Misogyny I Won't Miss

Misogyny I Won't Miss
By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15


As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to
take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan
"Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary
Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary
Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs
to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss
television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality
Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same
about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was
appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before
an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted
the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web
site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an
anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last
week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and
that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much
better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and
Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio
political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger)
who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal
Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York
woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When
the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding
stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message:
Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a
"she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen
mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's
"looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"
(Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's
mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother,
talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is,
the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's
-- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or
right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of
influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism
might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender
card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National
Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my
knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland)
haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based
hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from
New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for
whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus
endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the
Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing
doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out
precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared
Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude
references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some
having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for
"change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that
has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our
culture.

Thank you, Thank you, for saying what I have been thinking. What is it that people , women don't get? Misogny is rampent in the world.
What a strong women Hilary is who can withstand everything that has been thrown at her.You go Hilary!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Misogyny I Won't Miss
By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15


As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to
take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan
"Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary
Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary
Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs
to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss
television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality
Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same
about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was
appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before
an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted
the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web
site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an
anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last
week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and
that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much
better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and
Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio
political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger)
who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal
Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York
woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When
the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding
stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message:
Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a
"she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen
mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's
"looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"
(Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's
mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother,
talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is,
the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's
-- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or
right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of
influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism
might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender
card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National
Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my
knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland)
haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based
hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from
New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for
whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus
endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the
Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing
doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out
precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared
Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude
references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some
having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for
"change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that
has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our
culture.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

---

Now that is some sourpuss conclusion.
If Hilary had won, how many would have said she won because she is a woman?

Thanks for your post & its quotes, Phooph. After all these years with Hillary in the spotlight, I'm still very disgusted that they go after her so viciously. In particular, the self -described "impartial" or "liberal" opinion people I see or hear who were most obnoxious - Randi Rhodes, Andrew Sullivan, and "Big Ed"....whatever his last name is, who has the noon to three spot on the local liberal radio.

Sullivan's blog used to be at the top of my daily view list. But his constant irrational vitriol towards Clinton was non-stop, and always profered the worst possible interpretation of anything involving Clinton. His rants just got so pervasive, I finally dumped his blog months ago. Rhodes (especially Rhodes!) and Big Ed are the Limbaughs of the liberal end of the talk radio spectrum. Big Ed's voice unfortunately sounds alot like Limbaugh, which makes his incessant diatribes about Hillary sound even the more ridiculoua.

It's so sad that these people have to copy the tone and smears of the GOP slime machine. The larger problem is that they gain a larger audience the nastier they get.

I don't see how it's a sourpuss conclusion. The article does not conclude that Senator Clinton will lose because she is a woman; it explores the way misogyny has permeated the campaign. And it has rarely been commented upon, let alone explored in a national conversation, as we have had about race.

Can you imagine if Senator Obama had been subjected to parallel racist stereotypes? We all know the stereotypes and the epithets. They have become completely unacceptable to use, a good thing. So why are epithets and vicious stereotypes about a woman acceptable? She-devil? First wife outside probate court? Nut cracker? White bitch? Bros not hos? C'mon--this stuff is completely accepted in our culture.

Misogyny is like the elephant in the room, not only in this campaign but in this country. A pervasive hatred of women is covered by a thin veneer of political correctness but it is rampant, expressed in myriad ways by both men and women. It is as institutionalized as racism once was. Just listen to some of the popular comedians these days. Some of the most popular ones are beyond vile in the way they talk about women.

And just to be clear: I do not blame men for this. The attitude is so deeply a part of our culture that everyone is infected. It needs to be explored in the commons.

Here is an article by Susan Faludi, published in the New York Times on May 9.

<
Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama’s white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton’s metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they’ve long held about women in American politics.

For years, the prevailing theory has been that white men are often uneasy with female politicians because they can’t abide strong women. But if that’s so, why haven’t they deserted Senator Clinton? More particularly, why haven’t they deserted her as she has become ever more pugnacious in her campaign?

Maybe the white male electorate just can’t abide strong women whom they suspect of being of a certain sort. To adopt a particularly lamentable white male construct, the sports metaphor, political strength comes in two varieties: the power of the umpire, who controls the game by application of the rules but who never gets hit; and the power of the participant, who has no rules except to hit hard, not complain, bounce back and endeavor to prevail in the end.

For virtually all of American political history, the strong female contestant has been cast not as the player but the rules keeper, the purse-lipped killjoy who passes strait-laced judgment on feral boy fun. The animosity toward the rules keeper is fueled by the suspicion that she (and in American life, the regulator is inevitably coded feminine, whatever his or her sex) is the agent of people so privileged that they don’t need to fight, people who can dominate more decisively when the rules are decorous. American political misogyny is inflamed by anger at this clucking overclass: who are they to do battle by imposing rectitude instead of by actually doing battle?

The specter of the prissy hall monitor is, in part, the legacy of the great female reformers of Victorian America. In fact, these women were the opposite of fainting flowers. Susan B. Anthony barely flinched in the face of epithets, hurled eggs and death threats. Carry A. Nation swung an ax. Yet they were regarded by men as the regulators outside the game. Indeed, many 19th-century female reformers defined themselves that way — as reluctant trespassers in the public sphere who had left the domestic circle only to fulfill their duty as the morally superior sex, housekeepers scouring away a nation’s vice.

While the populace might concede the merits of the female reformers’ cause, it found them repellent on a more glandular level. In that visceral subbasement of the national imagination — the one that underlies all the blood-and-guts sports imagery our culture holds so dear — the laurels go to the slugger who ignores the censors, the outrider who navigates the frontier without a chaperone.

Certainly through the many early primaries, Hillary Clinton was often defined by these old standards, and judged harshly. She was forever the entitled chaperone. But that was then. As Thelma, the housewife turned renegade, says to her friend in “Thelma & Louise” as the two women flee the law through the American West, “Something’s crossed over in me.”

Senator Clinton might well say the same. In the final stretch of the primary season, she seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide, transforming herself from referee to contender.

What’s more, she seems to have taken to her new role with a Thelma-like relish. We are witnessing a female competitor delighting in the undomesticated fray. Her new no-holds-barred pugnacity and gleeful perseverance have revamped her image in the eyes of begrudging white male voters, who previously saw her as the sanctioning “sivilizer,” a political Aunt Polly whose goody-goody directives made them want to head for the hills.

It’s the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy: our first major female presidential candidate isn’t doing what men always accuse women of doing. She’s not summoning the rules committee over every infraction. (Her attempt to rewrite the rules for Michigan and Florida are less a timeout than rough play.) Not once has she demanded that the umpire stop the fight. Indeed, she’s asking for more unregulated action, proposing a debate with no press-corps intermediaries.

If anyone has been guarding the rules this election, it’s been the press, which has been primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry and scolding her for being “ruthless” and “nasty,” a “brawler” who fights “dirty.”

But while the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she’s come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl.

Deep in the American grain, particularly in the grain of white male working-class voters, that is the more trusted archetype. Whether Senator Clinton’s pugilism has elevated the current race for the nomination is debatable. But the strategy has certainly remade the political world for future female politicians, who may now cast off the assumption that when the going gets tough, the tough girl will resort to unilateral rectitude. When a woman does ascend through the glass ceiling into the White House, it will be, in part, because of the race of 2008, when Hillary Clinton broke through the glass floor and got down with the boys.

Susan Faludi is the author of “Backlash,” “Stiffed” and “The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America.”>>

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

Can you imagine if Senator Obama had been subjected to parallel racist stereotypes? We all know the stereotypes and the epithets. They have become completely unacceptable to use, a good thing. So why are epithets and vicious stereotypes about a woman acceptable?

---

Obama was publically called 'boy' by a GOP House representative. Hillary has played the race card herself;
https://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4216

Lies, viciousness and stereotyping permeate American politesse today, they are unfortunately acceptable, and it's not just aimed at women, 'Swiftboating' is the new verb for the phenomena;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

I don't think I implied and definitely did not mean to imply that race is not made an issue in this election cycle. However, both Obama supporters and the press have been quick to pounce on it. And it has not sunk to the levels of the misogyny directed at Clinton. Further, race has been a continual aspect of the conversation, with many of its uglier sides examined in the public sphere. This is a good thing; it needs to be discussed.

What I believe Susan Faludi and Maria Cocca have addressed so well is that it is still okay to be ragingly sexist in the mainstream. Christopher Matthews, for example, has a lot of credibility and enjoys considerable respect among his peers and much of the population. But yet he can dismiss Senator Clinton as a she-devil without being called on it. We have not made anywhere near the progress with this issue as we have with race and I have been surprised that it has not come up more frequently as a topic for serious discussion.

This is not at all about "swiftboating," another subject entirely that I suspect will figure heavily in the coming months.

I agree, it's appalling, but the point I was trying to make is that nothing seems to be off limits in our politics anymore, except discussing what's really going on.

We've invaded and occupied a country that posed no threat to us and killed a million of their civilians and we now have the greatest debt ever incurred in the history of the world while our presidential candidates debate the meaning of flag lapels and sling sexist and racist mud at each other.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

I don't think I implied and definitely did not mean to imply that race is not made an issue in this election cycle. However, both Obama supporters and the press have been quick to pounce on it. And it has not sunk to the levels of the misogyny directed at Clinton. Further, race has been a continual aspect of the conversation, with many of its uglier sides examined in the public sphere. This is a good thing; it needs to be discussed.

What I believe Susan Faludi and Maria Cocca have addressed so well is that it is still okay to be ragingly sexist in the mainstream. Christopher Matthews, for example, has a lot of credibility and enjoys considerable respect among his peers and much of the population. But yet he can dismiss Senator Clinton as a she-devil without being called on it. We have not made anywhere near the progress with this issue as we have with race and I have been surprised that it has not come up more frequently as a topic for serious discussion.

This is not at all about "swiftboating," another subject entirely that I suspect will figure heavily in the coming months.

---

Hillary has been trying to demean Obama.
Saying that he has not enough experience..............
Suggesting that he could be her runningmate while he is leading the race...........
Those are not so obscure hints to suggest that a BLACK man can't lead the country. It is preying on the fear of the unknown, (but it is BLACK!)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

I don't think I implied and definitely did not mean to imply that race is not made an issue in this election cycle. However, both Obama supporters and the press have been quick to pounce on it. And it has not sunk to the levels of the misogyny directed at Clinton. Further, race has been a continual aspect of the conversation, with many of its uglier sides examined in the public sphere. This is a good thing; it needs to be discussed.

What I believe Susan Faludi and Maria Cocca have addressed so well is that it is still okay to be ragingly sexist in the mainstream. Christopher Matthews, for example, has a lot of credibility and enjoys considerable respect among his peers and much of the population. But yet he can dismiss Senator Clinton as a she-devil without being called on it. We have not made anywhere near the progress with this issue as we have with race and I have been surprised that it has not come up more frequently as a topic for serious discussion.

This is not at all about "swiftboating," another subject entirely that I suspect will figure heavily in the coming months.

---

Although I am always interested in political discussions, I don't want to reply to the content of what you say because this thread is about something else entirely. It is about two recently-published articles that look at misogyny in the campaign. I have hoped this thread might lead to a discussion about that topic, about misogyny in America. I think it is needed. There are many other threads about the campaign where this sort of thing has been and I am sure will be discussed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Hillary has been trying to demean Obama.
Saying that he has not enough experience..............
Suggesting that he could be her runningmate while he is leading the race...........
Those are not so obscure hints to suggest that a BLACK man can't lead the country. It is preying on the fear of the unknown, (but it is BLACK!)

---

How do reactions to Hilary's campaign relate to misogyny?
Using inductive reasoning to make a point is a common fallacy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

Although I am always interested in political discussions, I don't want to reply to the content of what you say because this thread is about something else entirely. It is about two recently-published articles that look at misogyny in the campaign. I have hoped this thread might lead to a discussion about that topic, about misogyny in America. I think it is needed. There are many other threads about the campaign where this sort of thing has been and I am sure will be discussed.

---

I think the two articles do a very good job of examining contemporary misogyny. Do you find fault with their arguments or their facts? Do you disagree with what the writers have to say on the subject?

I find Susan Faludi's use of referee vs. contender really interesting; I had never thought of things in this way and find it an interesting analogy to explore.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Misogyny I Won't Miss
By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to
take stock of what I will not miss. ...

---

I'm not exactly a news junkie, but I do read the news on the internet nearly every day, I listen to "newstalk" radio nearly every day including Ronn Owens and Gil Gross, both of whom eat up this kind of stuff because it stirs up a lot of callers, I also listen to KPFA's morning shows and ... I've never heard any of this stuff before reading this article. So, what I think is that misogyny in the media is such a minor issue that Ms. Cocco is trumping it up to sell ... herself. I think racism is a much bigger issue this year than misogyny and I think Ms. Cocco is just looking for a way to get her name in print.

I did do a little web searching before responding to this article and most of the online discussion is about how awful misogyny is, not how great Hillary bashing is. Except for the link to the actual Tee-shirt company, just about all the other links to the shirt issue are trashing the shirt and the company.

Again, I never heard about this shirt before reading the above article. So, where do I see misogyny? In her article.

The author is full of ... herself from my reading.

The misogyny discussion should be more about what WE could be doing right, and less about what OTHERS are doing wrong. Stop giving them attention and they'll stop the behavior. This is especially true of comedians and radio personalities.

Love your Goddess in all Her forms. That's the right thing.

-Jeff

The problem with misogyny is that it is so ingrained it is often off our radar screens. I saw a study on how girls are discrimnated against in the classroom. This was done by setting up video cameras in multiple classrooms and just letting them run for hours. It was discovered that teachers (female) who claimed to be feminists discriminated as much as those who were not feminists. I had my own awakening on this issue when I needed a car repair and become a bit nervous when I realized a woman may be doing the job. As a woman who has been taking apart and fixing all sorts of appliances most of my life it was a wakeup call on my own brainwashing. My sister used to repair mail sorting machines. She now teaches others how to repair them. She also does some of her own car repairs. You would think I would be free of such programming, but I'm not. I still catch myself having an attitude about what women can and can't do well and this from someone who grew up a tom boy and liked to do boy stuff.

People can get away with thinking Hilary bashing is fun and OK partly because it is still OK to bash women.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

I'm not exactly a news junkie, but I do read the news on the internet nearly every day, I listen to "newstalk" radio nearly every day including Ronn Owens and Gil Gross, both of whom eat up this kind of stuff because it stirs up a lot of callers, I also listen to KPFA's morning shows and ... I've never heard any of this stuff before reading this article. So, what I think is that misogyny in the media is such a minor issue that Ms. Cocco is trumping it up to sell ... herself. I think racism is a much bigger issue this year than misogyny and I think Ms. Cocco is just looking for a way to get her name in print.

I did do a little web searching before responding to this article and most of the online discussion is about how awful misogyny is, not how great Hillary bashing is. Except for the link to the actual Tee-shirt company, just about all the other links to the shirt issue are trashing the shirt and the company.

Again, I never heard about this shirt before reading the above article. So, where do I see misogyny? In her article.

The author if full of ... herself from my reading.

The misogyny discussion should be more about what WE could be doing right, and less about what OTHERS are doing wrong. Stop giving them attention and they'll stop the behavior. This is especially true of comedians and radio personalities.

Love your Goddess in all Her forms. That's the right thing.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

People can get away with thinking Hilary bashing is fun and OK partly because it is still OK to bash women.

---

Who is it not okay to bash? Everyone in political races are bashed by everyone else in political races. Politicians, including Hillary Clinton, use negative stereotyping to elicit fear and distrust of their opposition. The sad fact is that it works.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Hillary has been trying to demean Obama.
Saying that he has not enough experience..............
Suggesting that he could be her runningmate while he is leading the race...........
Those are not so obscure hints to suggest that a BLACK man can't lead the country. It is preying on the fear of the unknown, (but it is BLACK!)

---

Zoom. Over my head. Didn't not see that at all. NOT glad you mentioned it.

So you think "not having enough experience" is code for "he's black"?
How stupid do you think I am?
NO, wait. I still LOOK that stupid, but trust me I am not. Unless to be stupid is not to see what you saw in those statements, or to be stupid is not to agree with you, then, yes, I am stupid.
He DOES NOT have enough experience! It is true!

The guy was a college teacher, and a junior senator. Oh, yeah, he was a lawyer that dealt with the community and because of that will also have trouble in this area as some gangster fraud guy goes to trial. That really does not make him EXPERIENCE for POTUS. He may also be the greatest president since FDR. To be president does not necessarily mean that he does need "experience" (such as FDR's), but Hillary's statement simply means what it says.
Spare me, nor does Hillary, but she's got THE Dude of Earl, so she is trying to throw me, the stupid guy(s) off by pointing to Obama. If we stupids fall for it, and we may, then so be it!
But in no case do I see that means "he's a black guy, ya know".
I think that is spin from the insidious side of race in this country, and it is hateful; not Hillary's statement, but those that promulgate what you wrote. Even Stevie Wonder can see that! I am so tired of it and wish it could get a rest. It's not worth the cost :2cents:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

...
People can get away with thinking Hilary bashing is fun and OK partly because it is still OK to bash women.

---

Well, I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't seen much of anything I would consider "Hilary bashing" because she is a woman. She has been criticized for things she's said and things Bill has said, but nothing about her being unfit for the job because she's a woman.

Again, I never even saw a reference to those nasty jokes until they were posted here in this thread. The only person I've seen spreading misogynistic statements is Marie Cocco and she has an ax or two to grind.

-Jeff

Ahh, would that misogyny were so obvious as you suggest. Of course no one would dare say Senator Clinton is unfit for the job because she is a woman, just as no one would say Obama is unfit because he is black. Both misogyny and racism are most effective as subtle weapons, often deployed unconsciously.

But I had seen many of the statements Marie Cocca mentioned in her column and others that she does not mention. I have been startled by them and puzzled that they have not been discussed in the press. For example, I have heard Christopher Matthews refer to Clinton as a she-devil on more than one occasion. He is never called on it.

Do you dismiss Susan Faludi's more intellectual exploration of the campaign's misogyny, as well? I posted it in this thread a few days ago.

If we would quit either defending or blasting Senator Clinton, we could, perhaps, have an interesting discussion about the insidious nature of today's misogyny.

So 'Hoes' and nutcrackers have nothing to do with her being a woman?
https://www.tshirthell.com/store/pro...?productid=902
https://www.hillarynutcracker.com/

There are countless references to Hillary the bitch including the woman from South Carolina who asked McCain how he was going to defeat the bitch. Has anyone used the 'n' word regarding Obama?

She's been called a lesbian because she's wearing short hair and pants suits. Has anyone suggested Obama is gay? Well, his bowling style was referred to as "dainty" but nobody actually called him a queer.

How about the Hillary Meal Deal: 2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts and a bunch of left wings. Got an Obama equivalent?

How about the two guys in New Hampshire who hollered, "Iron my shirts!" at Hillary? Think anyone is going to holler, "Shine my shoes!" at Obama and have it lightly laughed off?

"Senator Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it - fingernails on a blackboard." Chris Matthews who also referred to her male supporters as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

"Every time I hear Hillary speak I cross my legs." Tucker Carleson

Ruth

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Well, I was with you until that last sentence. I haven't seen much of anything I would consider "Hilary bashing" because she is a woman. She has been criticized for things she's said and things Bill has said, but nothing about her being unfit for the job because she's a woman.

Again, I never even saw a reference to those nasty jokes until they were posted here in this thread. The only person I've seen spreading misogynistic statements is Marie Cocco and she has an ax or two to grind.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

So 'Hoes' and nutcrackers have nothing to do with her being a woman? ...

---

Well, I clearly see who is presenting misogyny to the public.

-Jeff

I've seen even worse about Clinton, Obama and McCain on Craiglist's political forum and other forums. People lie without hesitation and say absurdly awful and nasty things about all the candidates. What do you propose we do about it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

So 'Hoes' and nutcrackers have nothing to do with her being a woman?
https://www.tshirthell.com/store/pro...?productid=902
https://www.hillarynutcracker.com/

There are countless references to Hillary the bitch including the woman from South Carolina who asked McCain how he was going to defeat the bitch. Has anyone used the 'n' word regarding Obama?

She's been called a lesbian because she's wearing short hair and pants suits. Has anyone suggested Obama is gay? Well, his bowling style was referred to as "dainty" but nobody actually called him a queer.

How about the Hillary Meal Deal: 2 fat thighs, 2 small breasts and a bunch of left wings. Got an Obama equivalent?

How about the two guys in New Hampshire who hollered, "Iron my shirts!" at Hillary? Think anyone is going to holler, "Shine my shoes!" at Obama and have it lightly laughed off?

"Senator Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it - fingernails on a blackboard." Chris Matthews who also referred to her male supporters as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

"Every time I hear Hillary speak I cross my legs." Tucker Carleson

Ruth

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

So 'Hoes' and nutcrackers have nothing to do with her being a woman?
https://www.tshirthell.com/store/pro...?productid=902
https://www.hillarynutcracker.com/

---

It is easy to be oversensitive, but if she is a nutcracker, what do you think that is saying about the 2 time president?
Don't you think it is a slight towards him?
Does he complain about misandry ?

What does a Hilary nutcracker have to do with the nut in the White House?:hmmm:

I have yet to hear anyone attribute Bush's idiocy to his gender.:wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

It is easy to be oversensitive, but if she is a nutcracker, what do you think that is saying about the 2 time president?
Don't you think it is a slight towards him?
Does he complain about misandry ?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

I have yet to hear anyone attribute Bush's idiocy to his gender.

---

That's odd, I've heard people complain for decades that the problem with Washington, and the GOP in particular, is that it's controlled by out of touch, (they just don't get it) old white men. I wonder how you never heard that?

In Bush's case, his years of heavy drinking resulted in aphasia, basically his brain was pickled, he has all the classic symptoms. Unfortunately, he was born into the most powerful political dynasty in the world, and millions have suffered for it.

Sure I've heard that. The words 'old' 'white' and you could add 'rich' have just as much weight as does the word 'men'. Then there was Maggie Thatcher in England demonstrating that old white women can be just as bad.

As for the incivility of political campaigns you mentioned in the last post, I doubt it will go away as it has been with us from the earliest days of political campaigns in this country. I've seen some quotes from campaigns in the 1700s and 1800s that are just as nasty as what we see today.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

That's odd, I've heard people complain for decades that the problem with Washington, and the GOP in particular, is that it's controlled by out of touch, (they just don't get it) old white men. I wonder how you never heard that?

In Bush's case, his years of heavy drinking resulted in aphasia, basically his brain was pickled, he has all the classic symptoms. Unfortunately, he was born into the most powerful political dynasty in the world, and millions have suffered for it.

---

Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this thread. On one hand, it seems like you're saying that Hillary is being singled out to be treated in a hateful, sexist manner, on the other, you agree that the men in US politics are treated unfairly and viciously too, and have been for centuries. Maybe we can agree that it's ubiquitous, so now what?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Sure I've heard that. The words 'old' 'white' and you could add 'rich' have just as much weight as does the word 'men'. Then there was Maggie Thatcher in England demonstrating that old white women can be just as bad.

As for the incivility of political campaigns you mentioned in the last post, I doubt it will go away as it has been with us from the earliest days of political campaigns in this country. I've seen some quotes from campaigns in the 1700s and 1800s that are just as nasty as what we see today.

---

How old are you and what color? You are sounding more and more like one of those people of the male gender who doesn't get it.

I have yet to see a male politician treated in the same sexist manner as are the women and Hilary in particular, although Geraldine Ferraro garnered some of the same. Since the smear campaigning has generally been carried out by men on men in history the bashing has not been sexist in nature although otherwise nasty.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this thread. On one hand, it seems like you're saying that Hillary is being singled out to be treated in a hateful, sexist manner, on the other, you agree that the men in US politics are treated unfairly and viciously too, and have been for centuries. Maybe we can agree that it's ubiquitous, so now what?

---

I'd love to see a woman as president, I think you 'don't get that'. I acknowledge Hillary is being treated in a sexist manner, the sad fact is that it works. If she were a black man, she'd have the race card played on her, just like she did to Obama (google 'Hillary played race card').

Negative stereotyping works in political races. If being considerate and sensitive worked, considerate and sensitive people would be running this country instead of ruthless corporate shills.

So, without anymore insults please, what do you propose we do about the problem you have brought to this public forum?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

How old are you and what color? You are sounding more and more like one of those people of the male gender who doesn't get it.

I have yet to see a male politician treated in the same sexist manner as are the women and Hilary in particular, although Geraldine Ferraro garnered some of the same. Since the smear campaigning has generally been carried out by men on men in history the bashing has not been sexist in nature although otherwise nasty.

---

Hillary's husband used to be POTUS.
Maybe you are guilty of misandry and don't find a husband important?
Unless you think that Hillary is a nut cracker to all men she comes in contact with............

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

What does a Hilary nutcracker have to do with the nut in the White House?:hmmm:

I have yet to hear anyone attribute Bush's idiocy to his gender.:wink:

---

People who want to win will use whatever they can get away with.

Maybe we could speak to our members of congress about introducing a bill that disqualifies any candidate who tells lies or uses politically incorrect speach against their opponents. But then we'd be expecting politicians to vote for it and another one to sign it into law. Would they go along with that kind of disarmament? Looks like a very steep uphill battle.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

I'd love to see a woman as president, I think you 'don't get that'. I acknowledge Hillary is being treated in a sexist manner, the sad fact is that it works. If she were a black man, she'd have the race card played on her, just like she did to Obama (google 'Hillary played race card').

Negative stereotyping works in political races. If being considerate and sensitive worked, considerate and sensitive people would be running this country instead of ruthless corporate shills.

So, without anymore insults please, what do you propose we do about the problem you have brought to this public forum?

---

I do believe that fear and loathing of Bill by Republicans is part of the mix, but they hated Hillary when she was first lady because she didn't fit the image they have of the "proper role" of a first lady. Elenore Roosevelt also garnered ire due to her activist behavior. First ladies are supposed to be gracious helpmates and hostesses and take on soft button issues, such as those relating to children (drugs, literacy, education) or the beautification of America, etc.

John Dean said that when talking to Republicans about why they were so bent on impeaching Clinton over a rather unimportant issue he was told it was so they could get even for what the Democrats had done to Nixon. When Dean pointed out that there were Republicans "out to get" Nixon also they just ignored it. Washington seems to attract a lot of imballanced people. Having Hillary in the White House would mean having Bill there also and Bill is a lightning rod for "wounded" Republicans.

There are men who view any powerful woman as a nutcracker, and more so if she is championing causes they oppose. Some of them are even Republicans.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

Hillary's husband used to be POTUS.
Maybe you are guilty of misandry and don't find a husband important?
Unless you think that Hillary is a nut cracker to all men she comes in contact with............

---

You are still ignoring the fact that if Hillary is a nutcracker, that means that Bill has no balls.
It makes a woman look tougher than a man
Is it that misogyny or is it misandry or just plain misery?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

I do believe that fear and loathing of Bill by Republicans is part of the mix, but they hated Hillary when she was first lady because she didn't fit the image they have of the "proper role" of a first lady. Elenore Roosevelt also garnered ire due to her activist behavior. First ladies are supposed to be gracious helpmates and hostesses and take on soft button issues, such as those relating to children (drugs, literacy, education) or the beautification of America, etc.

John Dean said that when talking to Republicans about why they were so bent on impeaching Clinton over a rather unimportant issue he was told it was so they could get even for what the Democrats had done to Nixon. When Dean pointed out that there were Republicans "out to get" Nixon also they just ignored it. Washington seems to attract a lot of imballanced people. Having Hillary in the White House would mean having Bill there also and Bill is a lightning rod for "wounded" Republicans.

There are men who view any powerful woman as a nutcracker, and more so if she is championing causes they oppose. Some of them are even Republicans.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

You are still ignoring the fact that if Hillary is a nutcracker, that means that Bill has no balls. It makes a woman look tougher than a man.

Is it that misogyny or is it misandry or just plain misery?

---

So who is drawing that conclusion and is it just Bill's balls that are in jeopardy?

Catherine Austin Fitts tells a story about when she was Assistant Secretary at HUD Jack Kemp refused to attend parties at her house because it was bigger than his and he said he found it castrating. She was invited to another HUD party at a house bigger even than hers and she said to Kemp, "Jack his house is bigger than yours too." Kemp's response was, "But it's HIS house."

Here's an OpEd by Marie Cocco, from the 5/24 Washington Post, that surmises there won't be another serious female candidate for POTUS for another generation. The article somewhat addresses the misogyny prevalent in our culture, so seems apropos to this little back & forth. It's an interesting read.

The concluding question of the piece is, "Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?"

"The 'Not Clinton' Excuse"

by Marie Cocco

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

So who is drawing that conclusion and is it just Bill's balls that are in jeopardy?

---

I am not following this:hmmm:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

I've seen even worse about Clinton, Obama and McCain on Craiglist's political forum and other forums. People lie without hesitation and say absurdly awful and nasty things about all the candidates. What do you propose we do about it?

---

Realize that Craigslist discussion forums are an pointless waste of time?

Best not to encourage that nonsense by participation. There are so many much-more-constructive avenues for discussion to invest your time in.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

I've seen even worse about Clinton, Obama and McCain on Craiglist's political forum and other forums. People lie without hesitation and say absurdly awful and nasty things about all the candidates. What do you propose we do about it?

---

We should take away their free speech! THAT'S what we can DO about it!
Or shine the light on it.
A good laugh is always welcomed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

I am not following this:hmmm:

---

Maybe this will help:

The Hillary Nutcracker
By Robert Koehler

Oh, come on, do we need this? I know, I know, it's cute. STAINLESS STEEL THIGHS! FEEL THE SQUEEZE!

Perhaps the fact that a major party is about to nominate either a female or an African-American male to be president of the United States is so lacking in controversy, so quietly ho-hum, that a little adolescent gender humor on the side is no big deal, either.

Enter -- stage right? stage left? -- the Hillary Nutcracker, a hot-selling novelty product of the 2008 political season that has gotten some fawning and even enthusiastic press, with right-wing MSNBC pundit Tucker Carlson so moved by the nutcracker he all but confessed his castration complex regarding Ms. Clinton, all in fun, of course. This is political discourse in America.

I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it -- feeling at once troubled that this is more cultural rollback, that it's OK (again, still) to mock the concept of women in power with quasi-sexual guffaws that mask deep male anger and fear, a la Tucker Carlson; yet at the same time swayed by the idea that this light-hearted product, while it has obvious appeal to Hillary haters, could also appeal to her supporters and to women in general because it conveys female empowerment, and in any case it's funny, and sometimes it's OK to just lighten up.

The Hillary Nutcracker is just that: an 8-inch plastic Hillary figure, smiling, arms crossed, that cracks nuts between its legs. The product's Web site works hard to be nonpartisan, spoofing politicians and pundits of all stripes, and designer Gibson Carothers, who says he's sold 200,000 nutcrackers so far, vigorously defended the benign, even pro-Hillary nature of the nutcracker in an e-mail exchange with me.

"I'm sure you will be surprised to know that our best estimate is that sales are breaking almost 50-50 between supporters and detractors. And the buyers are overwhelmingly women," he wrote ( see our complete exchange). "The supporters see it portraying Ms. Clinton as a tough leader who can handle right wing nuts."

He adds: "Amazingly . . . the buyers are almost all women. My attorney is a feminist. She thinks Hillary should put the nutcracker on the podium every time she speaks. One other interesting point to me, and you'll just have to believe me on this, is the paucity of complaints we have gotten -- about 10 negative e-mails from over a million visits to our web site."

Well, OK. My own modest survey of mostly women yielded a far higher percentage of negative reaction, and I stress that the negativity wasn't simply humorlessness; it was more like a sharp stab of pain, followed by fury or the memory of some injury caused by an arrogant or dominating male jerk.

That said, I add in all fairness that other women -- including some who, I thought, would surely be offended by the Hillary Nutcracker -- were ambivalent at most and saw in it at least some of what Carothers was talking about.

"It's juvenile," said Carmen, a thirtysomething mom. "But it's less offensive because the culture has changed. There's more awareness of violence against women. It's sexist lite."

When I suggested that it struck me as the equivalent of a racist caricature of Barack Obama -- a Barack lawn jockey, say -- she disagreed. The latter "has no silver lining. It's totally racist. The silver lining of the Hillary Nutcracker is that it does humorously and forcefully exude power.

"What makes it OK," she added, "is that we've gone forward as a society. But when the media embrace it . . ."

Well, that gets worrisome, she acknowledged. It obliterates the hard-won consciousness of the last 30 or so years. It rolls back awareness "past 'take back the night,'" to the good old days of, oh, forever. ("But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." -- 1 Timothy 2:12)

Some of that media reaction can be found at hillarynutcracker.com, including a bizarre MSNBC segment in which Carlson, after a cohort describes the product, exclaims, "That is so perfect. I have often said, when she comes on TV, I involuntarily cross my legs."

Here's where my impulse is to weep for my country. Commentary this dumb seems like the norm, doesn't it? There is a vacuity, a collective stupidity of the airwaves, that feels conspiratorial in nature. News is at least 90 percent context, and the smirky commentators and coiffed anchorpersons of the tube create a context that plays at about the eighth-grade level, a circumstance even more acutely painful in an election year with stakes as high as this one.

Sexism lite? Good fun? Castration? Let me know what you think.

- - -

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at [email protected] or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Maybe this will help:

The Hillary Nutcracker
By Robert Koehler
...

---

So now you've given us the website so we can all go see and order the nutcracker. You're doing a lot to promote misogyny. I'm with Ms. Terry. I don't get it Pooph. What is the point of this thread?

For what it's worth, this nutcracker is not original. I have an antique nutcracker made on some pacific island a hundred years ago that features a lovely, sturdy looking, buxom woman. It's a joke piece but it's also a useable nutcracker which isn't obvious until you examine it. I've seen less well made knockoffs in gift shops that were made more recently.

So really, why are you promoting all this stuff?

-Jeff

OK, here are some quotes to illustrate the point I made earlier, it is an empowering thing for Hillary.
If she is castrating men, that is empowering to women (and misandry at least) unless you feel she should be sweet and cuddly and a goody-two-shoes???
It is not like Bill is juggling her tits, it is the other way around.
We can fall and appall at anything we want if we look hard enough for a reason.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Maybe this will help:

Quote:

---

. And the buyers are overwhelmingly women," he wrote ( see our complete exchange). "The supporters see it portraying Ms. Clinton as a tough leader who can handle right wing nuts."

---

Quote:

---

He adds: "Amazingly . . . the buyers are almost all women. My attorney is a feminist. She thinks Hillary should put the nutcracker on the podium every time she speaks. One other interesting point to me, and you'll just have to believe me on this, is the paucity of complaints we have gotten -- about 10 negative e-mails from over a million visits to our web site."

---

Quote:

---

That said, I add in all fairness that other women -- including some who, I thought, would surely be offended by the Hillary Nutcracker -- were ambivalent at most and saw in it at least some of what Carothers was talking about

---

.

Quote:

---

"It's juvenile," said Carmen, a thirtysomething mom. "But it's less offensive because the culture has changed. There's more awareness of violence against women. It's sexist lite."

---

Quote:

---

The silver lining of the Hillary Nutcracker is that it does humorously and forcefully exude power.

---

Quote:

---

"What makes it OK," she added, "is that we've gone forward as a society. ."

---

Quote:

---

Sexism lite? Good fun? Castration? Let me know what you think

---

.

- - -
.

---

I posted the latest article in response to your suggestion that it was Bill's nuts being cracked. He is married to the woman and I assume his nuts are intact. The article indicates that some men feel threatened by a powerful woman, and it is the quotes in the article regarding that subject that prompted me to post it.

I had posted the link to the nutcracker site in an earlier post so I assumed you already had it.

I have recently heard this issue discussed on public radio and Fox news, and the conclusion on both was that sexism trumps racism. More people are concerned about a woman being president than they are about a person of color in that office. I suspect that the great majority of those concerned people are male.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

OK, here are some quotes to illustrate the point I made earlier, it is an empowering thing for Hillary.
If she is castrating men, that is empowering to women (and misandry at least) unless you feel she should be sweet and cuddly and a goody-two-shoes???
It is not like Bill is juggling her tits, it is the other way around.
We can fall and appall at anything we want if we look hard enough for a reason.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

OK, here are some quotes to illustrate the point I made earlier, it is an empowering thing for Hillary.
If she is castrating men, that is empowering to women (and misandry at least) unless you feel she should be sweet and cuddly and a goody-two-shoes???
It is not like Bill is juggling her tits, it is the other way around.
We can fall and appall at anything we want if we look hard enough for a reason.

---

So-called castration does not empower women. The continuum is not one of submission/powerlessness or castration/empowerment. What does castration actually mean? Loss of sexual power and prowess? More importantly, loss of the ability to express oneself sexually and to feel sexual pleasure. Is that what women, including powerful women, want? Not in my world.

I have found the constant drum-beat of castration and just who is being castrated a very frustrating part of this thread. "If Senator Clinton is powerful she must be a ballbuster and therefore her husband, a man, must not have any balls." I'm sorry, but this seems totally offensive--and intellectually vapid and invalid--to me.

And I must add that its foundation seems to be sexist and misogynistic. Can't a woman be powerful without also being violent--however symbolically--towards men? Can't power mean something else entirely? If it cannot, the human species is in big trouble.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

So-called castration does not empower women. The continuum is not one of submission/powerlessness or castration/empowerment. What does castration actually mean? Loss of sexual power and prowess? More importantly, loss of the ability to express oneself sexually and to feel sexual pleasure. Is that what women, including powerful women, want? Not in my world. And I must add that its foundation seems to be sexist and misogynistic. Can't a woman be powerful without also being violent--however symbolically--towards men? Can't power mean something else entirely? If it cannot, the human species is in big trouble.

---

Castration IS a "sexual" word around here, more so than, say, "shoe string", but don't get hung up in the "sex" or you miss the point, OK? For example the Romans, with no women around, often would castrate the leader of the opposition after a battle. Very popular disposition in many cultures. So it is not simply "sexual".
Because of "gender", a woman MUST be "violent" and a castrator, because of the nature of power. ALL POWER has a VIOLENT element, and EVIL for all the rest of us human beings. Those that seek power are, by definition, violently, crazy, evil, and bad in the worst sense of the word. WE have a government construct that keeps ALL of the bastards in check. Nothing personal against Madam Clinton et all, but ALL OF THEM are POWER CRAZED, and that is, as previously stated, bad, evil, wrong for the rest of us. Just comes with the territory.
So in a sense, all of them castrate. Not just Hillary.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:

. "If Senator Clinton is powerful she must be a ballbuster and therefore her husband, a man, must not have any balls." I'm sorry, but this seems totally offensive--and intellectually vapid and invalid--to me.

---

Can you tell me who you are quoting here?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

I posted the latest article in response to your suggestion that it was Bill's nuts being cracked. He is married to the woman and I assume his nuts are intact. The article indicates that some men feel threatened by a powerful woman, and it is the quotes in the article regarding that subject that prompted me to post it.

---

So it sounds then that we agree.
I also agree that men (and women) feel threatened by a powerful woman (or man).
Just because some men are intimidated by me walking into a room, it doesn't follow that they hate ALL women or even me.
We respond at times with our insecurities, that doesn't mean it is misogyny
that would be inductive reasoning.

We probably do agree, mostly.

Not everyone is threatened by powerful people. Followers prefer to have powerful people to lead them, and followers make up a larger percentage of the demographic than do leaders, fortunately. They may, however, feel threatened by powerful people they believe will lead them in the wrong direction. There is also a percentage of the followers who do not feel comfortable being led by strong women or minorities.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry:

So it sounds then that we agree.
I also agree that men (and women) feel threatened by a powerful woman (or man).
Just because some men are intimidated by me walking into a room, it doesn't follow that they hate ALL women or even me.
We respond at times with our insecurities, that doesn't mean it is misogyny
that would be inductive reasoning.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by phooph:

Not everyone is threatened by powerful people. Followers prefer to have powerful people to lead them, and followers make up a larger percentage of the demographic than do leaders, fortunately. They may, however, feel threatened by powerful people they believe will lead them in the wrong direction. There is also a percentage of the followers who do not feel comfortable being led by strong women or minorities.

---

Excuse my misanthropic self, but why do we follow? Do we wish to "get along by going along"? So is it we sacrifice our individuality, drives, pleasures, determination for security of friends and comfort in knowing we are with others?
Might be a pride thing, at least for me, maybe? Rather reign in hell than serve in heaven, no? I'm sorry but I don't have insight and could use some of yours.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lenny:

Excuse my misanthropic self, but why do we follow? Do we wish to "get along by going along"? So is it we sacrifice our individuality, drives, pleasures, determination for security of friends and comfort in knowing we are with others?
Might be a pride thing, at least for me, maybe? Rather reign in hell than serve in heaven, no? I'm sorry but I don't have insight and could use some of yours.

---

We are social animals and all social animals, including humans, function best when organized into groups with leaders and followers. Some people are determined to be leaders, and then there are those who prefer someone else to run the show. Most of us exist on some sort of broad swath in the follower - leader continuum and can fall into either role depending on the situation. Hermits are people who do without being either leaders or followers.

Read any Jane Goodall book on chimp behavior and you will see a lot of it devoted to status building and sucking up, especially among the males. Watch a few episodes of Meekat Manor and you see a lot of footage on family groups, leadership and challenges to leadership. Read books on corporate culture and you will find the same behavior. It seems to be built into any social species.