Sexism and politics

And this is why I think our country is not enlightened enough to elect a woman president:

But I think this is what politicians do. They play up the good parts of their resume and play down the bits they’d rather people forgot about,” she says. (Suzanne Goldenberg)

In the past few weeks, I have heard some very insidious things said and written about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps because of my own ambivalence about her as a candidate, I have overlooked them. But let’s just look at the above quote as an example. It sounds like something that one could say about any one of us, regardless of gender, when we’re applying for a new job. Yet it is used as an example of Clinton’s big “flaw.” Basically, she’s demonized for doing exactly what everyone else does. Why? Because of sexism.

I’ve heard people complain Clinton is “insincere,” people complain Clinton is “too self-serving,” people complain that Clinton is not as qualified because she was “only” the First Lady – as if she spent the whole time sitting around knitting while she was in that position of power. And “insincere” and “self-serving” becomes “ambitious” and “diplomatic” – when those qualities are in a man.

No one ever dismisses a man’s credentials because he’s married to a powerful woman. That, my friends, is sexism.

And this is why, sadly, our country is not ready to elect a woman president. All the qualities that people perceive as positive in other politicians are demonized in Hillary Clinton.

I’m not a huge fan of hers – as I’ve said, she’s my third choice of the Democrats – but let’s call things out like they are. The reason lots of left-leaning, progressive people and conservative yahoos alike don’t like her is simple: Sexism.

Advertisements

~ by realsupergirl on January 27, 2008.

36 Responses to “Sexism and politics”

  1. I was having a discussion with Heather last night. Although we disagree very much with Hillary on policy, we both feel some sympathy for her. I don’t think it’s entirely that the problem. In a way, I think she’s just unlucky.

    She was forged in the hyper-partisan culture wars of the 90s and as a Democrat in a southern state in the 70s and she learned to campaign as tough, brutal, relentless. I don’t think that’s either her fault or a bad thing, but I think it leads to some political tonedeafness right now, when what a lot of people want is not more fighting but someone who can heal and restore some degree of civility and order.

    re: No one ever dismisses a man’s credentials because he’s married to a powerful woman. That, my friends, is sexism.

    I think it just hasn’t come up. If it did, a man would likely be even more eviscerated then a woman. He would be thought of as emasculated. But in most relationships so far, the one who is running for President is the most powerful. It’s hard to think of a situation, except when the spouse is a former President or Supreme Court Justice where that wouldn’t be true.

    I think her focus on experience, which was necessitated by the circumstances of her campaign, didn’t do her any favors. Gender dynamics do make things awkward, and with cause. In an ideal world, a female candidate would be running entirely on her own merit and record, and it would be impressive. But she came along at the wrong time for that, in some ways. She was one of the first generations to really fight her way into politics, and the consequence is that the way in was at the side of a powerful man. She has an impressive resume, but she doesn’t have as impressive a resume as a woman who came a generation later would have at her age.

    But there is something a bit anti-feminist about relying on her husband’s record (even if she deserves some of the credit for it). And it’s just hard to judge what experience as a first lady is ‘worth’ – it’s not executive experience, it’s not legislative experience, but it is experience in a campaign environment and with a lot of the symbolic parts of the job (which are substantial).

    And “insincere” and “self-serving” becomes “ambitious” and “diplomatic” – when those qualities are in a man.

    I also don’t think that is entirely true. See Romney, Mitt. I think it could be exacerbated because she is a woman, but I think it’s also that she doesn’t have top-notch political charisma, which tends to make those charges go away.

  2. “First Lady” is not a position of power. It is a figurehead. A lot of her credentials are completely misrepresented and fabricated, and she’s riding on her husband’s record. If she actually ran on her own experience and accomplishments I’d be more willing to listen to her. But that’s true of any candidate – it’s just she’s the worst culprit in the current batch of candidates.

  3. I disagree. People look up to the first lady. That is power. It is not an elected position or one in which official duties are directly related to the law-making or changing process, but it is absolutely a position of power. Unlike most other first ladies, she did take on political process responsibilities, as well as the more inherent and less direct power of influence over people’s attitiudes and opinions.

    To say that the first lady is not a position of power would be like saying that being a major Hollywood actress isn’t a position of power- it absolutely is, just not in the way that we tend to think.

  4. It’s not a position of political power. And the political responsibilities she took on did not succeed.

  5. It’s not a position of political power. And the political responsibilities she took on did not succeed.

  6. Define “political power.” There are plenty of ways to wield power in politics without being an elected official. Also, I don’t believe that either I or realsupergirl said that her power was “political.”

    Having a failure in the past doesn’t mean that you won’t have success in the future- in fact, that’s exactly why I think she’s a better candidate than Obama. She’s had the experience of finding that optimism and good intentions aren’t enough to make changes in politics- he’s running a campaign that very much appeals to people’s sense of optimism without a good strategy of how to make change happen. We need change.

  7. Calling the First Lady a “figurehead” is rather sexist. I cannot IMAGINE anyone referring to the husband of a powerful woman as a “figurehead”. Instead, people would focus on his job, and what he did. Hillary has always worked and been a very independent person, with her own ideas. Yes, some of her ideas have failed. But as pointed out, that’s not a reason not to vote for someone. In fact, it’s a point in her favor. Barack is untested – we don’t know whether his ideas will work or not, and frankly a lot of his ideas on foreign policy have sounded pretty half-cocked.

    I’m still not sold on Hillary, because she’s more conservative than I am. She’s really quite a moderate. But the reasons people say they don’t want to vote her aren’t THAT. Mostly, the reasons people offer are often sexist.

  8. Calling the First Lady a “figurehead” is rather sexist. I cannot IMAGINE anyone referring to the husband of a powerful woman as a “figurehead”. Instead, people would focus on his job, and what he did. Hillary has always worked and been a very independent person, with her own ideas. Yes, some of her ideas have failed. But as pointed out, that’s not a reason not to vote for someone. In fact, it’s a point in her favor. Barack is untested – we don’t know whether his ideas will work or not, and frankly a lot of his ideas on foreign policy have sounded pretty half-cocked.

    I’m still not sold on Hillary, because she’s more conservative than I am. She’s really quite a moderate. But the reasons people say they don’t want to vote her aren’t THAT. Mostly, the reasons people offer are often sexist.

  9. What are the Constitutional responsibilities of the spouse of the President?

    (crickets…crickets…)

    In fact, a job without any responsibilities other than ceremonial ones is the very definition of figurehead. That’s not sexist; that’s the definition of the word.

    Sorry, RSG, a job without responsibilities–especially one she didn’t have to apply for or be elected to–doesn’t mean much to me as far as preparation for the Presidency. I’ll look to her Senatorial record, where I’ll find she voted for the war. So it’s Obama for me.

    To be fair, the Clintons revamped the position of First Lady a bit. They gave her some responsibilities, most notably the failed 1993 health care reform. Many people were upset about that, and not without cause. I don’t want Laura Bush writing energy policy, and it’s not because of her gender. It’s that I don’t want cronies and family members getting important policy positions…much like Michael Brown and FEMA. It’s the same principle, and gender isn’t relevant.

    In any event, Clinton’s gender is NOT the reason I’m reticent to vote for her. It’s because nobody, no matter how often I ask, can tell me what she stands for or what her underlying principles are. Obama’s I can follow, especially now that I’m reading his book.

    There–that’s about a half dozen non-sexist reasons I support Obama over Clinton. Are they enough?

    –TRP

  10. The point is, she happened to be First Lady WHILE CONTINUING TO WORK. And she worked quite a lot. I don’t think she worked any less while she was First Lady than before. She maybe not have had any job responsibilities AS the First Lady, and I don’t think I argued anywhere that she did, but she had plenty of job responsibilities.

  11. So what is that Prince Philip has done with his life? Denis Thatcher? Feroze Gandhi?

    I’m sorry, I don’t want to vote for someone who has not proven they cannot succeed, regardless of their gender. I don’t want to vote for someone as President who has not had political power, regardless of their gender. You say that she continued to work while she was First Lady? What was her job? Who provided her a paycheck?

    Sorry, but your arguments just don’t hold. I’m not voting for Hilary, but it’s not because she’s a woman. It’s because she’s not the best person for the job, in my opinion. To call me sexist because I choose to exercise my democratic rights by voting for a male is a bit offensive. If I were to like Clinton over Obama would I be a racist? God forbid I like Edwards the best! I pick my politicians based on their qualifications and experience, not their gender (Clinton), race (Obama), or hair (Edwards).

  12. I didn’t say you were sexist because you aren’t voting for Clinton. As I’ve said, *I* am not a Clinton supporter, and I *am* an Edwards supporter. But your analysis contained some elements of sexism.

    She lobbied hard for healthcare when she happened to be First Lady, one could argue she used her “power” (since one kind of power is public spotlight or prestige) to help her try to do this. Feel free to research her (the Wikipedia article is a decent place to start) if you want to know more about her work when she was First Lady. But she was certainly doing work, and using political power to do it, even if she did not hold an elected office at the time.

  13. What about my argument is sexist?

    And she FAILED at the health care issue when she was first lady. Tell me one thing she succeeded at that was not simply riding on Bill’s coattails.

  14. So then the question is this: Is being the spouse of a President preparation for the Presidency? I say no–I want to consider the rest of her career (her senatorial vote to send us to Iraq bothers me far, far too much). You say yes, since she did so much at the time.

    I echo my wife’s question…what exactly about this is sexist?

  15. Wow,
    I missed this whole argument over the weekend, right when I was thinking some of the same stuff as Realsupergirl. You know, there are many reasons to argue against Hillary as president but attempting to paint her as a “failure” is nonsensical. People seem to have short memories. When Bill Clinton was first running for president even our very sexist media was quick to point out that Hillary had a resume that far overshadowed Bill’s. Valedictorian at Wellesley, worked for the Children’s Defense Fund when she was right out of law school and quit that job to work on Watergate. The people who knew her back then (many of whom also with impressive resumes) all talked about how they knew she was destined for greater things–and that she knew it too. Even when she was stuck in Arkansas, she made a big enough name for herself as a corporate lawyer (the type of law also practiced by Michelle Obama, which pretty much guarantees both women have values that are anathema to mine) that she was named one of the most powerful lawyers in the nation, which, um, not a lot of lawyers from Arkansas are. Now she’s served two terms in the Senate, one of the most sexist institutions in the already very sexist field of American politics.

    It’s amazing to me that people who would never think of denigrating Hillary because of her wrinkles or thick ankles, two attributes that she clearly possesses, would make up arguments that she doesn’t have any relevant experience or that she’s a failure, both of which are clearly untrue. And it’s funny that everyone talks about how she wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Bill when George W. Bush, who was a failure at everything (now including the presidency) got into office strictly because of Daddy–but no one says so out loud. THAT’S SEXISM.

    Uh, sorry everybody who is so, so sure they ARE NOT being sexist. I’m a big, feminist dyke whose done a hell of a lot of work for women through the years and I can tell you I’m sexist (and I don’t mean “reverse-sexism”, which, since sexism is about power in the culture at large, is a misnomer). Everybody in this culture is, to one degree or another, sexist: you, Realsupergirl and Hillary herself. No matter how educated, open-minded and liberal we think we are we really can’t escape all of those impossible-to-live-up-to ideals the culture has imposed on women. A study showed that when women are elected to office (worldwide) they tend to do more for their constituents than men do, but are rated lower by those same constituents and tend not to be elected to a second term. If Hillary gets the nomination and then the White House (a pretty big “if”) that’s what she has to look forward to.

    And can we be real for a minute here? All of the remaining candidates (except maybe Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee–and I’m not voting for either of them!) give speeches and “opinions” that have been focus-grouped to death. There’s not an original idea or stance between them. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone (sexist shit that he is at times) has a great take on the farce that is the campaign trail. Obama is using the same vague, optimistic but completely non-controversial and meaningless catchphrase our governor used to get into office “____, we can!” (one uses “Together” and another uses “Yes” and I’ve already lost track of which uses which), not a surprise since the architect of Obama’s campaign is the same guy who was at the helm of Patrick’s. I like Patrick: he’s been stellar on queer marriage, which all the Democratic candidates could take a lesson from. But I’m still waiting for that vague “change” Patrick was talking about to take place in Massachusetts.

    And I wish all you big-D Democrats would understand that when you sell candidates like soap and trash-talk the nominees you haven’t put your money on you are just adding to the number of Democratic votes that won’t be cast on election day. Because we all need soap, but no one needs to vote: progressives have to be motivated, inspired, to do so. If folks think we just get the same-old, same-old they’ll stay home. George W. Bush, his party and their cronies are the real enemy here. If Al Gore had remembered that fact during his campaign we might have had a very different past eight years.

  16. Wow,
    I missed this whole argument over the weekend, right when I was thinking some of the same stuff as Realsupergirl. You know, there are many reasons to argue against Hillary as president but attempting to paint her as a “failure” is nonsensical. People seem to have short memories. When Bill Clinton was first running for president even our very sexist media was quick to point out that Hillary had a resume that far overshadowed Bill’s. Valedictorian at Wellesley, worked for the Children’s Defense Fund when she was right out of law school and quit that job to work on Watergate. The people who knew her back then (many of whom also with impressive resumes) all talked about how they knew she was destined for greater things–and that she knew it too. Even when she was stuck in Arkansas, she made a big enough name for herself as a corporate lawyer (the type of law also practiced by Michelle Obama, which pretty much guarantees both women have values that are anathema to mine) that she was named one of the most powerful lawyers in the nation, which, um, not a lot of lawyers from Arkansas are. Now she’s served two terms in the Senate, one of the most sexist institutions in the already very sexist field of American politics.

    It’s amazing to me that people who would never think of denigrating Hillary because of her wrinkles or thick ankles, two attributes that she clearly possesses, would make up arguments that she doesn’t have any relevant experience or that she’s a failure, both of which are clearly untrue. And it’s funny that everyone talks about how she wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Bill when George W. Bush, who was a failure at everything (now including the presidency) got into office strictly because of Daddy–but no one says so out loud. THAT’S SEXISM.

    Uh, sorry everybody who is so, so sure they ARE NOT being sexist. I’m a big, feminist dyke whose done a hell of a lot of work for women through the years and I can tell you I’m sexist (and I don’t mean “reverse-sexism”, which, since sexism is about power in the culture at large, is a misnomer). Everybody in this culture is, to one degree or another, sexist: you, Realsupergirl and Hillary herself. No matter how educated, open-minded and liberal we think we are we really can’t escape all of those impossible-to-live-up-to ideals the culture has imposed on women. A study showed that when women are elected to office (worldwide) they tend to do more for their constituents than men do, but are rated lower by those same constituents and tend not to be elected to a second term. If Hillary gets the nomination and then the White House (a pretty big “if”) that’s what she has to look forward to.

    And can we be real for a minute here? All of the remaining candidates (except maybe Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee–and I’m not voting for either of them!) give speeches and “opinions” that have been focus-grouped to death. There’s not an original idea or stance between them. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone (sexist shit that he is at times) has a great take on the farce that is the campaign trail. Obama is using the same vague, optimistic but completely non-controversial and meaningless catchphrase our governor used to get into office “____, we can!” (one uses “Together” and another uses “Yes” and I’ve already lost track of which uses which), not a surprise since the architect of Obama’s campaign is the same guy who was at the helm of Patrick’s. I like Patrick: he’s been stellar on queer marriage, which all the Democratic candidates could take a lesson from. But I’m still waiting for that vague “change” Patrick was talking about to take place in Massachusetts.

    And I wish all you big-D Democrats would understand that when you sell candidates like soap and trash-talk the nominees you haven’t put your money on you are just adding to the number of Democratic votes that won’t be cast on election day. Because we all need soap, but no one needs to vote: progressives have to be motivated, inspired, to do so. If folks think we just get the same-old, same-old they’ll stay home. George W. Bush, his party and their cronies are the real enemy here. If Al Gore had remembered that fact during his campaign we might have had a very different past eight years.

  17. I don’t really know how to edit a comment, so I’ll just add that I meant “candidates” when I wrote about trash-talking “nominees”. And “who’s done” instead of “whose done” in that third paragraph. Sheesh!

  18. THANK YOU for taking this on and posting this, I was getting tired of making all the arguments over and over again.

  19. Thank you!!!!

  20. I’ll rewrite the question I wrote earlier:

    “So then the question is this: Is being the spouse of a President preparation for the Presidency? I say no–I want to consider the rest of her career (her senatorial vote to send us to Iraq bothers me far, far too much). You say yes, since she did so much at the time.

    I echo my wife’s question…what exactly about this is sexist?”

    I’m having a reasonable disagreement, and I know I’m as sexist as everyone else. But somewhere in my reasonable disagreement, I became the recipient of a long lecture. In the course of that lecture, I haven’t seen my question answered.

    I never called Hillary a failure. I said she failed at her 1993 health-care initiative.

    It’s easy to brand me as the enemy, so feel free to do that if it comforts you. But as you do so, please re-read the question above and address it. Nobody has yet.

    I’ve been sexist in my life. This isn’t one of those times.

    –TRP

  21. Hillary’s been a senator longer than Obama, no? So why are you so quick to write off her senate experience as “not enough” and you’re willing to embrace Obama so easily and wholeheartedly? Is it possible, perhaps, since you acknowledge that you (like the rest of us) are sexist, that it is this sexism which makes you more quick to discount her experience?

    If you look at how she’s voted on most liberal, progressive issues, she’s pretty solid, like all three candidates are. They’re all three generally supportive of social service programs, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights.

    Maybe Hillary voting to authorize the war is a deal-breaker for you – that’s fine. My friend Michael has pledged he won’t vote for Hillary for this reason alone, and I respect that, though I don’t agree. There are just too many other important issues I see as desperately in jeopardy with this next election, reproductive rights and gay rights at the top of that list. But the point is, this isn’t what you’re saying.
    You’re criticizing Clinton’s lack of experience and yet supporting Obama, and that doesn’t make any logical sense, so I’m suggesting that your reaction to Clinton (and it’s not yours alone) suggests the influence of sexism.

  22. Hillary’s been a senator longer than Obama, no? So why are you so quick to write off her senate experience as “not enough” and you’re willing to embrace Obama so easily and wholeheartedly? Is it possible, perhaps, since you acknowledge that you (like the rest of us) are sexist, that it is this sexism which makes you more quick to discount her experience?

    If you look at how she’s voted on most liberal, progressive issues, she’s pretty solid, like all three candidates are. They’re all three generally supportive of social service programs, pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights.

    Maybe Hillary voting to authorize the war is a deal-breaker for you – that’s fine. My friend Michael has pledged he won’t vote for Hillary for this reason alone, and I respect that, though I don’t agree. There are just too many other important issues I see as desperately in jeopardy with this next election, reproductive rights and gay rights at the top of that list. But the point is, this isn’t what you’re saying.
    You’re criticizing Clinton’s lack of experience and yet supporting Obama, and that doesn’t make any logical sense, so I’m suggesting that your reaction to Clinton (and it’s not yours alone) suggests the influence of sexism.

  23. Reading comprehension sure ain’t what it used to be. Hillary’s supposed lack of experience is a fake fight about a false issue that is exactly the type of bullshit that turns most sane people off politics these days–and makes Sunday morning television unwatchable. That’s why I didn’t address it. It’s the same reason I’m not addressing the “enemy” comment.

  24. RSG–Look back at my posts, or even at my blog. At no point have I criticized Clinton for a lack of experience. You’re putting words in my mouth. All I’ve said is that I don’t factor in her time as First Lady, and I’d feel that way about Denis Thatcher (if he were American) or John Zaccaro (if Geraldine Ferraro had made it to the White House).

    My vote isn’t coming down to experience (as you rightly point out, if it were, I’d be voting for Edwards or Kucinich or Cheney; certainly not Obama). It’s about two things:

    1. I still have no idea what Clinton stands for. I get a sense that Obama is about bringing people together, especially now that I’m reading his book. I don’t like demonization, even of those I disagree with. Through no fault of her own, I’m afraid Clinton would increase that demonization. I don’t want to go there.

    2. The war vote. By voting for the war, Clinton is culpable for the deaths of 4,000 Americans and many, many more Iraqis. I can forgive, but it would be very, very hard for me to pull the lever for her (or for Edwards, although I appreciate that he has at least admitted he was wrong).

    To repeat…I’ve never called Clinton inexperienced. You jump to that conclusion. I think it’s out of zealousness to be a good feminist. I appreciate that desire, but that doesn’t make your argument accurate.

  25. RSG–Look back at my posts, or even at my blog. At no point have I criticized Clinton for a lack of experience. You’re putting words in my mouth. All I’ve said is that I don’t factor in her time as First Lady, and I’d feel that way about Denis Thatcher (if he were American) or John Zaccaro (if Geraldine Ferraro had made it to the White House).

    My vote isn’t coming down to experience (as you rightly point out, if it were, I’d be voting for Edwards or Kucinich or Cheney; certainly not Obama). It’s about two things:

    1. I still have no idea what Clinton stands for. I get a sense that Obama is about bringing people together, especially now that I’m reading his book. I don’t like demonization, even of those I disagree with. Through no fault of her own, I’m afraid Clinton would increase that demonization. I don’t want to go there.

    2. The war vote. By voting for the war, Clinton is culpable for the deaths of 4,000 Americans and many, many more Iraqis. I can forgive, but it would be very, very hard for me to pull the lever for her (or for Edwards, although I appreciate that he has at least admitted he was wrong).

    To repeat…I’ve never called Clinton inexperienced. You jump to that conclusion. I think it’s out of zealousness to be a good feminist. I appreciate that desire, but that doesn’t make your argument accurate.

  26. Okay, GNQ…Taking a breath, because I want an exchange. I could have settled down better after the lecture. I want civility–a coupla smart people talking about a tough issue. Let’s see if we can start fresh.

    The statement is as follows:

    “I do not believe that being the spouse of a President counts as preparation time for being a President.”

    Is that statement sexist or not?

  27. But I don’t want any further exchange with you on this issue. My previous comments have made clear why. Thank you.

  28. But I don’t want any further exchange with you on this issue. My previous comments have made clear why. Thank you.

  29. It is your prerogative not to answer my question, and to think what you want of me. It is mine to say that you have not said anything to indicate that this statement is anything other than benign. It is also clear that you never wanted exchange: you wanted to give a lecture. That’s a shame.

  30. TRP, I find it very telling that you consider yourself the “recipient of a long lecture.” You’ve assumed that girlsnqueers’ post was entirely a response to you. If you were more attentive to the threading of comments, you would see that her comment was a response to the original blog post.

    I have often observed this type of self-importance in white men. Racist and sexist of me, I know, but I sure wish it would stop proving to be so accurate so often.

  31. TRP, I find it very telling that you consider yourself the “recipient of a long lecture.” You’ve assumed that girlsnqueers’ post was entirely a response to you. If you were more attentive to the threading of comments, you would see that her comment was a response to the original blog post.

    I have often observed this type of self-importance in white men. Racist and sexist of me, I know, but I sure wish it would stop proving to be so accurate so often.

  32. If “years of experience” were the sole metric on which I selected my political candidate than I would be behind John McCain. If “years of experience” + “Democrat” were my metric than Edwards would receive my vote. Although that would never by my metric, and it would probably disturb you if you knew how many Republicans I’ve voted for in my 17 years as a voting adult.

    I don’t think either me or TRP are discounting the experience Clinton has. What we ARE saying is that her terms as first lady (both of the US and Arkansas) do not equate directly to appropriate experience for the job at hand.

    Saying that the spouse of a leader is not adequate training to be a leader yourself is not sexist. It is simply an opinion on what creates experience.

    I like Obama because of his voting record on issues of importance to me. Because he has experience forming coalitions and creating bipartisan support for issues. Because he has opinions and stands behind them, regardless of whether or not they are a popular choice.

    I feel that he has shown stronger competency at these items than Clinton has. THAT is why he has my vote right now. None of those issues are at all related to the fact that he has a penis.

  33. Kaphine–

    I wasn’t the only recipient of the lecture, but I think it’s clear I was an
    intended audience along with my wife.

    I’ll leave the rest unresponded to–I know you well enough to let what I like about you that override your unfortunate choice to stereotype me.

  34. It upsets me greatly that you, your spouse, and your friends, have such a negative, inaccurate, disrespectful view of my husband. And it upsets me that apparently this has been your opinion for several years, but I have never learned of it until the last couple of days. How can you pretend to be friends with someone while hiding such a negative opinion of their spouse?

  35. Hey – let’s keep this focused. I don’t necessarily share all of or ‘s views. The only thing I said critical was that I heard some sexism in some of his, yours, and many other people’s views of Clinton. That doesn’t mean I have an overall negative opinion about either of you.

    Also, I think perhaps it would be good for some of this to get discussed in real time, on the phone (Since in person is not an option). Some of this is starting to feel really personal, as thought it has less to do with Clinton, sexism, or politics and more to do with other stuff.

  36. You did not say anything inappropriate. I would still argue that you never answered my question as to what was sexist about my arguments, but that’s another issue.

    Kaphine did say some very inappropriate things, both here AND on the telephone. And it upsets me with the things that girlsnqueers has said about TRP that neither you nor Kaphine has spoken up to mention how completely unfounded and incorrect her assertions about TRP are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: