PDA

View Full Version : How Long Before Feminists Play the "Misogyny Nation" Card?


Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 12:49 PM
With Obama beginning, apparently, ready to pull away....how long before we have an over-the-top, all-out, hysterical, screeching tizzy from the more militant factions of the feminist movement?

:hmmm:

Rosie O'Donnell should be fun to listen too. Anyone know where Whoopi Goldberg stands on the campaign? And I might even have to record "The View." What will Barbara Streisand and Katie Couric have to say? NOW might actually have something noteworthy in the news to say, for a change....the possibilities are titillating.

Now, I know the Massachusetts NOW chapter went ballistic when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama....and Gloria Steinem wrote a pissy piece for the NY Times when Hillary looked like she might lose in New Hampshire, and those were "shots across the bow" so-to-speak.

However, I'm beginning to see the makings (grumpy female colleagues, bummed-out college-aged nieces, and our own Duhnise....) of what I suspect could be a very intense, nasty, and vitriolic backlash IF Obama is the official candidate. I know HRC could still pull it off (however unlikely)...however, I must admit....the upcoming national feminist hissy-fit has the potential to be highly entertaining.

:)

Predictions, anyone? Thoughts or comments? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 12:54 PM
I suspect this will become a popular bumper sticker with some of the disenchanted....

htismaqe
02-25-2008, 01:31 PM
It was definitely interesting to hear the diatribe on SNL's Weekend Update Saturday night...

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 01:33 PM
Not me. I'm really happy if she doesn't get the nod simply because she's not likeable. And if we're really gender-blind it shouldn't matter anyhow. I don't care what race, or sex is President...so long as they have the ideas I seek and are not corrupt.

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 01:38 PM
It was definitely interesting to hear the diatribe on SNL's Weekend Update Saturday night...

Dang. With that and the Huckabee stuff...it sounds like I missed a rare, good SNL. I'll have to check YouTube.

Not me. I'm really happy if she doesn't get the nod simply because she's not likeable. And if we're really gender-blind it shouldn't matter anyhow. I don't care what race, or sex is President...so long as they have the ideas I seek and are not corrupt.

Well, good for you then. :clap:

I suspect there's gonna be a lot of disgruntled women though, who are gonna take it that way.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 01:48 PM
Dang. With that and the Huckabee stuff...it sounds like I missed a rare, good SNL. I'll have to check YouTube.



Well, good for you then. :clap:

I suspect there's gonna be a lot of disgruntled women though, who are gonna take it that way.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Afterall, Concerned Women for America has a much larger membership than NOW.

Adept Havelock
02-25-2008, 01:50 PM
How long? IMO, about .00003 picoseconds. In other words, no longer than it will take some Obama supporters to play the race card, or some Huckabee supporters to play the "anti-religion" card, etc.


I wouldn't worry about it too much. Afterall, Concerned Women for America has a much larger membership than NOW.

Damn shame both are all about sticking their nose into other peoples lives. The National Organization of Whiners, and the Concerned Sandyvags of America...A pox on both their houses. Damn busybodies.

BucEyedPea
02-25-2008, 01:52 PM
How long? IMO, about .00003 picoseconds. In other words, no longer than it will take many Obama supporters to play the race card, or some Huckabee supporters to play the "anti-religion" card, etc.

Damn shame both organizations are all about messing with other people's lives.
My only point here was to show which group has the larger membership. Now is mostly run by lesbians these days.
Therefore, the gnashing of teeth may be limited, but could just get more press making it seem larger than it is.

Sully
02-25-2008, 02:21 PM
It all becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy, IMO.
The question is asked, then suddenly there are those who pop up to bait the issue, saying things that may very well be construed (in this case) as misogynistic, in Obama's case as racist...
Then, when someone points out what they said, the person gets to cry that anyone defending them is playing the race or gender card.

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 02:42 PM
It all becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy, IMO.
The question is asked, then suddenly there are those who pop up to bait the issue, saying things that may very well be construed (in this case) as misogynistic, in Obama's case as racist...
Then, when someone points out what they said, the person gets to cry that anyone defending them is playing the race or gender card.

It is predictable, yes, but IMO it's certainly no worse than whiners who use the sexism/racism card in the first place. Especially when, in this case, HRC's falling on her face....has next to nothing to do with her being a woman---but rather who she is and what she stands for.

She being rejected on merits; not because of her gender. For anyone to claim otherwise, they are purely and simply FOS, IMO.

Sully
02-25-2008, 02:50 PM
It is predictable, yes, but IMO it's certainly no worse than whiners who use the sexism/racism card in the first place. Especially when, in this case, HRC's falling on her face....has next to nothing to do with her being a woman---but rather who she is and what she stands for.

She being rejected on merits; not because of her gender. For anyone to claim otherwise, they are purely and simply FOS, IMO.

I agree. I certainly don't think she's losing because she's a woman. I think she's losing because next to Obama, she looks unprepared and unprofessional.

I'm just saying that, in Obama and Clinton's cases, people try to bait it... making it self-fulfilling.

memyselfI
02-25-2008, 02:54 PM
Anyone claiming Hillary could not win solely because she was a woman is whacked.

Hillary could not win because she is Hillary. I think the US is ready for a woman to be POTUS just not that one.

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 03:03 PM
Anyone claiming Hillary could not win solely because she was a woman is whacked.

Hillary could not win because she is Hillary. I think the US is ready for a woman to be POTUS just not that one.

Good to hear.

But read the statement for the MA NOW and Steinem's NY Times article....it's the tip of the iceberg, I think. Guess we'll see though. I've been wrong more than usual this election cycle. :shrug:

I agree. I certainly don't think she's losing because she's a woman. I think she's losing because next to Obama, she looks unprepared and unprofessional.

I'm just saying that, in Obama and Clinton's cases, people try to bait it... making it self-fulfilling.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

patteeu
02-25-2008, 04:29 PM
It all becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy, IMO.
The question is asked, then suddenly there are those who pop up to bait the issue, saying things that may very well be construed (in this case) as misogynistic, in Obama's case as racist...
Then, when someone points out what they said, the person gets to cry that anyone defending them is playing the race or gender card.

No one is forced to play the race card in marginal/questionable cases. In obvious cases, no one needs to play it.

Sully
02-25-2008, 04:39 PM
No one is forced to play the race card in marginal/questionable cases. In obvious cases, no one needs to play it.

It's amazing how you twist words to the point that it often seems you haven't even read what was typed.

Well done.

patteeu
02-25-2008, 05:08 PM
I could understand how a committed feminist might feel put out by this primary if Obama goes on to win it. People can say that Obama is more likeable or more professional all they want, but that doesn't mean that everyone sees it that way. Feminists who see Hillary as the icon who has paid her dues and taken unfair lumps because she's a powerful woman and who see Obama as a young, good looking guy with a winning smile who came from nowhere to bump her to the side by promising little more than "hope" won't necessarily see it that way.

patteeu
02-25-2008, 05:09 PM
It's amazing how you twist words to the point that it often seems you haven't even read what was typed.

Well done.

Maybe I'm having trouble following what you're saying then because it sure sounded like you were whining about being forced to play the race card by supposed race baiters. Maybe you could clarify it for me. :shrug:

|Zach|
02-25-2008, 05:10 PM
Maybe I'm having trouble following what you're saying

Seems to happen a lot with you lately. Weird.

Sully
02-25-2008, 05:14 PM
Maybe I'm having trouble following what you're saying then because it sure sounded like you were whining about being forced to play the race card by supposed race baiters. Maybe you could clarify it for me. :shrug:

I'm saying that there are those, on this site, and in the world, that actually do bring up race or gender in derogatory ways. When someone calls them out for doing it, people get the opportunity to cry that those calling them out always want to use race or gender to defend their candidate... therefore making it a self-fulfilling deal.

Let me know if I need to draw you a picture. (Or log on under another name, pretending to be a conservative, in which case I'm sure you'd pick right up on it)

|Zach|
02-25-2008, 05:19 PM
Let me know if I need to draw you a picture. (Or log on under another name, pretending to be a conservative, in which case I'm sure you'd pick right up on it)

Nice.

patteeu
02-25-2008, 05:51 PM
I'm saying that there are those, on this site, and in the world, that actually do bring up race or gender in derogatory ways. When someone calls them out for doing it, people get the opportunity to cry that those calling them out always want to use race or gender to defend their candidate... therefore making it a self-fulfilling deal.

Let me know if I need to draw you a picture. (Or log on under another name, pretending to be a conservative, in which case I'm sure you'd pick right up on it)

Sounds like I got it right the first time. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

StcChief
02-25-2008, 08:51 PM
Anyone claiming Hillary could not win solely because she was a woman is whacked.

Hillary could not win because she is Hillary. I think the US is ready for a woman to be POTUS just not that one. and not ready for Obama

Bowser
02-25-2008, 08:53 PM
and not ready for Obama

Yeah, I'm thinking that statement is not entirely accurate.

a1na2
02-25-2008, 10:30 PM
Anyone claiming Hillary could not win solely because she was a woman is whacked.

Hillary could not win because she is Hillary. I think the US is ready for a woman to be POTUS just not that one.

ROFLROFLROFL

meme turning on her own. just a few short months ago she was singing her praises!

ROFLROFLROFL

Mr. Kotter
02-25-2008, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking that statement is not entirely accurate.

I wanted it in black and white....based on her dogging of Obama. Heh. ;)

Sully
02-26-2008, 08:57 AM
Sounds like I got it right the first time. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

Nah...

You didn't... and still don't.

That's okay, though.

jAZ
02-26-2008, 09:56 AM
I was phone banking for Obama one day and an older lady and I were talking. She was wearing a "Women for Obama" pin and said to me and the other women there that she wished it actually said "Feminists for Obama" because she was. They all joined in "yeah!".

They went on to discuss how frustrating it is for them that for the first time in their lives, a woman has a real chance to become President and they can't see their way to supporting her because "It has to be the *right* woman". And that Obama in all of their eyes, was the best choice.

It was an interesting discussion.

xbarretx
02-26-2008, 09:59 AM
With Obama beginning, apparently, ready to pull away....how long before we have an over-the-top, all-out, hysterical, screeching tizzy from the more militant factions of the feminist movement?

:hmmm:

Rosie O'Donnell should be fun to listen too. Anyone know where Whoopi Goldberg stands on the campaign? And I might even have to record "The View." What will Barbara Streisand and Katie Couric have to say? NOW might actually have something noteworthy in the news to say, for a change....the possibilities are titillating.

Now, I know the Massachusetts NOW chapter went ballistic when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama....and Gloria Steinem wrote a pissy piece for the NY Times when Hillary looked like she might lose in New Hampshire, and those were "shots across the bow" so-to-speak.

However, I'm beginning to see the makings (grumpy female colleagues, bummed-out college-aged nieces, and our own Duhnise....) of what I suspect could be a very intense, nasty, and vitriolic backlash IF Obama is the official candidate. I know HRC could still pull it off (however unlikely)...however, I must admit....the upcoming national feminist hissy-fit has the potential to be highly entertaining.

:)

Predictions, anyone? Thoughts or comments? :hmmm:

REP REP REP REP REP! cant agree more.

bkkcoh
02-26-2008, 10:10 AM
I was phone banking for Obama one day and an older lady and I were talking. She was wearing a "Women for Obama" pin and said to me and the other women there that she wished it actually said "Feminists for Obama" because she was. They all joined in "yeah!".

They went on to discuss how frustrating it is for them that for the first time in their lives, a woman has a real chance to become President and they can't see their way to supporting her because "It has to be the *right* woman". And that Obama in all of their eyes, was the best choice.

It was an interesting discussion.

Isn't that better then blindly supportting Obama because of him being black or Hillary because of being female. Blind support like that is more dangerous then ignorance, isn't it. Isn't that how people getting sucked up into a Hilter like frenzy.

I wouldn't hesitate to vote for anyone if I thought they were nicely aligned with what I thought would need to be attempted.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 10:59 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

meme turning on her own. just a few short months ago she was singing her praises!

ROFLROFLROFL

You must be on drugs. I have not been a big Hillary supporter. I think she's better than Obama but only slightly and not enough for me to get really excited about. I wished she would not have run and for years I did not think she would. I think she made a strategic error in running at this point. She's paying the price now.

jAZ
02-26-2008, 11:02 AM
Isn't that better then blindly supportting Obama because of him being black or Hillary because of being female.
That's the point here, for sure.

jAZ
02-26-2008, 11:04 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

meme turning on her own. just a few short months ago she was singing her praises!

ROFLROFLROFL

I don't think that's true. Hell, she's not exactly singing her praises now as she attacks Obama on any given day.

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2008, 08:33 PM
The Clintons and their surrogates have more excuses than they know what to do with. They're now reverted to claims of racism and sexism for why
Credit to HolmeZz:

Hillary is losing. ROFL

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler."