I feel so torn about posts like this.

I'm a Hillary supporter, and of course think it undoubtedly true that her bid for the Presidency faces the pressures of overcoming an enormous amount of misogynism.

But, really, isn't this just a joke? I'm willing to believe that most of the people in this group are not sexist and just happen to dislike Hillary. So, they're making a joke by adopting a point of view that is bigoted in a laughably outdated, and so absurd, manner. If anything, it seems like this group strengthens women's position because it promotes the laughability of the notion that women only belong in the kitchen.

Regardless, aren't there more important things to get outraged about? Am I way off base here? I'd genuinely like to know.

Well, I was listening to NPR yesterday morning. They have been doing a series on conservative voters on Morning Edition. They interviewed three voters in Texas, and two of them, including one woman, said that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton because women should be submissive to men.

There are probably people out there who are able to differentiate disliking Hillary (for her politics, beliefs, etc.) from disliking her due to the fact she's a woman. But if looking at the Facebook group showed me anything, it is that those things are inseparable for a lot of folks. It becomes really obvious with comments like these (and trust me, no cherry picking of horrifying comments was necessary):

"LOL WHAT A JOKE! CRYING LIKE A LITTLE BABY THE OTHER DAY.ALL CRAPP OBAMA08 DONTGET ME WRONG I LOVE WOMEN BUT NOT TO RUN OUR COUNTRY!"

"Hillary can suck on my balls....then make me a sandwich..."

"obama and edwards both beat thet b***h!!!! awesome!!!!!"

"The best part is, if she did, I'd have a mob stone her as she exited wherever this sandwich was being made. Which would please me indefinitely.
P.S. Roast beef and cheese, if you please."

"bitch needs to know her place"

"I am completely in love with all of you women who joined this group for the right reasons if you joined this group stop bitching like your unshaven butched-out counterparts who did not join this group"

"Wow laura [a feminist commenter who tried to argue against the sexism of the group], I really don't want to hurt women and of course I think women should be able to vote. And the reason men have been running the world is because they have a different perspective then women. They weren't given anything, they took it. By weaker, I mean more timid. We just have different views, I'm not tryin to argue anymore. But really, I was just stating my opinion and you insulted me. I think you just need to get fucked real hard to fully understand a man's power."

"whoever wants a women to run this country better chop off their dick now becuase she will run our country into the ground like mexico. DO U WANNA BE A MEXICAN?"

"Life's a bitch, don't vote for one."

"If your wife comes running out of the kitchen nagging, whats wrong?
her chain is too long."

I think they're being facetious. I HOPE they're being facetious, and mocking those who believe such things.

Ugh. Facebook is home to many snide and snarky groups, but this one surprised me too. No matter how much I read your site, or talk to the average joes and janes out there, I am always surprised by how totally commonplace hateful, narrow attitudes are. Thank you for posting all of these articles. At least it feels good to be aware of what we are dealing with so that we can be more effective, and energized agents of change.

"I'm willing to believe that most of the people in this group are not sexist and just happen to dislike Hillary."

The very name of the group and its stated goal tells a different story. Even if it is "just a joke" its a sexist "joke". There's no way they aren't sexists, if they think that's funny.

"aren't there more important things to get outraged about? "

There's always something more important that voicing opposition to sexism, apparently.

Ugh. Facebook is home to many snide and snarky groups, but this one surprised me too. No matter how much I read your site, or talk to the average joes and janes out there, I am always surprised by how totally commonplace hateful, narrow attitudes are. Thank you for posting all of these articles. At least it feels good to be aware of what we are dealing with so that we can be more effective, and energized agents of change.

I've seen this group, and many like it. I even wrote a long note on facebook the other day about why I hate the word "bitch" and about how there are plenty of reasons to not like Hillary that have nothing to do with her womanhood. At least when I'm scoping out a cute guy on facebook, I can tell if he's an asshole immediately if he's a part of one of these groups.

I don't think it's necessarily a sexist joke. I think they're being facetious. They're adopting an stance that is absurdly sexist and are therefore, at least in some minor way, lampooning sexism.

I don't know about everyone else, but I only have a certain amount of outrage before I get emotionally exhausted. I'll save my outrage for abstinence only education, disparity in pay between men and women, overly lax rape laws, the fight against a woman's right to choose, etc.

It's frustrating that a group that looks like it was created for satire is getting hijacked by assholes. It's also frustrating that real-life sexism against Hillary Clinton has gotten so bad that probably-satire like this hits too close to home. This looks to me like the same style of humor as the "Unforgiveable" clips on YouTube. They make us so uncomfortable that we laugh out of discomfort and then out of the sheer absurdity of the suggestions they make. Like I said, it's a pity that some assholes have hijacked that as a forum to be assholes.

"There are probably people out there who are able to differentiate disliking Hillary (for her politics, beliefs, etc.) from disliking her due to the fact she's a woman. But if looking at the Facebook group showed me anything, it is that those things are inseparable for a lot of folks."

leftie, i think you're right. even the people who think they're being funny by joining the group are promoting sexism by jumping onto the misogynist bandwagon.

those comments are just vomitrocious.

What you have to question is why so many girls are participating in this. Thank about it...do you think guys would participate in a forum that constantly humiliated and degraded in the worst possible ways? No, they wouldn't....yet girls will.

Yes, CG, it IS necessary that this stuff get pointed out.

Here's a quote from shakesville that puts a hole in your argument that we have "better things to talk about and should just stop pointing out all this sexism"

"This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism ... is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.

It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/ trans men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned—and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.

Pretty straightforward stuff."

Simple, so yes we DO need to point this stuff out. It's not funny, and it's not a joke. It's sexism. Whenever I hear people complaining that feminists are always "whining too much about sexism" or "making a big deal of everything" I ask gotta ask them the question, "well gee would this type of thing be tolerated if it were, say, directed at a particular race or ethnicity?" "Do we tell people to shut up and stop whining when they are faced with hate speech?" Usually, unless they are racist bigots, they will say No, neither hate speech nor racism should be tolerated. So why should sexism be tolerated? Simple, it shouldn't.

The fact that some people would tell feminists to stop "whining" about sexism is proof that sexism is a normalized part of our culture - and this is just wrong and needs to be changed. But change won't come if we just sit back in our chairs and hope that people stop being sexist. No, WE GOTTA SAY SOMETHING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I'm not tolerating any sexism and I'm going to point it out whenever I see it. Unless you are a sexist jerk, than you should not be tolerating sexism either, CG.

I've seen a way worse group on Facebook called 'Hilary Clinton Shouldn't Run For President She Should Just Run The Dishes' This has nearly 3,000 members - which, okay isn't as much as 40,000 but still is really bad. For example it has a topic in the forum part titled 'I just don't like Hilary because she's a woman' and , suprise, suprise there's a delightful post by one Matt Kennedy

'They [women] think they're so cool with their vaginas.

You can't even rape people with a vagina!'

How delightful? and 2,924 members think this is okay Just like "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" a large percentage of them are women.

cg, are you kidding? If you don't believe women are inferior, you don't "joke" about them being inferior, especially when sexism is still very rampant in our society.

Read leftie's comment. My stomach lurched reading those comments she quoted from the group. PEOPLE HATE YOU FOR BEING A WOMAN, cg. They think this shit is acceptable and women play along because obviously the boys give them approving pats on the head for participating in their own subjugation.

I mean, I don't think I'm a sexist jerk. I've identified as a feminist for years. I've only made two simple points.

1) I don't think that participation in this group is necessarily sexist (although I'll grant you that a lot of the members, judging from the comments, probably are). I think if you give more than a passing thought as to why someone might find the group humorous, then that's pretty obvious.
2) I, as a human being, only have a certain amount of moral outrage I can generate in a day. If you have the energy to be endlessly outraged by the constant sea of misogynism that we swim in every day, then I have a lot of admiration for you. I just don't. I shut down at a certain point, and so I'd rather spend my energy dealing with issues that have a direct effect on people.

Oh, CG I didn't mean to imply that you were a "sexist jerk". I was trying to imply that anyone who finds this type of thing funny, makes them a sexist jerk in my mind. I understand you were asking a legit question in "am I way off base here". So again, I just wanted you to know, I'm not calling you a sexist, I'm calling anyone who finds the anti-Hillary stuff (like the website in the post) a sexist. Just wanted to say that because I realized after I posted that my comment could be misconstrued as a direct insult to you, but that's not how I meant it.

yes, some people in that group probably do think they're "lampooning sexism", but clearly most don't. my 17 year old sister, who is cool but hasn't outgrown pandering for the approval of sexist boys, was in that group. and she was because she wanted guys to think she was funny and nonthreatening. BARF.

needless to say i set her straight.

but really, to answer cg's question, there are issues with more heinous impacts on the lives of specific women -- rape, domestic abuse, FGM, etc. -- but what is a bigger feminist issue than squashing the myth that women are second-class citizens, just the butt of jokes, who damn well better know their place or else?

meanwhile, facebook claims that "groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist, or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in immediate termination of your Facebook account." I've already reported that group, and you can too.

meanwhile, a quick search for "Barack Obama" and "shine my shoes" yields no results. at least we have SOME progress in online sensitivity...

Wow leftie, those comments make me REALLY angry. I can't believe there are men out there that would post this type of thing. Do these guys have any women in their lives? I mean, do they really think these hateful things of their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, etc.? I can't believe that there are women who share in this hate also. It makes me sick to my stomach. BTW, No La Fille Torpille I don't think they are being facetious, I think they are totally serious. Ugh.

Also, Facebook would never tolerate a group that makes fun of Obama's race, why do they allow such a overtly sexist group with such hateful posts that only serves to make fun of Hillary because she is a women? Not that I'm for censorship or anything, but shouldn't hate speech toward women also fall under the hate speech laws? Or are women not considered real people and so sexism is okay (sarcasm)?

Very true, meeneecat.

There was an interview with the Facebook guy on NPR a while back, and he compared Facebook to Myspace along the lines of, "popular kids to the misfits." He is right about that one, and even after opening membership to everyone, I still associate the site with college age assholes.

Not to long ago my sister's friend in high school made a group called "Women are not equal to men... they're better." And at first it was a healthy discussion about just feminist issues...pretty soon it turned into a war about how women are to blame for rape, lack of family structure and so forth. It was pretty sickening to read because these were high school kids writing this shit. I have gotten into some pretty heated discussions about Hillary in particular and this whole race vs. gender thing. But the truth is people are not openly saying that Barack is a (insert n word here) but they are openly calling Hillary a (insert c word here). And this infuriates me, putting their ideas aside and what they have to offer, Hillary is really getting the worst comments possibly made about her. No one has ever made a comment on how Barack is dressed or how thin he is, yet how "fat" she is, is always a topic of discussion or how ugly she is by the definition some other fat bald guy makes. So for the future ladies and gents the only thing we can do is keep talking about this and get involved. Then we have to make lots of babies that grow up to be progressive and not just feminist people but conscientious people who care about others. The greatest change we can make in this world is to raise our sons in a way that in turn will not limit our daughters.
But in the meantime while we are still not ready for this progressive family we should talk to those people (the ones who say all these horrible things) and then maybe one day when they have heard us say the same thing over and over again they might understand. I am actually living proof that this works. I kept pushing and pushing my boyfriend to see my side of things and to try and understand but he was very into Metal and Punk Rock which are not very kind to women in general. So he was kind of there but until he read Full Frontal Feminism he didn’t get it. So thanks Jessica you made my life that much easier; )

I for one feel quite certain that they are not being facetious. You could MAYBE argue that with the "end women's suffrage" groups, but I don't believe it with the sexist anti-Hillary groups. As for whether there are more important problems in the world, yes, there are, but the people on these groups live and vote in this world and have an impact on those problems; thus, pointing out how many people there are that find sexism acceptable is worth one post out of however many there are each day here. And Facebook does not have a good policy regarding sexism. There are only too many examples of them allowing insane degrees of misogyny and then taking down pictures of breastfeeding. Maybe those who are both on feministing and on Facebook should find a way to complain; individuals reporting stuff doesn't seem to work too well.

I don't see this as facetious at all. The action that started this wasn't meant to be funny, from what I know. I see this as people's (men AND women's) internalized sexism finding an acceptable way to vent itself. You may not be able to tell your female boss to get back in the kitchen in public, but you can say it about Clinton.

This is not a world I want to live in. I'm so depressed.

"Like I said, it's a pity that some assholes have hijacked that as a forum to be assholes."

"A pity". Indeed, what a catastrophic loss to society and literature that we are now deprived of more sanitized, less assholey make-me-a-sandwich-bitch humor. I wonder if they sell specialized mourning armbands.

I just found another group with the title "Back to Life's a bitch, why vote for one? Anti-Hillary '08"

The boys who started this group want to make it clear to everyone that, gee, despite the title, they oppose Hillary Clinton for REAL reasons, like, "being a socialist." There is also a huge topic thread entitled: Hillary why don't you shut your mouth and make me a sandwich.

On there, a girl named Bethany tries to post about how it's fine not to support her candidacy, but not to make deragotory comments about women. Here are some responses to that:

"I have no problem with a women being president, but hillary doesn't deserve it.
But the US was started by upper class, white men. When the Bill of Rights and Constitution were created, it catered to those people only. Not saying i agree with it, but just throwing in my 2 cents."

"bethany needs a man to put her in place"

"i bet bethany just needs a boyfriend.
or a pimp."

"bethany must need to get laid then maybe she wont be so uptight......girl needs to have a sandwich in her mouth so she wont tell us her unwanted opinion, How you going to join a group and not agree with it? Can we say some one has a little to much time on her hands?....."

Regardless of whether people join this group to be INTENTIONALLY sexist or that they realize they "hate women" it still proves how hip sexism is. Girls are posting on these threads just to prove how "hip" they are and that sexism doesn't bother them, thus making them less "scary" and more "attractive"

and its not funny, cause there's a real history here. just like a group with racial groups wouldn't be funny. it's not okay.

Willow, did your sister's friend really think making a group called "Women are not equal to men.....they're better" would turn out well?

As you mentioned, people do call Clinton a cunt far more often than they call Obama a nigger, at least in my experience so far though I do live in the deep south now so perhaps the use of the word nigger is elevated here. I can understand on one level why it infuriates you and why we should all work on changing it but on another level, looking at our society right now, during the primaries,i just see it as race trumping gender in the public discourse.

OT: Is it better on these blogs to use "n word" rather than nigger or "c word" rather than cunt or is that left up to the preference of the poster?

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

Meeneecat, interesting point: Why wouldn't a group picking on Obama's race be tolerated, but a group picking on Hillary's gender is "just fine"??

Why is racism generally viewed as horrible, but sexism is alive and well? Neither of those things are okay...

And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender? I don't think I've seen any (eg) black people nodding and smiling and perpetuating idiotic black stereotypes and racism in our culture... joining groups that agree with that type of crap... why do some females do it? Do they really want to fit into the "boys' club" that badly?

*bristling with confusion*

after a quick facebook group search for "hillary sandwich" and scrolling through the dozen or so groups the search returned (including one encouraging hillary's assassination while eating a sandwich) i came across this group: "Obama--Stop Running for President and Get Back to the Corn Fields" with all of 2 members. The group claims it was started to protest the various "hillary sandwich" groups but clearly hasn't caught on...apparently racism isn't as cool as sexism?

also, did anyone else with facebook access notice that many of the nasty anti-hillary groups were started by high schoolers? how depressing...

i for one joined the "Hillary Haters: Stop Hating Hillary and Make Me A Sandwich" group.

And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender?

I picture the female menbers of this group to be clones of the two girls kicked off of Southwest Airlines this week. But you know, unenlightened women (and people) are consistently unimaginative anyway.

And I stand corrected... I associate the site with college age AND high school assholes.

Yet another winner: "BRO'S BEFORE HOES (1MILLION STRONG FOR OBAMA!!!)" At least there are far fewer members in that one.

"And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender?"

I always figure women tolerate sexism, or are sexist themselves, because they are hearing it from their fathers and other male family members. I can imagine fathers teaching their daughters to hate their sex, but I imagine its not likely that parent's will teach their children to hate their own race.

I don't know if this is ethical, but you can send a message to the page administrator here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2233338482

Jaina, I think this is why:

Men, women, girls and boys all live together in family situations, educational settings, and later form romantic relationships. They are exposed to one another from birth onward.

It's possible (and common) for people of different races to live their lives segregated from each other. There is still a sort of racial segregation in the US.

Whites do not benefit from racism in their *personal* relationships the way men benefit from sexism in their personal relationships.
Sometimes white people don't even have personal relationships with people of color.

So women are compelled, from a young age, to take a backseat to men. They are taught, specifically, that their most important quality is their ability to attract the opposite sex.
Gender roles are very entrenched, and many women feel comfortable with their "role," because that's just how it's always been in their family/school/church/etc. They don't really benefit from doing so, but they get a little pat on the head from the patriarchy, you know?

POC aren't really compelled to degrade themselves for whites' entertainment or comfort. I don't think they care whether they piss white people off or disturb their sense of order or whatever; it's not like they have to go home to white people at the end of the day (the way women/girls go home to their husbands/fathers/brothers/etc.).

I can’t believe I just spent my Friday afternoon getting all worked up over horrifically sexist, Clinton-related Facebook groups. They pretty much all fall into a few basic categories:

“Don’t you know that her husband CHEATED?!�:

Hillary can't handle one man, how can she handle 150,000,000 of them?
Hillary sucks.....But not like Monica!
If Bill Clinton didn't want Hillary, why would we?
Bill Clinton sucks........Hillary swallows

Classic Name Calling:

Those Who Think Hillary Clinton Is An Ignorant Bitch, Say "I"
Hillary Clinton is a dirty skank.
HIllary Clinton Takes the O out of Country
Hillary Clinton is a stupid whore
Hillary Clinton, What a Douche!!
Hilary Clinton is Where Boners go to Die

“She’s a man!�:

Hillary Clinton is a man, and I will not vote for him.
Hillary Clinton Can't Be The First Woman President Because She Has A Penis
I Wanna Kick Hillary Clinton In The Balls!

“Never mind, she’s a woman, and that’s gross!�:

Hillary Clinton's Menstrual Cycle Was The Main Cause of Hurricane Katrina
Hillary Clinton Has a 40 lb. Vagina

And the most disturbing yet most prolific - those wishing violence upon her:

I Want To Hit Hillary Clinton In The Face With A Battle Axe
I will pay 1 million dollars to see RAY LEWIS stab HILLARY CLINTON
I place the "Run Hillary Run" bumper sticker on my FRONT bumper!
I wanna smack Hillary Clinton
Aggies Who Hate Hillary Clinton and Hope She Dies or Gets Very Sick and Can't Run In 2008
Lets all take a big shit on Hillary Clinton
If Hilary Clinton becomes president, Jack Bauer will probably kill her.

Don’t even get me STARTED on all of the pictures used to represent these groups…

I overheard one of my co-workers in the break room saying something to the effect of: "If Hillary Clinton can't please her husband, how can she please America?" I wanted to kick the asshole right in his stupid face. But unfortunately, that would have cost me my job. *Sigh* Why are assholes allowed to exist?

It's good to want to try to understand why some women would denigrate themselves like that, but I think it's wrong to think that people of color never do the same thing. One way some african-americans do a similar thing is by valuing the lighter skinned people of their race over darker skinned people. I've heard of light skinned african americans either not wanting to date/marry darker skinned people or else having pressure not to from family/friends.

So I don't think it's valid to ask what's wrong with women, in particular, that they would do this to themselves when no one else does. It's not true that women are the only group to do that.

Oh, I am not denying that there is racism within the communities of color, or that there is no colorism. There is, and I recognize that POC internalize racist messages.

But POC do not allow their oppressors to denigrate them the way women allow men to denigrate them. At least not as far as I've ever seen. Women will just giggle and bat their eyelashes, because they have internalized the notion that it's very important to please men.

I wanted to add, that you can report the group to the Facebook administrators. No guarantee of anything at all, but we might as well register our perspectives!

I will say this much.

One of the issues that has flown under the radar is why Hillary has not attracted more support among white women, particularly not nearly as many in numbers as African-Americans of both genders who have thronged to Obama.

Here in red state America, the anti-Hillary dynamics are surprisingly complex. They are not as simple as "a woman should be subservient to her husband". That's for the Huckabee crowd, and they'd never vote Democrat if their salvation in heaven depended on it.

I think we may sell women short sometimes, or assume that their lack of support for a female candidate must somehow be based on obvious stereotypes and most ignorant one at that. Far more enlightened than we give them credit for, women who do not support Hillary have some valid points. a) From a strictly feminist viewpoint, it seems rather hypocritical to support a candidate who is using the support of a man to further her ambitions and using his name and candidacy instead of advancing her own agenda as a woman separate from the shadow of not just all men, but particularly her husband

b) Hillary took Bill back. That is probably issue number one among the white women I talk with. Americans are not a particularly forgiving people and many women in conservative states are particularly unforgiving when it comes to proven adulterous affairs and the women who go back to the husbands afterwards instead of leaving him, painful though it may be.

Hypocritical? Self-righteous? Judgmental?

It's all in how you spin it, but I have to say that women here see her use of Bill in quite cynical terms and I have heard more than one woman say, "He wouldnt' just have slept on the couch had it been my husband; I would have never taken him back".

Hilary Clinton is Where Boners go to Die

As quoted by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, by the way. Sigh. We all have our lapses, I guess.

ComradeKevin,

I see that viewpoint, but it's basically myiopic. The Clintons in 1998 were not ordinary couple. They were the first couple, and Bill was the only thing standing between America and a very conservative Republican ascendancy. The Lewinsky scandal was pushed by that conservative movement not because they cared whether the President was faithful, or whether Hillary was lied to. They pushed it as purely politics. The entire thing was purely politics.

Hillary, bless her soul, was able to see it for what it was, and take that into consideration in her decision.

In any case, Bill was the one who cheated, not Hillary, so why punish her? It's just like... Bush was elected President as Bush Sr.'s son, and now Hillary has to be punished for it because we can't have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

I really think she gets punished a lot of things that happened because of others' actions.

Comrade Kevin you say these are valid points "a) From a strictly feminist viewpoint, it seems rather hypocritical to support a candidate who is using the support of a man to further her ambitions and using his name and candidacy instead of advancing her own agenda as a woman" and "b) Hillary took Bill back"

First of all I don't see how either of these are valid points as you claim them to be. Hillary taking Bill back has NOTHING to do with her qualifications. Period. Second you say that Hillary is running on what her husband did in the white house - I say that this is a media lie and a right wing talking point. As far as I have seen Hillary has been talking about what SHE has done in the senate and what SHE has been doing for 35 years, this includes working with children, working for health care reform, and working for abortion rights (she's taken the lead on making sure certain legislation was not passed). Neither of the points you mentioned seem valid in my opinion because none of these points have anything to do with Hillary's qualifications. Which brings me to something that has been brought up many many times. Hillary is being criticized because she is female, her qualifications are passed over time and time again by the media and by voters. Instead of looking at her qualifications and what she has actually done, people are judging her based on shallow and irrelevant points such as the ones you just mentioned. Quite frankly, I'm offended that this is your view of what feminists think of Hillary, because in my experience it is no where close to what you have purported our feminists opinion to be. (These "feminist opinions" that you mention seem FAR from feminist, IMHO) I don't know one feminist who says she won't vote for Hillary because she took Bill back. Either the people you talked to aren't really feminists, or you are pulling these viewpoints out of your bum. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

I just realized, in my last post I didn't mean to speak for all feminists, by implying that all feminists would disagree with the statement "I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she didn't leave Bill". Sorry 'bout that. I didn't mean to make one big sweeping assumption.

Finally an opportunity to quote Ainsley Hayes... and I thought that moment would never come ;) - from The West Wing, 3/13, via WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing), one of the episode's arches is Sam Seaborn trying to cope with a female temp's accusation of an allegedly sexist remark to Ainsley Hayes, the Republican Counsel in Bartlet's Democratic White House. This is when Ainsley ends the conflict -

Sam: Hold on, here she is, celia, I asked Ainsley and she said she didn't mind at all plus Charlie said it was okay
Celia: Charlie's a man.
Charlie: Damn right.
Ainsley: we need to make sure that we've got our back when other countries can afford to take on more, this is important.
Sam: I also think its important to make clear that I am not a sexist
Charlie: and that I'm all man.
Ainsley: you're celia? he's not a sexist.
Celia: If you're willing to let your sexuality deminish your power.
Ainsley: I'm sorry?
Celia: I said I'm suprised you're willing to let your sexuality diminish your power.
Ainsley: I don't even know what that means.
Celia: I think you do.
Ainsley: And I think you think I'm made out of candy glass celia. If someone says something that offends you tell them but all women don't have to think alike... I like it when the guys tease me its an inadvertent show of respect I'm on the team and I don't mind it when it gets sexual because I like sex.
Charlie: Hello.
Ainsley: I don't think whatever sexuality i may have diminishes my power I think it enhances it.... the point is that sexual revolution tends to get in the way of actual revolution. Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Pay equity, child care honest to God sexual harrassment and in this case a speech in front of the U.N. General assembly.

My feeling is that if the public discourse about HRC had been a bit less "Celia" and a bit more "Ainsley Hayes" she would not loose. Uniting seems absurdly important to the marginal voters after Bush 43, and in my impression, HRC is not perceived as transcending social cleavages. I'm personally sorry she (likely) won't get the Democratic nomination, but if she doesn't in the end, in my opinion, it's not been because of bad electoral math by her staff, but because people looking for unity were put off by the kind of "Celia" discourse contributions exemplified by this post ("nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones"). Just my two Cents.

Finally an opportunity to quote Ainsley Hayes... and I thought that moment would never come ;) - from The West Wing, 3/13, via WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing), one of the episode's arches is Sam Seaborn trying to cope with a female temp's accusation of an allegedly sexist remark to Ainsley Hayes, the Republican Counsel in Bartlet's Democratic White House. This is when Ainsley ends the conflict -

Sam: Hold on, here she is, celia, I asked Ainsley and she said she didn't mind at all plus Charlie said it was okay
Celia: Charlie's a man.
Charlie: Damn right.
Ainsley: we need to make sure that we've got our back when other countries can afford to take on more, this is important.
Sam: I also think its important to make clear that I am not a sexist
Charlie: and that I'm all man.
Ainsley: you're celia? he's not a sexist.
Celia: If you're willing to let your sexuality deminish your power.
Ainsley: I'm sorry?
Celia: I said I'm suprised you're willing to let your sexuality diminish your power.
Ainsley: I don't even know what that means.
Celia: I think you do.
Ainsley: And I think you think I'm made out of candy glass celia. If someone says something that offends you tell them but all women don't have to think alike... I like it when the guys tease me its an inadvertent show of respect I'm on the team and I don't mind it when it gets sexual because I like sex.
Charlie: Hello.
Ainsley: I don't think whatever sexuality i may have diminishes my power I think it enhances it.... the point is that sexual revolution tends to get in the way of actual revolution. Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Pay equity, child care honest to God sexual harrassment and in this case a speech in front of the U.N. General assembly.

My feeling is that if the public discourse about HRC had been a bit less "Celia" and a bit more "Ainsley Hayes" she would not loose. Uniting seems absurdly important to the marginal Democratic voters after Bush 43, and in my impression, HRC is not perceived as transcending social cleavages, particularly not the gender-cleavage. I'm personally sorry she (likely) won't get the Democratic nomination, but if she doesn't in the end, in my opinion, it's not been because of bad electoral math by her staff, but because people looking for unity were caught too often in the kind of "Celia" discourse exemplified by this post ("nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones"). Just my two Cents.

ooops, terribly sorry for the multiposts, I completely forgot Movable Type sometimes needs a decade to process comments.

I think you miss the point of my argument.

Perception IS reality, whether we like it or not.

I challenge your perception of feminism, which is no monolithic entity and comprises a wide variety of different opinions stemming from a large umbrella term that we deem "feminism". Feminism has never been truly unified and you can look at the sex-positive versus sex-negative, Gloria Steinem versus Betty Friedan split in the generation of our mothers in the second-wave to see that.

And we all know how feminism's message has been perverted and co-opted over the years, particularly the message of the second-wavers. The radical viewpoint has been passed off as gospel and more conservative and moderate voices drowned out in the process.

We now have a perversion of feminism whereby objectification of the body is equated with empowerment. We have girls gone wild on one hand and bitch as reclaimed epithet on the other and no matter how you slice it, these are very sharp, contentious dynamics.

But they do not have to be so.

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.

So rather than throw stones and try to believe that you know what true feminism means, 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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)

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?

aaaannnnnddd, reported!

"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!

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?

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. :-(

"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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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."

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.

"...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.

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. :-)

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.

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