home

Women Are Never Frontrunners

Gloria Steinem today in the New York Times:

Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

There is truth in what Steinem writes but it is not a universal truth. In general, I believe white women are given a fairer shake than African American men. But in politics, especially at its highest levels, this seems less so. It seems undeniable that Obama has become a Meda Darling while Hillary Clinton has gotten the worst coverage since Al Gore in 2000.

Sexism is more acceptable. Exhibit A? Chris Matthews. If he acted towards Obama as he does towards Hillary, he would have been Imused.

This is not to say that that explains Obama's meteoric rise. But it is a factor.

Update [2008-1-8 9:37:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: See also Ezra.

Update [2008-1-8 17:16:6 by Big Tent Democrat]: Here's Plutonium Page's take

< New Hampshire: Polls And Expectations | Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in New Hampshire for Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    I'm certainly not one to jump to claims of sexism; in fact, I tend to be rather cautious and skeptical of them.

    But this has just been beyond the pale. The pathological obsession of the media with Clinton and their atrocious coverage, using barely veiled or openly sexist angles has been astounding.

    I applaud her for how well she has handled herself. I would have lost it, called the entire press corps names that should never be repeated, flipped them off, and gone home.


    Can't be the frontrunner! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    What BS.  She was considered inevitable a month ago!

    Frontrunner

    While Senator Clinton Is Not My Choice (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    for president due to the issues, I do feel that it is horrible the way she has been attacked on gender related issues. Attack her on the issues, fine. Attack her by promoting gender related stupidity, the attacker needs to be held accountable.

    Don't understand (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    "I do feel that it is horrible the way she has been attacked on gender related issues."

    Chris Matthews' gender related issues are Chris Matthews' issues. He's a schmuck who's kept on the air by large corporations. Bill Clinton helped to push through the laws that allowed our media to be concentrated by the few. Hillary Clinton is being attacked by the monsters that her husband helped make.

    Draw your own moral to the tale.

     

    Parent

    Good point, Bob (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    More media consolidation means fewer voices generally appealing to lower and lower common denominators, and anyone with half a brain and the bare minimum of ethical scruples could've forseen it.

    Parent
    A female speaking on CNN just now (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    mentioned what many others have in different contexts:  younger women are less interested in the Gloria Steinems of the world; many younger women have benefitted the efforts of older people but perhaps take their present status for granted.  

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:51:05 AM EST

    people dont know what went into getting them what they have so they have no value for it until they could risk losing it. I dont think young women are unique that way...our overall sense of history is pretty awful.

    Parent
    history (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    i dare say this is a strange comment from people who are making the argument that race is no longer an issue.

    Obama doesn't do well with white southerners, even democrats.  look at the internals on the latest SC poll.  

    Race V. Gender is the republicans dream come true.   Did Hillary Clinton have to prove to women that men would vote for her? because Barack Obama had to prove to black people white people would.

    Obama may be post partisan, saying he is post race politics is going to far.

    Parent

    Funny comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    and yet you don't know about Steinem's background.

    Parent
    Redstockings anyone? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    Woman are never frontrunners? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    What a silly headline.

    Isn't Hillary one of the 50 or so most powerful politicians in the nation, regardless of gender? Didn't she win two big elections in NY? One, solidly, by about 12 points and the second, after leading every poll against her male opponent by wide margins, by about a 30 point landslide?

    I could go on but why bother. Just a silly headline.

    I agree although (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    I think women are judged more harshly, especially her.  But just a few weeks ago, the nomination was hers to lose.  

    She sounds defensive, looks tired and "change" (which every candidate is using now including mccain) is the current wave.  Ride that wave out, wait for Super Tuesday, and lighten up.  When she is not defensive, I love her, when she gets defensive, it seems petty.  

    I would leave the sexism at the door and forget it.  Obama is getting the vote out and is spending a lot of time and energy on the indys, Nader is not around to steal them and Ron Paul is no Ralph Nader.  

    She needs to steal a page or two from BO's camp on how to win over the indys who went right the last two elections and are dying to go left this time around.

    Oh yeah, perhaps one candidate from either party can address the economy and employment outlook.  "It's the economy stupid" may be 16 years old but over the next several months change will align with economy and bear the same significance as withdrawal....

    Parent

    clinton/bush dynasties (4.50 / 2) (#39)
    by mouth of the south on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    I am a life-long Democrat and have voted in every election since the late 50's.  I come from a family of Democrats here in Georgia and am extremely loyal to our party.  However, I have said since the day Hillary announced that she was running for President that I could not vote for her.  We have already had 20 years of Bush/Clinton Presidencies and I for one am sick to death of this legacy thing.  I cannot face another 4 or 8 years of media and Republican bashing of the Clintons.  The Republicans were practically salivating about the prospects of running against Hillary.  That was their only hope of winning the Presidency again. Thank God someone has emerged in our field of candidates who can win the nomination.  Let us hope and pray that Obama is successful.  As for the media, they have had 20 years of snickering and ridiculing the Clintons so they are all well trained by the Republicans.  Chris Matthews should be run off the air for his obvious prejudices against women - any woman, not just Hillary.  His thing is men.  He almost swoons over Republican men and makes a complete fool of himself over McCain, Thompson, and other "manly" Republican men.  He was the first one that I heard touting Bush's likability - he was a man's man, someone men would like to have a beer with and eat barbeque.  For God's sake, have you ever heard of anything so juvenile?  And he and others like him make a living off these kinds of comments and the public just laps it up.
    Well, personally, I have had enough of Republicans and the media.  That is why I get my news from the blogs and from Keith Olbermann.

    here is what I dont get (none / 0) (#44)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    "I cannot face another 4 or 8 years of media and Republican bashing of the Clintons.

    So why not do something about it instead of giving in?  

    Doesnt it tell you soemthing that the GOP doesnt like them?  They were successful!!

    Parent

    Interesting. But you seem to (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    be letting your distaste for the media color your vote:

    I cannot face another 4 or 8 years of media and Republican bashing of the Clintons.


    Parent
    if chris matthews treated (3.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    sen. obama the way he's treated sen. clinton, sen. obama would have (and rightly so) punched his fat-faced lights out. and he's been doing this for years, it's not a new phenomenom with him.

    gingerbaker, i assume you've been living in a cave, in a distant desert, bereft of all communication with the outside world, for the past several years. it's the only way to explain your mind, blissfully uncluttered by facts.

    It was the loud drumming coupled with the Marshal (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM EST
    amps plugged into Eric' guitar...

    Parent
    Nice hat! (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    oh please.... (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gingerbaker on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:34:00 AM EST
    we never heard any of this when she was ahead so of course, that she's in third place, she's a "victim." But if you take that road, you have to face the fact that, at least in the public's mind, African-Americans have historically had it more difficult when it comes to public service. And the Clinton machine has had an extraordinary advantage in this campaign, not just in terms of $, but in terms of the kind of coverage and even "establishment" preference given to her by the mainstream medias. People are on to her, and that's why they're voting Obama. Stop whining.      

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    YOU never heard of this.

    This has been discussed at this blog for quite some time.

    If you have nothing better to add to the discussion that that type of comment, please refrain from discussing it here.

    Parent

    Big Tent (none / 0) (#84)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    That's the path to democracy. Shut up your opponent.

    There has been a wave of hand-wringing for Clinton in the last few days since her loss in Iowa, and a good portion of it has been based on the current meme of "Hillary is a victim of sexism."

    The people voting in the Democratic primaries are far more supportive of the concept of sexual (and all kinds of) equality than what you will find in the general election. Are there people who badmouth Clinton because she's a woman? Yeah, a few. Like people who badmouth Obama because he is a person of color. If Clinton is simply unable to overcome the sexism of the Democrats, then why should anyone think she'd ever be an effective candidate in the general election?

    I sense a wave of voter suppression directed at feminists.

    Parent

    You and he (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    can talk all you like.

    Lying HERE will not be tolerated.

    The comment was lie.

    You choose to defend the right to lie.

    If he wants to lie he can do it elsewhere.

    Parent

    "Sexism is more acceptable." (none / 0) (#2)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:35:47 AM EST
    I'm going to address that on my blog later today.  I'll email you the link, so check your email, dangit ;-)

    I'll link to your piece.  I'm glad you're addressing the issue, BTD.

    See my update also (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:38:28 AM EST
    check your email (none / 0) (#112)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    And doh, I just gave you a "1" by accident.  I'll fix that.

    Parent
    Gloria must of read my mind (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:35:57 AM EST
    Last night before this blog came on we were discussing the following:  Would Obama  be the darling he is now if the only change was his gender.  In fact I stated that people are more willing to vote for the first black man to be president rather than for the first woman to be president.  I know both of these nominees would make history if they became president but I personally would like to see what a woman president can do.  

    My Equality Brainstorm !! Kids ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    1. REQUIRE both biological parents to support a caregiver for 2 years, AND

    2. REQUIRE both biological parents to take 2 years off per kid. Time off would have to happen before age 4.

    Ideally, when mom is working the caregiver she's supporting will be the dad, BUT

    if dad is gone / useless as parent / who knows, mom still has to contribute to support of some caregiver.

    We already have a system in place to chase deadbeat dads (needs lots of fixing and tweaking), so we can fix it for moms.

    o.k. here is ANOTHER statement to peee lots of people off. Mommy's baby daddys maybe. We KNOW who the mom is. Duh.

    Little Kids ain't cars or t.v.s or boats or skis in the closet - they need constant HUMAN attention and care and love and care and care and time and time and time, so let's REQUIRE that that time will happen.

    Why REQUIRE the dads - cuz now we'll get MORE attention to funding for parent helping kids cuz DADS are gonna be stuck taking care of their own seed, OR they're gonna be doing something to help the community (cleaning the playgrounds?) for NO money for 2 years.

    Let's get real -- when you are outta the job market for 4 years your rolodex is filled with cobwebs, you're back almost to ground zero for job hunting, your income takes a hit ...

    make it so guys are outta work, they'll see what women go through, and ... somebody will figure out changes to the job market, or, at least, men and women will be competing on the same playing field!

    rmm.

    Does Clinton support this? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    this is MY IDEA. I've no clue (none / 0) (#92)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    if anyone else has a similiar idea, and I'm pretty sure no current running candidates would suggest anything so radical.

    rmm

    Parent

    Thanks for posting it Big Tent (none / 0) (#7)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:54:29 AM EST
    when I raised it here last night I did not have time to likn to it for you but I was sure yiou would see it.

    She rocks.

    I would (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    never go as far as Ms Steinem, I don't think white women have it worse than Africans Americans.

    That being said Hillary has had to deal the a lot of  gender politics.  I'm tempted to say of her own making, but that is completely unfair.  I think Barack Obama better understood how his race can and would be played and positioned him self better.  The issues with race are more apparent.  I think Hillary has had a lot more problems with her gender, and Chris Matthews is sexist.  From the way he always has to point out how attractive women, calls them cuties, in a professional setting it's insulting.

     

    Gender expectations haven't changed much (none / 0) (#10)
    by dk on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM EST
    BTD, I guess I have a different take on this issue.

    While I think white women, on average, have greater opportunities for obtaining a good education and training than people of color of any gender, I think that women (of any race) face more hurdles in the job world than men (of any race).  For those who disagree with me, let me provide this observation, and then ask a question.

    I just graduated law school and started work at a pretty high powered corporate firm.  Our entering class is half men/half women.  Already, most of the women in my class are planning their exits.  Why?  Because they want to have kids, assume they will be the primary caregivers, and reason that they will have to end (or at least seriously sidetrack) their careers in order to provide for the kids while their husbands press forward with their careers.  And, I might add, most of the men here seem perfectly fine with that setup (and remember, these are the younger generation of men and women, many of whom think of themselves as rather progressive when it comes to "social issues.")

    That's my observation, and here's my question.  How many of you who are in your 20s and 30s see things going the same way for you and your spouse/significant other?  

    The double standard regarding the ability of men and women to achieve success in jobs of pretty much any sort, but particularly ones like politics that require time, intellectual energy, high ambition, etc. is not going to change until the very structure of gender roles change.  As long as society as a whole expects women to put their public lives on hold to raise children while expecting men to stay laser-focused on their careers, the situation won't change much.

    What children require... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:19:16 AM EST
    ...and what men or women desire for their career greatness are two different things.  What is happening today is a backlash against what I went through as a kid in the 70's.  Many of the adults today grew up in homes where parents divorced during the Great Experiment with Children.  Parents who divorced because, for most of them, the marriage was just not satisfying.  Because they were told, "Oh, little Jenny will be fine if you divorce as long as she sees you're both happier apart than married."  We know now that is hogwash of the highest, most selfish order.  

    There is nothing wrong with a woman or a man wanting to stay home with their child.  It is to be praised.  It is invaluable to a healthy society.  As a child of multiple divorces and a daycare upbringing, I cheer this return to a more traditional, more natural I'd suggest, paradigm.  The good thing about today's shift, is that it is acceptable for men to be the primary caregiver.  

    Ah, my conseervative streak comes out.

    Parent

    Natural paradigm my a... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    And those of us raised by two working parents with the help of day care centers....  

    I turned out well educated happy and healthy under the above circumstance. I made a foolish choice in my first marriage.

    Working parents don't cause divorce. Children raised in angry unhappy homes are not per se better off.

    You have issues clearly, but your analysis is wrong. Brining back the so called natural paradigm will not solve the problem you see. First off, the single worker family was more of a 1950's and 60's paradigm.

    Divorce causes problems for everyone involved. If there are children involved. Would my daughter and I been better off remaining married to an alcoholic coke-head?  One who spiraled down and died from hard life style ending with an addiction to meth (and at his age?!).  Maybe you think so.  I don't think so


    Parent

    Your paragdim is more powerful (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    You automatically assume I want to go back to the 50's when I stated that we are in a NEW paradigm, when it is acceptable and welcome to have a FATHER stay home.  That more adults today come from broken homes than ever.  You don't think that's going to have an effect on how those adults act in their own marriages and parenting?  

    Your divorce was perfectly legitimate, Molly, and you should be bright enough to figure out that I'm not talking about genuinely abusive relationships.  I'm talking about the vast majority of divorces that end because one parent is simply not happy.  I experienced both that kind of marriage and the abusive as a child.

    As for the economics of one parent staying home, well, that is perfectly in our control if we thing it is important.  Money has no value except for people's belief if has value, and when society decides it wants to shift that paradgim, really shift it, to what is best for kids, the value of money will change accordingly.  But we don't want that yet.  Obviously.

    That said, I would encourage you to read "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" by Judith Wallerstien, et al, which is a landmark work, and the only one of its kind.  It tracked children from many different kinds of divorced families AND intact families and its findings are more than enlightening.

    The reality is, children are better off in unhappy but non-abusive intact families, than they are in divorced ones.  Again, obviously, in abusive relationships, the story is different.  But abuse is not the main reason for divorce in the majority of cases.  Irreconcilable differences are.  And if people can't reconcile for the sake of their beautiful children, if they can't suck it up for a few years and do what is best for those children, then they have issues far greater than mine.

    Now, that is actually a reason I admire Hillary Clinton.  She could've told Bill to get lost and could've chosen to hate him forever, but she didn't.  She did what was best for her daughter.  And I believe that, I believe she stayed with him for their little girl and not for political gain.

    And I have issues?  Brilliant, how'd you figure that out?  And you don't have them?  What are yours, Molly?  What is the most damaged part of you?  And how does it affect your daily life?  Your parenting?  Are you going to claim it doesn't?  You can't be that naive, can you?

    But I don't mean to be snippy, since I usually love your posts.

    Peace.


    Parent

    About that book (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    It tracked these kids for 25 year, by they way, from childhood to adulthood.  Should've mentioned that, since it's what makes the book so vital.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    Peace unto you as well. If you were offended, I apologize. I will cop to having issues. Don't we all?

    Parent
    I was hoping you would critique (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    Wallerstein, or, perhaps, meet with my daughters!

    Parent
    Perhaps some day to both. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    children, women, and men are three catagories - not two.

    and I think this is wrong:

    "what men or women desire for their career greatness are two different things."

    Not amonsgt the professional women and men I know - we all want the same thing in our careers.  You statement is too general.

    Parent

    You misconstrued my statement... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    I said, what CHILDREN need and what adults desire in a career are difrerent things, and they most certainly are.  If you can't see a backlash against the Great Experiment, then you don't see it.  As for everyone you know wanting the same thing out of their career, you make my point.  I was talking about what is best for a child, not a parent.  I don't care what they want for their career, I care what they they want for their child and, most importantly, what are they willing to sacrifice.  Sacrifice not just to ensure that child gets the material necessities in life but, most vital, the massive time and nurturing on a one on one basis they require and deserve.

    It is odd to me that raising children is still viewed as something not as important as having a "real" career.

    Like I said, this is the one area where I am completely conservative.      

    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#56)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    I dont get this because I was looking at it as related to the topic of the post above - Steinem's article.  I'd like to address it in that light.

    Are you suggesting that women getting more equal opportunity in the workplace is harmful to children?  That kids who grew up in the 70's have been harmed by the progress made in our culture to address age old oppressions?  Do you know that a lot of women had no other CHOICE but to work? Do you know they didnt get paid anything near what a guy did for the same job because they were female?  

    As for the silliness that staying home and caring for kids isnt valued - please - by whom?
    It is all the vogue for women who can afford it.  But some women need to work for the money and others because they would go nuts being home with a child all day.  Guess what - it is their choice.  And luckily for them they have the choice because people like Steinem FOUGHT for it.

    It has never been fairyland in this country. If you want to go back to the past I can point to all sorts of ugliness that was there, too.  I prefer now.

    Parent

    Good God, g-man, I want to buy you a beer! (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    The Iron my shirt jerk (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:21:23 AM EST
    crossed the line. Some people have no capacity for shame.

    "Iron my shirt!" (none / 0) (#33)
    by voterrr on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    Are you kidding me?  I think most people agree that he crossed the line.  However, it seems to be helping Hillary's ratings on sites like www.fittobepres.com.

    Parent
    he looked (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    gross, but maybe that was my projecting his personality on his appearance.

    Parent
    Per link on DK, those guys were set up (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    by a shock jock radio station.

    Parent
    no surprise there, but (none / 0) (#82)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    this "ironing" crap is mild.  You missed the editorial cartoon in the (Murdoch) NY Post over the holidays.  They took one of those holiday "nutcrackers", the ones which usually look like a Napoleonic-era Hussar or such, and put HRC's head on it.  For the dull who missed the significance of that, the cartoon had someone working the mechanism which works the jaw on the toy, and HRC breaking a nut by biting it.

    Good that I can't get the cartoons on the web.

    And, this is from a paper owned by a guy who's given funds (and fundraisers) to HRC.

    Parent

    "The ironing crap is mild." So true. (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    In Freudian speak: (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    she evokes castration anxiety in Murdoch and his minions.

    Parent
    So that's why Murdoch is contributing (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    to her campaign.  

    Parent
    Shocking to be reminded black men were (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:24:41 AM EST
    afforded the vote long before women.  

    Factually Correct (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:13:57 AM EST
    In practice it didn't really happen for everyone.  Even as recent as the 60s, black people were still being refused the right to vote in some places.  My Grandpa (born in the '20s) grew up in Arkansas and he wasn't allowed to vote even after he had moved to Kansas City in 1942.  My Grandfather (born in the 30s) grew up in Louisiana and he didn't get the opportunity to vote without threats until 1960 in Kansas City.  Both of these men served in Korea and they said that it wasn't until after they got back that people were a little more willing to let them vote even though it was perfectly legal for them to vote.

    Parent
    This article had some good stuff in it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    IMO a white woman placing Race v Gender is going too far.  I'm sure she gets gender politics, but on race she has it all wrong.

    Parent
    The 60's? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    What about the 21st century? Florida for example?

    Racism is very much alive. If Obama gets the nomination we are sure to see some ugly stuff. Also if he had darker skin and a different accent/education, the racism would be more visible, much the same way recent Caribbean black immigrants tend to be more upwardly mobile than African Americans whose families have been here since the 18th century.

    Parent

    Assuming Obama wins the nomination, (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    how will the media and Republicans who speak out proceed as to any references to Obama's ethnicity?  So far, seems to be hands off.

    Parent
    It certainly wasn't hands off (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    for the Clinton Campaign
    did he deal?
    when did he stop?
    did he share?

    Islamic Mancherian candidate.

    Madrassa

    ohh how hands off it has all been.

    I guess if you are white and nothing about you can be called foreign, this is all fair game, or the "fun part" it wasn't for me.

    Parent

    A closer reading of my comment (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    shows I inquired how the media and Republicans who speak out will treat Obama if and when and probably he is the Dem. nominee.

    Parent
    Media & GOP (none / 0) (#91)
    by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    Didn't much of that come out of the media and the GOP?

    Parent
    Probably, although I don't really know. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    What I'm curious about is what will happen after Obama gets the nomination.

    Parent
    Worse I imagine n/t (none / 0) (#99)
    by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    You're right (none / 0) (#106)
    by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    But it's a completely different argument.  I'm a dark skinned woman and I get treated like a flippin' picaninny by white liberals who supposedly "don't see race".  Even my aunts who received their phDs in the 60s still get treated the same way.  Listen to what the media is saying.  Bill Bennett actually said something like, "Obama can teach black people how to act."  That's so patently offensive.  That's like me saying, "Edwards can teach white men, not to be serial killers.".  

    Parent
    True enough (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM EST
    I hope that is not happening here.

    I strive to not only NOT do it but too condemn it wherever I see it.

    Parent

    Good Analogy (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:56:42 PM EST
     Bill Bennett actually said something like, "Obama can teach black people how to act."  That's so patently offensive.  That's like me saying, "Edwards can teach white men, not to be serial killers."
    .   As I said racism is alive and well.

    Bennet and his wife Elayne ( Best Friends Foundation) are particularly vile examples of racist bigots using humanitarian BS as cloak to soften their basic position of white supremacy.

    Parent

    Isn't this the ethics guru who gambled (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    himself into trouble?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:04:12 PM EST
    His brother is a big DC Atty Robert Benett.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#87)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    Maybe Steinem didn't see "Mississippi Burning."

    Parent
    On the flip (none / 0) (#19)
    by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    If Obama was a Clinton, Matthews would still find any stupid thing to talk crap about. Clinton's poor coverage from Matthews is a bad example, as he lives to bash her.  I wouldn't be surprised if he makes bets with someone to see how many digs he can get in per show.

    Besides the point, I think that Clinton just has a problem with young women who don't think it's that big a deal to have her as our first female president.  A different female sure (me?), but not Clinton.  She's also running up against people who are tireed of the same two families holding the presidency.  And yes, she's running against the media who are either distorting or magnifying everything.  

    Take her outburst at the debates on Sat.  All the media sites liveblogging the debates said the same thing, "Oh, that's going to be replayed over and over again.  She's got to recover from that."  Monday rolls around and what are these channels playing?  To tell the truth, by the end of the debate, I had forgotten about her outburst for a moment.  

    But Steinem is so incredibly wrong on this front.  White women are more often "given" much more leeway, advantages and opportunities than any minority regardless of gender and if anyone should know that she should.  For someone like Steinem to actually say that is laughable and insulting. Look at feminism, as a movement.  Did Steinem ever have to face police dogs, fire hoses and be scared of lynching to get equal rights for women?  

    Didn't think so.

    Fabooj, I was thinking of you (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    the other day; good to hear from you.  Can't disagree with your point.  

    Parent
    if her point (none / 0) (#28)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST

    was to get this issue front and center she was successful.  And I am greatful.  There are two groups who have a legitimate claim to noble change and BOTH should be heard.  

    I think it is GREAT!

    Parent

    Re: "if her point": (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    If you are referring to Fabooj, you'll never have any trouble figuring out what her point is.  Very direct and passionate.

    Parent
    Yep! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by fabooj on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    Even when I'm wrong!  LOL!

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    nope (none / 0) (#115)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    by "her" I meant Steinem.

    Parent
    lack of historical context (none / 0) (#20)
    by neilario on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    I agree with oculus and judith also. About the arduous path it has been as women AND for the gbtl community. BO had donnie mcclurkin on stage with him. And when he was asked not to due to DM's virulent anti glbt views he did not yield. Both BO and JE have ridden on the coattails of the sexist media and for my money cowards. It is just sad to me.

    I am begining to think that HRC should take a break from campaigning - go back to the senate and make a strong stand on something she is passionate about. I will forever be grateful for the leadership Dodd has shown re FISA. If she did something that really showed leadership It may help.
    I'm just thinking....

    Here's another problem. I just heard (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:10:51 AM EST
    Obama on C-Span repeating his "same old" meme.  Isn't this playing the "ageism" card?

    "Let me tell you something," Mr. Obama countered on Sunday, "the real gamble is having the same old folks doing the same old things against and expecting a different result. That is not an approach we can afford."



    shot at mccain (none / 0) (#30)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    I think - and yes, ageist.  

    Parent
    I think it was "shot" (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    at Hillary Clinton also.

    Parent
    probably (none / 0) (#47)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    how cheesey.

    I will send it to the new supporter of his I know in NH who is closer to Clinton's age - she wont like that.  

    Parent

    You don't get it (none / 0) (#25)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:15:36 AM EST
    As I said in an earlier post, Margaret Thatcher was plenty aggressive, and if she were 20 years younger and American the Republicans would fall over themselves to make her the frontrunner.  The CONSERVATIVES in England did elect her.
    People don't hate Hillary because she's a woman.  They hate her because she's HILLARY, just as many people hated NIXON.  
    In the corporate world and educational world black men do much worse than black women.  Black men get the worst deal of all.  If upper class white women really don't get that then it's hard to know what to say.

    Steinem limited her column to (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    the U.S.  Are you retrospectively predicting Thatcher would have beat Reagan for the Republican nomination?  

    Parent
    I wouldn't quote Gloria Steinem (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    Gloria Steinem was an intelligence asset (agent?) in the 1950s and 60s onward, spying on other student leaders for the CIA. For those of you still ignorant of this bit of history, google "Redstocking" "CIA" and "Steinem."

    The New York Times, February 21, 1967
    C.I.A. Subsidized Festival Trips
    Hundreds of Students Were
    Sent to World Gatherings

    A New York freelance writer disclosed yesterday that the Central Intelligence Agency had supported a foundation that sent hundreds of Americans to World Youth Festivals in Vienna in 1959 and Helsinki, Finland, in 1962.

    Gloria Steinem, a 30-year-old graduate of Smith College, said the C.I.A. has been a major source of funds for the foundation, the Independence [sic -- Independent] Research Service, since its formation in 1958. Almost all of the young persons who received aid from the foundation did not know about the relationship with the intelligence agency, Miss Steinem said. Ironically, she said, many of the students who attended the festivals have been criticized as leftists. The festivals are supposed to be financed by contributions from national student unions, but are, in fact, largely supported by the Soviet Union.

    Miss Steinem said she had become convinced that American students should participate in the World Youth Festivals after she spent two years in India.

    "I came home in 1958 full of idealism and activism, to discover that very little was being done," she said. "Students were not taken seriously here before the civil rights movement, and private money receded at the mention of a Communist youth festival."

    Hears of Funds

    Miss Steinem said she had talked to some former officers of the National Student Association, who told her C.I.A. money might be available to finance American participation in the seventh postwar festival scheduled for Vienna in the summer of 1959.
    The former association officers had had ties with the C.I.A. while serving the association, which last week conceded it had taken money from the intelligence agency since 1952.

    "Far from being shocked by this involvement, I was happy to find some liberals in government in those days, who were far-sighted and cared enough to get Americans of all political views to the festival," Miss Steinem said. She noted that most Americans who had attended various festivals were sympathetic to Communist policies.

    The Independence [sic] Research Service, originally called the Independent Service for Information on the Vienna Festival, was organized with headquarters in Cambridge, Mass. It concentrated, Miss Steinem said, on disseminating information about the festival and urging young persons who espoused flexible, but non-Communist, foreign policy views to attend.

    Miss Steinem was a full-time employe of the service till following the Helsinki festival in 1962.

    About 130 youths who had made contact with the foundation did attend, although few of them received significant financial help, Miss Steinem said.

    Recruits for Festival

    Before the Helsinki festival in 1962 the foundation again recruited young teachers, lawyers, scholars, linguists and journalists -- most of whom would consider themselves very liberal Democrats -- to attend.
    The Independent Service financed a newspaper, a new [sic -- news?] bureau, cultural exhibits and two jazz clubs during the festival. However, its most important work was to convince youths from Asia, Africa and Latin America that some Americans understood their aspirations for national self-determination, Miss Steinem said.

    Miss Steinem insisted that the C.I.A. had never tried to alter the policy of the foundation.

    "I was never asked to report on other Americans or assess foreign nationals I had met," she said.

    Miss Steinem noted that since the foundation was started in "the post-McCarthy era" the Federal Government could not openly finance the foundation. Overt government support would also have "alienated" youths from other countries who were suspicious of the United States, she said.

    "The C.I.A.'s big mistake was not supplanting itself with private funds fast enough," she observed.

    Make that an apologist for the CIA too.

    The CIA's strategy has always been to divide and conquer social movements that threaten the oligarchy. Steinem first worked by infiltrating student movements, then worked for the CIA by invoking feminism when it worked to divide. If you don't believe it, go back and check the funding and staffing of MS. Magazine when it was founded. Nothing new with her game. In this race where one candidate is a black man, another is a white woman, and a third is calling for social justice, why wouldn't we expect an old CIA hand to try to stir up things further?

    Will the media slur a candidate who threatens the status quo? You bet. And the CIA, the police force of the status quo, will do its best to destroy any threat to its masters.

    Push this icon off the pedestal, Jeralyn.

    this is funny (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    and absolurtely irrelevant.  

    Parent
    Great premise for John LaCarre though. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    surrre (none / 0) (#43)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    if he didnt hate us


    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    John LeCarre (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    hates Clinton supporters?

    Wouldn't that be irrelevant to the topic at hand?

    Parent

    no John (none / 0) (#81)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    hates americans.

    Parent
    LeCarre is pretty hard on U.S. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    intelligence agencies, but aren't we also hard on them?

    Parent
    Not LeCarre. Both from the NYTimes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    I gave you the citation. She worked/works for the CIA. Or do you trust GHW Bush now that he "doesn't work" for the CIA?

    Parent
    Irrelevant that Steinem was/is a tool (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    of your oppressor? Or just that after a certain number of years you are allowed to forget it?

    Steinem's game since she first cuddled up with the John J. McCloys of the world was to work to DIVIDE the Left. That you don't understand that is why you stand before us today so disconnected from what is happening.

    I'm glad you find it funny. What was the Elvis Costello line? "You think they're so dumb, you think they're so funny. Wait until they get you running to the night rally." Make sure to get a front row seat.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    I think it is funny that you bring up somthing so totally irrelevant to the point.

    But rock and roll - if you love Costello you cant be on my bad side.

    Parent

    Great! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    But listen to the lyrics.

    Parent
    I guess you don't repeat history (none / 0) (#63)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:19 AM EST
    if you refuse to acknowledge it.

    Parent
    I said (none / 0) (#65)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    it was irrelelvant to the topic at hand...but by all means go off on a tangent -what you are doing is a typical misdirect.

    Not my biz - not my site - rock and roll and have a ball. :-)

    Parent

    Judith (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    This topic is based on an op-ed written by Gloria Steinem. It invokes feminism and the sexual divide and has opened a rift between Democrats who believe Clinton's primary failures are based on gender versus people who believe that Clinton doesn't represent their political beliefs and that being against the war and holding her accountable is not equal to being a woman-hater.

    How can anyone be anything other than sexist if voting for someone else is proof of sexism?

    Steinem's purpose in her special position for the oligarchy has been to continue to divide social progressives by invoking feminism as a reason to disrupt social movements. This has been Steinem's role since she left the student movement and became a "feminist" with Ms. Magazine, which was funded by and staffed by CIA assets from its start.

    Because you don't know this, you think it's silly.

    I mention this because this column and its commenters are now part of the disruption done for the benefit of the status quo. You think that you're doing something good, but you're being used.

    I understand that no one wants to be told that he/she is being used. But you're being used. Steinem weighed in on the McMartin School abuse case (she was wrong there). She's been squired by Henry Kissinger, a man responsible for the deaths of millions, and she was being bedded by a guy named Pottinger who was big in the Nixon State Department when they assassinated Allende. If her choice in men is in any way reflective of her true intentions then you've been pantsed. Again.

    We have a woman who started out spying on fellow students for the CIA, who opened a magazine with CIA money and people, for the purpose of dividing genders under the banner of feminism, who has slept with mass murderers, who has often been on the absolute wrong side of the facts, and whose sole purpose seems to be stirring it up on the Left.

    Yeah, but Obama didn't call Chris Matthews a sexist so he must be one. Please.

    Parent

    please dont take offense (none / 0) (#116)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:36:19 PM EST
    but what a steaming pile.

    Parent
    Please correct. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    Please, if you know better, please correct us all. To make it easier, feel free to cut and paste.

    1. Did Steinem work for the CIA?

    2. Did Clay Felker work for the CIA?

    3. Did Steinem sleep with Stanley Pottinger?

    4. Did Steinem date Kissinger?

    For extra credit, read this the NY Times reprint of the 1967 article where Steinem admits to her early career:

    http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html

    And then apply that keen wit of yours.


    Parent

    If the woman has (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    dedicated her career to fighting to insure that there are as many women corporate raiders and arms dealers as there are men, who are we to criticize?

    As Herr Kissinger likes to say, power is the greatest aphrodisiac.

    Parent

    OT: CNN Jean Moos (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    just did a piece on all the candidates repeating endlessly the word "change."  She sd., remember when "Change" meant menopause?

    yeah race is not even a factor. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" passed the civil rights legislation.

    The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.

    I'm sure I will hear the excuses spare me.  If she can't elevate her campaign beyond this, how can she ever elevate our country. Politics doesn't get much uglier than this.  I hope this is a gaffe and was unintentional, but it comes in a trail of remarks deriding historical figures.  

    Hillary this isn't a game stop. This is voter suppression, at its worse.

    class v. trash (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    "The Obama campaign declined to comment on either of the remarks."

    link again

    Parent

    Race is a huge factor (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:09:12 PM EST

    Does anyone think for a second that Obama would be mopping up Hillary if he were the white junior senator from Illinois?

    The guy will carry 40 states.

    Parent

    I am waiting (none / 0) (#73)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    for Clinton or one of her accolytes to condemn the above post.

    Parent
    Whats to condemn ? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:41:47 PM EST

    It seems pretty obvious.

    Parent
    link (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    so completely irrelevant (none / 0) (#69)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    and hostile yet again.

    Irrelevant? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    So Clinton's failure to stand up to sexist hate speech is irrelevant?

    Great.

    And Steinem's irrelevant too? Or just the troublesome parts?

    Now you're the one who's being silly.

    Parent

    the more i think (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    about this op-ed the more it frustrates me.

    Caucasian women declare end of racism, some thing is really wrong here.

    Which is exactly its purpose (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    That is exactly what Steinem's purpose is. She has once again succeeded for her masters.

    Parent
    Given California has two female Senators and (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    debates are scheduled in CA in late Jan., hoping there will be some reason to watch those debates and to actually vote in the CA primary.

    Wasn't Hillary the front runner? (none / 0) (#88)
    by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Doesn't that shoot Steinem's whole premise in the foot?

    You'd think. (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    Ding Ding Ding (none / 0) (#97)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    And we have a winner.  We didn't even have to read past the headline.

    This is pure politics folks.  Hillary has a lot of money and has bought a lot of establishment support.  She will not go quietly.

    Parent

    That is pretty egalitarian, IMO. (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM EST


    I'm in the land of eternal sunshine amongst (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    those who refuse to age.

    Heh (none / 0) (#100)
    by JayR70 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:43:37 PM EST
    Well we get old and happily fat around here:)

    Seriously though, I say "old folks" about people who are a decade or more younger than me when referring to the same old people.

    Like "who was at the party"?

    "Same old folks".

    I figured everyone talked like that actually.

    Parent

    gee (none / 0) (#123)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    ya think he doesn;t know how all his youngester supporters will hear that?  is he that naive?Cant have it both ways - he either knows exactly what he is saying or doesnt.

    Parent
    Shirley Chisholm re Equal Rights Amendment in 1970 (none / 0) (#101)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    That it provides a legal basis for attack on the most subtle, most pervasive, and its most institutionalized form of prejudice that exists. Discrimination against women solely on the basis of their sex is so wide spread that it seems to many persons normal, natural, and right.

    sadly, its still true.

    Well, (none / 0) (#127)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:18:08 PM EST
    according to Steinem, at least America's conquered racial discrimination.

    Parent
    Hillary's mistake (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    On this issue was to point out the sexism in the jab.  What she should have done was to invite them on the stage or near the stage, ask them their names, and say "Joe and Joe, I would gladly iron your shirts. I have not lost touch with basic household appliances and I am quite confident that once you have seen the commitment i have to perfection, you will not only vote for me, you will become excellent campaigners on my behalf"

    Ok, so the comedy needs some work but the thought process is solid.  It would have been a good light hearted response to a couple of jackasses, that would have played much better in the MSM as opposed to what was perceived as a frustration response to a couple of jackasses.

    This race is not about who is toughest or the biggest hawk, it is about changing the perception that Hillary is cold.  

    She would have taken high road, embarassed the hell out of the men (they would have taken a beating in the press) and she would have received some positive press for a change.

    But she didn't.  She went with the sexism is alive and well (it is) response and it fell flat.  She is being "tested."

    I'd vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#117)
    by katmandu on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    She appeals to moderates.
    I like her politics, and would love to see the
    glass ceiling broken.
    When I graduated from university with a masters
    in accounting, I was told straight out by one
    employer--I wouldn't pay a woman as much as a
    man.  I also was accused by another man of stealing a job from a man.  (I guess I should
    only get the left overs)
    Bye the way, this was the 80's in Phoenix, AZ.
    Sexism is alive and well--big time.


    I still want to know your ages folks (none / 0) (#118)
    by Aaron on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    I gave mine, but I only got one response, even though most of y'all are concealed behind pseudonyms, what are you afraid of?

    Numbers please not descriptions

    Are you certain this comment was (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    meant for this thread?

    Parent
    none of your biz (none / 0) (#122)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:32:44 PM EST
    41 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST


    Old enough (none / 0) (#126)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    to have participated in the 60s.