Misogyny I Won't Miss

[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.

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............

[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?

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.

[phooph]

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."

[Tars]

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

[MsTerry]

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

I am not following this

[Tars]

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.

[Lenny]

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.

[phooph]

I am not following this

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.

[Braggi]

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

[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.

Maybe this will help:

. 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."

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."

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. ."

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

.

- - -
.

[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.

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.

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.

[oliviathunderkitty]

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.

[Lenny]

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.

[MsTerry]

. "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?

[MsTerry]

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.

[phooph]

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.

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.

[Lenny]

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.

[phooph]

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.