We’re Going To Have To Talk About Sexism Because It’s Surrounding Us
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.”
Tags: 2016 Democratic Primary, Bernie Sanders, Featured, feminism, Hillary Clinton
What are “BernieBros?” I must have missed the memo.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=berniebros
You’re welcome
“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?”
Yes, I see exactly how it works: Good-looking people get more attention. Ask Betty Friedan.
“As far as questioning a couple’s marriage, I find that distasteful. No one knows what goes on in someone’s marriage.”
But we know quite well what goes on outside the Clintons’ — he fucks anything that moves, and probably some things that don’t. The examples are copious. Look it up.
Hillary stands for nothing except the family fortune, which has increased from 0 (according to her own admission) to $100 million in the past 15 years. That’s not sexism, that’s a fact.
Do you really think Putin and ISIS are going to not point out her gynecological status? Ha ha ha ha ha. You’re good evidence that conservatives aren’t the only ones living in bubbles of their own creation.
Way to go missing the point: That Hillary Clinton is as believable talking about progressivism (who does she do that with, her buddy Henry Kissinger?) as Bill is taking anyone to task about sexism. You talking about sexism is nothing but a change of subject from the ones that damn her.
“In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what’s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what’s happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before.” – Gloria Steinem
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
I believe the modern feminists understand that they need to not just advocate their own cause, but unify all those who who are treated unjustly.
BernieBros must not be that big a thing if nobody knows what it is. Some kind of lefty blog insidery stuff. Nothing to get worried about.
@Pat: At the University of Oregon, MLK Jr. has been called out for his lack of inclusivity:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/u-of-oregon-debates-removing-mlk-quote-for-not-being-inclusive-enough/
Nobody is stopping anybody from talking about climate change. It’s just that some people are so starved for respect they can’t concentrate on anything else until they get some.
Shall we go through a list that you should know about? The google search found 362,000 results.
How many Republican votes do you suppose the Bernie Bros will cost the Democrats?
So… I guess we aren’t going to discuss this.
“If Clinton is the nominee, the GOP wins.”
– Geezer, 8/19/15
http://delawareliberal.net//2015/08/19/this-is-why-sanders-is-kicking-ass/
It goes in the Do Not Discuss bin along with the Goldman Sachs transcripts.
Yeah, that’s not the correct bin, but u know that.
if it helps, (it wont) I found myself nodding along with the OP. Other than a “here, here” and being ready to engage someone disagreeing with stuff, I dont have much to bring to the table 🙂
OK, on the second thought….
I wonder if a reason Other things aren’t really being discussed much is because it’s taken as a given that a Democrat will protect reproductive rights. Will oppose republicans on social issues, and at least acknowledges global warming is real and serious. Where democrats split, and we can see this in our own state’s delegation, is on economic policy. I think that is why the debate is centered there.
Republicans like to out-right each other, so the need to be MOST against women, or MOST against Muslims or MOST against gays is important to their knuckle-dragger voters. That didn’t really address sexism, but like i said, I don’t have much to say there that hasn’t been said/ feel like getting in to.
Given all the laws being passed, and one headed towards the SCOTUS, I’d say talking about reproductive rights is quite important. Discussing climate change is important. So is immigration, infrastructure, Police brutality, improving our education system, Foreign Policy, etc.. We are more than one issue, at least I hope we are. If we don’t include these issues into our platform then aren’t we saying they don’t really matter? Actually, that’s what’s coming across to me.
I’m also surprised that we can’t seem to comment on the point of this post. Is this really a bridge too far?
For the first part, I dont have an answer I feel I could neatly get across in text. Maybe if there were more debates? I dunno. The Moderators set the agenda of discussion and they like to go for what gets more fireworks. I feel like Clinton and Sanders would agree on a lot.
as to the point of the post? I dont think there is any disagreement that sexism on both sides needs to stop. It doesn’t seem like too controversial of a statement. have i (and possibly others) missed the point?
It’s victimization fatigue. We agree with the premise of the post. What else should I say?
I guess it’s easy to get fatigued over issues that don’t personally impact you. 🙂
Doubling down isn’t going to help.
But, joking aside, that’s not it, no.
“right now I’m not sure where the candidates stand on other issues that matter to me.”
I think I spotted the problem.
Go on, Puck. Explain the problem you spotted.
You are not sure where the candidates stand on certain issues, but you can’t even name the issues. Naming those issues would be a start toward being able to learn where the candidates stand. They both have long records.
Steinem and Albright, while important in their own right, aren’t even bit players in this campaign. And ignorant commentary on talk radio is a dog-bites-woman topic. Those three examples don’t really hang together to make a point. Although the Hillary’s voice comments are cringeworthy, it’s true. Jensen does it too, and they even made a promo out of Jensen mocking Hillary’s voice. All the candidate’s voices are shot after Iowa; we are now hearing clips of them shouting stump speeches at noisy crowds, and they all sound pretty shrill. Ask Howard Dean.
As near as I can tell, “BernieBros” is a construct of Hillary partisans who have glommed onto the demographic fact that Bernie supporters are mostly men, and used it to insinuate that Democratic men support Bernie instead of Hillary because they are sexist. That isn’t a real thing.
New Rule: if you have to mention a physical characteristic or attribute to buttress or even make your point, you lose. Forever.
Hence, shrillness, or non-melodywhateverthefuck of Hillary’s voice = physical attribute = Geezer loses. Forever.
New Rule: Men and women of all ages can support Hillary and men and women of all ages can support Bernie without suffering eternal damnation or betraying one’s gender.
I know where the candidates stand on most issues (based on votes and comments) but what I don’t know is how they stand on these issues compared to one another. That’s important to me. Not only where they stand, but also how (or even if) they would prioritize these issues. If candidates say police brutality (just an example) is wrong but have no plans to address the issue then, to me, that’s a problem. See what I’m saying?
As far as the “As near as I can tell, “BernieBros” is a construct of Hillary partisans who have glommed onto the demographic fact that Bernie supporters are mostly men, and used it to insinuate that Democratic men support Bernie instead of Hillary because they are sexist. That isn’t a real thing” comment… Women have told you it exists. And given history I’m amazed you doubt this.
Go read comments on FB or any other spot on the internet when the topic is Bernie and/or Hillary and then get back to me. Sheesh, on TPM the other day the very first comment was, “Hillary is a vile bitch.” I can provide a ton more, most way worse than this. I would hope we could call this out, but obviously not since it’s all in our heads.
Facebook and TPM comments, seriously? Get out of the fever swamp.
Sorry, but my experience with blogging, and commenting on a variety of other sites, is, a lot of the time, a “fever swamp”.
How is that combated?
We can all agree that being sexist toward Hillary Clinton is bad. We can all agree that calling someone a sexist for not supporting Hillary Clinton (like, in my case where candidate Sanders better reflects what I want to see a candidate stand for) is bad. But just like the racist crap about Obama is STILL all over TPM and Facebook, you’re never going to drain the swamp entirely. Better to just remember who the guys are who fit the description of a “Bernie Bro” and gloat when Hillary is President.
Hillary releasing Bill as her attack dog is really getting old. Same tactic they used against President Obama. It’s never issue driven. It’s purely political. Every time they get down they resort to it. It’s sad. It’s ugly.
Whatever means necessary. Hillary loves to play victim when it comes to the R’s but God help anyone who tries to get in the Clinton’s way. It speaks to who they are and who they care about. Themselves. Period. Speaking as a woman I have no desire in Hillary being the first female President of the United States. And I have no interest in Bill being anywhere near the White House. If she wants the political upside of being married to Bill, she gets the downside. I am done with their act.
The sexism isn’t just pointed at Hillary. There’s Trump’s BS pointed at Meghan Kelley as well as at Carly Fiorina. And it isn’t all BernieBros — any media person who evaluates the dress/makeup/haircut of a female candidate as a substitute for discussing policy or even dreaded horserace stuff are completely complicit. This can’t be framed as Hillary vs. Bernie — the second class treatment is in the DNA of the culture that is observing this stuff (remember the vilification Hillary got for not baking cookies?). Pushing back on this stuff for women in the public eye is one way of pushing this DNA out.
Frankly, I think the most shrill person on the campaign trail now is Ted Cruz. But men (white ones mostly) aren’t subject to assessments and critiques of physical traits or style as part of the price of acceptability. Think of Chris Christie — while his weight is a constant subject, we aren’t treated to commentary or judgements that his weight somehow diminishes his ability to do his job or his credibility to get that job done.
“remember the vilification Hillary got for not baking cookies?”
Actually no I don’t. The cookies quote came from Hillary herself, and the vilification came from women offended by Hillary’s characterization of stay-at-home moms.
I’ve always considered physical characteristic criticisms to be juvenile. I do make an exception for characteristics that could affect a persons job performance. As an example, I would never make fun of Christies weight but I think it’s acceptable to question his health based because of his weight.
It’s not that I’m a better human being, it’s just that it’s not personal. I have no acrimony towards candidates. I don’t hate them or love them. They are simply people who play a role and my only judgment is how well I think they can or will perform in that role.
I do think that because she is a woman, Clinton is subjected to more vitriolic comments than a man, a good portion of which is because she is married to Bill. The sins of the husband being visited upon the wife as it were. My judgment of Clinton is based on her previous performance and the record of her opinions regarding domestic and foreign policies. I could care less if her ankles are fat, or who she is married to.
Vilification about not staying home to bake cookies that was very much part of the media narrative of Hillary’s bitchiness and part of the male narrative that she was somehow not womanly enough. She definitely stepped into the Mommy War, but that was fed by a culture that still has issues with women who don’t mind not prioritizing traditional roles.
“As near as I can tell, “BernieBros” is a construct of Hillary partisans who have glommed onto the demographic fact that Bernie supporters are mostly men, and used it to insinuate that Democratic men support Bernie instead of Hillary because they are sexist. That isn’t a real thing.”
The term “Berniebro,” was coined by an Atlantic journalist (Robinson Meyer) in an article on October 17th, 2015. Titled “Here Comes the Berniebro.”
He published a follow up article on 2/5 which said in part
“I coned the term “Berniebro” to describe a phenomenon I saw on Facebook: Men, mostly my age, mostly of my background, mostly with my political beliefs, were hectoring their friends about how great Bernie was…”
He also said “I tried to gently suggest that maybe there were other ways to advance Sander’s beliefs, many of which I share”
If the meme was created by a partisan, it was a Sander’s partisan that created it (and a journalist to boot) and not Clinton partisans.
As I asked, and it still hasn’t been answered: How will sexist hatred of Hillary by Democrats affect her vote total? I have a sexist hatred of Hillary, but I’ll still vote for her (well, not really, but that’s because she will win Delaware easily if she is the nominee).
Everything said by sexist Democrats is already being said by Republicans. What makes you think that voters make a distinction? She will have to win election in a sexist world. Deal with it.
Oh, Del Dem: Fuck you, sport. You’re the one who has to resist the urge to kill Republicans. How does that not disqualify you?
@JM: Your point, if you have one?
Just to address the subject of the headline: The more you talk about sexism, the less you are talking about you candidate.
Of course, I can understand the reason for that: If you make this about the issues, she has little to recommend her to progressives. Your whole position boils down to her electability, yet you won’t accept sexist criticism of her. How does that square with her supposed electability?
Have I put forth his or her electability argument? No. But don’t let that fact get in your way.
The only electability argument I see is how the nominee would impact down ticket races. Could, or should, Bernie raise money for and support moderate Dems if he wins the nomination?
Never meant you did. I said it’s the only valid point that’s been made in her favor. Now that you mention it, I don’t see where you’ve made any arguments in her favor at all.
I’m not interested in electing “moderate” Democrats ( I think you mean “corporatist” Democrats) at any level, so if he doesn’t that’s fine with me.
Okay, well there goes more Congressional seats.
@G “As I asked, and it still hasn’t been answered: How will sexist hatred of Hillary by Democrats affect her vote total?”
Why do you think that they are Democrats? There’s good evidence a lot of ratfucking taking place this year. A significant fraction of Bernie’s donation funds are coming from Republicans, and there will be a significant number of GOP BernieBros who will be voting today. These are they guys who would rather vote AGAINST Hillary than to vote for any of the clowns on their side.
Oh my, LE. I hadn’t heard that.
Here’s where I’m coming from: I am fully aware of what will come at Hillary. I don’t agree with all her policies, but to reduce her entire career to corporatism isn’t fair or true.
I have no idea what’s in the works for Bernie. Even worse, I have no idea how he will address issues outside of income inequality. He needs to be vetted. Just like we say Bernie is good for making Hillary go left, we need to see if Bernie can withstand a political attack. The debates have done him no service by allowing him to remain in his comfort zone. That’s what makes me uneasy.
I’m undecided, but I’m probably leaning towards Clinton. I believe her resume makes her the better candidate for the job. That said, I admit: I appreciate that she is a woman. It’s not enough to win my vote. Not even close. But, it does matter.
Sexism is still very much an issue. But, not every comment about a woman’s appearance is chauvinist. Sometimes, it’s just superficial and vain. I’m not above it either.
In fact, I can’t get over Bernie’s finger waving and shouting. He reminds me of Frank Costanza.
“In fact, I can’t get over Bernie’s finger waving and shouting. He reminds me of Frank Costanza.”
I love Bernie’s passion, but, let’s face it, Hillary can’t get away with acting like that – just like Obama had to be careful not to come across as the angry black man.
LE, prove what you said.
There definitely is that sort of thing going on here…
Republicans love dirty tricks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/26/1475442/-Republicans-Run-Ratf-king-Ad-in-Iowa-to-Boost-Sanders
They even play them on each other.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carson-other-campaigns-sabotaged-us-dirty-tricks
Look. There’s a lot of hatred for Hillary out there. Do you really believe that it’s just all talk?
Pandora, thanks for posting this.
Regarding your statement, “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.”
I think it is very fair. On the campaign trail, Hillary states quite often, “Back in the 90s …”, well, then it’s fair to bring up her husband’s record.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_i_wont_vote_for_hillary_clinton_millennial_feminist_20160211
LE, that is one ad from one primary and one artilce on DailyKos.
You said ” significant fraction of Bernie’s donation funds are coming from Republicans, and there will be a significant number of GOP BernieBros who will be voting today. ”
Im calling that out as BS.