Hillary Sexism Watch: Facebook Group Edition

sandwich3.jpg
Thanks to a tip by reader Shannon, we find that there’s a Facebook group titled, “Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich.” And it has nearly 40,000 members.
There are tons others like it, but this one is especially obnoxious It’s description says the group is “Dedicated to keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office and in the kitchen.” They’re also selling t -shirts for their “cause.”
But the most upsetting part of this was the large number of women who are members – just glancing at it, I would guess that at least twenty percent of members are women. Depressing.

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

127 Comments

  1. betty
    Posted February 29, 2008 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Perception is not reality.
    And every time America gets a goofy grin and goes off to the guy who they swoon at or want to have a beer with you can be assured we are in trouble.
    People perceived Bush as more moderate than he was, friendlier and folksier than Gore, a guy who would bring CEO business responsiblity (that’s got to be an oxymoron) to the presidency.
    The perception, the group think, did not pan out.
    Perception and group think is not always reality and people can get shafted and manipulated while, in reality, the person is doing the opposite and being the opposite of what they present.

  2. UnBecoming
    Posted February 29, 2008 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    for those of you who have seen the hugely sexist “Anchorman” featuring Will Farrel, you might recognize the part of the film where they discuss the possible onslaught of bears because the new anchorwoman has her period, which attracts bears. Enter Facebook group “Keep Our Whitehouse Bear-Free! No Hillary Clinton!!!” I’m sorry to say it was started by someone I know personally. Sadly, this poor, misogynistic asshole thinks an appropriate retort to a woman running for presidency is to attack her very femaleness: her period. Fucking Pathetic. Tell Vinny how pathetic you think he is at http://smcvt.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8193211081

  3. Posted March 1, 2008 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    My dislike of Hillary Clinton comes down to a matter of emotion, then. I simply do not like her. And no, this has nothing to do with her gender. Or her race. Nor do a majority of Americans. And the arguments advanced as to why she is losing often fail to mention that applied to a genuinely likable female candidate, they might have some validity.
    I would vote gladly for a woman president, but not for Hillary Clinton.
    If Obama had Clinton’s lack of charm I would not be singing his praises either. Though it would be interesting seeing African-Americans spin and rationalize and justify all the reasons why he was likely not to capture the nomination.
    We have bias and bias can be seen as an evolutionary defect we might someday overcome, or we might accept it as reality and try to call it out with the intent of re-framing the argument and the context.
    Hillary’s losing has as much to do with the undercurrent of change and rejection of the status quo and any candidate right now running on a platform of experience is going to lose in a Democratic setting. That is not a Democratic motif. That is rather, a Republican motif.
    And she happens to be running against a very charismatic challenger, which caters to our sense of supporting the underdog and sticking it to the man, even when paradoxically we are inclined to support the winner knowing he or she has the best shot at winning.
    When the challenger Obama flipped the race upside down, the entire dynamic was turned on its head and a lot of preconceptions have now been called into question.
    I would think Feminism needs to respond to this accordingly and respond to the fissures within itself so that when the next woman runs for President, she will not face these same roadblocks.
    And run a likeable candidate next time and arguments might hold water. I’m not saying run some demure, seen-but-not heard woman with an apron who is quietly deferent to a man but somehow for whom the backhanded compliment “bitch” cannot be uttered with a serious backlash in the process.

  4. Posted March 1, 2008 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    My dislike of Hillary Clinton comes down to a matter of emotion, then. I simply do not like her. And no, this has nothing to do with her gender. Or her race. Nor do a majority of Americans. And the arguments advanced as to why she is losing often fail to mention that applied to a genuinely likable female candidate, they might have some validity.
    I would vote gladly for a woman president, but not for Hillary Clinton.
    If Obama had Clinton’s lack of charm I would not be singing his praises either. Though it would be interesting seeing African-Americans spin and rationalize and justify all the reasons why he was likely not to capture the nomination.
    We have bias and bias can be seen as an evolutionary defect we might someday overcome, or we might accept it as reality and try to call it out with the intent of re-framing the argument and the context.
    Hillary’s losing has as much to do with the undercurrent of change and rejection of the status quo and any candidate right now running on a platform of experience is going to lose in a Democratic setting. That is not a Democratic motif. That is rather, a Republican motif.
    And she happens to be running against a very charismatic challenger, which caters to our sense of supporting the underdog and sticking it to the man, even when paradoxically we are inclined to support the winner knowing he or she has the best shot at winning.
    When the challenger Obama flipped the race upside down, the entire dynamic was turned on its head and a lot of preconceptions have now been called into question.
    I would think Feminism needs to respond to this accordingly and respond to the fissures within itself so that when the next woman runs for President, she will not face these same roadblocks.
    And run a likeable candidate next time and arguments might hold water. I’m not saying run some demure, seen-but-not heard woman with an apron who is quietly deferent to a man but someone for whom the backhanded compliment “bitch” cannot be uttered with a serious backlash in the process.

  5. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    “If Hillary could not shake the idea of being her own woman, than why even give the perception that she was using Bill to do her dirty work (South Carolina) or actively stump for her. Why not distance herself from him altogether, or render him to subordinate roles. His behavior and conduct will arguably go down as her failing and that is a very sad commentary upon each of us, irregardless of gender. ”
    I have to tell you Kevin that this is so last month. I never hear people talk like that about Hillary now….well maybe only Obama supporters.

  6. Posted March 1, 2008 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    Yeah, how dare people have a sense of humor about things? The fact that they made a joke about sexism obviously means they’re sexist, not that they’re trying to use satire to point out social ills. Everyone is not out to get you, you know.

  7. FemiDancer
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 2:52 am | Permalink

    The groups about Obama mainly attack his name and attack him for being a Muslim. Blatant hatred towards Muslims is allowed on facebook…but not open racism against black people.
    http://agnesscott.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8490268794

  8. FemiDancer
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    http://agnesscott.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7543307819
    The description of this group is great though.

    He is only 25 percent black and he wears a turban regularly do i have to say any more that nig is a terrorist”
    But there are only seven members…far more blatant sexism than racism is allowed (or perhaps the facebook crowd feels better about being openly sexist than openly racist)

  9. MirandaJay
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    What’s so unlikable about Hillary Clinton anyway?
    Obama is winning the democratic nomination because he’s cool and has superb marketing. I live in Texas so we’re just now getting bombarded with commercials for the both of them and it’s not even a contest which has the better ones. Anyway, so yeah, COMPARED to Obama she’s not cool, she has shitty marketing but on her own? What’s so unlikable about her? She’s always seemed nice enough to me. She has a good sense of humor.
    What are your reasons Comrade?

  10. Roxie
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:18 am | Permalink

    aaaannnnnddd, reported!

  11. lokywoky
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:25 am | Permalink

    “Regardless, aren’t there more important things to get outraged about? ”
    Unfortunately, no, cg. You and others have missed the basic point. All the other issued identified as “more important” are underlain by the misogynistic attitudes of men and women both. There is a reason women don’t get equal pay – and it’s the same reason people think it’s okay to make sexist remarks. There is a reason for every act of violence against women – and it’s the same reason. There is a reason for every act of discrimination, no matter how small or large, and it’s the same reason.
    Until we get at the basis – and it starts with people thinking that “fix me a sandwich” is funny, or not important, or okay, or whatever, we will never accomplish the big “important” goals.
    SO…no, there is nothing more important than challenging all this crap – no matter where or when or what context it occurs in.
    I personally don’t like Hillary’s politics, her pandering, and her triangulation. But I defend her vociferously against sexist attackes whenever and wherever I hear or see them because these attacks to hurt us all!

  12. JoeyT
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    I hear you, MirandaJay. She seems smart and funny, and I learn something new every time she answers a question about foreign policy. I’m pretty sure I would genuinely like HDRC, and I have no idea why she has such high negatives.
    I mean, is it just misogyny and threats to patriarchy that have people viewing her through such a lens, or is something about her personally repulsive that I just haven’t seen?

  13. PollyStyrene
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    The thing is… yes, the group probably was made as a joke. I agree that making blatant sexist jokes can sometimes be a way of poking fun at sexism. I make them now and then myself. But my experience is that the lines can often be kind of grey there. Like my friend who is constantly making race-related jokes, claiming to be poking fun at racism and bringing it out into the open. I did my best to give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile, but at a certain point I started to wonder why he was harping on the subject to begin with. I’m not buying it anymore.
    To me the telling thing here is that if it did start as a joke group, presumably made by someone who’s not sexist, then why in the world would they keep it running now that there are obviously misogynist posts on it? And why are the members who supposedly joined ‘as a joke’ still members?
    Looking at the posts above I’d say some are jokes and others are truly NOT jokes. The problem with it all is that I’m guessing some people in that group either can’t tell the difference or don’t care about the difference. :-(

  14. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    “Yeah, how dare people have a sense of humor about things? The fact that they made a joke about sexism obviously means they’re sexist, not that they’re trying to use satire to point out social ills. Everyone is not out to get you, you know.”
    Reality Apologist: Do you think those facebook groups are in fun? They are disgusting and degrading to women and Hillary in particular. Women should be shutting these groups down.
    Do you honestly think these guys in these group don’t eventually permeate the workplace with these attitudes? Do you think that these same kids are voting for Hillary?

  15. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    ….I should have said in my last statement or would EVER vote for her.

  16. lyndorr
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    People must complained in the “Hilary Clinton Shouldn’t Run For President She Should Just Run The Dishes” group. The group description says, “This is not an anti-feminism or anti-women group. If it offends you, then fuck you. It is against Hillary being in office. Stop the angry posts about guys in the group being assholes, we don’t beat or rape or hit women, or anything else you ladies mentioned…so shut up,” and “Do not message just to say how sexist we are and how the Lord will strike us down for hating women.”
    So…people do complain about these groups. Enough people support them too unfortunately. And some people really need to see how kids of working moms can also become doctors, teachers or whatnot. Also, communism does not equal socialism.
    I’m realizing a lot of women see feminism as irrelevant because they don’t want to advantage of the obvious things the movement as gained for women. A woman who wants to abstain from sex till marriage and be a SAHM doesn’t think the things feministing has been thankful for the last two thursdays are helpful to them. They could do these things before feminism. They see nothing to gain from feminism and don’t see feminism as being about choice but getting women out in the world world and not caring about chivalrous men.

  17. soleil
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    I’ve reported the group and send a message the group administrator but I don’t know how much that is actually going to accomplish. Like a majority of you on this board I’m pretty ticked off at this group which wholeheartedly supports misogyny and does nothing but makes me weep for the state of America. I’m tired of all these groups popping up with supposedly college educated individuals behind them and even women supporting them. Why is sexism so accepted? I can never wrap my mind around the fact that in the 21st century women are still thought as nothing more than sandwich makers.
    But at the end of the day all I’m going to do is get an angry reply back from some asshole saying i’m not supporting “free speech”. We can all protest on our own but is anything actually gonna get done? Why don’t we all take that frustration and create a group against ignorant people making ignorant statements. I’m for it when you are.

  18. Posted March 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad we’re having a discussion about the role race and gender in a public forum and apparently it takes an election to get that accomplished on a large scale. We are asking tough questions, but we are also traversing territory we have never covered before.
    To answer the question directly, why do I not like Hillary? Answer: there is just something about her personality that makes me see her as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered.
    Perhaps she is uncomfortable presenting these traits, which reveal her inherent HUMANANITY, to say nothing of her femininity. The moment when she triumped was when she cried before New Hampshire, which was probably her only unscripted, authentic moment of the entire cycle.
    And that probably gave her a win in the New Hampshire primary.
    A successful female candidate will transcend gender and race. When I look at Barack Obama, I do not see a black man. I see a man. A successful female candidate (and yes, we will see another one in our lifetime, I fully predict) will have the the charisma and the courage to be herself, enough so that it makes us willing to overlook her human shortcomings and see her in terms beyond gender.
    Why don’t Feministing members think of women already in elective office who fit that criteria? Or lift up women they admire and get them to run for elected office? Or, better yet, run themselves when they are old enough and resolve to have both the experience and the judgment to be a successful politician.
    When we have reached that point, then I know Feminism will have truly succeeded.

  19. meeneecat
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    ComrageKevin said: “Why don’t Feministing members think of women already in elective office who fit that criteria? Or lift up women they admire and get them to run for elected office? Or, better yet, run themselves when they are old enough and resolve to have both the experience and the judgment to be a successful politician.”
    Kevin, see the following article about the fault in your argument of “why do feminists focus on X when Y is so much more important or could be so much more productive” Ugh, we’ve all heard it before, all it does is invalidate the current subject, and yes, feminists should be pointing out and objecting to sexism, any and all sexism. Period. Check it out:
    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/

  20. Nicole Brice
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    I reported the group and would encourage anyone else who is disgusted and outraged to do the same. I explained in my post that free speech does not equal hate speech and that many of the postings are misogynistic, hateful, and violent. I also explained that having groups like that makes facebook look really bad. By letting groups like that remain, they are just perpetuating ignorance, which is not what one would expect out of a website that started for people who are in school and presumably trying to further their education to better themselves. It is good to communicate to the moderators that the website makes facebook look like a place for ignorance and that it would be in their best interest to remove it to avoid losing members and getting bad press. People are more willing to do things when you point out how it would benefit them.

  21. Unree
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Comrade Kevin, you call on Feministing members to name some women who would be fit for high office, but haven’t mentioned your own list. Who are your nominees? I mean, you claim not to be motivated by misogyny: you just don’t like Hillary. If you’re sincere, then you undoubtedly can name a few female politicians whom you would support as presidential candidates. Otherwise, it’s just “Oh, I have nothing against women. Just this one. And that one. And that one.”

  22. dananddanica
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Why should someone have to prove that Unree? Can we not take each other at face value on here?
    I am not a Clinton supporter but if I were to think of some women who could be viable Presidential candidates in 2012, well I’m very biased towards my homestate but I think either S. Collins or O. Snowe would make excellent candidates though I don’t know if I’d vote for them, it would depend on who their Democratic opponent was. All this rhetoric on being a uniter where Obama hasnt been doing it for long and Clinton is hamstrung by her past (wrongly I must say), people like Collins and Snowe have shown what a uniter really can do, even if I dont agree with 100 or even 80% of their specific views.

  23. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    “…there is just something about her personality that makes me see her as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered. ”
    You know when I first saw Hillary on TV years ago, I liked her style quite a bit! She was the only first lady or even women at that time that I felt I could relate to. She was a ‘career woman’ and I loved it!
    I think you need to ask yourself if you are critical of her because she does not act like a stereotypical female.

  24. Posted March 1, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out sexism when it occurs and highlighting the important role it plays in shaping the broader dynamic.
    However, I would encourage us to develop unique strategies that allow us to, as a unified force, challenge sexism in the broadest context possible.
    And the point of my previous comment was to show how the role of one single individual can supersede identity and identity politics.
    Yes, point out sexism when it occurs but understand that in my opinion, more ground will be made when we reshape our arguments and acknowledge that it is not merely as simple as sexism versus anti-sexism. Sexism goes beyond gender identity, racial identity, conservative, liberal, or any -ism I can think of.
    And launching a war on sexism will cause an inevitable backlash. So more successful strategies would be to understand the views of those who oppose us and attack bias in any form. My problem with Feminism is that I think it needs to expand its focus, while as it stands now, its focus is on us versus them. That approach is as divisive as it is unifying.
    I have known many women who I have looked up to who are not stereotypically female, if by that you mean likeable and authentic. I call them friends, mentors, and inspirations.
    They do not resort to attacks and hide behind their gender when it suits their advantage.
    Now, onto the larger question of women who I would like to see in a Presidential role or a larger governmental role.
    In my home state of Alabama: Lenora Pate, Democrat. Loretta Nall, Libertarian.
    In a broader context,
    Maria Cantwell, Democratic senator from Washington State.
    These are just three, and I haven’t even started on the people in the women in the House of Representatives and the Judicial system.
    And I like these three, but there is one name left out that I do not like. :-)

  25. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    ComradeKevin, I believe you are an obama supporter trying to promote your own agenda.
    This thread is about the sexism in facebook groups…and yet you in both posts have decided to concentrate on the election only; denigrating Hillary Clinton and promoting Obama.

  26. MirandaJay
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    This is interesting. I think Hillary Clinton is totally charming and witty. She seems really friendly and agreeable as well as extremely competent and strong. So I don’t understand this robotic, chilly business. Care to give some sort of examples or explain further?
    But what’s interesting, when I saw Obama speak I felt like he was smug, glib, cocksure and almost arrogant and contrived. There were good things about him, too, I liked his rhetoric, he was super funny and comfortable working a crowd. But there were moments that seemed very, very insincere.
    For instance, I stood in line with a classmate who is a big Obama supporter. He made 50 signs to give to people and also one very large one, it was great looking, that said “Si Se Puede” which is of course, “yes we can” in Spanish. After waiting in line for 4 hours the staff told him he couldn’t take his sign or any other one in because “it has to look good for the cameras” They also didn’t fill the stadium past the camera area, even though there were at least 2 thousand people still waiting to get in, and plenty of seats available.
    Before he began to give us his speech, he talked about one Hillary’s bodyguards getting killed in a crash that morning. And he said it like this: “And… well… he died this morning… (shaking his head) so if we could all have a moment of silence and prayer…” But he said it in that same way doctors do when they are breaking bad news to people but are trying to sound like it’s hard for them to say because they are emotional about it. Follow? It’s kind of an abstract thing to convey. Anyway, it was SO insincere and contrived.
    Just my observations.

  27. SarahMC
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Comrade Kevin, plenty of us happen to like Hillary quite a bit, so your broad characterization of her as “unlikable” are incorrect.
    It’s funny that you say you see Obama as “not a black man…” Yeah, that’s what folks tend to think when they think of those who “transcend race.” You get to see them as “normal,” i.e. white.
    Saying a person transcends race is racist. Why do you think being a POC or woman is something to be overcome? It often IS, in our racist, sexist society, but objectively, being a woman or POC is not worse than being a white person or a man.
    We feminists don’t have to come up with a candidate you approve of. Some of us approve of, and wholeheartedly support Hillary.
    Lots of people don’t like her because she bucks gender stereotypes.
    I happen to relate to her. When she told Katie Couric about the boys who teased her in school, I related to that. I think she’s funny, brilliant, compassionate and driven. I seriously don’t know WHAT she did that’s so off-putting to people.
    I do know that Obama often comes across as entitled and too-cool-for-school. I don’t particularly like that.

  28. Posted March 1, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Would Facebook tolerate a group that says, “Obama, pick my cotton”?
    Just some food for thought.

  29. Jane Minty
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, you are a poster boy for “sensitive-guy sexism.”
    …why not work hand in hand with those of us in the third-wave and redefine it for a modern era while finding unifying tenants that will not result in arguments over discussions boards…
    And launching a war on sexism will cause an inevitable backlash. So more successful strategies would be to understand the views of those who oppose us and attack bias in any form…
    A successful female candidate will transcend gender and race.
    Who is this “us” you are referring to? This sounds like a very subjective definition of “third-wave,” from your own imagination. Your personal dislike of Clinton is irrelevant; any woman is going to have a problem doing this, as we see in Facebook. What if someone thinks of Obama as embracing the same list of adjectives you just applied to Clinton? Are you going to say this person is “wrong?”
    I have known many women who I have looked up to who are not stereotypically female, if by that you mean likeable and authentic. I call them friends, mentors, and inspirations.
    LOL. Replace, “female” with Black, Asian, Latino, handicapped, etc.
    I just don’t understand why you have devoted so much energy in promoting your candidate, and essentially defending frat boys at their kegger?
    Can you name any group of people who face discrimination based on physical characteristics other than women who are still publicly mocked without repercussion? Why don’t you register a Facebook group called: “Albinos: U MAD!!!” and see how that goes over.
    So rather than throw stones and try to believe that you know what true feminism means
    Clearly you are more educated on the subject than I am.

  30. Jane Minty
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    LOL. Replace, “female” with Black, Asian, Latino, handicapped, etc.
    I didn’t intentionally leave out gay, bi, transgendered, etc. They didn’t make it to my fingers quickly enough.
    Honestly though, Kevin’s so-called “liberal, sensitive” take on misogyny is more insidious than the ingenuous ignorance of some “Joe on the street” guys…they will often surprise you in their willingness to learn.

  31. Posted March 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    I’m visiting you from France (excuse my english). I’m appalled at the sexism against H. Clinton, it’s violent, and on such a scale ! France is a small country of course, we had some sexist remarks when Segolene Royal was a candidate to the presidential election last year, it was more that she was said “not having the right tool for being a president ;o)” or that she would not be able to have the power, etc. but it seemed less agressive than what you are facing. Usuallay she was called “Segolene” just like Ms Clinton is called “Hillary”… but it was not that violent with all the sexist items (brush, tee shirts, internet c.u.n.t. that I read …) So I have a question : I wanted to know if you have feminist groups on that particular subject in the US : sexism in the language, sexism in the political or public life… In France we have the “Chiennes de garde”, an equivalent for “she watch-dog” that make “noise” when there is some open sexist remark on known or unknown women and it seems to be better since we have that…

  32. dananddanica
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m not getting something here. Kevin said outright that his reasons for not “liking” her were emotional, he says theres something about her personality that makes him see her “as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered.” Ok so theres that, but then people are also saying they don’t like Obama because he is “too cool for school” and other things.
    Jane then asks “What if someone thinks of Obama as embracing the same list of adjectives you just applied to Clinton? Are you going to say this person is “wrong?”
    Well no, why are people saying its automatically wrong for kevin to say them about Clinton? Again he clearly stated he was working on emotion. We can all look at the same thing, the same speech or interview and come away with different impressions. Kevin could be the most enlightened and progressive person in the world and still find Clinton’s personality, as much as he has been exposed to, disagreeable. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Sure, it could be and heck probably is at least somewhat rooted in sexism but for every person who says “I dont get how you could think that way, she is witty and so on, Obama is too cool for school and so on” you can get another equally informed person say negative words about Clinton’s presentation of herself and praise Obama. Whats the point of this?
    The facebook group is bad and if it had good intentions they got beaten off track. I was in a group not too long ago, same thing happened, “no fat chicks”, discussing body issues of all types but inevitably it broke down into fat/short/ugly jokes.
    And yes, if you replaced female with black this kind of page would get shut down immediately but then again, right now in our society, race trumps gender. That will change and you will be at the forefront of that.

  33. smartorange
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    SarahMC:
    Comrade Kevin, plenty of us happen to like Hillary quite a bit, so your broad characterization of her as “unlikable” are incorrect.
    It’s funny that you say you see Obama as “not a black man…” Yeah, that’s what folks tend to think when they think of those who “transcend race.” You get to see them as “normal,” i.e. white.
    Saying a person transcends race is racist. Why do you think being a POC or woman is something to be overcome? It often IS, in our racist, sexist society, but objectively, being a woman or POC is not worse than being a white person or a man.
    Yes, exactly. I could not agree with you more. I am having such a hard time with that. I have even heard Bill Maher mention something like well he’s not running as the black candidate like Jessie Jackson. Forgive me, but how do you even run that? It’s like Obama and Clinton have to pretend like they aren’t who they are as if what they are is unacceptable or not normal.

  34. Posted March 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    In the spirit of fairness, knowing full well that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are perfect people, both have flaws, both have weaknesses, both have made mistakes, and both are not perfect, I would like to see how you respond to this assertion.
    And if we realize that attacking people based on a notion of what constitutes sexism, one that has never been clearly defined and comes down to a judgment call on our part, how would you respond to this?
    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx
    Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
    Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
    Filed Under: Politics
    By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News
    Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
    The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including “sexual assaults,â€? “degrading anti-female language” and “obscene suggestions.”
    In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

  35. Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    The intention was not to hijack this thread to promote Obama over Clinton, nor was it to deliberately inflame, nor was it to supersede my own agenda onto the thread.
    The intent, which may have failed, has been to open some eyes and some minds to the understanding that what we are facing here is clearly bigger than man versus woman.
    The intent was to show that subsequent challenges to Patriarchy will require alternate solutions.
    The intent was to show how quickly rational discourse gets chucked out the window when feeling gets involved.
    And the intent was to show that when we throw our support behind one candidate, one which we are firmly committed, we will rationalize away his or her own flaws, accentuate his or her own positive characteristics, and play semantical games from now until eternity without accomplishing A THING.
    Solutions are what we need. It’s good and well to have a chorus of “ain’t it awful”, but I ask of you, where are your solutions?
    That and the impact is totally up to you.

  36. kissmypineapple
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    based on a notion of what constitutes sexism, one that has never been clearly defined…
    So, you don’t have a dictionary?

  37. Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Dictionaries are written by those with a bias.
    Definitions vary depending on what dictionary you consult.
    Everything written by any human being has a bias.
    And a personal one at that.
    I have as much of a bias in writing this respond to you and whomever reads it as you had in writing directly to me or responding directly.
    That’s part of being a human.
    The key is to look past bias and see the truth as objectively as possible, knowing full well that what effects our judgment is not necessarily based on logic and has as much to do with personal prejudice as anything else.
    Those who support Hillary Clinton desire her and may desire a female candidate at all cost, even a lackluster candidate.
    We take this all so personally, as though Hillary was our mother and Barack our father and I am as guilty of doing the latter as you are the former.

  38. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    “The intention was not to hijack this thread to promote Obama over Clinton, nor was it to deliberately inflame, nor was it to supersede my own agenda onto the thread.”
    Well, it obviously was because you would not stop talking about her and denigrating her.
    It’s bad enough we had to discuss hillary hatred on facebook, then we had to listen to it from you too.

  39. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    Don’t feed the troll.

  40. Charity
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    “When I look at Barack Obama, I do not see a black man. I see a man.”
    - “Comrade” Kevin
    Yes. Um. Exactly. You see a man.
    Others have already pointed out how laughable it is when you, like so many before you, have identified *personality characteristics* of Hillary’s that you find distasteful (as if you are revealing some wise, legitimate basis for not liking her, that will *prove* how unbiased your perceptions are), without a hint of irony – you see, these are characteristics that *often* make men like you uncomfortable or turned off, when they are possessed by a woman. They are, I dare say, characteristics most powerful, ambitious people share, and certainly most politicians, share.
    Further, how *thoughtful* of you to come here and share what your “problems” with “Feminism” are with us. Yes, I believe you will find that feminism focuses disproportionately on women. If you find that *divisive*, that’s kind of your problem. Do you find Affirmative Action *divisive* as well, for those reasons? Do you find other social justice movements that strive to empower marginalized groups *divisive*? Do you find they don’t do enough to create special good feelings and fuzzy love & forgiveness fests between powerful groups and historically / currently disempowered groups? If you do find other kinds of social justice movements distasteful and too *us-versus-them*, how do you reconcile that with your love for Obama, who has worked in such movements for many years?
    And how thoughtful that you are taking the time to assure us that there will be another viable woman candidate *in our lifetime.* Thank you SO much for your wisdom and your future vision. I won’t tell you what *I* hope we see in our lifetime (hint: it goes way beyond having one or two more viable women candidates for high political offices), as you would assuredly find it far too self-centered and bossy, not to mention *divisive*.
    Sorry dedf, I could not resist.

  41. Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    The troll sounds a lot like another recent troll…

  42. Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Wow, here we go again — a comment on this thread:
    “Would facebook tolerate a group that says, “Obama, pick my cotton”?
    As I mentioned on a previous comment on this site today, comparing the offensiveness of hillary make me a sandwich to that of obama pick my cotton is so very offensive. one action is denigrating to women, another is dehumanizing to NO END. there’s a VERY good reason i’d be more pissed off with obama pick my cotton, and you all should be too.
    think a bit more before you make such comments.
    Also, another commenter said “in our society, race trumps gender”. it’s very clear how many white women who have never understood racism populate this site.
    let’s stop comparing the two, you’re pushing away women of color feminists and feminists who define feminism as BREAKING DOWN POWER STRUCTURES (if you see feminism in this way, you’ll stop talking about which is worse sexism or racism).

  43. dedf
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    It is known that Obama supporters are trying to infiltrate websites to put down Hillary and promote their guy.
    You can smell them out after about 2 posts.
    Geek, I understand, believe me. :)

  44. Posted March 1, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    If I may interupt to plug, I made my own Hillary Sexism Watch-esque facebook group a while back.
    facebook.com/group.php?gid=8444574564

  45. Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Is there some kind of concern troll training? I think it must be even better than the trial by fire training I’ve gotten at my corporate job, because they all learn the same techniques and repeat them over and over so damn well.

  46. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    well okay anjali,
    If you don’t want to compare a white woman making a sandwich with a black man picking cotton, b/c the latter refers to slavery and (arguably) the first does not (although I’d say many women throughout history /have/ been slaves to their fathers and their husbands), what would be a more appropriate comparison? “Obama, Shine My Shoes”? No slavery, just social and economic marginilization.
    I still bet that one wouldn’t be a popular facebook group, b/c people would take the offensiveness seriously.

  47. Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Denigrate me as a troll.
    Think of me as an Obama spy. Read conspiracies into every comment I make, nitpick my opinion, circumvent my good intentions, cast doubt upon the veracity of the words I speak, pile on me when I am down, reduce me to some covert agent with an agenda, sneer at me for pointing out the problems and wishing to seek out solution, if it pleases you.
    The question remains.
    We know the problem.
    Where is your solutions?
    Show me your solutions.

  48. Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Resort to any attack you wish.
    See me as a troll, or an Obama spy, or a deluded soul with some agenda of destruction.
    The question remains as it always has.
    I see your problems.
    Now where are your solutions?
    I see your outrage.
    Where is your resolution>

  49. kissmypineapple
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    You see my problems?
    You see my outrage?
    You haven’t begun to see my outrage you sanctimonious ass. How dare you come into our space and demand anything of any us! I suggest you learn some respect before you post again. We are not obligated to address your issues with feminism. You should be ashamed. Learn some humility and don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  50. 13lesslee
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, Comrade Kevin, but I’m at a bit of a loss-
    why do the commentors on this or any other feminist site need to explain themselves to you?
    I respectfully recommend that you check your privilege.

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

222 queries. 1.058 seconds