it disappoints me to see otherwise intelligent people (who also, let's face it- DO represent atheism/freethinking) acting this way. It sucks that certain groups (atheists, gay people, vegans, women in general) have to be on "best behavior" or someone chalks up that person's individual mistake/flaw to the movement.

I'm disturbed--but not at all surprised--that Hillary's age is being used against her. As a woman, her expectation as a contender for the nomination and presidency is very closely tied to standards of beauty and attractiveness. This is not to say that the male candidates are immune to criticism about their appearance, but the scathing observations of Hillary explicitly tie in to both age and gender as determining her "electability." I'm very curious to see how gender will continue to operate if she does in fact become President. I hope all of this is not just "the tip of the iceberg" as it were.

Hold the phone.

Hillary Clinton is a mortal? She AGES?!

You don't fucking say.

:rolls eyes:

Folks, please check this article out.

http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol28no5/28513RWclinton.html

Writer is a radical, but she makes a lot of good points. As a true liberal, I cannot justify a vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll be caucusing here in Nevada on the 19th, and am still undecided.

i have always found hitchens to be a douche. i shuddered at that line about clinton, but what disturbed me more was his position on Obama's being allowed to be Black. I know he is British and all, but if he is going to be a commentator in America, he should have a more sensitive and acute understanding of racial politics.
one of the key bone-head lines, for me, was, "And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson?"
wow. to him, besting racism is america means that being Black is meaningless, and now everyone can be White! yay!
he then goes on to say that if Obama had had a Jewish mom, would we call him Jewish (displaying further how little he understands about religion). the answer to that is both yes, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. identity is such a complex and sensitive issue, that one MUST be attentive to how one identifies oneself. if Obama identifies as a Black man, that is his perogative, and it shouldn't matter what a dickhead like hitchens thinks about it.

Oh, and did you hear about how much time that idiot Glenn Beck spent criticizing that Hillary actually *gasp* showed some emotion when asked a question?

I'm gonna state the obvious: he wouldn't be talking that kind of shit about a male candidate.

OK; I'm starting to get real nervous about all these radical purists who claim that if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, they won't be voting in the general election - or that they'll vote for a third party candidate.

I absolutely understand the desire to have a radical POTUS. But dear god, we have to be willing to vote for a moderate Dem when the alternative is another REPUBLICAN!!!

In other news, I just sent my boyfriend an email in which I bemoaned the level of sexism being directed at Clinton.

His response, "I didn't hear about any sexist attacks."

Privilege blinds even the "good guys."

As George Galloway said of Hitchens, "drink soaked former Trotskyist popinjay. . . your hands are shaking, you badly need another drink!"

PamelaV, I totally agree with you. I am also a member of the atheist/freethinker community and I hate it that Hitchens is so adored. On the one hand, he is smart and I agree with many of his points, but in the back of my mind, I keep thinking about all his sexist remarks.

If you're interested, you should definitely check out the "Freethought Radio" podcast with Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor, who are both feminists and atheists. It's one of the few atheist podcasts I can listen to that actually tries to combine the two topics.

On a side note, I voted in the NH primary and I have my own reasons for not choosing Hillary (I find her more conservative than the other Dems), but I really just don't understand the irrational hatred that some people seem to have for her. If she won the nomination, I would definitely support her. It makes me very nervous to think about what will happen to this country if another Republican wins...

You bitches are forgetting the REAL issue!

"Diamonds or pearls?"!

syndicalist702: It really rather bugs me that people on the right are going around calling Clinton a "socialist" as if it was unarguable. I hear this all the time and I hate the way words like that get used as a term of abuse without considering that they might actually have useful semantics.

("Sir, I lived under socialism, I knew socialism, socialism was a friend of mine, and you, Senator Clinton, aren't socialism.")

While I find it generally odd I'm defending Hitchens, I think this thread is simply a case of shooting the messenger. "Aging and resentful" are pretty on the mark of the general public perception of Hillary. We place absurd requirements on the beauty of female celebrities, and the general male populace finds it difficult to forgive a woman public figure for not being someone A) that reminds them of their mother, B) they want to sleep with, or C) both.

The men and women of this country vote for people who fit our twisted beauty ideals, but we forgive men much more easily for being ugly than we do women. Do you think if a woman were as unattractive as Fred Thompson, that she could have ever been an actor on a network drama, or even be elected to a public office in a media age?

If you're a human being, thinking of Hillary as "aging and resentful" is detestable (and hence, as you already know, 88% of the people of this country are detestable for their racism and misogyny). If you're a journalist or a strategist, dealing with that perception remains a big part of your job.

Hitchens is indeed a douche. And Marty Kaplan over at HuffPo is one too for (apparently well-meaningly) writing an entire piece today comparing Hillary to Stalin.

Stalin.

Meanwhile, Obama is compared to Jesus. Give me a break.

syndicalist702: interesting article but frankly beside the point. This post is about the sexism and ageism being leveled at Clinton by Hitchens. Not about her political career.

While I find it generally odd I'm defending Hitchens, I think this thread is simply a case of shooting the messenger. "Aging and resentful" are pretty on the mark of the general public perception of Hillary.

Maybe, if this were an article about how the public perceives Clinton. But it's not. It's an article about Obama (and how racist the liberals are who support him). He only makes a minor reference to Clinton and only to insult her as an older woman. So, no, he's not the messenger. It's his opinion. And, I don't care if some or most of the public thinks that. It's still sexist and shouldn't be tolerated. Period. How do you expect to change sexist attitudes if you don't confront them?

I've noticed that every time a post is made pointing out the sexism that Clinton has to endure, someone has to remark on what an awful candidate they think she is...WHO CARES? This is about sexism, something NO woman should have to tolerate and something we, as feminists, should admonish every time it rears its ugly head. It's not about Clinton as a candidate, it's about her as a woman and a person.

That whole article is a hot mess. But the 'aging and resentful' line really takes the cake, and is clearly Hitchen's take on Hillary Clinton herself, not any overarching media narrative.

What I can't wrap my head around is why some (okay, most) journalists keep harping on the "Hilary is old and ugly" tack. It's like they've conveniently forgotten that *everyone* who runs for president has to be at least 35, and that the US probably wouldn't elect a 35-year-old woman as president because "she doesn't have enough experience".

What I can't wrap my head around is why some (okay, most) journalists keep harping on the "Hilary is old and ugly" tack. It's like they've conveniently forgotten that *everyone* who runs for president has to be at least 35, and that the US probably wouldn't elect a 35-year-old woman as president because "she doesn't have enough experience".

What I can't wrap my head around is why some (okay, most) journalists keep harping on the "Hilary is old and ugly" tack. It's like they've conveniently forgotten that *everyone* who runs for president has to be at least 35, and that the US probably wouldn't elect a 35-year-old woman as president because "she doesn't have enough experience".

Rebecca, clearly the most important thing about HRC is her appearance-- she's a woman, after all! That's why we want to know what she wears around her neck and get all scandalized when she shows her cleavage.

Just wanted to add. . .

In your FACE you slimy old man! Somehow New Hampshire's Democrats managed to get excited over a mere woman.

But yeah, despite the fact that I don't particularly agree with a lot of Clinton's voting record, every instance of this kind of blatant misogyny makes me more inclined to want to vote for her. Gender solidarity, I guess!

ShelbyWoo - I totally agree with your assertions about sexism against Hillary, as does the author of the article I posted. Furthermore, I fully support its exposure. I did post that link fully aware that it was beside the point and knowing the some reactions would reflect that. My intention was not to detract from the fact that Clinton is an unfair target of the rampant sexism that existed in our society long before she ever considered running. My intention, rather, was to see what people will say about her voting history. Though I'll admit this isn't the right forum in which to do it, I wanted to hear the voices of women who support Hillary speak about her voting history.

I think Hillary, overall, is an awesome person, but I can't justify voting for someone who I see as a Democrat in name only, no matter how much I want to see the gender monopoly broken and give misogynist America a slap to the face. I was probing for ideas in support of Clinton. How does one reconcile her voting history when considering her as a candidate?

Sarah, no worries. I'm a staunch Democrat and will support whoever the nominee is.

Syndicalist, HRC and Obama are very similar in their voting pattern in the Senate. (Not so persuasive if you're an Edwards gal, but it is reassuring to see she's not Joe Lieberman 2.0.)

Bwrites - I'm still not sure who I'm supporting at this point. Caucus day here isn't until the 19th, fortunately.

Didn't Edwards co-sponsor one of the Iraq war measures with Leiberman back in '02?

I'm so disappointed by his sexism. I was reading God is Not Great and was so thrown off by his anti-choice leanings and various condescending and patronizing comments about women. Not to mention his description of the apparently exclusively male urge to have sex.
Whatever. Dawkins is way sexier anyways, and nevermind Sam Harris...

Thomas, you took the words right out of my mouth!

Loganberry, yeah, Hitchens has always been anti-feminist. Even when he was writing for The Nation he was pro-forced-birth.

Honestly, I'm not sure what's wrong with being either aging or resentful. Everyone ages, if they're lucky, and there's a lot out there to resent.

He's also a horrid racist.

I just love how he couldn't resist adding 'female' to resentful and aging(not that those are better). As though no sane person would dare be excited about voting for a woman.

Sheesh.

an aging and resentful female

I know somewhere on this website, people have talked about this issue before, but it's really been bugging me lately. I am female as in that's my sex, but there's something creepy about people using it as a noun, as in a female. It seems more objectifying to call her a "resentful female" instead of a "resentful woman," though I can't put my finger on exactly why. Maybe sharper grammarians than I have the answer?

I tell you my problem with it, anna. It's that it's a catch-all word that refers to all animals that produce ova. When my students start writing about "females" in their papers, I always circle it and ask if they're talking about insects or cattle, and if they're not, why aren't they using the word "women"? You absolutely never see "male" being used like that in the mainstream, and I do think it's a way of dehumanizing women.

He's probably openly saying she shouldn't be president because of her genitals.

I'm scared if I try to think like that asshat my brain'll get stuck that way.

For some reason I feel annoyed when it's done the opposite way as an adjective ('woman president' v. 'female president')

Juan,

I think, linguistically, there's a difference between saying someone is a female-something (as in "female president") and just calling someone "a female" full stop. We aren't just females, we're female human beings. Saying, for example, that Hilary Clinton is the first female presidential candidate to be a front-runner doesn't grate on my ears. It's accurate an accurate statement. But saying "Hilary Clinton is a [adjective inserted here] female" does irritate me. Why not say "woman"?

P.S. And thanks EG! I think you helped me clarify what bothers me :).

As I understand it (and as most newspapers are supposed to write it except in quotes), "female" is the adjective and "woman" is the noun when talking about humans. I'm one of those anal-retentives who gets annoyed with the phrase "woman president." would you say "man president"? And calling Hillary a female (noun) definitely has a dehumanizing effect, I think.

I think Hitchens is more libertarian, if anything, than liberal. He is sexist, racist, and culturally myopic, and I hate the way he abuses you if you disagree.

He didn't remark much on Hillary in this article, but generally speaking, I am offended by the way that anytime a woman or minority is disliked, the attacks against that person become personal. It shows up in our name-calling and it has to do with the body: bitch or cunt or nigger, fag or dyke. Men who are disliked are attacked for their ideas, policies, or deeds. But Hillary becomes an aging and resentful female, and you can bet that if Obama ever gets angry, he will be an angry black man. *sigh* How many times has George W. Bush gotten snippy and cold without it affecting his credibility?

ANNAJCOOK-

I feel that way about "female" as well. I hear things about "going to go talk to some females" a lot.

It's kind of objectifying outside of a biology book. It is a term used to talk about animals. Yes humans are animals, but "woman" is the correct term when talking about humans.

would you say "man president"?

I agree that there's that aspect to it as well--when "woman" or "female" becomes the qualifier, where "man" or "male" would never be used.

I think it's only appropriate to use those qualifiers when we're making a specific point about the person's sex/gender (like the fact that Clinton would be the first woman to hold the office of president if elected). She would be President of the United States, no qualifiers, but she would also be the first female president, and how else are we going to talk about that?

While I don't detract at all from everyone's stance on the man's asshatty comment about Hillary, I think it's scarier that he spends an entire article deconstructing Obama's race and religion and feeling completely fine about it.

The man's a misogynist. The man's a racist. The man is also one of those atheists that's militantly opposed to religion in any form--which is ironic because I've oft held that atheism is a religion unto itself.

But one thing that I take issue with is this: after first calling Hillary out for being a woman (albeit an "aging and resentful"), he wants to call Obama out for being black. He can't do that without getting crucified for being a racist, so he calls everybody else racist. Why not call a spade a spade and say want you really want to say, instead of prancing around it?

And after he's done that he calls out anybody who's remotely religious as being an absolute crackpot Jesus freak.

The only people he hasn't alienated here are... well, he's alienated everybody, actually.

oh, Hitchens, you're my new man-crush. you support the war(hates the administration), you're pro-life(staunch atheist) and anti-clinton(ex communist), but hey, unlike the other doucheholes who hove into feministing's field of vision, he doesn't operate on the belief that disagreeing with him on key issues means he has to kill or subjugate you.
I think it's also important, in discussing the body of the article, that questions raised about sen. obama's "blackness" are done so in the context of highlighting what his critics and detractors say about him.
He should probably mention in these writings that he's written books--two, at least--smearing the Clintons. Hitchens doesn't hate Hillary because she's a woman, he hates her because she's Hillary Clinton. As an American, Ihave to try to find common ground with a lot of divergent viewpoints, and one of them is that the Clintons Are Evil. Allright, sir, I disagree, but thanks for bringing this in a public forum as opposed to taking up arms onesownself.

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

An *atheist* is pro forced birth? How did that happen? And since, short of having sincere religious beliefs that every sperm is sacred (hah), the only *possible* justification for being anti-abortion is "I hate women and want them to suffer", how did he not get called on it years ago? Is it actually okay to print "I hate women and want to see them suffer" in The Nation?

Seriously, I get how religious dumbasses who haven't thought out the implications for women can get all teary-eyed over The Baybeez, but how can someone who doesn't believe in The Ineffable Soul justify a belief that destroying a mindless piece of tissue to secure a woman's health and future is a bad thing?

Sorry, I know this is mostly off topic, but I didn't know there *was* such a thing as an atheist forced-birther.

Has there been no other feminist who's looked at the election and seen a woman whose primary qualification for the position could be said to be who she married?

Has there been no other feminist who's looked at the election and seen a woman whose primary qualification for the position could be said to be who she married?

Considering her husband, isn't that enough?

Okay, I was being flip, but handling the fallout after public discovery of Bill's indiscretions does seem to be reasonable diplomatic exercise. IMO, diplomacy is as important as platform planks, because what good are principles in the Oval Office if one can't convince others to vote for one's issues?

Also, do you really think an unmarried or divorced woman would ever be elected? Most of the former presidents were married while in office, and recent history tells us we're harder on female candidates than male candidates.

Hey, at least her marriage was a choice, and viewed in terms of political clout, it was a smart one.

Seriously, this strikes me as a double standard. How many viable presidential candidates over the past decades have gotten where they are by an accident of birth? They were born with penises into wealthy white families with political connections. Their very birth put them closer to the reigns of power than Hillary could get by her birth, so why shouldn't she have made up the difference by marrying?

Syndicalist07 - I consider myself a radical but I am still going to vote for Hillary Clinton, no question.

I think that article about her was shallow and poorly researched. For example, her efforts in the 90s for universal health care are just as easily explained by her trying to make some pretty radical changes that she believed in, and having grown more cautious after getting so seriously smacked down over it. I have also never heard her say anything threatening about immigrant rights, and certainly there was not much hype about it when she and Bill Clinton were in the White House.

I don't think Clinton is necessarily the most progressive candidate out there, for sure, but I think she's a) very smart, b) experienced, and c) all in all, I think the future looks largely the same if she becomes president as it does under Edwards or Obama. They might play more radical cards about union power and changing politics, but she's actually been there and tried to do that, and they simply haven't. I think that in truth they're all pretty similar, except one thing that does make a big difference to me: Clinton is a woman. She knows what VAWA is, unlikely Romney, she's the only candidate I've heard mention the Equal Pay Act, and the symbolic importance to me of a woman president is extremely powerful. As a majority in this country, it's god damn time for a woman to be running it.

Thanks, Sappho, for your input. I'd love to see the gender monopoly get broken up, too.

As I've said, I'm still undecided. I've got a little more than a week to make up my mind.

Oh man - that's so disappointing! I agree with PamelaV and Mary B.

So far I had only come across Hitchens in atheist circles where I thought he was smart and wrote well. I enjoyed his book "God is not Great" although I am a bigger fan of Dawkins writing.

Reading this doesn't invalidate his other views but boy it sure is disappointing.

And it's off topic but I'll take the time to disagree with Scarlett briefly because atheism isn't a religion. It's too loose a definition - it just covers everyone who doesn't believe in god(s). So there isn't a dogma or a church or anything we all follow. For some it takes the place of religion in their lives but I've always thought it was a bit of a stretch to call it a religion. I have a joke I like that goes "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". That sums it up well I think.

anna: just to add to the female vs. woman issue, because it drives me up the wall everytime I hear anyone refer to a woman as a 'female'; female refers to an animal's sex, a female dog, a female human being, it does not denote a person's gender. I can be biologically female and identify as a man, I can be biologically male and identify as a woman. Yes, it happens that a person can be biologically female and identify as a woman, but that should not be a given. If you (not you personally, the universal you) call a woman a female, to me, you are reducing her to her gentials, to her biological sex and ignoring the gender she may identify as. Myself, I do not appreciate being called a female, I consider myself more than simply my biological sex. I chose to identify as a woman and I expect that choice to be acknowledged. But that's just me.
And that has nothing to do with Clinton or the asshat writing about her.

What younger woman cannot understand is that young women do not feel the glass ceiling so much early on in their careers. It happens a bit later. When a young relatively inexperienced woman begins her career, she isn’t seen as the “threat� to males that she will be seen as later on, when she is seasoned and experienced. But don’t worry - she'll get there, eventually, and this is more likely to continue if we don’t elect the very intelligent, experienced and older woman candidate that we have in HRC.

When I was a younger woman, I too, mistakenly thought Gloria Steinem’s time had passed. I felt I could break any barriers presented to me… after all, I’m quite bright, athletics training gave me endurance/stamina, and I’ve been told I’m easy on the eyes. I had 3 scholarships to begin my college education… I did everything
“right� as much as I could do. My father earned about half the median income my peers' fathers earned at the public university I attended, but I wasn’t worried about my future. I prepared so well, came off so sharp, that not unlike Hillary, I was misinterpreted… in one of my first interviews, I was asked if I was born with a “silver spoon� in my mouth… having been coached at the Univ. career center to be “positive� in responses when in doubt, and never having heard that phrase before, I replied a little more hesitantly than anything else, “I guess so…�. Despite that initial mistake(!) I’ve done much better than most women my age, and it was NOT easy, and there was sexual harassment at nearly every step of the way. I believe we owe a huge thank you to Gloria Steinem, not only do I believe that every woman of legal voting age should vote for HRC, who is the best candidate, I would like to see her have the chance to make desparately needed changes.

I'd like every citizen in this country have access to healthcare. Furthermore, I do NOT want to send our people off to wars and I especially want to see a balanced budget again! As a business person I find it extremely unethical to have anything less from our government. That is the least we can expect. I want to elect the person who can deliver these kinds of things. Someone who has the connections and can get things done. I “like� Obama too, he’s a good man, I’m
sure, but he isn’t the *best* candidate this time. I hope he runs again after Hillary’s 2nd term as president.

AlaraJRogers, there are plenty of misogynist atheist men.
Disappointing, I know.

Instead of using religion as a basis for their woman-hatred, they use science - or more accurately, pseudoscience.

These are the people who use evolutionary-psychology to justify keeping women in their place.

They are gender essentialists on the basis that according to nature women are X while men are Y.

They still want to oppress women, they just insist that science, rather than god, requires it.

I'm not entirely sure how Hitchens got on the "circuit" of popular atheist writers. He's like a "which one of these is not like the other" when he's placed up against Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Sam Harris. (All three of whom, of course, can actually think before they speak)

Well, he made big name when he publicly and hostilely defected from the left in order to support Bush's Iraq war, so I guess he has name recognition.

I guess he made the circuit because he wrote an atheist book. Also he speaks well in the atheism vs religion debates I have seen him in. And it probably helps that his other views (such as the sexism) don't come out strongly in his book.

At least in my opinion. I read loganberry's comment about and they thought "God is not Great" contained sexism and anti-choice passages but I have to admit I didn't notice that.

Sorry to sort of diverge from the topic here, but am I the only person who finds Hillary's appearance rather attractive? I'd never vote for (or against) anyone based on something so foolish, but I find her maturity quite fetching and don't see why so many people seem to think she's so unpleasant to look at; there can be great beauty in the strength of age.

SarahMC, I do understand that a lot of evpsychs use "science" as a proxy to oppress women too. But I dabble in ev psych myself (my perspective is feminist, though), and I can't see how ev psych can possibly justify forced birth.

I mean, if everything is about who gets to reproduce, then a woman who aborts because she is currently in a bad situation to care for her young is improving her ability to care for *later* young, while also ensuring that she does not reproduce with an unsuitable male. In ev psych, even the most sexist flavors of it, males who are genetically inferior or who have proven themselves poor providers or poor risks at helping to care for children are *supposed* to lose the genetic lottery. So to say that a woman should not have the right to abort if she considers the male who fathered her child unsuitable father material, or if she is in a condition of poor resources whereas if she waits to reproduce she will have much better resources to give her child... that's anti-every tenet of ev psych I've ever heard, even from the most sexist ones. The reproductive choice of "good" men by women is exactly what's supposed to drive male superiority in their view. So if women could not choose the best men to father their children, negative traits would begin to proliferate. (in their worldview, I should add.)

In fact, I could make an ev psych argument why it is the moral duty of a woman to abort the conceptus of a rapist or any man who has ever committed any physical abuse of her or any other woman. (I don't make such arguments because I don't actually think rape and abuse are coded genetically, but there have been feminist thinkers who believed we could breed aggression out of men. See "The Gate To Women's Country" by Sheri S. Tepper.)

So to hear that a sexist atheist (which, yes, usually does mean an ev psych) was in favor of forced birth is appalling to me. Forced birth is actually a violation of the principles of ev psych, and for an ev psych to *ever* be in favor of women not being permitted to get abortions, it really is like they're wearing a sign on their forehead saying "I HATE WOMEN." They can't pretend to disguise that with science, because their "science" says that it's women's obligation to produce the best children she can, and give them the best resources she can, and obviously abortion would fit into that. I can't even imagine an ev psych justification for forced birth.