The Gender Gap among Democratic Voters

    he-manThe idea has taken hold in some circles that a fair number of Bernie Sanders supporters are sexist.  Fellow Dagblogger PeraclesPlease describes "leftist misogyny" as "waiting for the right woman [not Hillary]".

    At Salon, the reliably misandrist Amanda Marcotte identifies a "Bernie bro phenomenon" consisting "of young men whose enthusiasm for socialism is goosed by an unacknowledged sexism".  Slate's more credible Michelle Goldberg contends many male Bernie backers "certainly don’t care about female leadership."

    If you are now expecting a critique of these claims and their espousers for using them to avoid a discussion of the real and important policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, prepare to be disappointed.  Within every age group, Clinton appeals to a higher percentage of women than Sanders even though Clinton's more conservative record should be more appealing to the more conservative sex.  Plausibly, moderate to conservative Democratic men prefer Sanders because he's a man.

    In fact, I frequently question why I feel only contempt for the centrist Hillary Clinton.  Most of the time, I attribute it to our very different positions on any number of issues as well as her questionable character, dubious ethics, and history of dishonesty.  But to be fair, her husband shares many of these unpleasant traits.  Likewise, Barack Obama has betrayed his mandate and nation by pursuing damaging corporatist and militarist policies.

    Yet I harbor affection for (as well as antipathy towards) both recent Democratic Presidents with whom I would love play a pickup basketball game and then share a beer.  Such feelings are consistent with a sexist attitude.  Accordingly, I do not reject out-of-hand the Peracles-Marcotte-Goldberg sexism thesis.  On the other hand, I have no interest in hanging out with Bernie Sanders and am confident I would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

    So ladies, you may well be right when you claim some sons of Sanders are just "he-man women-haters" at heart.  My response is so what.  What good does it do to hang a scarlet S around our necks?

    You want us to support Clinton enthusiastically in the general election if she wins the Democratic nomination right?  Presumably, you'd like to peel some of us away from Sanders over the next few months to make her expected victory in the Democratic primaries even more decisive than it seems likely to be.  This would allow her to conserve resources for the bigger fight ahead.

    As the old saying goes, you're more likely to catch flies with honey than vinegar.  So take us Bernie bros (and sisses - more women under 30 prefer Bernie) at our word.  Believe or at least pretend you believe we are sincere when we tell you Hillary scares us.

    Patiently explain to us cavemen that she's not likely to embroil America in another destructive Middle East war despite her history and recent bellicose rhetoric.  Convince us that we can trust her when she says that she's against the Trans Pacific Partnership notwithstanding her previous support and votes in favor of past free trade deals.  Persuade us that her opposition to a new Glass-Steagall Act and a $15 national minimum wage doesn't signify the ascendancy of Wall Street over Main Street in her political calculations.

    When you play the gender card, provide concrete evidence that Hillary's womanhood will result in women-friendly policies despite her close relationship with the government of Singapore which is a destination country for traffickers of girls and women.  Assuage our concerns that she's Rupert Murdoch's favorite Democrat.  After all, at the last debate, she relied on a debunked Wall Street Journal to claim Bernie's healthcare and college education plans will cost Americans $18-20 billion rather than save billions.

    Finally ladies, if you really are concerned about electing the best candidate and making America a better place for our children and their children, take us seriously.  As men, we may incorrectly believe we deserve the last word.  But indulge us XY Democrats anyway - not with the last word of course but with a seat at the table.  It's just barely possible, isn't it, that despite our chauvinism we may have doped this race out pretty well.



    Hal, I am far more liberal than Bernie but I'm still backing Hillary Clinton. I've already explained why here and there and everywhere.  Every single question you've asked above about Hillary has already been answered by me and others, but you're still asking them--and in the same challenging way, as if, no matter what answer we give it won't be the right one unless it's what you want to hear.

    There are two men, Peter Daou and Tom Watson, known as #HillaryMen, who work tirelessly to defend against the lies and misconceptions about Clinton.  I'll turn you over to them because they speak for me, more eloquently and probably in shorter sentences..

    Peter wrote this one, called "Gutter Politics", yesterday.

    He wrote this one in March, long before the current attacks on her but it's as relevant now as it was then.  It's a decoder of the most common memes used against her.  I'm sure you'll recognize most of them.

    But let's lay this one to rest:  I am not trying to get you to vote against Bernie.  That's your business.  I'm trying to get you to be fair about Hillary.  So far you've not been.  That's on you, not me.

    I'm not asking you to endorse Hillary "enthusiastically" in the general election, I'm asking you not to sabotage the Democrats.

    Not every woman is voting for Hillary because she happens to share our gender.  I'm voting for her because I believe she's the most qualified and would make the best president.  It's really not necessary for you to keep telling me I'm wrong.  It's not even prudent.  I don't quite get why you keep doing it.


    If you are far more liberal than Bernie, you must be vastly more liberal(or radical) than Clinton. So why do you think she would be the better president?

    The support is probably because Hillary can win.

    That's a bit cart-before-horse, IMHO. Hillary to me gives the impression she can manage things well, which leads to the idea that she can win, an aura that she fits the job. Managing is quite different from having the right policies. I like some of her policies, others I'm not thrilled with, But I like what I feel is her management style. Of course managing a campaign is quite different from actually managing government.

    Hillary sat through 10-11 hours of a witch hunt hearing in Congress and remained calm. The men on both sides of the aisle running for office seem a bit emotional and prune to the vapors. Hillary can confront Trump, Cruz, or Rubio without getting upset. I see Sanders letting his temper flare when he come under attack. Hillary can win because she seems more Presidential.

    Yep, that's the *horse*-before-cart version. Thanks.

    I'm also a pragmatist.  I've been around for 50 years worth of election cycles, which means more often than not, my guy didn't win.  Or, if he did win, he couldn't accomplish everything he promised, either to his voters or to himself.

    There is a strength in Hillary that gives me hope.  I don't know of many people, male or female, who could endure the kinds of attacks she's had to endure and still come out swinging.  The Republicans are afraid of her.  She would be their worst nightmare--even worse than eight years of a black president.  I find that appealing.

    The Republicans' worst nightmare is much higher taxes on the rich, campaign finance reform, and a populist Democratic political movement of poor, working, and middle-income Americans.  Nothing in Clinton's record suggests she would pursue any of these.

    if that were the case they'd be going after Sanders.  They aren't.  There's a reason for that.

    " Every single question you've asked above about Hillary has already been answered by me and others". 

    Couldn't be true Ramona.  I never previously mentioned: 1) Clinton's repetition at the 3rd Democratic debate of WSJ lies regarding the cost of Bernie's healthcare and college initiatives since the debate happened three days ago. 2) The recent claims by Clinton supporters in the media and at blogsites that Bernie's supporters are sexist - the Marcotte article I cite was posted yesterday.  3) My navel-gazing and recognition that some of my antipathy towards Clinton may be gender-based.

    Regarding memes raised against Clinton, I don't really care what some "debunker" says.  Her voting record, her history as Secretary of State, and her rhetoric are simply not progressive except in a few rare instances.  She is a true-green (as in the color of money) corporatist and a militarist.  She is also untrustworthy  You are welcome to vote for her of course but don't ask me to believe folks who are handing me a turd sandwich and telling me it's ham and swiss.

    So there's nothing you'll read that may possibly give you another perspective about Hillary?  Fine.

    Conversation over.

    Yes there are things that I can imagine that would give me another perspective on Hillary Clinton.  If I learned that privately Clinton admitted that her vote for the war on Iraq was a terrible mistake that she'll never repeat but she has to pretend to be a hawk to get elected that would help.  If credible evidence were presented that she plans to push for a $1/gallon tax on gasoline and a comparable tax on other fossil fuels that would be a huge mark in her favor.  Secret plans to raise taxes on the rich and tariffs to protect American industry would make me more inclined to support her enthusiastically if she's the Democratic nominee.

    Okay, now let me turn the question around on you.  Is there anything you can imagine reading that would cause you to rethink your allegiance to her?

    Hillary admits she made a mistake with her Iraq vote.  But you want something to show she admitted it privately?  Then it would be private, right?

    I don't know what she plans to do about a gas tax.  Whatever it is, you won't like it.  But she did say this out loud just before the primaries when she ran against Barack Obama:

    "I am absolutely convinced that these record profits of the oil companies are a result of a number of factors beyond supply and demand. I think there has been market manipulation. In fact, Exxon Mobil official testifying under oath before the House of Representatives committee said that if it were just market factors, then the price of oil would be like $50 or $55 a barrel.

    We know that there's market manipulation going on. So I would launch an investigation if I were president right now by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. I would also quit buying oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We're 97 percent full. We don't need to keep buying it at these prices, and I would release some.

    I would begin to go directly at OPEC. I think it's been 25 years where we've, you know, largely just been at the mercy of the OPEC countries.

    But this gas tax issue to me is very real, because I am meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money if the oil companies paid this $8 billion this summer, instead of it coming out of the pockets of consumers."

    I don't know if she has any secret plans to raise taxes on the rich or demand tariffs.  Because, again, those would be secret.  

    As to your last point, there isn't much I don't already know about Hillary, since she's been not just a public figure but fodder for the press for a couple of decades now, so, no, I can't think of anything that might change my mind.

    But let's turn that around.  Is there anything you can imagine reading about Bernie that would. . .you know. . .rethink your allegiance to him?

    Ramona - I asked you whether you can imagine rethinking your allegiance to Hillary.  The answer is an emphatic no.  You can't imagine that she might really be on the side of just the 1% and nobody else and nothing would persuade you of that.  Yet you expect me to read fawning pieces by HillShills.  Makes sense.

    Regarding your question whether anything would cause me to support anybody but Bernie, sure, if a more progressive more viable candidate than Bernie entered the Democratic primaries right now, I'd support her/him.  I support the most progressive viable candidate in every election. 

    Likewise, If I learned that Sanders was really a right-wing plant who's entire career has been designed to sucker lefties into supporting him but he'll govern like George W. Bush, I'd switch my allegiance to Martin O'Malley in a heartbeat.

    Regarding Clinton's admission of error regarding Iraq, it hasn't caused her to be any less war-like.  She is by far the most hawkish Democrat and more hawkish than several of the Republicans.  So, what good is her admission?

    Regarding her criticism of ExxonMobil for price manipulation, my problem with the price of petroleum is that it's too low not, as Clinton suggests, too high.  Moreover, her recent willingness to go after ExxonMobil is certainly temporally suspicious.  See David Sirota's recent Clinton calls for ExxonMobil probe only after company stops funding Clinton Foundation.

    Ramona - I asked you whether you can imagine rethinking your allegiance to Hillary.  The answer is an emphatic no.  You can't imagine that she might really be on the side of just the 1% and nobody else and nothing would persuade you of that.  Yet you expect me to read fawning pieces by HillShills. 

    What a formulation!  Imagine that Hillary is not your ideal candidate, Hal, but also not "really of the side of just of the 1%"!

    And then the HillShills bit...

    Please behave.

     Seems it might be those liberal and/or progressive Democrats, or more importantly those many more who are Democrats because that is what their parents were and who are expected to vote their tribal affiliation but who might read something and therefore get a different perspective on Hillary, who are the real threats to some. Let's take a chance and keep the conversation open.  

    Lol, I didn't mean the entire conversation was over.  I meant that from my perspective if Hal wasn't willing to consider anything but his own opinions about Hillary there wasn't much point in my continuing the conversation.

    Boy George used to think of women's private parts as some scary spider. I'm not equipped to psycho-analyze everyone who finds Hillary "scary". And Hal, I understand you have close relations with the US, which has a horrid record of extraordinary renditions and incarceration of minorities - How can we trust that you've "doped out" anything well? I at least had the moral consistency to leave the US - but youre still consorting with essentially a Tea Party led society. How do you reconcile that with your supposed liberal beliefs?

    What scares me about a Clinton Presidency:

    1) Endless war in the Middle East - costing our nation A) thousands of young women and men, B) trillions of dollars, C) what remains of our soul.

    2) A failure to take meaningful steps against the greatest threat humans have ever faced - Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    3) Continuing growth in economic injustice leaving millions more Americans in poverty and embittering them against the Democratic party so that electing a true progressive will become even more difficult.  Even worse the angrier masses may well turn in the next election cycle to a true fascist as many are now entranced by hopefully only quasi-fascists Trump and Cruz.

    Sorry if those aren't scary enough for you.  I could probably come up with a few more but I don't really feel like it right now.

    None of which are anything close to what she has proposed.  All of which are your own thoughts about what a Hillary win MIGHT mean.  

    You really need to read this, Hal.  It might make you realize why it's hard to take your writings about Clinton seriously. It's as if they're right out of the playbook.  

    And the more I see of this sort of thing, the more I realize I've made the right choice.  It makes me respect Hillary more every day.  She will not let that hate machine move her off her course. You call her "untrustworthy", but I see the opposite.  I can't think of anyone I would trust more with the presidency.

    "None of which are anything close to what she has proposed."

    1) Endless war in the Middle East.  On 11/19/15, Clinton outlined her plan to deal with ISIS/ISIL/Daesh: “It’s time to begin a new phase to intensify and broaden our efforts, to smash the would-be caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria,” Clinton said. “That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes and a broader target set.”  She also "called for deploying a special operations force that Obama has authorized and said she is 'prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.'”

    2) Regarding global warming, per Slate, "O’Malley and Sanders are much more ambitious than Clinton on climate".  Per Bill McKibben, after Sanders announced he was running for President:

    The Democratic presidential primary race got its second major candidate recently, and its first true climate hawk: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-described democratic socialist. Sanders has one of the strongest climate change records in the Senate. In fact, according to rankings released by Climate Hawks Vote, a new super PAC, Sanders was the No. 1 climate leader in the Senate for the 113th Congress that ended in January.

    In contrast McKibben called Clinton's plan "well short of bold".  R.L. Miller, founder of the California-based Climate Hawks Vote PAC, told Politico that Clinton's plan is largely "remarkable for what it doesn’t say." Specifically, Miller pointed out there is "no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on . . . Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking."

    3) Regarding economic injustice, Clinton opposes Sanders' call to raise the minimum wage to $15.  She opposes tuition-free college education at state universities as do I.  She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall and she has been a fitful supporter of middle-class destroying "free trade" deals.

    But none of this means anything to you right Ramona?  In fact, this evidence just makes you even more confident Clinton's the better candidate.  Should I try reverse psychology.  Maybe praising her would cause you to look at her record more skeptically?

    Hal, you didn't even read McKibben's piece through. He notes 1 of 2 laws passed was co-written with Hillary and that going forward nothing really distinguishes them. That's YOUR evidence.
    Bernie called on Alliance with Russia and others to stop ISIS. Hillary said there will be no US ground troops as that's what ISIS wants. What's your big scary difference?
    Your bit about minimum wage is framed hugely misleading. Hillary's called for at least $12 minimum wage but is concerned about $15 in small markets like rural areas. She doesn't see Glass-Steagal as the cure-all you do - do you really think we needed Glass-Steagal tomorrow the feds to see Goldman Sachs was selling poisoned assets and do something about it? Having a pretty law does nothing if no one enforces it, and *that's* the biggest breakdown we had with Bush and even mortgage crap under Obama. Slaps on the wrist if any for outrageous behavior and huge bailouts with no strings attached. You think Hillary will give them more carte blanche, I dont.
    In any case, its obvious you're gaming the evidence just so you can feel scared. Read a Stephen King book or watch Saw III instead.

    One error you seem to be making is the assumption that writers are discussing gender issues and sexism in the context of this campaign for the purpose of serving Hillary's election prospects. I don't think that's true. Most of the writers have been discussing gender issues for years most of the time not related to Hillary Clinton at all. They are not discussing sexism against Hillary to support her but because gender issues are important issues for them. The current context of sexism discussions may focus on Hillary because the election is the current context. Many may realize that confronting sexism may actually piss of somewhat enlightened men who haven't looked at their hidden sexism and may drive them away from Hillary. For some, while they want to do both, confronting sexism is more important than spinning to get Hillary elected

    I think this is fair Ocean-Kat.  But I would respond that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If low-brow provocateurs like Marcotte, relatively innocuous mainstream liberals like Goldberg, and insightful incisive (albeit profane) commentators like our own PP expect me and other liberal men to examine ourselves for hidden gender biases then I expect them (and you) to ask yourselves what price a woman President?  How far to the right are you willing to go?  What level of dishonesty will you accept in a candidate because she's a woman?  How much corporate influence in the White House is too much even if the puppet is a woman?  I hope you, PP, and Goldberg are asking yourself those very questions.  I know Marcotte is not.

    I think this is fair Ocean-Kat. 

    Perhaps a bit too fair for your liking as your response is nasty and insulting. PP and I aren't like you. You slip the knife in under the table with your passive aggressive style. We don't play that game. PP may disagree, but I think we're both up front when we get nasty. My inclination when faced with a post like this is to make my points in a nasty manner too. Right in your face with a few curse words thrown in just because I know it pisses you off. Then you put on your innocent face and act aggrieved running to the fainting couch and looking for a fan, "Oh. Oh no. Hillary supporters are so nasty, and profane too." Insulting posts like this are why you get nasty responses.

    These aren't questions they're attacks that insult both me and the candidate I support. I don't ask myself any of them. They are based on the premise that I, and others, support Hillary because she's a women. We've discussed why that isn't true but you keep repeating the same tired meme.

    You ask "What level of dishonesty will you accept" The unspoken premise is that Hillary is extraordinarily dishonest. I don't think Hillary is any more dishonest than any other politician. Frankly I think a certain level of dishonesty is required of a politician to get elected. I think Sanders is somewhat dishonest too. He pandered to the gun nuts to get elected and is spinning it for political purposes. I haven't spent much time harping on it because I accept its necessity. I don't accept dishonesty because Hillary is a women. I don't think her level of dishonesty is significant more than others.

    You ask " How much corporate influence in the White House is too much even if the puppet is a woman?" The premise is that Hillary is a corporate puppet and I accept it because she a women. Insulting to her and insulting to me. We've discussed this as well. I don't expect you to accept or agree with my arguments but don't act like we haven't talked about it. I don't see Hillary as a puppet.

    So no, I never ask myself any of those insulting questions. To do so I'd have to accept the premise that Hillary is dishonest, a puppet, and that I accept that and only support her because she's a women. I know that's what you think but it's not true.


    Ocean-kat - I previously said that I was going to stop posting as it is Christmas Eve and people should enjoy the holiday without having blood pressure spikes resulting from contentious political screeds. But I am going to post just this and stop looking at Dag.

    Let me apologize for what was a misunderstanding due solely to my poor writing.  I did not mean to imply, although it seems obvious that I did imply, that you support a candidate or would be willing to support a candidate whom you perceive to be dishonest or a corporate puppet.

    thanks for saying this.

    Hal, I dont expect you to do anything -that was your framing. I just counter your bullshit. You ignored Ramona's link to the excellent Peter Daou analysis and instead proffer up 3 more bullshit scare points. What's the point of talking to you? You don't even accurately portray your own links.


    Very well stated.  Personally, I neither like, nor trust, Hillary Clinton, and if she was the most virile man on the planet, with her background, remote demeanor, and staged and premeditated personality, I still wouldn't like her. And many of Hillary's supporter's don't help her a bit, because they tend to be hostile, one-issue voters.  

    Like you, I would love to vote for Elizabeth Warren, because she's dedicated, spontaneous, and passionate in her beliefs. But I like her most of all, because she comes off like a REAL woman who takes pride in her femininity, unlike Hillary, who has dedicated her entire life to trying to prove how much like a man she could be. She's all ambition, and all signs of femininity have vanished. That's a slap in the face of womanhood, because it implies that simply being a woman is not good enough; in order for a woman to be equal to a man, she has to become one. I never did liked women like that, because they tend to be hardcore ideologues. In addition, it's backward thinking. I wrote an article about it during the 2008 election, which I just might reprise.

    Here's how I visualize Hillary as a Black male:

    Thanks Wattree.  Trying to figure out who that villain is.

    It's no one in particular.  It's just a random piece of art that I use when I want to portray someone as unscrupulous. I'm very big on imagery. It saves me "thousands of words." 

    This is possibly the weirdest obervation you've ever made. If you think Hillary shows no sign of femininity and has just made herself over as a man, you must hold half the female population in contempt. I don't see Hillary comporting herself in any different way than millions of women. She's in politics, so she discusses political issues as does Kirchner in Argentina and Merkel in Germany and Suu Kyii in Burma, so maybe her inner Shakira or Tina Turner doesn't get a shake on stage, as actually with most 68-year old women, but she wears makeup and fitting hairstyles and feminine clothing with no problem. Who knows what you expected.


    You'll see this as misdirection, but you brought it up... Amanda Marcotte is not a man-hater. Heck, like bel hooks, she has often made the point that mysogyny is spiritually oppressive to the men who practice it.

    However, she is not always in line with what liberal men think and she is not willing to be lectured to, by men, about what is and isn't liberal.  To that, I have to say, bravo.  I am also not willing to have other people tell me whether or not I am liberal and I know you feel the same way.

    So, where is the disconnect with the Bernie Bros?  It's about priorities, I think.  Back before Bernie, in the earlier days of Rand Paul, we lefties had a debate about the merits of social and economic liberalism.  The two are not in sync.  Real social liberalism embraces the libertarian ethos of "live and let live."  Economic liberalism, in practice, demands regulation and social involvement.  Because Rand held the incoherent positions of being both pro-life and anti-drug law, Marcotte criticized "libertarian bros" on the left for valuing the right to light a doob over the right of a woman's right to choose.

    Bernie may not hold the contradictory stances of Paul, but he does have priorities and his ethos seems to be that if he can get the economic system right, solutions to our gender and race problems will follow.  I am sympathetic to him, but I am also sympathetic to those who refuse to be second place in this argument.

    Meanwhile... consider your tone.  You began by accusing a well-regarded writer of misandrogyny and then you call out to the "ladies," as if you are in a position to tell them what to think.  I don't mean to generalize but all people, regardless of race or gender, hate being told what to think. In terms of outreach, you blew it the second you wrote, "So ladies..."

    And then you made your largest mistake... After "So ladies..." you threatened your audience with the potential ambivalence of the Bernie backers in the general election, as if that is the difference between President Clinton and President Trumpio.  Demographically, that argument might work or it might not but philosophically, it is no different than my arguing that you should just support Hillary now or risk 8 years of political damnation  -- it's a mere threat of political retaliation of dubious merit.

    If you want liberal feminists to vote for Bernie, you have to make a positive case for Bernie.  So far, your candidate has admirably declined to slime the frontrunner.

    Amanda Marcotte is not "well-regarded".  She's a joke.  She's a nightmare.  She's the worst sort of rabble-rouser - one who displays remarkable ignorance nearly every time she taps on a keyboard.  See e.g., Amanda Marcotte's Ugly Prejudices, Marcotte getting the Rolling Stone U.Va article 180 degrees wrong, Marcotte showing remarkable insensitivity to Americans of color, Marcotte's absurd anti-Bernie screeds at Salon which routinely show a 10-1 negative to positive ratio in the comments section which by the way are closely screened with particularly biting criticism weeded out, Marcotte's vicious attack on "nice guys"

    You say she's not willing to be lectured to.  Shouldn't she be willing to listen?  I am.  I listen to you and to others' commentary and criticism and take it seriously.  Don't you?  Why do you applaud somebody for being hide-bound and blissful in her ignorant nastiness.

    Okay, you linked to this as damning her and I suspect it is the beginning of the "nice guy" meme but... what's the problem, here?  Just look at the amount of apologies and explanations she wrote and tell me this wasn't a fair-minded piece. Seriously?  What's the sin?

    Michael - I don't see any apologies.  Her first sentence: "Oh lord, Elevatorgate is continuing to go on, as these things do when a bunch of men (and their pathetic female supporters) swear up and down that the biggest problem this world faces is a bunch of nice, well-meaning guys can't get laid because women are meanies."  Where's the apology?  Where's the contrition?

    By "apologies," I meant hedging in the modern sense or explanation in the Socratic sense.  You linked to that as a piece of extremism and, let's be honest... That's a stretch.

    Here's an example of Marcotte "hedging" in the article we both cite:

    Psychology Today, which is basically a right wing rag that uses pseudo-science to argue for a view of race and gender on par with Bill O'Reilly's, has unsurprisingly weighed in on the whole notion of whether it's okay to corner women in elevators, hoping that raising the stakes of saying no will get you to "yes".

    I'm sorry... is she wrong?

    Actually, I can't even tell what you're defending.  The right to press on with sexual advances after rejection?  The editorial integrity of Psychology Today?

    I'm not defending anything Michael.  I'm responding to your claim that Marcotte is "well-regarded" and "fair-minded" by quoting some of her usual absurd language.  Interesting that you who were upset by "hillshills" don't mind "pathetic female supporters" or the reference to Psychology Today - a mainstream mag if ever there were one - as a "right-wing rag".

    Now you're just taking things out of context.  "Pathetic female supports" refers to women who defend the "rights" of men to sexually harass women in elevators.  As for the honor of Psychology Today... I don't really care?

    Except that's not what the women did and nobody defended anybody's right to harass women in elevators.

    Or the right to isolate females in elevators and make them uncomfortable?

    Is that "right" defended in the Psychology Today article that Marcotte slammed or is she lying?

    You slammed her, so I hope you know.

    Like so much of Marcotte's writing, it's utter nonsense.

    Given your delightful take on Marcotte's life work, I can't at all imagine why some Hillary supporters detect a whiff of sexism emanating from the Bros for Bernie camp.

    Yes indeed.  We may not mock a self-proclaimed feminist under any circumstances no matter how shabby her writing and indefensible her conclusions.  Avowed feminists should be held to a lower standard than others right Michael?  I mean her ultimate goal is noble - I suppose - so let's ignore little details like facts, unwarranted smears, and bizarre takes.

    Under this logic, everyone should just accept my arguments without any personal attacks, references to my previous writing, or even challenges to my accuracy.  After all my ultimate goals - which unlike Marcotte - I am not shy about trumpeting are: 1) a much fairer society for all that not only provides reasonably level playing field for everybody when they come into it and throughout their formative years but also guarantees a relatively fair outcome as well with nobody sleeping under bridges or begging in the streets or possessing billions of dollars and 2) a clean green energy future for all.

    I mean my goals are obviously laudable so who cares if I wrongly attribute a vote to Hillary Clinton that she never made or falsely claim that she's talking to Ted Cruz about a bipartisan ticket. 

    Here's why providing details is more useful than blanket ad hominem statements. I went to Psychology Today expecting to disagree with you. Instead, I think Kaufman expresses that the 4am alone in an elevator come up to my room to an unknown woman is pretty douchey and potentially quite scary for a woman out on her own - there are a lot of "nice" weirdos. Kaufman addresses how the saner ones can approach women at normal parts of the day without cornering in a threatening situation alone. Wehuntedthemammoth blog misrepresentrd Kaufman's column, IMHO. But here's an all too common douche who thinks it's okay for the "nice" guy to take a shot in whatever situation., sorry,if I'm walking home at night and see that and I see a single female young or old that I might freak by being too close, I change my step. Asking a stranger in an elevator to come to your room at 4am has no other interpretation, admits weird and was too forward. A pickup club would be different. I don't know owhether Mascotte mixed Mammoth's column for what Psych Today said, but knowing nothing about Kaufman's background, I'd say her characterization of Kaufman's Psych Today was way off, and he wasn't defending nice guy pervs at all.

    Thanks PP.  I don't know whether you celebrate Christmas - I don't - but either way I hope you had a great 12/25.

    Celebrate on the 24th ;-) always one step ahead...

    I actually don't know why I am bothering with you at all, mostly you don't even answer my relevant critiques of your anti-Hillary treatises.  So here goes.

    If you are now expecting a critique of these claims and their espousers for using them to avoid a discussion of the real and important policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, prepare to be disappointed

    And then you never fucking bothered to write about their so-called important policy differences, which tells us everything. You did go on to attack yet another woman, who joins a long list of women you don't like because they call me on their BS. This time you stoop pretty low calling her a misandrist, because you disagree with her analysis. Yikes, dude... seriously. This is a massively meta-blog is all about you and how you are nothing like Marcotte, even though I am pretty sure she wasn't writing about you personally. But you do hate Hillary Clinton with ever fiber of your being, because 1%! You are not a sexist, because you would vote for Warren! Your own version of I have a black best friend. And you never ever address anything about Sanders or his policies. 

    And that is the meat here, you have failed to discuss Bernie's actual policies, and are intent on this Atwater style attack on Clinton and women voters.. Maybe you can't really discuss his policies, because you know he can't accomplish his goals.

    Let's take the free college lie. Seriously... "College should be free, I can make college free". Guess what, that is one massive lie. It's a political lie to get young college kids to get to the polls. Let's talk about how this could be accomplished given several legislative constrictions. The biggest one being, states run their own systems, so how do you intend to make it free to attend, the federal government has no power to regulate state universities. If his intention is to  just allow students to take out bigger student loans or to give everyone Pell grants, how does he actually accomplish that goal? He has four years, maybe eight? 

    Universal single payer insurance... which would be great, but how does one accomplish this goal? What is his legislative strategy? Do you drug all the Republican congressmen and make them vote your way somehow, ply them with hookers? Seriously.  

    Do you believe a Pres. Sanders could just pull everyone out of the middle east and shit doesn't get even worse? A candidate can say whatever, but there are realities that shape actions, with every choice being bad, but some being worse than bad. Your black and white world doesn't actually allow for that, suddenly you will be extremely disappointed in a BS presidency because he can't be a purist anymore, reality sets in. Does he really think he can redirect all that DoD money to social [programs and infrastructure? Do you really think that can happen in four or even eight years? 

    I'm real bored with your meta BS, so how about you answer some real questions about your candidate. 

    One more little issue..spare me your BS about who is the bigger feminist, you couldn't even address my comment in your "Hillary's Anecdotes" blog. Women aren't looking for some special treatment here because she is a woman. HRC supporters would never say BS is no feminist, when clearly he is. It's telling that you refuse to acknowledge HRC has special standing when it comes to what women have experienced living in this male centered world and that we share those experiences. I guess it is because you think those experiences we share are what tie us to her, and if you can crush that your candidate can win. Interesting. 

    You write "I actually don't know why I am bothering with you at all, mostly you don't even answer my relevant critiques of your anti-Hillary treatises."  Assuming for the moment that I don't reply to "relevant critiques" of my "anti-Hillary treatises," would it matter to you if I did?  Would such a reply cause you to reevaluate your full-throated support of her candidacy?

    I will tell you that I read very closely pro-Clinton articles and comments.  I take her supporters at their (your) word that they (you) believe she would be a better President.  I examine her various votes and rhetoric for evidence in support of this view.  Over and over, I (like 88% of the voters in the Progressive Democrats poll) conclude that the evidence is overwhelming that she would not be as good as Bernie Sanders on the issues that matter to me.

    Do you read very closely anti-Clinton and pro-Sanders articles and comments to see whether the points made are good ones?  Could anything convince you that the millions of men and women who have concluded that Clinton's economic policies are on balance harmful to poor, working, and middle-income people are right?  What about those of us who reject Clinton based on our fears that she will embroil our military even more deeply and harmfully in the Middle East are correct?  Would evidence or data persuade you that her realpolitik approach is less than ideal?





    That's easy for you to say.

    Latest Comments