Un-funny shirts and transparent woman-hate

hillaryoj.jpgYou know, I’m aware that gross people can make all sorts of ridiculous things on Cafe Press, but this struck a cord with me. Because it’s so telling. The vitriol directed at Hillary Clinton’s run is so mired in misogyny that it’s exhausting just keeping track of it all. But I think the message on this shirt gets to the heart of those who are so incredibly incensed that a woman (and a powerful woman, at that) would have the audacity to run for president: It’s not enough to say that she shouldn’t run–she should be killed. And not just killed, but murdered via domestic violence. If that’s not fucking transparent, I don’t know what is.
What better way to send the message that women who dare to seek power deserve to have it (and their lives!) violently taken away from them.
Thanks to Kayla for the link.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

53 Comments

  1. Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    But don’t play the gender card, Hillary! The fact that you’re a woman has nothing to do with how people treat you!
    I think she should talk about this kind of stuff on the campaign trail. One of Hillary Clinton’s problems is that other women don’t seem to identify with her. This kind of bullshit happens to all women every day, and if Clinton talks about that, I think more women will be able to identify with her.

  2. Posted December 28, 2007 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Wow. So wrong it hurts.

  3. neonvillage
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    so i made the mistake of clicking to see what else ‘right wing mike’ had up on cafe press, and well, it made me sicker.
    some examples:
    “waterboard hillary”
    “i screwed jamie lynn”
    this man is clearly an advocate for domestic violence, torture and pedophilia….fucking scary because i’m sure he just thinks its all sooo funny.
    RightWingMike’s Page

  4. itazurakko
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    Yeah. Other women don’t identify with her because they’re doing the “but *I* am not a feminist, it’s just not seemly or NICE” thing.
    When it comes to Hillary, anything she does that is standard politician-running-for-office ambitious or scheming is instantly tarred as a grave sin, because as a woman she’s supposed to be NICE.
    You don’t win a campaign in 2007 by unilaterally disarming and being NICE. I’m not even really a Hillary partisan, but on this sort of issue, absolutely she’s in the right and she should CALL them on it!
    I seem to run into a lot of anti-feminist (their term) women these days. They are DARING! to RESIST! the evil secular mass culture and stand up for traditional ways…
    It’s tiring.
    I only found this site today, but have been quite enjoying it.

  5. Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    As a radical, I don’t really like any politicians. I can think of a million reasons to criticize Hillary based on her politics and policies. But no one ever does.

  6. Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t this the obvious progression from guys who ask, in a public forum: “how do we beat the bitch?” without anyone saying a word?
    Dehumanize, other, villify. They don’t do it to the male candidates, they’ll take them on via the issues, but Hilary? (As little as I personally have any need for her.) Eh, she’s just a woman.

  7. Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    They don’t do it to the male candidates, they’ll take them on via the issues

    Maybe not as much as they do with HC, but there is definitely a trend along that way by Reps against male Dems – look at the “Silky Pony” and “B. HUSSEIN (He Must Be a Terrorist!) Obama” crap. They’re attempting to associate Edwards and Obama with groups they themselves marginalise and thus affect their electability.
    IMO, it’s not so much that they’re misogynists but modern Republicans; misogyny is in there all right, but it’s all tied up with the homophobia and racism which go along with theocon-ism. Basically, unless you’re a straight white male (or can act like it – Coulter and Larry Craig spring to mind), you’re anathema to them. Two out of three? You must be inferior. One out of three? Get out of here! None? COMMIE!
    OK, slight exaggeration. Not much, though.

  8. dylanw
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    This is especially icky in the light of Benazir Bhutto’s sexist, mean-spirited and petty in its own right, of course, but maybe the violent assassination of a prominent female world leader will suggest to somebody that this shirt shouldn’t be for sale.

  9. Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    With the racial undertones in that shirt, I”m surprised they didn’t find a way to tie Obama into the slogan.

  10. Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    I have submitted a complaint to CafePress. Here’s a copy of what i sent:

    I believe one of your sellers is marketing items that stray into at least the ‘grey zone’ of your content usage policy, if not the ‘black zone’.

    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike

    Bullet point #8 of your General Guidelines for Prohibited Content, ‘Content that depicts violence, is obscene, abusive, fraudulent or threatening’, seems to include RightWingMike’s use of images and statements supporting torture of terror suspects and Hillary Clinton:

    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4296117

    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4281251

    Bullet point #10, ‘Material that is generally offensive or in bad taste’, includes his statements regarding Jamie Lynn Spears (a minor):

    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4380583 and

    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4380423

    I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this seller’s entire marketplace. Thank you

    The link to their content policy is here:
    http://www.cafepress.com/cp/info/help/cup.aspx
    Contact CafePress here:
    http://help.cafepress.com/hc/s-74058960/cmd/kbresource/kb-222431303612565967/escalate!PAGETYPE?VisitorProfile=cafepress
    I hope this comment doesn’t get eaten because of all the links; i worked really hard on the formatting :-)

  11. Posted December 28, 2007 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    oh, i forgot to add that i normally don’t file complaints about things that sort of could be covered by free speech (i’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU), but this guy’s stuff really seemed to cross the line.

  12. Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Dear CafePress & RightWingMike.
    Fuck. You.
    No Love,
    Smartpatrol

  13. Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Excellent complaint Judy!

  14. Jovan1984
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Speaking of the devil, I named OJ Simpson as one of the 106 Biggest Assholes of the Year.
    As for the shirt, I am really angry at the fact that anyone whould even sell something like that! I am a Hillary supporter and i found stuff like this and the fetus ornament totallly offensive.

  15. Destra
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    This is disgusting. Very rarely is what feminism is fighting against so clearly distilled into one phrase.

  16. Genetic_Mishap
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I hope this doesn’t result in responses like the ones we got from that Fun Ideas “Lusty Linda” guy.
    (By the way, what happened with that?)

  17. Posted December 28, 2007 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    I can think of a million reasons to criticize Hillary based on her politics and policies. But no one ever does.
    Posted by: Lauren

    …the male candidates, they’ll take them on via the issues, but Hilary? (As little as I personally have any need for her.) Eh, she’s just a woman.
    Posted by: Dreama

    That’s the irony though. They don’t take the male candidates on for the issues. And they pretend to be all concerned about H. Clinton’s voting record and issue stances. 90%+ of all discussion about Hillary contains the trope, “Sure, it would be nice to have a woman President. But we don’t want just any woman President; we need to take a very serious look at her record, not vote for her just because she’s a woman.” And then they proceed into a lengthy discussion of her “cankles” and pantsuits. And then when the discussion rolls around to Rudy Guiliani or Joe Biden, they like them because they’re tough sons-a-bees who would be cool to have a beer with. They “Look Presidential,” meaning, they’re white dudes and therefore presumedly qualified to lead. And Ron Paul? Please. If half of his bandwagon-jumpers-on ever so much as glanced at his record, he wouldn’t even be in the running.

  18. SlackerInc
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    I can’t say as I’m surprised. When you look at poll numbers, Hillary’s negative ratings are way higher than the other candidates. Unfortunately, for me as a pragmatist, this tells me that we need to nominate someone else (Edwards would be my first choice, followed closely by Obama). This election is too important to lose to the Republicans. And if Hillary were to lose, we might never see Democrats nominate another woman in our lifetimes.
    It’s not fair to her personally, but the election is more important for all of us than fairness to a single individual.
    Alan

  19. Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Alan – Clinton’s positive rankings are higher than the other candidates too.

  20. Misspelled
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    bittergradstudent — If you want racism, how about the “Obama is Oprah’s bitch” and “Imus got screwed” shirts? I’d say he’s pretty well out of the realm of “racial overtones.”
    I also like the Mt. Rushmore one: “3 Republicans, 0 Democrats.” Yeah, nothing says “right-wing” quite like a big picture of Abraham Lincoln… unless it’s a big picture of Teddy Roosevelt.

  21. ferrarimanf355
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    I can think of at least a thousand reasons why I’m not voting for Hillary, but this is… is tasteless strong enough?

  22. SlackerInc
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Snobographer: “Alan – Clinton’s positive rankings are higher than the other candidates too.”
    Here are the latest Gallup numbers:
    Clinton: 51 favourable, 47 unfavourable (up from 47/50 a couple weeks ago)
    Edwards: 53 favourable, 33 unfavourable
    Obama: 57 favourable, 30 unfavourable
    Gallup also shows that Obama would do significantly better against likely Republican nominees than Clinton would.
    Alan

  23. Posted December 28, 2007 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    On a side note about reporting Right Wing Mike, I saw that on his insects and animals link, is an image that I own as well.
    I’m a graphic designer and frequently use stock images for advertisements, etc. However, the butterfly image that he has, I HAVE THAT IMAGE TOO! And that is a direct violation of CafePress’s TOS. Besides Judy’s complaint, that should also be enough to get the account terminated.

  24. apaperbackwriter
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    I love this. Most of the misogyny of the election is veiled by irrational hatred of Hillary. But on the ABC-hosted facebook app “US Politics,” they decided to bypass the Hillary question altogether and just ask if we are ok with ANY woman running for president.
    I’m disturbed by the question “Do you think a woman can be as effective a President as a man?” but I’m doubly disturbed that 21% of people responded no and there’s a heated debate on the topic. Ick.
    I wrote into facebook and requested they take the question down. Who knows what good that’ll do, but might as well try.

  25. apaperbackwriter
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
  26. Regan
    Posted December 28, 2007 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    I wrote in about that facebook poll too! That is just not okay with me. I was offended that this was even a question. ABC news making that “debate” seems to give it validity and only gives ignorant assholes a forum to be ignorant assholes in. I’m sure that the 21% that say no go to some place like Texas A&M (sorry, I’m at Texas and couldn’t help myself). I wrote in about that too. They would never pose the question “Can a black person (a.k.a. Obama) be as effective of a president as a white man?” I don’t understand how asking one question is not okay and not the other.
    But about this t-shirt: I plan on writing an e-mail because I am the angry e-mail writing type and anything that horrible should not be out there. Freedom of speech is one thing, but a sexist and racist t-shirt maker who promotes violence and pedophilia, in my opinon, is not protected by the 1st Amendment. That’s just obscene.

  27. Posted December 29, 2007 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    RightWingMike has added some anti-feminist stuff now, too.
    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4432372
    http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4431986
    Does this mean CafePress has contacted him i wonder?

  28. Posted December 29, 2007 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    angrygirl,
    i’m glad to hear there is a non-speech reason to take this jerk down (although people stealing content sucks).
    Unfortunately in this world, infringement of copyright is more likely to get someone in trouble than promoting violence and pedophilia.

  29. Posted December 29, 2007 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Well, he wouldn’t be covered under the 1stA here anyway, because it isn’t the government preventing him from exercising free speech. Private orgs can do it all they want, basically.

  30. Amanda Stein
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    I just wrote Cafe Press as well. We’ll see what happens.
    In regards to what happened with Lusty Linda; nothing that I know of, so far. I contacted the Connecticut Better Business Bureau; they told me to contact the Connecticut Attorney General or Department of Consumer Protection. I wrote the DCP. No response. Debating whether or not I’m going to contact the AG now…
    I highly recommend anyone who was threatened, or had clear hate-speech used against them, to contact the AG. It’s insane that a company can get away with such hateful, violent, potentially illegal behavior.

  31. Sappho
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Slightly off track, but I am down on the First Amendment these days, which hurts marginalized groups as much or more as it helps them.
    Our rigid and absolutist understanding of the first amendment is at odds with the rest of the world, which recognizes that there is a cognizable difference between political and artistic speech and hate speech, which just shouldn’t be tolerated.
    If it is a misdemeanor to punch someone in the street, why isn’t it a crime to yell racial epithets at them? The injury is comparable, the motivation even worse, and the idea certainly not worth protection from anyone.

  32. Posted December 29, 2007 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I have been in communication Right Wing Mike for many years through an email list that both of us subscribe to. Your comments here amuse him, and send more people to his web site. They probably increase sales too.

  33. Regan
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    And the point of you saying that was..?
    Obviously all of us have now checked out his website (I assume that’s what you mean by us sending more people to his website), but I don’t think any of us have bought any of his items, so I don’t know where the sales increase is coming from. Maybe there are some people that visit this website looking for things that offend us to buy.

  34. PamelaV
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    How can people demand Hillary “not play the gender card” when they talk about her fucking NECKLINE and suits?
    I’m not voting for her for my own reasons but hell! That’s all they ever do is make comments related to her gender.
    I can’t stand Huckabee or Romney, but I certainly don’t advocate torturing them. This guy has no class.

  35. A male
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Everyone knows Hillary is a woman, just like they know Obama is black, or Romney is LDS. Why not use it to their advantage, and why not have people talk about it, if applicable?
    I went to see that Facebook poll, registered just to see it, and I responded.
    I am sure the question offends, but as someone with a marketing background, I was interested in seeing what kind of groups were saying what*. You can find out now, or be surprised at the polls. The demographic breakdowns were pretty much as I expected. Interesting that Facebook users over the age of 49 do not even appear on the radar.
    I would also accept questions regarding whether or not people of certain ethnicities or religious beliefs could be acceptable, or if men would be accepted in traditionally female dominated fields, like a male* OB/GYN or L+D nurse.
    *Never met or heard of one yet locally, and I have no intention of being a pioneer.

  36. anomrabbit
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    …but I don’t think any of us have bought any of his items, so I don’t know where the sales increase is coming from.
    – Regan
    Maybe we aren’t, but what about all of the trolls and the people who read Feministing so they can “know thine enemy”?
    How can people demand Hillary “not play the gender card” when they talk about her f*cking NECKLINE and suits?
    –PamelaV
    I’ve noticed the same thing. It’s kind of like people who say, “I don’t mean to offend, but…” — instead the news anchors say, “We’re not going to play the gender card, but did you see her blouse?” What’s most unfortunate is that many people will write her off as a viable candidate because of comments like those. Like was said in an earlier thread, physical appearance is not a political argument!

  37. Jovan1984
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    So far, cafepress haven’t done a damn thing. i just saw some of this guy’s sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic things.
    Like i said, this totally crosses the line.
    Imagine what the furor would be like from Right Wing Mike and his ilk if a woman had sold a shirt that said “I Wish Mike Huckabee Had Married Susan Lucille Wright”.
    The Hatred of Hillary by these nutbags is unbelieveable, considering that zero of the hatred is based on the issues and all of the hatred towards her is based on her gender.

  38. SlackerInc
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    A male wondered “if men would be accepted in traditionally female dominated fields, like a male* OB/GYN or L+D nurse.”
    OB/GYN was actually traditionally a *male* dominated (and often very misogynistic, according to a midwifery-oriented female physician I know and trust) field. The vast majority of OB/GYNs in my area are still male. The tendency for it to be female-dominated (which does make a lot of inherent sense, just as it makes sense for urologists to be male) is very recent:
    http://www.ajog.org/article/PIIS0002937806009756/abstract
    Though apparently Hawaii was ahead of the curve from what you are reporting.
    I do agree with you that it is a legitimate question to ask whenever someone is pioneering in an area. Not that we should be happy with anyone who answers “no”, mind you; but I don’t think it’s quite so outrageous a question that it should be taken down (like asking if, oh, I don’t know…if women should be kept in cages or something).
    Sappho:
    “Our rigid and absolutist understanding of the first amendment is at odds with the rest of the world, which recognizes that there is a cognizable difference between political and artistic speech and hate speech, which just shouldn’t be tolerated.”
    I posted in another thread about the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment. Nevertheless, I’m glad we have a more sweeping protection than do other countries (like those that prohibit displays of swastikas or don’t allow historians to question the nature or extent of the Holocaust, for instance). A guy I knew, a young anarchist and a really nice guy (my ex-wife and I felt comfortable letting him babysit our young children) was arrested by the FBI and hauled before a federal grand jury in 2003 for having participated in an antiwar demonstration, basically for making politically radical statements.
    The grand jury failed to return an indictment, but incidents like this do not help convince me that we should criminalise “hate speech”. One person’s “hate speech” is another’s political viewpoint, and when we go down that slippery slope we never know when it’s going to be an unpopular viewpoint with which we sympathise that is banned.
    I know in my own experience I have been accused many times of being “anti-Semitic” because of my antipathy for many of the actions of the state of Israel (and because I point out that there are passages in the Old Testament that call for genocide against Palestinians). AIPAC and its allies have a huge amount of political power, and without a strong First Amendment I’d probably be in trouble.
    Alan

  39. A male
    Posted December 29, 2007 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    I’ve e-mailed a verbatim copy of your message, Judy. Thank you for your research.
    I see that people on this site are even greater supporters of First Amendment rights than I am, even when it comes to slogans like this, or pro-life demonstrations used to intimidate and harass.
    Why would you not want such as the above restricted as hate speech?

  40. Sappho
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Alan,
    But the example you give is exactly of someone making obvious political speech – participating in a protest. That doesn’t have much to do with hate speech.
    There’s some really interesting and compelling scholarship on speech harms and the first amendment. (Mari Matsuda is probably the best source). Consider that the Amendment was drafted to protect the political rights of rich white men, without concern for the legitimate injuries suffered by speech victims, which are, as you can imagine, rarely the rich white men. Similarly, there are interesting studies about how pornography incites violence against women. But not of course directly enough to fit the incitement or fighting words exceptions.
    It’s true, of course, that it is complicated and risky to argue in favor of limiting the first amendment, but I also think it’s an important question to raise and urge people to consider just a little but. Especially women and feminists and minorities who suffer disproportionately the harms related to free speech, but only equally share the benefits.
    That’s why I say “I’m down on the First Amendment lately,” not because I don’t believe in it, but because our understanding of it has some serious and discriminatory limitations that get discounted, I think. The assumption that freedom of speech won’t work unless its extremely absolutist is widely accepted without much hesitation, but should be a little more carefully considered, I think.
    Your point about Israel is very well taken though. That’s a very clear example of where the line gets dangerously foggy.

  41. Sappho
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Alan,
    But the example you give is exactly of someone making obvious political speech – participating in a protest. That doesn’t have much to do with hate speech.
    There’s some really interesting and compelling scholarship on speech harms and the first amendment. (Mari Matsuda is probably the best source). Consider that the Amendment was drafted to protect the political rights of rich white men, without concern for the legitimate injuries suffered by speech victims, which are, as you can imagine, rarely the rich white men. Similarly, there are interesting studies about how pornography incites violence against women. But not of course directly enough to fit the incitement or fighting words exceptions.
    It’s true, of course, that it is complicated and risky to argue in favor of limiting the first amendment, but I also think it’s an important question to raise and urge people to consider just a little but. Especially women and feminists and minorities who suffer disproportionately the harms related to free speech, but only equally share the benefits.
    That’s why I say “I’m down on the First Amendment lately,” not because I don’t believe in it, but because our understanding of it has some serious and discriminatory limitations that get discounted, I think. The assumption that freedom of speech won’t work unless its extremely absolutist is widely accepted without much hesitation, but should be a little more carefully considered, I think.
    Your point about Israel is very well taken though. That’s a very clear example of where the line gets dangerously manipulated.

  42. PamelaV
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    I would like to bring up the “diamonds or pearls?” question to Hillary during the debates. Who the heck let that question get asked? Foreign policy? No. Health Care? Nah. Abortion rights? Pssht.
    Diamonds or pearls! That’s the hot button issue.

  43. Posted December 30, 2007 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Why would you not want such as the above restricted as hate speech?

    Because one person’s hate speech is another person’s political protest. While we can put some legitimate restrictions in place, such as against libel, direct incitement to violence or criminality and so on, hate speech is a slippery slope and, I would argue, a legitimate use of the eponymous argument.
    The commonly-used argument is that a pastor could be arrested for hate speech for quoting certain Bible verses; to turn it around, if hate speech is a reality, I could quite easily get into a shedload of trouble for my sometimes offensive views on religion. It’s all too easily abused, much like anti-terrorism legislation.

  44. Doug S.
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    [snark]
    I wish Dick Cheney had married OJ.
    [/snark]

  45. Liza
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    How about a shirt that says “I wish RightWingMike had married Lorena Bobbitt”?
    Anyhoo, Constitutional rights are limited by the rights of others. If your “free speech” impedes on someone else’s rights or leads to criminal activity, it’s no longer free. I’m pretty damn sure the First Amendment doesn’t cover domestic violence, murder, or a promotion of such.

  46. VicariousRising
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    That shirt is inexcusable, but it’s funny… when I first saw it the first thing that popped in my head was that, “huh, yah, then Hillary could’ve kicked OJ’s ass instead of getting herself killed.”
    I don’t know why that’s where my brain went. No disrespect to OJ’s victims meant at all. The vision of Clinton going all valkyrie on Simpson was appealing.

  47. Kmari1222
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    “Because one person’s hate speech is another person’s political protest.”
    Suggesting or encouraging murder and/or domestic violence doesn’t really seem like “political protest.” I think political protest would be more along the lines of.. “I wish —- was out of office he’s such a goddamn douchebag” and I agree people should be able to say these things. But to come out and say you wish someone dead?
    puh-leez.
    It’s more of a threat than free speech.
    my 2 cents anyway.

  48. Regan
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    That’s a very good point. It’s illegal to make threats on the president’s life, which I’m sure would include wearing a t-shirt saying that you wish they were dead. Why should this be any different?

  49. Posted December 30, 2007 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    But to come out and say you wish someone dead?

    Well, that’s sort of the thing: statements are covered under the 1stA if they are hyperbole, because they represent an opinion.
    Do I think that the shirts are reprehensible? You bet. No argument from me there.
    But do I think the guy is actually calling for Hillary to be murdered? No. I think he’s expressing extreme dislike and misogyny in an inflammatory manner.

  50. Sappho
    Posted December 30, 2007 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Well RightWingMike may be protected from criminal punishment, but not from public censure, which is all that is taking place here. And if CafePress took it down, they’re far from violating his constitutional rights, they’re responding to public pressure and/or market incentives. So that’d be nice if businesses put a little more integrity behind their taste.
    But it makes one pause to think that if this t-shirt designer walked up to Hillary Clinton and shoved her, he’d be liable for a misdemeanor, but if he walked up and said the words of the shirt, he’d be protected by the 1st amendment. Which one do you think causes more injury to Mrs. Clinton?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

227 queries. 0.882 seconds