There are a couple of interesting exchanges going on in our (quite small) blog world. I am peripherally involved in both.
One was initiated by Carol at her blog Missoulapolis. She quotes Mike Huckabee speaking at the National Rifle Association convention, where, when hearing a loud noise off-stage, says
That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.
I’ve debated elsewhere that racism is part and parcel of the right wing, but that they are too smart to come right out and say things, so they speak in code. So allow me to translate Huckabee’s words:
That was the nigger, Barack Obama. They are scared shitless of white guys with guns, man. You point one at them, and they hit the floor and say “Please suh! Please suh!”
I made the comment that Huckabee had a tinge of “cracker” in him, an epitaph for poor racist southern whites. I was immediately attacked for stepping over the line, of denigrating Huckabee, and using foul language.
I should have spoken in code, like they do. I should have said “Anyone for a Ritz?”
The other debate is over at Left in the West, where Anna put up a searing and emotional defense of Hillary Clinton, claiming that she’s the victim of misogyny. She claims that it all boils down to male resentment of a strong woman, though she admits that sexism may not be the only reason that Hillary is losing.
Marie Cocco rightfully calls out the Democratic Party for their refusal to address the way Hillary Clinton has been treated. To me, this is the biggest hurdle I’m going to have to overcome before I can enthusiastically get behind this party again. …I’m going to have a hard time forgetting this, and it’s not because it was directed against Hillary Clinton personally – it’s because her treatment, and the party’s refusal to stick up for women, will have a chilling effect on Democratic women in the future who might want to run for president. They have no reason to believe that the party will be there for them when they encounter the type of sexism that Hillary Clinton has dealt with during the 2008 primaries.
It’s a mixed message, and I think in her denial that sexism is making Hillary lose, she’s really saying that it really boils down to sexism. And I take issue – how dare she set aside all of the real and important reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton, and instead hurl epitaphs at us.
I commented:
You’re so sure you’re point on that you’re looking for every little thing and blowing it out of proportion.
A lot of people don’t like Hillary. I don’t like her. I didn’t like her husband. It has nothing to do with gender. It’s totally about them being Republicans at heart, and corporatists. Hillary has raised virtually all of her funds by “bundling”, or shaking down corporate executives, and yet she has the temerity to say she’s going to represent us when she gets to DC. Same with Billo.
You’ve posted here a lot, but you seem blind to issues and stuck on the gender thing. Get over it. She’s got flaws. Big ones.
Read on if you want. She doesn’t put up much of a defense other than to say “Obama too! Obama too!” Yeah – she speaks to my deepest fear, that Obama is not genuine either. But she hides from the obvious – that those of us who oppose poseurs claiming the mantle of “liberal” have reason to resent DLC stalwart Hillary Clinton, as we did her husband, Billo.
Jay chimes in afterward, hurling the “m” word at us again. This is basically what I did to Huckabee – looked for a base motive, seeing through the veneer. Maybe he is on to something. Maybe not.
I don’t like Hillary. I think I have very good reasons not to like her. She is divisive, and seems willing to stop at nothing, even destruction of her own party, to fulfill her ambition. Would it be different if it were, say, Ralph Nader who was running a quixotic campaign to the finish line, doing untold damage even as he knows he will lose in the end?
People might claim that he let ambition get the best of him. It’s destructive, it’s all about ego, they say. Indeed.
I come from conservative roots, and as I passed from right to left, reflexively adopted feminism along with other left wing rallying points. But over time I began to see feminists in a more objective light. They tend to demand more for less, and to call out the “m” word when they don’t succeed where they think they ought to succeed. It may be hard to be a woman in a male world, but something else is going on – no matter your gender, you’ve got to be really, really good to succeed (George W. Bush aside), and it is too easy to claim misogyny when failure occurs. Look to thine own self for the reasons.
Anna, and Jay, and Hillary need to take a good long look at Hillary. I have seen the darkness of her soul, and am glad to see her lose – not because she is a woman, but because she is blindly ambitious and willing to assume any public persona to achieve her destiny. She’s not one of us.
That is why I oppose her. And Billo. They are a curse upon our party.
Piece of Mindful 
JC posts a good response at LiTW this morning. (I would have commented over there, but I can’t log in for some reason).
Like JC, some of the online comments about Hillary (“send her back to the kitchen,” etc) are things I had not heard or read before. I don’t own a television and I never listen to radio, so I miss a lot of the electronic bullshit that passes for communications these days.
As you have pointed out many times, medium is message; and from my perspective the medium of blogging is full of “send her back to the kitchen” types of invective. That seems to be how the blogging game is played by many people. It seems to be accepted vernacular for the medium.
I went to a recipe site recently that allowed comments, and lo and behold there were many along the lines of: “I wouldn’t use that recipe to feed my dog!” “I wouldn’t eat that shit if you …” etc. Why not simply move on to the next recipe, and the next, until you find one that suits your intentions or goals? Why? Because the medium allows idiots to have their say in the only way they know how to say it!
There is no question that “send Hillary back to the kitchen” is sexist and obnoxious, just as Curious George t-shirts and Huckabee’s NRA joke are racist “nigger” jokes (“cracker”). Attacks of that kind have consequences, such as relates to the woman who badgered a teenager girl online to the point that the teen hung herself in her bedroom closet out of shame.
Civility is not popular on the internet, it seems. Knowing how to express and articulate an idea or thought appears to be less and less a concern of people who participate in this medium. The fact that there are exceptions enough for me to select from and participate in give me some solace, but not much.
The gift of language in our species is not something to be denigrated by a lot of garbage-mouth crap, such as electronic media seem to spew and thrive on. If in fact the medium is the message, then what are sexists, crackers, ignorant bloggers and right-wing shouting show hosts using for brains? Could they be sitting on them? You bet!
LikeLike
But over time I began to see feminists in a more objective light. They tend to demand more for less, and to call out the “m” word when they don’t succeed where they think they ought to succeed. It may be hard to be a woman in a male world, but something else is going on – no matter your gender, you’ve got to be really, really good to succeed (George W. Bush aside), and it is too easy to claim misogyny when failure occurs. Look to thine own self for the reasons.
Gee…this is straight out of the paleo-conservative play book. Blame folks for the sh*t other people give them. Replace “feminism” with “middle-class families,” and you have a free market ideologue. Replace “feminist” with “African-American,” and you have a Ron Paul supremacist rant.
When a prominent woman is called a “bitch” in public discourse, and when a woman objects, she’s called a “feminist” (mean pejoratively) and a “feminazi,” that’s odious.
Also, belittling Anna’s perceptions to her “feminism” is limiting engagement. You know…maybe…just maybe…adopting a condescending tone to someone’s concerns is doing exactly what you’re claiming isn’t happening.
Bob’s right on about comments on the Internet. My concern is that they’re doing damage. I know you really don’t want things to change (being a Nader supporter), but change ain’t going to happen if you drive women out of the game without saying, hey, this kind of language isn’t acceptable.
LikeLike
I should say that’s it okay and possible to dislike, even hate, Hillary Clinton and still recognize that the misogynist language reserved for her is odious. And I’ll say the same thing about the language that has been used (by Clinton, too!) about Obama, and will be used in the general.
I’ve never been a big fan of Clinton. She’d be far better than anything the GOP could put up (we learned that painful lesson in 2000), but I started out as an Edwards supporter (who endorsed Obama, thus ending that little conspiracy talk) and drifted to Obama.
LikeLike
The Republikants have undermined our party for years by secretly funneling money to Democratic candidates that can’t possibly win a national election. That’s what they’re doing with Obama right now. You don’t think he got all that campaign money from college kids or black folks do you? Hell no. The Republikants and other racists have been feeding money to him because they know America is a racist nation and it will never elect an African American president.
The Republikants claim they want Hillary to stay in the race to mess up things and divide our party more but that’s only half the story. They really want her to lose the nomination in the end because she’s supported by the New York Jewish money and all the feminists. The Jewish people hate Obama and they will shift all their money to McCain when Obama wins the nomination. And the feminists will stay out of the election altogether.
We need to wake up. We’re being sucked into supporting loser candidates that we didn’t even want in the first place. Al Gore was the last candidate we had who could win a national election and look what the Republikants did to him when the vote went in his favor. Now we’re stuck with two candidates who are tearing our party apart and who can’t possible win a national election.
LikeLike
The word for internet exchanges is “cyberdisinhibition”, wherein we lose track of normal constraints on rudeness due to the nature of the medium, and our emotions run free. I used to laugh at little emoticons, but I see why they are there now. Most often the tone of what I say exists only in my head, and is read in an atonal environment. I tend to be straightforward. It comes off as something else.
I don’t accept feminism for more than it is – an opening for those women who want to compete in the marketplace to do so. There should be no restraints, and when they fail, they fail. When they succeed, so be it. Hillary has succeeded far beyond almost all men and women, and has no legitimate beef from a feminist standpoint. But she’s in a tough market, and to lay her failings on her gender is loser talk.
Men and women are different. Most women want to nurture rather than compete, and those who work usually do so reluctantly. I know you’re swearing under your breath right now, but that’s the way it is. Most women in the workplace are working either because they have to, or with the idea that they can escape the market and raise a family later on. Consequently, they don’t have the pressure to succeed that men have, and are judged by lesser standards. That’s why men make more money than women.
Yes – those women who want to eschew the nurturing environment and compete in the male marketplace are free to do so – that is a large accomplishment. But what I hear from you is an Alan Alda kind of endearing “oh look at me I’m a tough guy but I want women to be all they can be” kind of condescension. If I were a woman, I wouldn’t take it.
LikeLike
…but that’s the way it is.
You need to get out more.
News flash: You can be competitive and nurturing.
Nice swipe with the Alda reference. I’m the one who’s condescending? Coming from you with your “nurturing” bullshit? Cute.
The reason I get p*ssed when I hear juvenile stuff like this is because your type of biological determinism limits everyone, not just women.
LikeLike
I think we have a pretty nice system – equal pay for equal work, and those women who want careers, who eschew family, are free to do so, have access to the finest colleges and scholarships, and companies and institutions compete for their services. But most women don’t want that. Indeed it was oppressive back when Betty wrote the Feminine Mystique, but things have improved drastically.
You will find that when you take swipes at me, you wind up with a few scratches of your own.
LikeLike
So you think it’s okay, say, for people to shout out of their cars “Fuck Hillary, the bitch,” or swerve at women holding Clinton signs? You think saying “Hillary can suck my balls” to women Clinton supporters is okay? You think burning Clinton signs is cool?
You really don’t think there’s a problem out there?
Like I said, you need to get out more. You know, actually talk to women.
Maybe I only know a bunch of genetic freaks, but most women I know want more than just a family. Most women I know want careers and accomplishments outside their families. I also know a sh*tload of competitive women — h*ll the soccer and hockey teams are overflowing with competitive women.
And like I said, I get angry about this stuff because it’s leveled at any of us who don’t knuckle under the traditional roles of gender. I get p*ssed when some jerk questions my masculinity because I took my daughter to the library. I think people who mock, taunt, or degrade others because they’re not acting “appropriately” according to their gender are jerks.
BTW, I don’t give a rat’s ass what people think about me for writing this stuff. What I’m saying is right and true, and if people have a problem with it, that’s their deal, not mine.
Here’s the question for you: why do you think the MT ‘sphere is largely absent of women? You think it’s because they’re all home suckling their offspring or something?
LikeLike
By the way, I would like to apologize for the mean-spiritedness in the comments. It’s obviously something I feel strongly about.
I’ve always enjoyed your perspective on things, Mark, and think you’re a stand-up guy.
This one area of your belief genuinely puzzles me…it’s so incongruent with the usual ideas you bandy about here…
LikeLike
I don’t think I have to answer for the behavior of assholes, who are present in all races and sexes, and often stand out in a crowd.
And I’m glad to live in an era when women can do as they please. If they want to raise a family or have a career, or do both simultaneously or sequentially, that’s OK by me. The feminist movement won those things for them.
My only statement is that women have a stronger nurturing instinct than men, and that men are more competitive by nature, being poisoned with testosterone as they are. Men don’t conspire against women, force them to stay home (more often than not, women are forced to work outside the home and would rather not). It is true that some men hate women and it comes out in public sometimes. Most men are actually pretty OK with women.
Your anger is noted, and I’m not dissing you. It’s a good rant, and I take it at face. You’re OK by me.
LikeLike
Having worked as a peon for a giant corporation for several years now, I have a bit of a different perspective on women in the workplace and what they’re subjected to.
It’s absolutely true that men seem to be more competitive to move way up the chain than women, and by and large a vast percentage of people who apply to become district managers are men. I think to some extent it is genetic makeup, but there’s a hell of a lot more going on there.
For instance, the district I work in has probably 20 different district managers for various departments and focuses. Of them, a total of TWO are women. Here’s the real shitty part: It’s common knowledge amongst all of the stores that these two women got where they are for one overarching reason: They blew their way to the top. It was a tit-for-tat arrangement where they did sexual favors for the guys who were doing the hiring(who saw fit to brag about it later…), and got the jobs because of it.
Sexism is not dead. Not even close. It’s a tough marketplace out there for women who want to get ahead. The ones who do good work and are just as competitive as their male colleagues can be overlooked for reasons that us men can’t even fathom.
Women, can NOT… repeat… NOT do as they please. There’s a lot of work left to be done.
That being said, I agree with most of what has been said about Hillary.
LikeLike
Steve – that’s really ugly. I hope you don’t become jaded based on this limited exposure. The business you are in is not typical of most businesses in that the education requirements are limited, so that people are not being judged on any objective standard.
There’s a lot of hanky panky going on out there, because people are people, but there are many honest and hard working and qualified people who are rewarded for their efforts with advancement based on qualifications. Don’t judge the whole by the small part you have seen.
All that I am asking you and Jay to consider is this one point: At any time, a woman may elect to leave the work force to have a baby. Men don’t have this alternative. Due to that fall back option, women aren’t as tied to success in the work place as men, for whom on-job performance is their only option. I don’t say that for any other reason than that this is an innate difference that makes men have to compete harder for success. I believe that much of the discrimination that goes on in comparative wages for men and women that is not illegal can be traced back to this opt-out election that women have.
LikeLike
How on earth do you know that most women don’t want to work?
Women make up nearly 60 percent of college graduates each year, but we have one of the the lowest work force participation rates for college-educated women in the developed world. After all that money and all those years, we enter our peak childbearing years faced with a rigid economic system that gives us a choice between working 40-50 hours per week and not working at all. We are STILL paid 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid for equal work.
Consider the cost of our non-subsidized childcare ($1000 per month in my city). Consider that many women are forced to go back to work only 6 weeks after giving birth. Consider that women who work full time still do three times the housework of their parners.
This is a culture that is downright hostile to people who want to work and parent. I really believe that for all but the very wealthy, the decision to “opt out” is arrived at reluctantly.
LikeLike
I was hoping you’d chime in! I wanted to hear your perspective. Thanks
LikeLike
I took the bait! 🙂
LikeLike
“Women make up nearly 60 percent of college graduates each year, but we have one of the the lowest work force participation rates for college-educated women in the developed world.”
Who’s opinion does that item back up? It could be used either as proof women are held back or as proof women opt out.
I’m all for equal pay and equal opportunity. I don’t see women having only the choice of 40-50 hours or not working. Part time is possible, especially while the kiddies are in school. It’s possible that child care costs make it necessary for women with multiple children (especially single moms)to stay home since they couldn’t earn more in a day than their childcare costs would be.
By the way Michelle- women shouldn’t put up with husbands who don’t help with housework. My spouse certainly wouldn’t!
LikeLike