl:
Hillary's misty-eyed moment was prompted by self pity, much like Jimmy Swaggart's. In contrast, the instances you allude to with respect to the former Presidents did not likely involve self-pity.
G.H.W. Bush, for one, displayed the emotion upon revealing the difficulty he had in the decision to send troops to war. His was sensitivity to others, while hers was self-pity about it "being hard to get up every morning" to campaign.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Another lie feminists tell each other is that they are strong women. They haven't the slightest idea what a strong woman is. Here are just a few reasons why feminists are not strong:
1.Strong women don't whine.
2.Strong women accept reality for what it is.
3.Strong women don't have to be right all the time.
4.Strong women don't have to get the last word.
5.Strong women are not victims.
6.Strong women are not bullies.
7.Strong women don't fall for rape hysteria.
8.Strong women don't use shaming language.
9.Strong women don't wield their vagina as a weapon against men.
10.Strong women work for what they want.
11.Strong women think for themselves and don't read from a script.
Feminists often use the "you're afraid of a strong woman" trick to beat you into submission. Let's see, I've been attacked by and won fights with pit-bulls and German shepherds. I've dealt with tough guys all my life and been near death on several occasions. But it's somehow mandatory that I fear "strong women."
That is such an oxymoron. I prefer to call them real women, something that feminists are not.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I guess it would be absurd for me to ask if strong women wear bunny slippers :)
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Stephen: Love your comments on "regression" and "strong" feminists!
Phil Leigh: Excellent observation on the difference between empathy and self-pity.
Nick S.: Very thoughtful observations.
Fourthwire: Rip snort!
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
GG: Yeah, strong women wear bunny slippers -- while they're chasing down the street after their kid who forgot their lunch, housecoat flapping in the breeze! (Do women still wear curlers?)
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
lol @ curlers ... i used to sleep in those (maybe that's what killed my brain cells).
hey, isn't anybody going to ask Stephen for the characteristics of a strong "man"?
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Thanks Jay R. Btw Georgia Girl, that "strong woman" rant wasn't aimed at you. I think of you as a delightfully wicked southern belle and wouldn't deliberately insult you.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
jay r, that was nice, tanks :)
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
"stephen", i meant ... tch tch
February 4th, 2008 at 12:18 am
G-girl - "... enjoy the super bowl~~ rah rah giants."
Well, you sure got that right!
But don't expect Hillary to pull off the same upset... ;-)
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, would you support Obama?
And more to the point, have you watched any of the interviews with Michelle Obama (youtube clips)?
That woman is freakin' incredibly articulate and way more formidable than Hillary!
I would love to see a Bill and Michelle "first spouses" debate, because she would play him like ... well, I can't say that in polite language....
Check her out and report back, OK?
February 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Thanks for the compliment, Jay R.
I have been posting at The New York Times and it is a hostile place for viewpoints at variance with feminist dogma and my participation is rarely encouraged there.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
All this talk about Hillary pushing a woman's agenda is absolute garbage. Her hands will be full with restoring our international standing, dealing with economic problems, dealing with domestic policy, balancing the budget, dealing with the trade deficit....all problems courtesy of the current administration. You will find the truth usually lies somewhere between the extremes. Hillary has been criticized, and she will continue to be. If she is the democratic nominee, I will vote for her. I am a military academy graduate. I served, unlike our current President. I have an MBA from a top 5 US institution. The money does not lie, it never does. The worst thing to happen to our country, in it's history, was the election of G. W. Bush.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Good point Ben. Hilary is going to have her hands full cleaning up the mess of the current administration. The problem I see isn't Hilary herself its her supporters that support her simply because she is a woman. These are the supporters that for no matter what reason you might not support Hilary will try to twist it into, "You're against her only because she is a woman."
I'd don't give a rat's tail about Clinton's gender. I want a competent president that will do good things and for some reason I think a lot of people are so caught up in "I voted for the first black (even though he's multiracial) or female president" fever that they aren't noticing what's important (that would be the desire to have a competent president).
However there is one thing I wonder. Hilary's supporters won't think twice about playing the gender card everything something doesn't go her way. If Clinton wins the White House will she start playing it as well?
I have to admit though I'm kinda curious to see how things will be for the first "First Gentleman".
February 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Sorry, but Hillary's hands are not going to be full of anything except extorted money perhaps. She couldn't care less about the economy or anything else except getting her piece of the pie. And she will be worse than Bush. Never underestimate the delusions of feminists and power brokers like Hillary. Danny I share your suspicions about Hillary and I think I'm going to go into culture shock or PTSD when Bill becomes the "First Gentleman." And yes she is going to play the gender card. But I'm sorry to tell her that that won't work with the likes of Iran and North Korea. Matter of fact they're probably rooting for her to win. She's also going to find out that our national problems are not gender biased or chivalrous so there will be no free rides. Do you think maybe she's biting off more than she can chew?
February 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Ben~! ... you graduated from that little military academy on the hudson? :)
Now that is very impressive ... Can you believe I was a Pete Dawkins fan~~
I'm glad you're giving hillary a chance
February 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
"All this talk about Hillary pushing a woman's agenda is absolute garbage."
Really, so when Hillary endlessly pushes the whole female victimism theme, when she endlessly recycles feminist myths such as the wage gap, what is that all about? To say that Hillary is not pushing a woman's agenda is a remarkable denial of reality.
"Her hands will be full with restoring our international standing, dealing with economic problems, dealing with domestic policy, balancing the budget, dealing with the trade deficit....all problems courtesy of the current administration."
It is not clear how Hillary is going to deal with any of these problems. Take balancing the budget. Hillary is promising more middle-class tax breaks plus a raft of new federal government programs (universal health, college, preschool etc.). How can you eliminate a budget deficit by handing out more tax breaks and increasing government expenditure?
The Bush administration has not been great, I'll grant. But Hillary sure won't be any saviour. A small part of me wants to see Hillary win, simply to see what a disaster her presidency would be.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Nick S. @: A small part of me wants to see Hillary win, simply to see what a disaster her presidency would be.
If nothing else, once she is elected, we can demand that feminists everywhere drink a big glass of STFU juice!
February 5th, 2008 at 3:11 am
The Bush administration has not been great, I'll grant. But Hillary sure won't be any saviour. A small part of me wants to see Hillary win, simply to see what a disaster her presidency would be.
I already know the answer her supporters will spit out if her presidency is a disaster.
A. "She was so busy cleaning up Bush's mess that she was not able to get anything going."
B. "Everytime she tried to do something Congress blocked her because she's a woman."
B1. "...because she's a woman."
C. "Bill keeps getting in the way. He's the First Gentleman, not the president."
Feel free to pick more than one.
Jay R. I'll go ahead and break the news to you now. Even if she wins the feminists will still not be satisfied. Clinton could take on a female running mate, win a second term, and her female VP could go on to win two terms of her own (with a female VP of her own) and they would still cry "patriarchy". The next round of Senate elections could give her a female majority and the feminists would still cry "patriarchy". Every person in the White House could be replaced with a woman and they would still cry "patriarchy". Even if the Supreme Court was filled with all women what do you think the feminists will do? (Hint: the answer is not "Admit that women are making progress")
In the end no matter what corner you paint her into Clinton she will play the gender card and her supporters (the ones that support her only based on gender anyway) will play it for her as well.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Guys, you really must get over being victims and grow up. Hillary is the most capable man in the field. As much as it pains me to say it, she is. Bush has been a disaster and the worst President in our history. The Saud family loved his father and finds him moronic. They are right. He is. We are in trouble as a nation. She will have her hands full dealing wtih real issues.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
The history of the Clintons' is an open book ( most of it anyway ) One should really really remember that next time you go to the voteing booth. Any vote for anyone who's last name is Clinton is a vote for the 3rd term of president Calligula.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Clinton was, on his worst day, a far better President than Bush was on his very best. I am not voting for someone not to cheat on their wife. I am voting for competence. Rather than listen to rush limbaugh for your news please get out of your basement more often.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Well it would seem that some of the more thoughtfull feminists have already figured out what everyone's reaction will be if it comes down to having to pick a Democratic nominee at the Dem. National Convention. Basically they are predicting that if the DNC selects Obama and Clinton fights it, everyone will assume that she is only fightinging because she is crying sour grapes. Yeah feminism is supposed to be about getting rid of gender based generalizations but they somehow know that everyone will think Clinton's dispproval of the DNC's pick is whinning. Nice.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
[...] response to my blog post 'Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of..., Bill, a reader, posted a blog comment suggesting anti-Clinton bumper stickers which read "Anyone [...]