This comment was written here the other day:
Mr. Sutton is so anti-Hillary - and obviously anti-woman. As a woman who has waited way too long for a real lady to break through the glass ceiling, it's appalling to have latent and only semi-disguised male chauvinism be so blatantly exposed on this blog and in the comments of those Neanderthals who profess to be so tired of the Clintons but are really scared of having a woman in power.So because I am opposed to the Clintons, I am anti-woman?
If the Democratic party can't rise above gender bias, who can? It makes me want to cry. Mr. Sutton, how can you call yourself open minded? You can't with any honesty, but you will anyway. How sad.
If you listen to everything in this message, it is cloaked with the idea that it’s time for a strong woman to be president. Does that mean that Hillary forever [the author of the comment] is opposed to men? I don’t think so.
Let’s cut to the chase. Some of us, maybe even a lot of us poor Neanderthals (as the writer describes us) have gotten to know the Clintons way too well over their 16 years on the national stage.
We are sick and tired of the idea that the time has come to have a woman, black person, Hispanic, gay, straight, transvestite, or any combination thereof in power. It’s only ever time to have the best candidate elected into power, and have them seriously considered by the nation as a leader. To cloak it in terms of “we need a strong woman” as the writer did is demeaning to women or any other group.
In fact, to vote for Hillary because she is a woman, Barack because he is black, or McCain because he was a POW, are ignorant reasons for being inserted in place of real qualifications. Hillary Forever, please put away your "ists" , and "Neanderthal" terms and understand that familiarity and dishonesty of the Clintons has turned a lot of us off over the years.
I am anything but a chauvinist, and when a non-pandering, honest, qualified candidate comes along who happens to be a woman, I may well vote for her.
5 comments:
Mr. Sutton,
As I predicted, you did not look at the whole picture as to what I was saying. To see the bias, you have to have an open mind - something conservatives seem to be missing.
Sure, you may not be anti-woman consciously, but your unthinking bias is exposed when you complain, as you have in the past, that Hillary's voice just grates on you. Be truthful now - what male candidate have you applied this standard to?
And how many pantsuit and spreading-hips jokes have you uttered? Or even chuckled at? Be honest now.
Did you comment on the haggard look of our Lady from the Drudge photo? Did you report, breathlessly, on the time she teared up?
Sure, you'll vote for a woman - as long as she acts the way a man would want a woman to act. You may fool yourself, but you don't fool us and whether our Lady or Obama becomes the next President, we'll know who is truly a Main Street American.
Crawl back into your cave Gloria. The 70's are over.
HF,
First of all, you are very predictable in classifying conservatives as doing one thing or not, and I would assume Liberals as doing being able to think another way, or not.
Anyway, there are a lot of voices that grate on me like John McCain's for example , and his constant pandering phrase of "My Friends." I have commented on that, too. What "ist" does that make me. Frankly, the only one here who seems to have the problem with gender is you. You cloak everything you have said on the blog inside of that feeling.
As far as commenting on pantsuits or wide hips, I have NEVER uttered a phrase about those kinds of "tired" items which are beneath our conversation. Again, I do not care about that, nor have I ever.
With regard to her looking tired, I did say one day that she and Obama both looked tired, and that I was amazed that anyone could keep the unbelievable schedules they keep. That was the context and again nothing more.
I commented on the tears for one show because I truly thought they were crocodile tears.
I would ask you as a woman what progress you think she has made for respect for women over the years protecting her predator husband while knowing full well what was going on. She was and is dishonest as she has proven so many times with her utterances during this campaign. (See Bosnian comments.) How you manage to ignore the past history of the Clintons is beyond my comprehension.
I will vote for a person who is qualified, but not because she is a woman. Again, I say to you that you'll get my vote because you have
qualifications that make you the best candidate. Nothing more.
GS
HF, you make a great point. Let's face it, if you or I dislike someone or something it's because there's a logical, principled reason to do so.
But that's just you and me. If someone else dislikes someone or something our analysis is pretty straight-forward:
1. Do we like whomever that person dislikes? If the answer is no, we don't need to do anything.
2. If the answer is yes, we like the person being hated on, then we need to determine what protected class that person is in.
Then we can can go on to accuse anyone who dislikes our favored person of being a racist, ageist, anti-woman, anti-Catholic, you name it.
I wish it weren't so, but let's face it -- we're the only two enlightened people in the world.
BTW, I notice that Gary usually cites his dislike of the Clintons, not just Hillary Clinton.
How should we explain his dislike of Bill Clinton? Obviously anti-woman doesn't work, so I was thinking of tying in the whole "first black president" thing so we can accuse Gary of racism. What do you think?
HF
Nobody here has done anything sexist. Are you implying that ANYONE who doesn't vote for Hillary is sexist? That really seems like what you're doing.
What if Gary didn't vote for Romney because he was Mormon? What if he doesn't vote for McCain because he's old and boring? What if he doesn't vote for Obama because he's black? What if? What if?
Post a Comment