dagblog - Comments for "The Acceptable Woman: Sexism in Progressivism"

Thanks for the links, TMC.

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 01:02:37 +0000

In reply to Okidoki, here we go, I think

Thanks for the links, TMC. There is definitely sexism at work here, as I acknowledged before, but I think we should be careful about what we're calling sexist.

1) Attacking Hillary is not inherently sexist. This is what happens to candidates in a contentious election.

2) Attacking Hillary's character or personality is not inherently sexist. Women have personal flaws just like men, and those flaws are fair game in politics. No one bats an eyelash when people attack Ted Cruz's personality.

3) Attacking Hillary using Republican talking points is not inherently sexist. Sanders supporters naturally look for Hillary's weaknesses. That they emphasize the same weaknesses as Republicans does not make them sexist.

4) Being an asshole is not inherently sexist. If you think Sanders' supporters are being mean to Hillary, you should read what Republicans are saying about one another.

That said, any of these attacks may be sexist. The telltale giveaway is gendered language. When people use words like "bitchy," when they complain about ambitious or aggressive women, when they criticize Hillary's feminism, or when they accuse her of trying to be manly, it's obvious misogyny, and we should call it out.

Of course, misogyny can be veiled, but then it's a gray zone. Maybe someone hates Hillary because he's sexist. Or maybe she just rubs him the wrong way. It happens. And it doesn't serve Hillary well for her supporters to accuse anyone who dislikes her of harboring sexist attitudes.

Great links, Teri. Thanks

Ramona — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:46:19 +0000

In reply to Okidoki, here we go, I think

Great links, Teri. Thanks for putting the work into it. Very useful.

Sorry, yes, I thought that

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:51:59 +0000

In reply to And there is this point as

Sorry, yes, I thought that was the main point - guess I didn't say it.

You might want to touch on

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:28:43 +0000

In reply to Okidoki, here we go, I think

You might want to touch on how Howard Dean's wife was treated - the nerve that a professional doctor wouldn't just turn into a campaign mule. And I think there was something about her looks - or maybe a lot about her looks. Welcome Maureen Dowd, the scourge of feminism in the name of feminism, or just concern trolling from the dependable NYTimes. [yeah, she wasn't the candidate, so slightly off-topic, but still related]

And there is this point as

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:06:33 +0000

In reply to You might want to touch on

And there is this point as well. She just wanted to do her job, and stay out of politics like she always had, nothing is ever good enough.

Okidoki, here we go, I think

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:04:45 +0000

In reply to Tmc, I guess that I didn't

Okidoki, here we go, I think you want links. Let's deal with Elizabeth Warren first and the time she wasn't the Acceptable Woman, because it actually wasn't that long ago. It isn't because of Warren's policies at the time that she is being critiqued for

Meghna Chakrabarti: Tell us what you think is wrong with the Warren campaign.

Dan Payne: It’s her advertising. Her television commercials seem to turn off people. Women have told me they find her hectoring, they don’t like her attitude, she’s school marmish. These are the opinions of people who support her.

They find her hectoring... hmmm, if you read the article it is quite maddening. So like I said, even though she is the Acceptable Woman, currently, she also was the unAcceptable woman, which always happens. Which is what I also state above, this isn't really a proving contest for women, this is a, yeah, we have all been her, and this has been a very maddening and annoying experience for some of us.

HA Goodman, I think he writes for Huff and Salon, is a great one for using Republican attacks against HRC. I don't actually know who he is and he just seemed to appear this year, but maybe because he is so virulent in his attacks on HRC's character is the only reason I've ever heard of him. Who knows.

Walter Bragman, Salon, also a guy who uses Republican attacks against her.

1) Hillary’s personality repels me (and many others).

He begins his critique with her personality?? And this Bragman fellow actually writes a blog saying let's let the GOP have four years, we can't allow HRC to be elected?? Umm, how Republican does that sound to you, I've heard my father is say it to me, just about two weeks ago, my dad is not a Democrat. I don't know, these are some upper-middle class men, who always get by, so for him, he doesn't give a rats ass what happens, women have to care, that is a major difference here, we have to care, or we lose everything.

Here and there DAG itself is smattered with Republican attacks against HRC, attacks on her responsibility for her husbands philandering to me are Republican Atwater style attacks. I don't expect them from progressives, I am always pretty shocked when it happens.

I have more:

Men Explain Hillary to Me: Michelle Goldberg

I don't know if this embed is working so here is the link to the horrifying video, sheesh, please don't tell me even liberals aren't infected but this sexist BS. The one guy who tries to defend HRC is shot down instantly and he is instantly swayed, WTF? They are saying all the things Republicans have ever said about her. I don't know. I guess I could gather 100 links and it might not be enough, so I'll leave you with that.

Now off to painting the family room.

edited to add: The Sanders campaign is pretty worried about this.

Thanks Mona, most women I

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:27:56 +0000

In reply to Thank you, Teri. Seems

Thanks Mona, most women I know see it plainly before their eyes. Most men, not all, seem the need for more proof. Sunday I will deliver that proof.

Thank you, Teri. Seems

Ramona — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:15:27 +0000

In reply to The Acceptable Woman: Sexism in Progressivism

Thank you, Teri. Seems pretty clear to me! Well done.

I LOVE THIS SONG.

Richard Day — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 00:36:47 +0000

In reply to As long as we're dealing with

I LOVE THIS SONG.

I have not listened to it for many years.

THANK YOU PERACLES!

I am not ignoring you MW, I

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:53:51 +0000

In reply to Tmc, I guess that I didn't

I am not ignoring you MW, I promise to respond with all the links necessary, I hope to do it by Sunday, it's 6 day work week this week... Romeo and Juliette season. But I think you make valid points.

tmac