It’s true. I haven’t written a blog post since Christmas Eve. When a friend asked me about this I said, “I guess I just haven’t had anything to say.” He looked at me with that, “Yeah right,” look and said, “You might as well have told me, ‘Feminism? Not so much.’” That’s how much he believed me. But yesterday a young man asked me to build an argument for Hillary Clinton because he was deciding his vote. I have decided to post what I said to him.
Let's start with their respective health care proposals.
Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1202533200&en=dd6d5bc79c7f4fd9&ei=5087%0A
Secondly, make no mistake. That Hillary is not sweeping the Dems' primaries is a clear case of national misogyny. Imagine two lists of credentials; one list of Hillary's and one list of Obama's. Now at the top of the list identify each by switching their genders, so that Clinton's credentials would be identified as the male's and Obama's as the female's. Obama would not have a snowball's chance in hell as a woman, with his credentials. If Hillary was a man, her credentials, her record of work for the poor, bill sponsorship, public service, experience would make her the clear front runner.
Thirdly, many Americans are once again supporting a candidate with no experience, no substantive political WORK, no evidence of competence. Invariably when I ask an Obama supporter WHY they support him they stammer and stutter and start talking about "vision," "hope" and "inspiration." All this based on his ability as a great Orator. The man speaks well. It is the gift after all, that first propelled him into the national spotlight; a speech given on the floor of a Democratic Convention. Obama supporters are being swept away by their desperation for faith. It is emotional and irrational. We have had eight years of the result of people voting on the basis of, "I don't know. I just LIKE him."
Fourthly, Clinton has won the demographics of the poor, the disenfranchised. What does that tell you? It tells you that they know who fights for them. Just last month Hillary sponsored a bill to increase the minimum wage. Have you heard anything about this in the News? No. She is in the process of running this incredible, exhausting campaign and is STILL sponsoring bills in the Senate; STILL working at her JOB. Obama does well in caucus states because the poor and middle class cannot get to caucus. Why? Because they're busy working at THEIR jobs.
Fifth: The Media is soft on Obama, tough on Hillary. No one is asking him the hard questions. After Super Tuesday I heard analysts say that Obama won Minnesota and Connecticut because these states are traditionally "anti-war." Haven't the voters in Minnesota and Connecticut heard Obama say twice in the Democratic debates (once in SC) that he "would not hesitate" to "strike" Pakistan if the intelligence was "actionable?" When ABC News' Charlie Gibson responded by saying, "(this is) essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis," it was GIBSON who was criticized. Frankly, Obama's
comments terrified me. HOW would he do this? Where would he get the money to engage the U.S. in a third war? Where would he get the personnel? The Draft?? When I ask Obama supporters about this, three have told me that "the Pakistan LINE" was said to show that he is "tough on defense." My response? "Look, either Obama meant what he said about Pakistan, or he didn't. If he did, it's terrifying. If he didn't, and said it only to create an image, then WHAT ELSE should I NOT believe he's said because he's busy creating an image?" They look at me like a deer in headlights. When Clinton begins to ask questions like this, she is accused of "attacking" Obama and of being a bitch.
Sixth: The Media is determining this nomination. Pay close attention to the choice of language, the ordering of words, the slant of the questions. Once you do, you cannot help but see it. Examples: The day after the New Hampshire primary, one of the anchors for Good Morning America asked the network's political analyst, “What is it about New Hampshire voters that allowed them to overlook Clinton’s emotional outburst?” WHAT?? “OVERLOOK Clinton’s outburst?” This was the first political question of the morning. He didn’t ask, “What is it about New Hampshire voters that led them to judge Clinton as Presidential?” A recent Yahoo web page headline, “Obama Closes in on Clinton’s Double Digit Lead,” NOT, “Clinton Maintains Lead Over Obama.” After Nevada, AOL’s web page, “Clinton Survives, Romney Crushes.” WHAT? Clinton “survives?” She had just won NH and she won Nevada with over 50 percent of the popular vote among three candidates. On Super Tuesday, AOL’s page featured this line, “Why Feminists Say Don’t Vote for Clinton,” and then led the reader to some obscure person’s BLOG! On the Monday before Super Tuesday, I timed Good Morning America’s coverage of each of the candidates. Obama was featured in a little over 12.5 minutes of the broadcast. Clinton, just under four. Same day: when Michelle Obama was about to be interviewed the trailer was, “What does Michelle Obama feel when Bill Clinton attacks her husband?” Attacks? NOT “criticizes,” or “challenges.” The word “attack” was deliberately chosen to present a subjective image. It is a word loaded with bias. And this morning, on NBC, "Clinton appears to have won more delegates, but Obama won more states." Clinton appears to have won more delegates?? No guys. She DID. I am no longer watching Network news reports. From now on I'm watching The Jim Lehrer Report on PBS.
(I don't have cable).
Want more? I got plenty.
Obama supporters, you are welcome to email me or comment below with an argument for your candidate. But be forewarned, I will NOT entertain an argument that has as its basis an appeal to “hope,” or “inspiration.” And yet, in the case of Obama, it just may be that faith and hope are the only grounds for argument. Perhaps because (and St.Paul may have described these best in the Letter to the Hebrews), "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And I want to see more than possibility and potential. I want REAL evidence. And, should Obama win the nomination and the Presidency, I’ll wait a couple of years, thank you very much, before I declare him America’s Redeemer.
29 comments:
OMG! Thank you for those comments. You said it better than I ever could, and much more polite. I just want to shake people and say "what are you thinking?"
DITTO ncspiritri!!! You GO, girl (Doire AND Hillary)!!!!
Hillary has image issues which may not have affected her if she were a man. HOwever, I do not think that is why people are being soft on Obama. She did come across as arrogant when she was first lady. I think more acceptable question to ask is "What if HIllary were a man rather than What if Obama were a woman?" I think she would have been considered forceful rather than arrogant if she were a man. However, that being said, I think she is not the stronger democratic candidate for this general election. This has nothing to do with whether she would make the better president. There are just a lot of people in the country that do not like her but would be willing to vote for Obama. I like both candidates and my main goal is that we have a democratic president appointing supreme court justices next year.
Much of what you wrote is a very reasoned point of view, buckyd. The last of your comment represents what I hear is the new argument (Obama presented it himself recently)~~ that Obama is the best Democratic candidate for the "election" (note: NOT the Presidency) because there are Obama-Democrats who would rather risk a Republican victory than vote for Clinton because as you say, they do not "like her." How sad. And how shameful. Shame on them for being so petty and for risking so much.
I haven't watched any network news in over 2 weeks for this very reason. I watch Cspan exclusively. The idea of Hillary Clinton not being "likeable" was slander that has been thrown at her from the republicans since Bill won the election. This idea has been regurgitated over and over until it has seeped into the subconscience of every person willing to accept it for no other reason than hearing it verbalized. What everyone else seems to thinks is what matters, correct?!? The concept of her not being "electable" is another....... and the list goes on. I know plenty of people who would not vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee, so what is the difference? The difference is what's being "covered" and "said" by the media. It's not OBama can't win because women and hispanics won't vote for him, it's Hillary can't win because men won't vote for her. I've had the same experience with Obama supporters, voting ignorantly, it's really sickening. I truly haven't had one be able to give me concrete reasons for picking him over her. After speaking with some of them one of the best answers, after correcting him many times with his facts, "well, I think a president is simply a foreign dignitary who doesn't run the country just represents it". PATHETIC!!!!! We will do, believe or say anything not to elect a female president. Fact is she is truly a remarkable progressive candidate who deserves the nomination.
One more thing: If I hear one more self-rightous Obama supporter talk about how he doesn't take money from lobbyists, I think I'll puke from disgust of your absolute pure ignorance!!! Please do some research on this subject because if you do the least tiny bit you will see his campaign is predicated on a lie and that being said, he is deceiving you.
Interesting--there is an Op-Ed column in the NY Times today in which the writer made the point that a woman leader can either be "likeable or competent, but not both." If Hillary is judged as not being "likeable," what does that mean? Why, that she's competent, of course. I think it's BS. I personally like her a LOT!
As for your other comments, I'll have more to say about those issues in my follow-up blog entry on Hillary/Obama. Thanks for commenting.
Likeable OR competent?! Well, that just sets every female candidate up for failure. In essence it suggests that it is impossible for a female candidate ever to win, because if she is liked she won't be competent but if she is competent she won't be liked, so who would vote for either scenario? (Hmmmm, although many people ARE voting for Obama based on his likeability rather than his competency.)
Oh, now I need to go lie on the floor for an hour or so and contemplate what this all means.
Maybe it means that a competent female candidate will never be voted for based on her lack of likeability and that a likeable female candidate would set a bad example for all future female candidates because of her lack of competence (although THAT didn't stop people from voting for Bush two times).
Okay, now it's time to go lie on the floor and ponder.....
Thirdly, I think it is over-reaching to say that seven years in the State Senate and four years as a U.S. Senator is a scant and deplorable record. If you are comparing it to Hillary's record, then yes it is obviously thinner, but that sounds like punishing him because he is young. His record of legislative service to the country is 11 years more than HRC had when she was 46. Older does not always mean wiser. More experience does not always mean better qualified.
Fourth, I think the Clintons have that support from the poor because the Clintons are all those people have EVER known as who would stand up for them. I think people are scared to leave who they have always known to work for them when they are challenged by someone who would work HARDER for them and not pander in a grossly offensive way to them as the Clintons have always done. I think that is why the younger voters among the poor swing to Obama. They don't remember the Clinton years. The Clintons aren't all they've ever known. They see someone who would do a better job working for them than Hillary.
Fifth, Key Words: "If the intelligence warrants it"...if he did not think the intelligence warranted it in 2003, then I say that he has a lot more credibility on this issue than Hillary Clinton ever will. It certainly is not anything that he has talked about actively trying to pursue. And his actual words were "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." I think a commander-in-chief who suggests they will target and strike Al-Qaeda forces if the intelligence warrants it is a lot preferable to a commander-in-chief who would authorize an attack on a foreign country(with no Al-Qaeda forces) based on intelligence that did not warrant it. I think Obama's upper-hand in this debate is crystal clear.
Since I am the "young man" in question, and no one has really stepped up to defend Obama yet, I suppose I will be contrarian and do it. Here is my response I sent you Doire with a few edits and cuts here and there as you did with your re-post. Enjoying the dialogue by the way...
Ev
First,I honestly think Obama's health care plan is the best plan. I think mandates are a bad idea, not only because it reeks of a nanny state government but also because there are many arguments against mandates and what they would incur.
Read This: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/EDFOURVUR.DTL
And I don't believe Hillary has explained enough just HOW she is going to enforce these mandates. HOW is she going to get EVERYONE to buy? I don't like the idea of Americans being told by the government that they HAVE to buy something "for their own good".
Secondly, I just don't buy the experience line. Bill Clinton had less experience back in 1992 than both Paul Tsongas AND Tom Harkin and he is considered one of the greatest presidents of the last century. I think it is unfair to say a reason not to vote for Obama is that if he were a woman no one would take him seriously. If a LOT of successful men were women they would be treated differently but you shouldn't punish a man because of the country's misogyny. He sure isn't bringing his race up as a reason to vote for him. I don't see why Hillary should keep bringing up gender as a reason to vote for her. And she does. She plays the gender card constantly.
And I believe that in this respect Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for and my biggest reason I cannot vote for her is her authorization of the war in Iraq. Not only that, but the fact that she has NOT ONCE APOLOGIZED just reeks of the same cockiness and arrogance that I have always hated Bush for. Just seeing her stand up and applaud the other night at the State of the Union when Bush said the surge was working made my stomach turn. What in the world are we trying to change if this is the person we want to elect in Bush's place?
Secondly, I believe that the Clinton's treatment of gays and lesbians is awful. AWFUL. Awful, because I would rather they agree with Mike Huckabee and compare us to animal-****ers, than to pander to the gay population so shamefully in the 90's, take all their money, and then pass two of the most hurtful pieces of legislation for gays in I don't know when. The DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. Also, Hillary refuses to use the word "gay" in any national speeches she makes. Oh sure, she'll do hush-hush town hall meetings with gay groups that she won't put on her schedule and she'll participate in the LOGO forum because all the other DEM candidates are, but just listen to how easily the word gay rolls off Obama's tongue with millions of people watching him and compare that to the stilted poll-tested rhetoric of Hillary. With Obama, I truly do feel believe I am one of the "gay brothers and sisters" he is talking about. To Hillary, I feel I'm a political liability to her.
Thirdly, I think she and Bill's conduct in the campaign has been pretty gross and Bill's comment in SC about Jesse Jackson made me throw something at my computer screen when I saw it on YouTube. I am harboring a lot of anger toward them for the racial overtones they have brought to the campaign but the second half of Frank Rich's column this morning says it much better than I ever could. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?em&ex=1202792400&en=8603c6542881bd98&ei=5087%0A
Concluding: " If he becomes President, then as a proud American, I hope he is the best damn President this country has ever had."
I agree Doire. I feel the same way about Hillary...I fully admit that it could just be that Obama hasn't disappointed me yet and I should just be waiting to be disappointed. But as a gay man and as someone who opposed the war months before it even began, she has already disappointed me gravely.
Aaaah...sorry for the 4 posts. Comments are limited to 2000 characters so they are apparently not meant for long-winded schmucks like me. By the way, if this had been a paper for your class, it would have been a week late. Amazing how politics can elicit such punctual responses!
I read Frank Rich's Op-Ed column this morning. It was clear from the first paragraph where his bias is. I do not consider his column to be journalistic reporting. That's why it's called an OP-Ed. It is characterized by OPINION. More on OBAMA'S own divisive moves in my next blog entry...working on it, but I also have to compose an exam. I have to do MY job too.
By the way, Rich has been Hillary-bashing since the campaign began. I found his continual use of the title "Mrs. Clinton" to be diminishing, chauvinistic and a clear indication that his position is tainted by deep bias. Where has he been for the last forty years? Her title is SENATOR Clinton. And if you have not yet been disappointed by Obama, then surely his own campaign tactics this week have accomplished that for you...
"The only professions where people prefer someone with little experience are politics and prostitution."
- Scott Dunn
Hi -- I know I'm late to post, but a friend recently forwarded a link to your blog and asked for my thoughts.
There is no doubt that there is a lot of disgusting sexism in the media's coverage of the Democratic nomination. (Maybe you – and all of us – should watch less network news.)
Seriously, though, I think that you are overreaching when you say "[t]hat Hillary is not sweeping the Dems' primaries is a clear case of national misogyny." That's a very broad statement, and I strongly disagree with it. The problem is that we are considering one individual, and it is impossible to separate the person from the gender. Hillary Clinton is a singular person, and fair or not, a lot of people intensely dislike her, and not because she is a woman. (BTW, I agree with her that she and her husband were the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that started well before the Lewinski scandal, and this is the source of much of the animosity she still attracts today.) The sexist coverage of her candidacy is ancillary to the anti-Clinton bias, not the cause of it. Imagine if Bill could run again – don’t you think the Clinton haters and right-wing noise machine would also be dominating the media coverage of his campaign?
In a post-gender world, can’t people choose to vote for or against a woman for the same inane reasons that they choose to vote for or against a man? If we are still at a time when any vote against Clinton is automatically sexist, then what does that say about any vote for her?
Also, your comparison of Clinton’s and Obama’s relative experience misses an important point. Yes, Clinton has more experience than Obama, but Clinton trounced three other serious candidates with more experience (Biden, Dodd, and Richardson). How do you explain that? Obviously, it is not due to sexism, unless you are suggesting that people voted for Clinton over the other candidates because she is a woman.
Obama’s success so far against Clinton is also not due to sexism; rather, it is the result of a singular candidate with a lot of appeal to a lot of people. Obama also did better then Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. Where does sexism or misogyny fit in there?
Also, keep in mind that the race is still not over. Obama and Clinton are in a virtual tie, and Clinton may still get the nomination. Isn't it a bit premature to blame misogyny for something that may not happen?
One last comment on this post before I move on.
You have seriously taken Obama's comments about attacking Pakistan out of context. He said that if he had actionable intelligence about the location of Bin Laden or other senior Al Qaeda members in Pakistan, he would not hesitate to strike against them. He was not talking about invading Pakistan or starting a third way. He was talking about finishing the first war in a way that Bush has not. He was also rebuking the Bush administration's policy of coddling Pakistan's military dictator Musharraf.
Compare this to Clinton's vote to authorize the use of force against Iran last fall. Didn't she learn anything since 2002? A little thing called the Iraq War? An attack against Iran would be the third war that you are so (rightly) afraid of.
SkepticSteve,
I find your comments simplistic and cavalier regarding the impact of mysogeny on our culture. You even go so far as to show backward thinking by suggesting that maybe we should all watch less network news. That statement is as inverted as an article I recently read which stated that iPods are the cause of a heightened crime rate. Rather than focus on the problem (criminals) the author of that article suggested that the existence of iPods is to blame for crime. You have done the same thing by suggesting that we all watch less network news. No, sir, I think that the better course of action would be for all of us to demand better product, to demand quality and responsible news reporting. Your type of thinking is another product of this culture's ability to twist anything around to fit its needs (ie., the needs of those who hold dominating power), and explains how mysogenistic behavior permeates the very fabric of our culture so that we are not even aware of how broad an issue it really is; and if we are aware of it in any degree most people are apt to justify it rather than challenge it.
"The problem is that... it is impossible to separate the person from the gender. " Yes, sir, it is certainly a PROBLEM! A person's gender shouldn't be an issue when considering their performance and/or qualifications. Once again we fall in to the process of twisted logic when we make statements like, "But that's just the way it is.... It is impossible NOT to consider the gender." Just because something is the way it is doesn't imply by any means that this is the way it OUGHT to be. Furthermore, no one has considered the gender of the other candidates, considered their "male-ness" when deciding whether or not to vote for them. Instead, there are people out there who will vote for these candidates simply because they are NOT a woman.
to be continued
continuation of previous post:
"Hillary Clinton is a singular person, and fair or not, a lot of people intensely dislike her, and not because she is a woman." Yes, you are correct; however, there are also a lot of people out there who dislike her intensely simply because she is indeed a woman. To ignore that fact, or to digress from it, is irresponsible and is not the point of Ms. Doire's article.
"The sexist coverage of her candidacy is ancillary to the anti-Clinton bias, not the cause of it." I disagree. It is not "ancillary to the anti-Clinton bias," it is complimentary to it AND it is a contributing factor. This increases the anti-Clinton bias and takes votes away from her and that, my friend, is mysogeny. Furthermore, even if it were merely ancillary (and I will not concede that) it is still inappropriate.
" Imagine if Bill could run again – don’t you think the Clinton haters and right-wing noise machine would also be dominating the media coverage of his campaign?" Yes, I think they would be dominating the coverage, but it is still inappropriate! Additionally, this same media wouldn't spend so much time analyzing his qualifications and abilities based on his gender. They would focus on the Lewinsky scandal which is the result of behavior and action, not on his gender, which is a state of being.
Please define for me what a "post gender world" is and supply examples for me of how we currently exist in such a place.
Sir, you have spent a lot of time trying to prove that mysogeny is NOT a factor in this election, or explaining how if it is then that is just the way it is. In my opinion, these two aspects cancel one another out.
judilein03 –
I was trying to make a joke about network news. I guess that’s the problem with communicating like this – humor and sarcasm don’t translate well. Although given that network news programs are entertainment and not journalism, perhaps the only way to get their attention is to stop watching and let their ratings fall . . .
I don’t think I adequately explained myself when I said that “it is impossible to separate the person from the gender.” What I should have said is that when only considering one person (e.g., Hillary Clinton), it is impossible to separate the “reaction” to that person from the “reaction” to the gender.
I’m the product of a social science education. To properly understand whether current attitudes towards Clinton are driven by sexism, it would be necessary to construct an experiment in which the variables could be isolated. For example, compare Senator Clinton to a male politician with exactly the same experience and personality. However, in the real world, that's impossible.
Your position (and the blog’s host) seems to be that any criticism of Senator Clinton is ipso facto proof of sexism or misogyny. I disagree with that position, and I think that Senator Clinton should be open to the same type of criticism that any other politician is, regardless of her gender. However, it is almost impossible to prove the point either way when we are only considering one person. That’s what I meant by my original quote: when considering to what degree sexism is involved, it may be impossible for us to determine. I did NOT mean to say that any consideration of Clinton should never be separated from a consideration of her gender.
Also, you said: “Once again we fall in to the process of twisted logic when we make statements like, ‘But that's just the way it is.... It is impossible NOT to consider the gender.’” Your use of quotes not
My last post was cut off:
Your use of quotes notwithstanding, I never said anything like that.
judilein03 –
In response to your post #19 : Yes, I agree that their has been a lot of disgusting sexist coverage of Senator Clinton’s campaign. I do not dispute that, I think it should be discussed, the networks should be criticized, and we should never forget. And I hope my comments here don’t give you the impression that I am trying to excuse misogyny.
My point here is that a vote against Senator Clinton does not automatically equal misogyny. The original blog post here said “That Hillary is not sweeping the Dems' primaries is a clear case of national misogyny.” That statement is outrageous, and it does not help the cause of gender equality.
You may think that Hillary Clinton is the perfect presidential candidate this year, but not everyone does. And if someone doesn’t like Clinton as a presidential candidate, it does not automatically make her a sexist or a misogynist.
When was the last time that a presidential candidate swept the primaries? The last two presidential elections resulted in a nearly 50-50 split in the general election. It is unrealistic for any presidential candidate to expect 100% of the vote. You (plural) are setting the standard way too high for Clinton: either Clinton is elected as president, this year, or it proves that our country is sexist and misogynist.
(to be continued)
Steve,
Now you agree with me that network coverage should be criticized rather than ignored. Thank you for seeing my point.
I never implied that EVERY vote against Clinton is a case of mysogeny, I am merely suggesting that mysogenistically based votes do exist and that the number of these votes can very likely effect Clinton's success. THIS is the tragedy, and Ms. Doire's historically based statistics prove that it is almost always the case in this country.
(continued)
It would be improper to have a gender test for president, right? It would be wrong to say that a woman should not be elected president because she is a woman, just as it would be wrong to say that a person should be elected because she is a woman. But you (again, I’m addressing the blog’s host as well) are also applying a type of gender test: either the country elects Clinton to the presidency, or we are all misogynists.
judilein03, I referred to a “post gender world” because I assumed that that was what we were working towards. A world in which a qualified person could run for office and be considered on her merits, regardless of her gender. With Clinton’s successful presidential candidacy so far, I am very hopeful that our country is closer to that goal. It was only a few years ago that a qualified woman would never have been taken so seriously, never would have been considered to be the front runner for so long, and never would have outlasted so many other equally qualified males.
But at this point, it is not certain that she will be elected president. I say that if she is not ultimately elected president, it will not mean that her effort was in vain, and that the country is automatically misogynistic. Being post-gender means that we can seriously consider a qualified candidate, regardless of her gender, and that we can also choose not to elect her.
Are you seriously suggesting that we do indeed live in a post gender world? If so then your sociology education was in vain and you can't see beyond your own penis-endowed experiences.
Whether or not Clinton wins is not the issue. The FACT of the matter is that politics, as well as every other aspect of a woman's life, is effected by mysogeny; mysogeny is a steep path that every woman must trudge, pushing her merits ahead of her, in order to succeed. The issue is that this experience is neither fair nor acceptable, and to sit on our laurels and suggest that everything is kittens and rainbows for women is naive and dangerous. I hope, sir, that you do not have daughters.
judilein03 -
You know, I honestly don't know how humor works on these things.
I was going to post an attempt at humor – I was going to thank you for letting me "see... [your] point" about network news, and I was going to thank you for letting me agree with you. I honestly didn’t think that network news was worthy of criticism before!
I was also going to return the favor and commend you for your turn-around about "EVERY vote against Clinton is a case of mysogeny." After all, I tried to make it quite clear that my original point of contention was not with you but was with the original blog post that stated: "that Hillary is not sweeping the Dems' primaries is a clear case of national misogyny.”
So, I won’t attempt those jokes. But, just in case, would they have been funny?
Seriously, though, you misunderstood my comment about a “post-gender world,” and I addressed it in more detail in a comment to the “Wake Up and Smell the Republicans” post. I do not think that we are currently in a “post-gender world.”
Steve, regarding your comment about your explanation of use of the term "post-gender world" let me point out this statement made by you:
"In a post-gender world, can’t people choose to vote for or against a woman for the same inane reasons that they choose to vote for or against a man? If we are still at a time when any vote against Clinton is automatically sexist, then what does that say about any vote for her?"
I will hesitatingly concede that you meant that statement as a commentary for the way things ought to be, but your choice of wording suggests otherwise. When debating it is always important to make your statements succinctly, otherwise two events occur which weaken your stand: (1)people misunderstand your purpose and your point is lost; (2)it offers you the opportunity to waffle later in the debate when weaknesses are found in your original statement, which is dishonorable and pointless to everyone, including yourself.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html 'Nough said.
I read the Robin Morgan piece a month ago. Care to discuss anything in particular about it?
And what exactly does "'nough said" (or "'nuff said") mean?
Post a Comment