Two things

[merlinofchaos]

1) George Carlin was a funny, funny man. I'm glad I got to see him live once.

2) I'm really tired of anybody who supports Obama over Clinton being called sexist. If anyone dare SUGGEST that a person supporting Clinton over Obama is racist, you'll never hear the end of it, but thinking Clinton is too heavily tied to the establishment and mistrusting her for her actions? Sexist.

Tired of it. Sorry, just because Clinton has tits different anatomy from me doesn't make her any more qualified than Obama, any more than being Obama being a black man brother has anything to do with why I think he is the better choice.

(Edited slightly to preserve intent; original phrasing left in).

Comments

[sylphon.livejournal.com]

While I'm not stating my opinions on the current political candidates, a month or so ago I was called a traitor to my gender because I was not supporting Clinton. I was flabbergasted.

[rosecolette.livejournal.com]

As I said to my husband, "The whiny ass bitches need to go buy some Big Girl Panties and STFU." So tired of the so-called-feminist bullshit. They make me ashamed of my gender. I won't rant at length on the ones voting for McCain ONLY because Obama is the DemNom.

[merlinofchaos]

My hope is that any Clinton supporter who claims that is just mad now, but after the actual Presidential campaign, they'll remember that McCain is actually a pretty serious conservative whereas the whole REASON the Obama/Clinton debate has been about non-issues is that they are substantially the same on the issues, with a few small exceptions here and there.

Of course, and this is my favorite part: In polls, Obama supporters were overwhelmingly willing to vote for Clinton if Obama lost, but Clinton supporters were not.

[clayrobeson.livejournal.com]

A-freakin-men.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm sure all the women will sit down quietly, make nice, maybe do some knitting, and vote for Obama to save their uteruses. Because all this anger? They're just being a little hysterical. You know how women get.

(sarcasm off)

It's not that Clinton lost. It's the way she lost, the society she lost in, and the fact that a female candidate got treated the way she did -- by people they thought wouldn't do that kind of thing.

It's the fact that even now, when she's lost, you can't resist making insulting references to her anatomy.

I think a lot of the anger is from every women who, over the course of this campaign, over the course of every moment of Matthews' and Dowd's and everyone else's insulting misogyny, has had occasion to go back over her own life and see every single instance where she had to just put up with being treated like a pair of tits. Or legs. Or a cunt. And to put up with it because making a fuss about it would just make it worse. Because isn't it just like a woman to be so upset?

That you refer to her gender as "she has tits" -- and you don't even think there's anything wrong with referring to her that way -- makes a lot of people absolutely furious. Especially when you are the sort of person who wouldn't even think of making the equivalent sort of racial remarks about Obama. "That Negro ran a pretty good campaign -- of course he had to shave off his 'fro to do it. I don't see why I should have to put up with being called a racist for supporting his opponent." Can you see how that kind of language is demeaning?

IMHO, they have reason to be pissed as all hell. They expect that kind of sexist language on freerepublic. Getting it -- consistently -- from people whom they thought were kindred spirits opened some eyes, and I think a lot of women are not liking what they see.

But of course they'll vote their uteruses in November. Women are all about just being uteruses. Right?

Just... please... maybe understand why these fellow Democrats are so upset, without making it worse?

Please?

[merlinofchaos]

Sorry, I didn't say she IS tits, I said she HAS tits. In the same way that I have a penis.

I used a belittling phrase specifically because I think her gender is unimportant. She has tits. I have a cock. I don't fucking care, and all you're doing is is telling me that not caring is misogyny. Sorry, not buying it. It's the same argument that makes being liberal dirty, and I thought you'd be above that.

Besides, I'm trying to think of a feature that all black people have, but alas, I can't. See, the problem is that it's not a stereotype to say that women have tits, but it is a stereotype to say that black people have nappy hair, since they don't. Hell, it's hard to tell what exactly it is that makes black people black, other than having dark enough skin and saying "I am black," and enough having other people agree to it.

Uhh, I could go the Eddie Murphy route and say that black folks have thick lips. Hm. Except they don't. They're not gangster, etc etc.

Sorry, the more I think about this, the more that it pisses me off that you zeroed in on the fact that I referred to a part of her anatomy as being irrelevant and wrote scathing paragraphs about it to be simply appalling.

It's as though you would actually prefer it if I did care about her gender. OH WAIT, I forgot, that's the point. Because there's so much sexism going on, the fact that I don't care about her gender does make me sexist.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Having now seen a little of what you're upset about, I can see where your buttons got pushed. I crossed the line, at least in my first paragraph.

I am privileged to listen mostly to reasonable feminists, thus I suppose I forget the really insane ones are out there.

Apologies for pushing as many of your buttons as I did. But I was trying to express that there really is a lot of legitimate hurt out there, hurt that right now is seeing bad intentions everywhere (because some nasty surprises came out during the primary and there's a lot of trust lost as a result), and as a matter of cold political calculation, it may be worthwhile to tread carefully.

Which of course I did not do.

[merlinofchaos]

I agree with and respect the notion that there is a lot of hurt out there, and that there is a lot going on that is sexist. It's pretty easy to take my commentary as a denial that it is happening, but I have reread what I wrote quite carefully a number of times to make sure that I never said, nor even implied any kind of denial that there is sexism, and that it is happening.

I still, however, deplore the notion that simply supporting Obama is sexist, as though he has somehow become a symbol of everything that is wrong with our society right now, because he is in a position where all of that hurt and anger and fear (fear that things won't ever change) is getting redirected at him because at the moment, he's a very convenient target. And then there's the guilt by association. I recognize that Obama is not perfect, and that he is an ambitious politician amongst other ambitious politicians, but I'm not ready to believe for one minute that because sexism pervades the media that Obama is in any way responsible for it any more than any other candidate would be.

I realize that right now, tempers are high and nerves are frayed, but there are people out there LOOKING for excuses to be able to label people sexist so they can ignore or belittle ideas they don't agree with, or worse, make sure those ideas are obscured by the angry rhetoric. It's pretty hard to see through the cloud of emotion, especially since this kind of thing devolves to name calling pretty much immediately.

Just like eyelessgame's post did, where he opened it by writing mocking sentences making what I said into stereotypical sexist stuff. Which, btw, is exactly how the republican attack machine operates. It's exactly how liberal gets turned into a dirty word.

[wildpaletz.livejournal.com]

FWIW, I found the following article really useful in understanding the anger.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/06/23/pumas/

Worth clicking through the day pass, in my estimation (the list of reasons, anyway).

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

Yes, that. Ignore what I said. Read wildpaletz' link.