Life's a real c*ck. Don't vote for one...

I've been trying to come up with a similar slogan that would work for men, and there just isn't one. That's because we don't have the language for this and it shows how much women are still seen as interlopers in the political sphere.

Can someone remind me what she's ever done that could actually be described as "bitchy?"

If life is a bitch, why does it follow that you should not vote for one?

The way I see it, if it is true that life is a bitch, and it is true that I love life, then don't I love bitches? And, therefore, I should vote for one.

If I complained to the flight attendant about that shirt, do you think the person wearing it would be asked to change?

Can someone remind me what she's ever done that could actually be described as "bitchy?"

1) She has a vagina
2) She is not subservient
3) She has an opinion and she expresses it
4) She has boobs to go with the vagina

/snark;)

If you click on the link, there are other items on sale, like the oh so classy "Don't vote for the royal bitch!"

Her head is decapitated and put on a platter.

Fucking scary and disgusting. I don't remember seeing Kerry's head on a platter last year, or even Bush's. And I haven't seen so far Edwards or Obama's head on a platter. This is really disturbing.

Ugh. As many other people have said, I don't agree with Hillary's policies but I still want her to do well because I hate the way the media treats her...

By the way, the front page at Media Matters (http://www.mediamatters.org) right now has a round-up of all of the Chris Matthews' disgusting sexism, both about Hillary and in general. If anyone thought that it was just a few slips of the tongue on his part, I think seeing it all together like this makes it pretty clear -- Chris Matthews is a sexist jackass.

Also on the website is a shirt with the slogan 'Club Hillary. No really, club Hillary' with two giant spiked wooden clubs crossed behind her head. That's the most disturbing one for me.

That is pretty sexist, and some of the stuff aimed at Hillary has been pretty disgusting. But - I don't think disliking Hillary Clinton automatically makes one sexist. I, for one, am not a fan - and I consider myself a staunch feminist! So I think we need to make a distinction between legitimate criticisms and just plain hateful ones.

That is pretty sexist, and some of the stuff aimed at Hillary has been pretty disgusting. But - I don't think disliking Hillary Clinton automatically makes one sexist. I, for one, am not a fan - and I consider myself a staunch feminist! So I think we need to make a distinction between legitimate criticisms and just plain hateful ones.

SoupChef, it is pretty easy to distinguish a criticism of Hillary's politics and criticism of Hillary's sex.

Nowhere on this site will you find the opinion, "Don't criticize a woman!"

Just don't criticize her for BEING a woman (and not "knowing her place").

Well, sometimes I take "bitch" as a compliment. As so many bumper stickers say, "nice" girls don't make history.

SoupChef, disliking Hillary Clinton based on her stances and platform doesn't inherently make one sexist. Just like disagreeing with Obama's platform doesn't make one inherently racist. It's disliking Hillary BECAUSE she's a woman or disliking Obama BECAUSE he's black that makes one sexist or racist.

My fundamentalist Christian Republican aunt sent my feminist, agnostic Democratic father an email forward that expressed a very similar sentiment. He promptly sent her a response saying that he thought it was disgusting, sexist, and totally inappropriate and asking why she thought he would enjoy that and requesting that she never forward him anything of the sort ever again. In response, she giggled.....

I have also seen greeting cards made by AmericanGreetings, one of the largest card companies in America, expressing a similar sentiment, which is simply amazing to me!

Like others, I have some problems with some of Hillary's positions, but this kind of rhetoric just makes me sad. It completely poisons any discussion of politics.

That phrase (and every variation of it) is on bumper stickers, magnets, tote bags, etc. I don't care much for Hillary, but this is disgusting.

i got a h/t on feministing! thank-you for posting this gals!
like her or not, that shit is fucked up...

PS...i just love that the website is called "conservative buys"

making a great name for themselves i'd say...

but i'm a bitch, right?

Great family values, Conservative Buys.

I am baffled that so many people say "Opposing Hillary isn't sexist" when they are taken to task for calling her a bitch, shrill, over-emotional, ball-busting, et al.

Those characterizations are sexist. Why is this so hard to get?

If the only thing you have against Hillary is that she's an ambitious woman who doesn't back down, then yes, relentlessly dogging her for being evil incarnate is rooted in sexism.

Come up with something substantial and stop using gendered slurs when attacking her. Then I'll believe it's not about her sex.

p.s. Some of the harshest anti-woman Haterade is coming from rabid Obama supporters who are completely caught up in the hype.

When Hillary loses, the country will conclude that a woman is unelectable and unable to hack it.

I fear I will never see a woman in the White House.

So what words are we able to use? I very much dislike Clintons policy stances and though I don't know her personally, after watching her for 20 years I'd also say I very much dislike her demeanor and a number of other things.

Its true, we lack the right terms for this as too many are indeed sexist but it seems like trying to walk a tightrope when trying to find the right adjective to use to adequately express my distaste of her policies and to a much lesser extent her demeanor.

Unfortunately there are only a few words we have that cover everyone when we have had a few too many and the political debate gets a little heated, asshole is used quite often but is far too generic. Pick your least favorite politician and try to come up with one, its harder than you think.

Sarah- If Clinton loses those questions will indeed come up but I believe they will quickly be shut down. I'm in my late 20's and I'm certain I will see a female president in my lifetime, its just that perhaps Clinton isnt the way to go. I dont give a damn if a woman, man or monkey is elected President as long as they do a good job, especially with the issues I care most about, I think more people are that way than some think.

dananddanica: How about words that you'd use for a male candidate? "Bitchy", "ball-busting", "shrill", "witchy", and those sorts of words are gendered. They are only used about women, or about men who you want to gender-shame. If "asshole" is too generic for you, then don't use it. But there are plenty of words and phrases that work on either gender that you can use if you don't like Clinton. I go through a whole bunch every time I see a picture of Bush. It's not that hard, it's just that, with a woman, it's easier for a lot of people to go right to the sexist crap.

Although, I do have to say at this point that I'm mighty suspicious of people who think Clinton is cold, too emotional, or too ambitious. The first I don't see at all, the second is patent nonsense, and the third... What, we expect the presidential candidates to be slackers now? Unless they can back that nonsense up, I can't help but think the people who call her those things are buying into sexist memes.

I wish I had a chipper machine. Because if the misogynists flaunt those "Life is a bitch, don't vote for one" shirts and I see it, I will tear it up in my chipper machine.

dananddanica, there are plenty of words to describe negative characteristics that don't focus on the person's gender.

But even expressing dislike for Clinton's ambition is gendered because since when is ambition considered a negative thing in presidential candidates? Are any of the male candidates on either side attacked for being ambitious? No, because they don't also possess vaginas.

Maybe it's time people examine why they find certain traits unappealing in Clinton.

Without for a second defending the shirt, which is sexist, infantile and not particularly funny even if you accept the mysogonist premise on which it is based, I think it's worth addressing the point raised by random6x7 about Sen. Clinton being criticized for her "ambition." My sense has been that, while some of these criticisms come out of a sexist double standard, others do a poor job of trying to express a somewhat more legitimate sentiment. It's not so much that Sen. Clinton comes off as ambitious, but she can come off as ambitious absent a larger purpose. In other words, it's one thing to have an ambition to be president because one sees a host of serious problems that need to be fixed. It is another to have an ambition to be President because one simply likes the idea of sitting in the oval office. Fair or not, at this point in her career, Sen. Clinton often appears as though she wants to be president just because she wants to be president. If her "tear" moment (much over-analyzed in the media if you ask me) did indeed help her in New Hampshire, it did so in my view not because she showed herself capable of emotion, but because she briefly made the people in that room, and many of the people watching on TV, believe that she was running for president for more than just selfish reasons.

To be fair, the criticism of unprincipled ambition applies equally well to some other candidates (John Edwards, for example, who went from centrist poster boy for the DLC to William Jennings Bryan reincarnate in just four years, along with a number of Republicans), but for whatever reason it seems more acute with Sen. Clinton. Perhaps its just a matter of style. Perhaps its the perceived scars from all the battles she's had to fight. Perhaps its the persistent rumor that she made a deal with her husband to support him for a couple of terms on the condition that he return the favor. Fair or not, though, she'll have to convince the electorate over the next month that her ambition goes beyond her own ego.

As a follow-up, The Onion always seems to have something relevant: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

As a follow-up, The Onion always seems to have something relevant: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

@ Matt:

The fact that you seem to think that Clinton and Edwards are cutthroat ambitious and that Obama isn't only serves to show that Obama has done a better job of hiding it... which I don't mean as a criticism at all -- it means he and his campaign have done a better job of portraying their candidate in a way that is more palatable to the average non-political American.

Anyone running for a political office (let alone President of the United States), by definition, has to have an insane amount of ambition and self-confidence. That doesn't make them bad people, or even bad Presidents. In fact, being ambitious and thinking a lot of yourself is probably a good thing for a leader to have most of the time. You're right that we should be suspicious of people who want power for power's sake... but what's that old saying -- The people who we would most want to have great power are those that would want it the least? That doesn't mean that we can't expect our leaders to have high ideals and good values as well -- but you do have to accept a great deal of personal ambition as part of the deal.

The fact is, Americans are much more accustomed to and more comfortable with a man having said ambition than a woman(in politics as in the business world).

Matt, that Onion piece is absolutely perfect.

The charicature of a man who doesn't think he's sexist, spouting line after line of sexist double-standards.

I feel like that is all we hear from the MSM and Obama supporters right now. And it is doubly offensive because there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Obama is some sort of benevolent purist.
Have you looked at his record or examined his past?

@Matt:

Thanks for the onion posting! Hillaryous.

Oh I am so funny.

cuz you know like, Hilarious and Hillaryous-

get it?

I am SO procrastinating at work.

some people have examined why they dislike clinton. is it really so simple as disliking her because of her ambition? perhaps some people might think that way but no one I know. it smacks a bit of saying terrorists dont like us because of our freedom, its statement that cant be backed up. it seems strange than some people cannot fathom why a person would legitimately not like clinton. would i vote for someone whose demeanor I didnt like but championed my views? heck yes. there are many reasons to dislike clinton, ambition needn't be one of them.

some people cannot fathom why a person would legitimately not like clinton

No, I can fathom it.

But they are not the people I am talking about. I am talking about the vast majority of Hillary-haters who've got nothing more than "bitch!" or "she stayed with Bill!" or who dislike her because she is doesn't measure up to her impossible double-standards. These are the people I am frustrated with, and many of them are on the Left.

The fact that mysogynists have to go to this level to discredit Hillary Clinton strikes me as fear that the idea of a woman president may become a reality. These T-shirts, Chris Matthew's comments, etc., are just symptoms of that fear. Instead of judging Hillary based on her political views, they have to stoop to playing the gender card while accusing Hillary of doing the same. This shows why the patriarchy should've gone extinct centuries ago.

Go easy on screaming misogyny. Seriously:

Guy: ''I don't like fat women.''
You: ''MISOGYNIST!''

Guy: ''I won't vote for Clinton because I think she's dumb.''
You: ''MISOGYNIST!''

Guy: ''Women should rule the world because they're better than men!''
You: ***stays silent***

Guy: ''I think women are more emotional than men!''
You: ''MISOGYNIST!'' (Err... how about 'sexism'?)

nice performance art, dnx.
you certainly seem think you know a lot about feminism in general and the commentators on this site in particular.
i gotta ask though, if you think that sexism or misogyny don't exist in our society, why do you come to this site?

i read a piece yesterday where romney got 'choked up' in michigan, talking about his late father...interesting how i heard nothing about that smeared all over the media...

but no, it's not sexist or anything when we say clinton is too emotional...

dnx, you stupid fuck. This is a feminist website. Of course, I'm not going to go easy on mysogyny. What part of feminist website do you not understand? If you can't handle this, than go talk to people who "think" like you. These people can be found on MRA websites, the zoo, etc.