you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Running for President While Female – 2

po080110.gif

From today’s Washington Post.  Thanks to Karla for sending me the link.

About these ads

Discussion

23 thoughts on “Running for President While Female – 2

  1. &*!@#!@**#&*!*@*!&!!

    Posted by funnie | January 11, 2008, 10:45 pm
  2. It just doesn’t stop, does it?

    Posted by Gayle | January 11, 2008, 11:54 pm
  3. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. That’s all there is to it.

    Posted by Branjor | January 12, 2008, 3:20 am
  4. oh for fuck’s sake. Last week she was the ‘ice queen’ now she’s ‘hysterical woman’.

    Maybe as a silly, somewhat emotional woman myself I just don’t get Big Male Politics, but I personally think having a president with feelings would be a plus…

    So make up your mind, wankers. What do you want, ice or tears? Not-feminine-enough or too-feminine? Just do us all a favour and admit you hate women.

    I thought Clinton dealt with the ‘iron my shirt’ incident very well.

    Posted by Laurelin | January 12, 2008, 5:23 pm
  5. Oh, and by the way, anyone else notice how all the ‘bad guys’ are male? Maybe, therefore, it’s males we need less of in politics? Perhaps we need a bit more sensitivity and less ‘ass-kicking’?

    If I could draw, I would draw a companion cartoon showing Shrub’s confrontation with the ‘bad guys’. Or Reagan. Or what the hell, just stick ‘em on the right hand side with the bad guys. They’d be in their element!

    A very pissed off Laurelin

    Posted by Laurelin | January 12, 2008, 5:28 pm
  6. HA! Wankers, indeed.

    Posted by womensspace | January 12, 2008, 5:30 pm
  7. In terms of the knowledge, intelligence and skills it takes to be a good president those guys are probably about fit to iron Clinton’s blouses or be her chauffeur, nothing more.

    Posted by Branjor | January 12, 2008, 10:58 pm
  8. OK, I know all the mainstream press is really misogynist, but does anybody else get the idea that in the last two to three years all the Washington Post’s male staff must have gotten dumped by their wives (or maybe they’re pissed because no women will fuck them, period)? All the garbage they’ve been peddling must be their third-grade way of getting back at all those mean, mean women.

    Also, did anybody else hear about how Bush got all teared up during his Middle East trip? Any word on why we haven’t heard about THAT, especially seeing as the dude actually IS the president, not just running for it? Isn’t that the person who’s supposed to get more scrutiny than anybody else?

    Sometimes I just want to throw everything against the wall.

    Posted by mekhit | January 13, 2008, 9:26 am
  9. Mehkit I’m not surprised I didn’t hear about that, because men’s emotions are valid and taken at face value. Men’s emotions can be inspiring, but not women’s emotions. I am pissed because not one news article accounts for what really happened. I was inpsired by Hillary’s speech. I think many women were as well. There were no tears. There was no emotional breakdown. There was no sympathy needing. And I find it a huge stretch of the imagination of men to portray it that way, calling it the “crying game” and dismissing Hillary’s huge victory against the odds. Maybe it pisses them off because SHE swayed the vote. SHE did it with her speech. This was HER accomplishment. So they have to dismiss it. It definitely says a lot about men. Men we didn’t expect to be sexist..Hillary brings them out and shows them to the world. These are the men with pleasant faces we would never expect to sexually harass or rape us. These are men who we’d never expect to harbor the degree of sexism we see now. These are all men.

    I found Hillary’s speech inspiring. She talked about dangerous backlashes. We all see them. She talked about not wanting the country to go backward, as it is doing now. If I were to have a daughter, I know she would face more misogyny than I did growing up. How messed up is that? Perhaps it was women who voted for her in droves because only women can see what the men are so eager to dismiss in our country?

    Posted by kiuku | January 13, 2008, 3:24 pm
  10. Kiuku says:
    “These are men who we’d never expect to harbor the degree of sexism we see now. These are all men. ”

    Men are like this all the time, it’s just hard for many women to see this. You will see men come out of the closet in the outright sexism. And I hope women really get what this looks like. I call it heterosexual women’s major denial about the very nature of men.

    Now Hillary has a real chance and WOMEN can support her. I don’t know why women don’t have the self-respect to see other women succeed and lead. This self imposed barrier will be hard to break.

    I think almost every legal age feminist on here has voted for men, and we all know those men weren’t even half as good as Hillary is, so what’s stopping us?

    Right during New Hampshire night, I got to see all those “top” male political commentators and there was that split second when they were getting hysterical. Pat Buchanan was practically screaming over the results “the women showed up at the ballot box, the women over 40 supported her victory” he said this over and over as if the final terror had set in – women are the majority in America and could throw every single man out of office — every one!

    Then Hillary the president would have the power to hold women only press conferences! Guess who first started doing that in Washington? Five golden rings to the woman who answers this history quiz correctly.

    We are so close to getting this, and yet women will argue here that we should not vote for Hillary. If I a radical lesbian feminist can support a SHOCK heterosexual woman candidate, I’m sure all of you straight women could get your act together and go for it! What do we all really have to lose?

    Chris Mathews was shocked that she won! Carl Bernstein hadn’t a clue. The men don’t know that women could run the country. They have overlooked and discounted women for so long, that the shock of this really hit home. It kind of reminded me of the day after the Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs tennis match. The boys at my high school were positively cowed! Cowed and fearful! I loved their look of defeat back then! I know gloating isn’t good form, but I do love to see men crash in their own sexism and limp around with ears down and tails between their legs! :-)

    These men are sexist, and they are womanhating. It’s just hard for heterosexual women to see this. But now all women can see what this looks like on the malestream news. Pretty interesting!

    Posted by Satsuma | January 13, 2008, 8:51 pm
  11. Mekhit, I saw the news piece on CNN where they talked about Bush’s Middle East visit, and that’s the only reason I know about it–and I was dubiously lucky, because we were at a resort for a convention at the time and I don’t have cable at home. My reaction was, “Oh yeah, HE’S crying and that’s PERFECTLY OKAY.” I am completely not surprised nobody’s making fun of him about it. Of course, if you call them on it they’ll say it’s because he was crying about the Holocaust Museum and explain it away that way. But if HRC had been in that exact situation, I doubt she’d have gotten a free pass.

    Posted by R.E. | January 25, 2008, 2:41 pm
  12. Satsuma:

    How did you decide that heterosexual women are finally seeing the truth about misogyny thanks to Hillary Clinton’s run for president? Do you really think heterosexual women had no idea that men, as a rule, generally hate women, even if the men deny it? I don’t think they even think of it as hate. It simply “is.”

    Posted by tinfoil hattie | January 28, 2008, 1:18 am
  13. Late to the ball game as usual, but…

    After hearing all this stuff about Hilary’s “emotional breakdown”, I had to finally go witness the video of it. After watching it I had to replay it to try to find the moment where she “became emotional”. Her voice became ever so slightly gruff for a moment.

    There were no tears.

    This was an emotional breakdown?

    Posted by Amananta | January 29, 2008, 9:51 pm
  14. Tinfoil…. It takes a very long time for heterosexual women to ever realize that men hate women! Wow, we can have massive evidense of this, and every now and then they kind of get it — O.J. Simpson being a moment.

    But they need a massive national presidential campaign to see this day in and day out to begin to get this picture. Otherwise, women would be running the world! Women don’t run the world because apparently heterosexual women still think that men really aren’t that bad.

    Experiment: bring up woman hating to a group of ordinary straight women, and see them recoil in shock. See what happens when you mention that women will finally triumph by SHOCK supporting a basically liberal feminist woman for the presidency.

    Bring up the subject of feminism and hetero women get very very socially uncomfortable a lot of the time. It just amazes me to see this never ending head in the sand behavior. If I mention the duplicity of straight women on this blog all hell breaks loose. But hey someone has to remind women that they really are going along with very bad behavior on the part of men. They even call into womanhating radio shows to agree with the male womanhating host! Now that’s really weird but they do it in droves!!!

    Posted by Satsuma | January 30, 2008, 8:05 am
  15. If I mention the duplicity of straight women on this blog all hell breaks loose.

    duplicity

    1. a. Deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
    b. An instance of deliberate deceptiveness; double-dealing.
    2. The quality or state of being twofold or double.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

    noun
    1. a fraudulent or duplicitous representation [syn: fraudulence]
    2. acting in bad faith; deception by pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another

    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

    *********************************************

    Since accusing an entire class of women of conscious and deliberate bad-faith double-dealing and deception is antifeminist, I think you meant “complicity”?

    (the state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing: complicity in a crime.)

    Posted by funnie | January 30, 2008, 2:54 pm
  16. These definitions:

    2. The quality or state of being twofold or double

    and

    pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another

    … can accurately describe the state of being a heterosexual female.

    It accurately describes my own state of being heterosexual, my observations of other heterosexual women, and my understanding of the simple *requirements* of being a heterosexual woman in the patriarchy, if one is intent upon surviving as such.

    It *also* accurately describes the state of being a lesbian.

    There is no way out of the necessity for females to be duplicitous on this planet if interacting with other humans with the intention of gaining something from the social construct.

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | January 30, 2008, 4:39 pm
  17. It accurately describes my own state of being heterosexual, my observations of other heterosexual women, and my understanding of the simple *requirements* of being a heterosexual woman in the patriarchy, if one is intent upon surviving as such.
    It *also* accurately describes the state of being a lesbian.
    There is no way out of the necessity for females to be duplicitous on this planet if interacting with other humans with the intention of gaining something from the social construct.

    Exactly. Colluding is colluding. To elevate one form of colluding above another is to uphold a superior/inferior dichotomy, which is exactly what the patriarchy does. To elevate is to make a value judgment. It is implying that one form of colluding is superior, therefore, it rationalizes an infliction of abuse, because it is saying the inferior position deserves the abuse.

    Unless a woman lives on an island and is self-sufficient she is colluding with the patriarchy. The minute she takes a dime from the patriarchy, she is being complicit with the patriarchy. To justify one survivial and dismiss another is nothing more than convenience, an opportunity to grind an axe and to elevate one group above another. It certainly cannot be confused as an attempt to make allies.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 30, 2008, 4:58 pm
  18. There’s a difference between recognizing that patriarchy demands duplicitous *actions and behaviors* from [all] women *as a class* and saying that a *particular* group of women [of which one is not a part] has the *characteristic of* duplicity, is described by that word. Further, when one says that a group is duplicitous in conjunction with listing ways one is harmed by that group, the implication certainly is that the group is deliberately acting in bad faith toward and deceiving one’s *own group* (in this case lesbians), not a third party (patriarchy). So, it would be referencing the conscious persecution of women, not a deception of patriarchy in order to survive. You’re free to agree with the concept of the latter, but that’s just not what was said.

    Regarding what was *meant* – reading for context, it doesn’t seem that Satsuma DID mean to use the word duplicity. I think that’s important for the reasons above, as well as the fact that “duplicity” is a popularly misogynist thing to accuse women of since, oh, Eve.

    Reading for context, one sees the sentences before and after the one referencing “straight women’s duplicity” –

    “It just amazes me to see this never ending head in the sand behavior…
    But hey someone has to remind women that they really are going along with very bad behavior on the part of men.”

    Lack of deliberate deception and going along with someone else’s bad behavior accurately describes complicity.

    But not duplicity.

    Posted by funnie | January 30, 2008, 5:17 pm
  19. Funnie, I’m not sure what you are saying. It seems like you are defending the use of a wrong word in an isolated incident. However, I am seeing a pattern. A use of “wrong” words repeatedly. Eventually it is no longer a case of using wrong words, but an accurate assessment of intended meaning.

    The benefit of doubt can only be extended so many times before a spade is revealed as a spade.

    Woman hating is woman hating. Shaming is shaming. I don’t see how much more elementary it can be.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 30, 2008, 5:30 pm
  20. I’m not defending anything, just pointing out that there’s a difference between the 2 words, an important one since in the given context, substituting “complicity” is the only way to remove the misogyny from the statement.

    I thought it was important to say because sometimes the different meaning between the two words is lost (see: Mary’s comments where she agrees with “duplicity” but then describes “complicity”) and I thought it was possible Satsuma made the same mistake.

    Posted by funnie | January 30, 2008, 5:55 pm
  21. I understand what you are saying Funnie. My opinion about the implied intent still stands however. I no longer have faith in particular people, therefore, will shut my mouth now.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 30, 2008, 6:14 pm
  22. You know what, though, on re-read I think I may be totally mischaracterizing what Mary said and/or what her point was…she didn’t actually say she thought duplicity was an accurate word. Sorry for saying so!!

    Posted by funnie | January 30, 2008, 7:12 pm
  23. Well, I thought those particular parts of the definitions, the ones that I quoted, were accurate.

    My thoughts about duplicity with respect to women are more to do with how the extent of that duplicity (whatever that extent is) undermines our potential for communication with each other.

    When I think of duplicity in a female, I think of my mother, because she is the one woman that I knew all my life, until she died.

    I had seen enough of it, long before I even reached puberty, that I never felt that it was an option to talk to her about any of the issues that I grappled with in my attempts to “succeed” as a heterosexual woman. I figured that I was just going to have to figure it out for myself and take my chances.

    Also, by that time the development of my own duplicity was well underway.

    It would be valuable to be able to ponder the subject of duplicity as constructed by the forces of the patriarchy acting on us, without allowing ourselves to be baited into having it be about one or another of our varying identities.

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | January 30, 2008, 7:39 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Recent Posts

Blog Stats

  • 2,482,607 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 239 other followers