To say I’m disappointed is an understatement. I want this to stop – on all sides.
Gloria Steinem said:
“Women are more for [Hillary Clinton] than men are…First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience…Not to over-generalize, but…Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.
And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie…”
That’s completely unfair, and I dealt with this argument when I supported Obama in 2008. She did apologize, but that doesn’t undo what she said. And it sure as hell doesn’t help her candidate. With friends like these…
Madeleine Albright said:
“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
Again, not helpful. If I was a Bernie supporter this would make my support stronger. Way to go!
Women on women crime is 100% unacceptable. These two women are guilty of doing just that – and Hillary should call them out. They’ve divided women into categories by who they support. I will never accept that. But hey, I completely support a woman’s right to chose. There’s no place for comments like these. No. Place.
Then we have the BernieBros – yes, they are real, and they have always been around. Whether its an article on Hillary, Beyonce, Sarah Palin, rape, reproductive rights, most Reddit posts, they will be there. They are not unique to this Presidential campaign, but if you’re looking for examples of sexism in this campaign look no further than the comment section on any article about Hillary and Bernie. It’s rampant, and it probably has a lot to do with the way we’ve always gone after female candidates. Their tactics are extremely familiar.
Bernie called this behavior out. That’s great and I applaud him for that. More of this, please! Hillary, are you listening?
And I’m embarrassed to admit that DL contributed to this nonsense in 2008 – with our jokes about pantsuits and the Hillary Nutcracker. Yeah, I’m ashamed of my behavior over those posts and comments. I was guilty, guilty, guilty. It was just so easy – probably because it’s always been the first line of attack against women.
This morning, while listening to Al Mascitti, my jaw dropped several times. Here are some snippets:
The reason Gloria Steinem was successful was due to the fact that she was prettier than other “plain” feminist spokeswomen.
Bill Clinton talking about sexism after his relationship Monica Lewinsky isn’t credible.
Questioning if the Clinton marriage is a real marriage.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a melodious voice.
Personally, I think Steinem’s prominence had more to do with summing up feminist issues into easy sound bites and how far she pushed the envelope. She caught the media’s attention, sorta like the way Trump does. And… if her prominence had to do with her looks then who’s to blame for that? I’d say it was those who chose to cover her over other prominent feminists. See how that works?
His thoughts on Bill Clinton speaking about feminism… Is he saying that an adulterer can’t be a feminist? That confused me. I really don’t know what the point was. I hope he explains, because I couldn’t follow his logic.
As far as questioning a couple’s marriage, I find that distasteful. No one knows what goes on in someone’s marriage.
But the main thing that really bothers me is how Hillary is judged by her husband’s record. It makes her an extension of him and not her own person. That’s not fair, and it sure as hell never goes in the other direction.
Enough with the voice thing. Not kidding. It’s a no win situation for a women, and it’s not applied to men – whose voices, I guess, are the default position. Al did say he didn’t want to use the word shrill, but his use of melodious (pleasant sounding) makes the same point. Gotta admit, comments about voice and tone make me see red. Women will never win this BS battle, so can we knock it off? Pretty please?
Basically, everyone needs to stop this behavior. If we did, perhaps, we could discuss issues like Climate Change, reproductive rights, immigration, Police brutality, improving our education system, Foreign Policy (altho this was touched on in the last debate) our crumbling infrastructure – you know, things that our candidates aren’t discussing. Personally, I’d like to hear about these issues, as well as income inequality. Hopefully I get my wish because these things matter, too.
Income inequality is an important issue, but it isn’t the only one, and right now I’m not sure where the candidates stand on other issues that matter to me. That’s a problem for me. A BIG one. It’s probably the reason I can’t pick a candidate. I need more, because the office of President is about more, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the debates. Guess I’m saying, I completely understand where each candidates stand on income inequality… can we start to include other things? There actually are other things.
Meanwhile, can we step up our game and drop the sexism on both sides?
And in the words of John Scalzi, “I’m guessing you thought I was way off on your political philosophy but right on the button about the other two. Just think about that for a while.” We’ll rewrite that as: “I’m guessing you thought I was way off on your political candidate but right on the button about the other candidate. Just think about that for a while.”