I know. I KNOW! You hate her so much. You have made that abundantly clear. You hate her so much that you are even willing to vote for an absolute dumpster fire of a person… But have you ever really given any thought to WHY you hate her? It’s fascinating to me. I mean, I get that she is not the most inspiring public speaker. And you’re pissed off about Benghazi and eMails… Even though I guarantee you that 98% of you have no idea whatsoever what you are actually angry about–let alone having any idea about the actual FACTS behind either of those issues. But what is it that REALLY gets under your skin about her?
Here’s what I’ve been thinking about today: Have you ever met a woman who named her daughter after herself? I was listening to the Hamilton soundtrack the other day (as we have done most days for the past two months… Because it is absolutely awesome), and commented to my wife about how Aaron Burr’s wife Theodosia named her daughter Theodosia. The practice of naming a daughter after the mother is common in some cultures around the world, but it almost never happens in the United States… And yet it is perfectly normal for a man to name a son after himself. For a moment try to imagine this scenario: Let’s say you meet someone new. She is dressed for business, and she doesn’t seem super smiley. She gives you a firm handshake, and introduces herself as Trudy. You notice the little girl standing next to her, and you squat down to say hello. “And what is YOUR name, sweatheart?” you ask her, as she shyly hides behind the leg of her mother’s pantsuit. Trudy pats her daughter’s head and says, “This is Trudy.”
Now… I want you to examine the feeling that you would have as this scenario played out. If you’re anything like me, your
natural (I feel like writing “natural” there, but I don’t actually think it’s natural. I think it’s something we are taught) learned response is probably something in the neighborhood of “Who does she think she is?” Now–if you can–ask yourself why you wouldn’t have had the same sort of reaction if you met a man named Brian (wearing a suit and not smiling very much) who just introduced you to his son Brian. Finally, here is the REALLY hard work: That feeling… The one I’m calling “Who does she think she is?” but encapsulates so much more… Does that feeling remind you of the feeling you get in your gut when you see Hillary Clinton? Does it remind you of how you feel when you hear her speak? Or see the way she’s dressed? Or watch her not smile enough in an interview when she’s being asked asinine questions?
I had that same feeling. When Hillary Clinton tried to get universal healthcare passed during Bill’s presidency (and before I was somewhat aware of all of the prejudices inside me… All of the thriving racism and ageism and sexism and all the rest), I can clearly remember thinking “Who does she think she is? Nobody elected her… She needs to know her place!” And the interesting thing is that I don’t think that feeling about Hillary–that sense that someone’s getting a little too big for her britches–is limited to men. Not by a long shot.
This idea–the one that says women are one way, and men are another–is not an idea which is given up without a serious fight. But the “expanding of human consciousness,” that IS something that is a natural process. It is the process of becoming aware of our prejudices… And being brave enough to question them. And as we go through that process, we feel we are wiser and more loving and more honest. Not more *than you* necessarily… Just wiser and more loving and more honest than we were BEFORE. And we want that for you as well, so we try to get people to see things differently… But those conversations rarely go well. Trying to explain how the subtleties of sexism are woven into the very fabric of our nation and culture is very difficult when you’re trying to explain it to someone who doesn’t have the capacity to see it. Some folks don’t yet possess the kinds of self-awareness needed to discover the subtleties and nuance of systemic problems… Especially problems to which they are complicit. To them, it just comes off as accusations of an overt offense. If I speak about the realities of sexism in the way our nation treats Hillary Clinton as a candidate, many of you hear me accusing you of hating women. “Are you telling me I hate women?!? I LOVE women! Don’t you DARE tell me I hate women… MY MOMMA WAS A WOMAN!!!”
This fragile, defensive, angry reaction to the truth that the world is more complex than you thought it was… This is one of the main things that slows down people “getting it.” Being told that there is something you “don’t get” is an offensive process. In the past, this process was sped along by the introduction of facts… Fact that were many times brought to us through journalism and science. But in an attempt to slow down the natural process of people “getting it,” people attempt to discredit journalism and even science as biased and false. For example, if you heard that unarmed black people are five times more likely to be killed by police than unarmed white people, you might be nudged toward accepting that systemic racism is a problem within our police force. But if you can simply reject the data as being biased or even false, you can safely stay right in your comfortable, ignorant place. The other option is you accept the data as truthful, but you rationalize that it is truthful “for a reason.” “Yeah, unarmed black folks get killed more often by police, but it’s because they should have just complied. Or because they try to run. Or because their parents should teach them better. Or because they just naturally get in more trouble. Or because they’re just worse…” And this is the beating heart of white supremacy.
Another belief that slows down the progress of human consciousness is the thought that “We’re past that already.” This is the sort of belief that thinks racism is over because we elected a black president. If you believe the lie that a disease has been cured, you’re going to work a lot less hard to cure that disease. And if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, sexism is not just going to magically disappear either… In fact, if you look at what has happened since Barack Obama has been elected, the push back against the discomfort of change will likely make things worse for a while. Oprah being really rich disproves neither racism nor sexism. Did you know that it hasn’t even been 100 years since women have been allowed to VOTE?!? There are a lot of people walking around who are older than a woman’s right to vote. Women weren’t allowed to compete in the Olympic Marathon until 1984… Too fragile. And the ban on women serving in combat in the U.S. military was not lifted until 2013… You really don’t think that Hillary Clinton’s vagina is a significant part of the reason you are so triggered by her candidacy?
Please take a moment to read this post by Humans Of New York…
Some eMails were recently leaked between Colin Powell and a very wealthy republican donor. Powell calls Trump a “national disgrace” and an “international pariah.” In those eMails, he also had some things to say about Hillary Clinton. He says that “although she is a friend,” he was critical of her age, her greed, and her “unbridled ambition.” Think about that for a moment. When–WHEN?!?–do we criticize powerful and wealthy men for their AMBITION? In men, ambition is a virtue… Why does it suddenly turn into a vice when the ambitious person has a vagina? Trump is 70 (two years older than Clinton). He wears his greed and ambition around like a medal… And yet, people hate Hillary Clinton because they believe she “just wants more power.” Imagine–if you can–the possibility that Hillary Clinton has looked around and thought, “You know what? I think I’m the best person for this job.” The audacity, right?!? How DARE she? WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS?
Or imagine the outrage if Hillary Clinton was on her third marriage, and this time she married a model who was 24 years younger than her… What is it that allows you to overlook that sort of action in a 70 year old spray-tanned man, but if you see it exhibited by a woman, it enrages you? A friend of a friend said, “America is way more sexist than it is racist… And it is TOTALLY racist.” I believe this is true… And not just because women weren’t “given” the right to vote until 50 YEARS after that right was “given” to black men. I believe it’s true because this election bears it out at every turn. We have an election between a very experienced and intelligent woman, and a man who is easily the most unqualified, offensive, and aggressively dangerous candidate in the history of this nation, and yet people are considering voting for him because “there’s just something about Hillary I don’t trust.” Or because you don’t like the sound of her voice. Think about the word “shrill” for a moment… Is that a word reserved for women? Maybe you’re just not used to the sound of a woman’s voice who is in a position of power…
I don’t love everything about her. She’s too hawkish for me. I’m afraid that because of the sense that she isn’t “strong enough,” she could feel pressured into military action that will only make things worse. I don’t like the prison policies for which she is partially responsible. I think she’s too close with Wall Street and big banks. But even though these things are concerning to me, she has my vote. Do you know why? Because she is persuadable. She is competent. She is reasonable. She is a person who listens, and she considers other sides. She is not an ignorant buffoon who–when asked about who he consults on issues of foreign policy–would ever say something like, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things,” and “I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”
And in the midst of the deep sexism of this country (and the boys club that is Washington D.C.), she has had to work twice as hard to get to where she is today… All while smiling enough but not too much. All while wearing fashionable clothes that aren’t so fashionable she won’t be taken seriously… Clothes that say “I’m powerful,” but clothes that aren’t too manly–Even though “manly” is a synonym for “powerful.” All while enduring stupid questions and stupid criticisms with a smile on her face, because an angry woman is a turn off to voters. And if–while she is working twice as hard to be taken seriously (even though pneumonia)–she works herself to the point of exhaustion, it won’t be looked at as a sign of how bad ass she is… It will be taken as a sign of her feminine fragility. But she can’t ever let out the giant “SCREW YOU, YOU SEXIST BASTARDS!” that has no doubt been welling up inside her for 40 years because–again–people are freaked right out by angry women.
Well, I’m a white man–I can say it. SCREW YOU, YOU SEXIST BASTARDS! You act like you are upset about eMails… or the Clinton Foundation’s donors… or the four Americans who died in the attack on Benghazi… But what you are really upset about is that the person who wants to be in charge has a vagina.
Is this blog something that you value? If it is, please consider BECOMING A PATRON and giving a couple bucks a month. I usually write about 1-2 blog posts a week… that’s a pretty sweet deal, if you ask me. I’d appreciate your support, and I think my wife would as well. My wife is the kind of strong, competent woman who laughs a bit to herself when I’m referred to as the “head of the household.” Much of the time, she is the one who gets things done, and I’m so thankful for that. When you give, you help legitimize the time I spend writing these posts… And that means a lot. Thank you.
You can also follow my stuff on Facebook, Twitter, or you can give on PayPal.
There is a truth to what you write for many Americans. The flaw, however, is believing it is the only truth that applies to why Killary is so unpopular. See there is ANOTHER woman also running for POTUS that your sold out organization fails to adequately recognize. #JillStein will make an AMAZING POTUS and an equally amazing FIRST female POTUS!! The reasonS Killary is so DISliked have much more to do with her actions than her genitalia. Stop reducing the discussion to such simplistic ideas and report the REAL NEWS about Killary’s corrupt, warmongering, and indebtedness to corporate America.
I’m sorry…I am not sure who you are talking about?
Okay, it’s not a blogger’s job to report “news.” It’s a reporter’s job. Since you’re demanding it be done, why don’t you yourself offer some sources then — viable, nonbiased sources…You know, actual facts rather than hearsay.
Also, consider what you will do if you vote third party…You will be responsible for something akin to the Ralph Nader fiasco of 2000 (and I liked Nader, and I dig third party ideas, so I, a once third-party voter, am partially to blame for what occurred then…and I OWN it). You will put an absolute disgrace of a human being — a misogynistic, racist, bigoted, egocentric, blithering buffoon — in the highest office in the U.S. Yes. Yes, you will.
The author’s opinion is his own, on his own blog. You are entitled to your own opinions as well, but think about how you present your argument — or criticism…or whatever this response was supposed to be — if you intend to be taken seriously. Back up your opinion, in other words…and try to take the tone down a notch.
You do know that the blue text woven throughout the post are links to actual sources, right?
Yes, I do. My reply was in reactionary to Lisa, who has no sources linked in her response.
Lisa–If the choice were between Hillary and Bernie, I would vote for Bernie. And I’m betting so would you. You know that polls are scientific, right? She’s not going to win. It’s science. Jill Stein is polling at 3% right now. Do you know the way the electoral college works? A person polling at 3% at this stage in the game has the same chance of winning as a person polling at .00003 percent (roughly the amount of support I would get if all the people who subscribed to this blog decided to write ME in as a candidate)… That chance is zero. I like Jill Stein. I think she has a lot of integrity… But there are plenty of people with a lot of integrity who have no business being president. You voting for Jill Stein when she doesn’t a chance to win is worth about as much as a write-in vote for Deez Nutz.
Presidents have to make hard choices. It’s easy to say “No more killing and no more war!” But then, presidents are put in positions where they have to choose between killing 100 in order to save 10,000, or NOT acting and letting those 10,000 die. If you think a Jill Stein presidency would somehow put an end to war, you are as dumb as someone who uses the word “Killary” over and over… Oh. Wait… 🙂
That being said, It’s really frustrating when someone like yourself–someone with whom I am almost CERTAIN I share many, many ideological similarities–is so angry at me that I would choose to support Hillary Clinton in order to keep Donald Trump as far away from the White House as possible. Bernie is doing it. Elizabeth Warren is doing it. Neither of them is a huge fan of Hillary. They are both smart and principled people. You act like you’re the only one with principles. But really, you’re just a lady having a temper tantrum on a stranger’s blog. And I can almost guarantee you are white. And not a Muslim. And not an immigrant. And straight. Because if you were ANY of those things, you wouldn’t be in a position to throw away your vote on a person who has no chance to win… Not when there is a possibility of a “President Trump.”
Get on the bus, dude. Don’t piss away your vote on Deez Nutz.
This blog, and this reply… absolutely amazing…
WOW ~ my constantly posted point exactly but put so very, very well!! Thanks!
She and Trump are the only ones in the running. One of them will win. Call her all the names you want, but a life of self-sacrifice vs a TV star with absolutely no idea how things work is a pretty clear choice to me.
Yeah. What Audrey said…
Self sacrifice and the Hillary in the same sentence? That’s hysterical. She’s in it for the money and is from a crooked Clinton Crime family. What happened to their foundation and how much of that collected cash ever went to help anyone? I heard it was something like 8%. When you look at the Clintons, your looking a pure evil.
you just proved the entire point of the article your use of a conditioned response metaphor, is a testament to the writers conclusions…
I get it. Reality is not everyone’s friend. I mean, really, I wish I was better looking, younger, richer and in perfect health, too. But the reality is, I’ll be 58 in May, my 40th high school reunion is coming up later this year, I don’t have very much money and I need a minor-but-necessary operation. My wishes and dreams aside, all of those are reality.
So, I was listening to the podcast of this morning’s Stephanie Miller Show a few minutes ago and some guy called in to opine that he “disagreed” with the contention that Bernie and Hillary were the only choices for liberals this year. And he asked the million-dollar stupid question:
“Why isn’t Green Party candidate Jill Stein a viable candidate?”
Yes, Jill Stein and the Greens are a choice this year. However, the “viable” part? Not so much. Sorry, but as of 2016 in the United States of America, there are TWO viable political parties. Again, the key word is “viable.” There are actually 134 registered political parties in the country, but only Democrats and Republicans qualify as “viable.” You may not like that, but blame democracy. In a democratic system, there are almost never any more than two viable parties because of basic math. Put it this way, if you have three viable political parties, then the one that can manage 40 percent will always win. If you have four, then the one who can manage 33-35% will probably win.
That works another way, too. One reason the minority party, the Republicans, keeps winning an inordinate number of elections is because their voting base is fanatical and will obsessively vote for anyone from their party. (You know, like Donald Drumpf?), which means a lot of people like this guy voting for a “third party” unwittingly give the GOP’s votes more strength. In a system with three or more viable parties, a voting bloc of 25-30 percent of the population turning out to vote at a 90 percent rate will always have an advantage, especially when turnout is low. Unfortunately, “progressives” like this guy, who seem to have no concept what the word “viable” means, operate under the delusion that any party that says what he likes to hear is somehow “viable” and they have no idea that a vote for, say, Jill Stein, is effectively a vote for a Republican. And with the two most likely Republican nominees being Drumpf and Cruz, that should be a non-starter.
Ironically, it’s the Green Party’s fault that their party isn’t closer to viable. In 2000, they ran Ralph Nader. Unfortunately, he and the “progressives” who made up his strongest supporters did the same thing in 2000 that they’re doing with their support of Bernie Sanders in 2016; for some stupid reason, they decided that a great strategy was to attack the Democratic candidate far more vigorously than they attacked George W. Bush. Sorry, but that is so politically tone-deaf, it’s hard to take them seriously.
See, here’s the thing…
If Ralph Nader had worked WITH Al Gore in 2000 and they had tag-teamed their complaints about Bush, the Green Party would have gotten the five percent they were supposedly shooting for (and possibly even a lot more), which means they would have permanent ballot status AND we could have avoiding having Dubya as president. However, for some reason, these people, who self-describe as “political junkies,” seem to think that attacking the party or candidate that is ideologically closest to them will somehow draw that candidate closer, ideologically speaking. You know, because your good friend calling you a “worthless loser” is how they make you their best friend, right?
In a democratic system, your goal can’t be to become a viable THIRD party; you have to become a viable SECOND party. And you do that by going after the current SECOND party, not the current FIRST party. And when I say that, I don’t mean you attract the right. You attract the left by going after the far right and, in doing so, you marginalized the far right. All the Greens did in 2000 and 2004 was to confuse most voters. Instead of going after George W. Bush and telling everyone how horrible he was, the Greens went after Al Gore and made voters think he was as bad as or worse than Dubya. It probably made some people vote for Bush rather than Gore, but just as importantly, it probably made a lot of voters just stay home, since they didn’t think it made any difference which one they voted for.
No matter how many times our side loses, these same people never seem to learn shit. It’s frightening. In a democratic system, you have to do two things; you have to make people want to vote and you have to make them want to vote for you. You don’t do that by making voters who already think Republicans are dipshits think that Democrats are dipshits, as well. People want to vote FOR something good or against something evil.
That’s right, folks; if you’re trashing Hillary or you’re planning to vote Green, both strategies are equally likely to make it more likely for a Republican to win. Only two parties are “viable” as of now. If you’d like to make the Greens viable, then do it. Run some Greens in local races and look for support from your ideological allies in the Democratic Party. Create an alternative. But don’t just assume they’re “viable” just because they say what you want to hear.
tl;dr I’m not convinced that this broader conversation about prejudice makes any sense.
Basically, all the stupid stuff we do when we try to think is supposed to optimize our thought so we can actually spend time acting on information (sometimes immediately) instead of thinking constantly.
Serious misconceptions can survive the cycle described on that page, but all of them ultimately exist for some reason. That reason might have become irrelevant a long time ago (especially for “learned behaviors”). It might also cause its justification by producing a complementary bias in someone else.
“This idea–the one that says women are one way, and men are another–is not an idea which is given up without a serious fight.”
Surely some types of supposed differences between the sexes are false. On the other hand, some differences are blatantly true. The number of qualifications required for either argument to make sense is insane. Society is probably framing the conversation in a fundamentally nonsensical way, hence the difficulty of making any progress with it.
You writing TL:DR and then writing all that blather is about as dumb as things get, dude. I’m not asking you to read my stuff… But if you’re not going to read it, do us all a favor and refrain from commenting. Otherwise, you’re just being a dick.
Clarification: The tl;dr was for my post, not yours. I was summarizing my comment.
I so hope Trump doesn’t win
Reblogged this on heitzwritings and commented:
I wish I would take the time to have written this
I like this article a lot. I felt myself saying “fuck you, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” And then saying “calm the fuck down Colleen and read on.” It’s a good piece when you can be enraged and introspective at the same time. I am very traditional in my thinking when it comes to a woman’s place. yep, i said it; a woman’s place. However, I can say that b/c there are women before me who have fought to for me to even choose. I would probably feel very different if I were in a position of not being able to vote or being told it’s un-ladylike to run a marathon (Katherine Switzer #261) OR be in a back room computing how to navigate the earth and then have no recognition that I was actually the one who helped launch NASA by my superior math skills (Katherine Johnson, the very first “computer”). I have internal conversations about how I feel about Hilary Clinton daily- the blatant sexism is atrocious but I a don’t like her political views and what she wants to do for the country. Do I still have to vote for her just because she’s a woman? Lots to think about.
You don’t have to vote for her “just because she’s a woman”, but because the alternative is Donald Trump! Think about what his political views would do for the country.
Which views do you dislike? A lot is misunderstood about Hillary. People think there should be simple answers to complex questions and there aren’t. I checked isidewith.com because you can see where each candidate stands on the issues. Hillary and Bernie are very nearly identical.
Excellent article for the most part. I take issue with the assertion that this country is more sexism than it is racist. I am a white southern woman. I have experienced colossal sexism in my 52 years, yes. However, I did not grow up with the fear for my family that hums along every second of every day that was and is a constant reality for people of color in this country. I did not wondering if my father and brother would make it back home unscathed or even alive each time they left the house. I am not randomly harassed by store security just for walking in there. Sexism is evil. No argument from me there. But sexism layered with racism? That is a special level of hell that white women will never experience and are therefore largely unaware of due to their white privilege Hillary has never been subjected to that nor will she ever be. Only white women have the privilege to talk about sexism as if it is a creature unto itself, and to compare it to racism without acknowledging their intersection.
Thank you for this, especially the example of a woman naming her daughter after herself. That’s a particularly brilliant example to explain what so many people fail to grasp.
Enjoying your blog.
Wish I could support with more than kudos.
Please keep writing. And thanks.
Thank you. I’ve been writing about this for months, but I know my own writings only reach the choir. And I am one PISSED OFF BITCH at the moment. Everything, and I mean everything about this election has been filtered through a lens of sexism–from the (studied and recorded) number of press articles about Hillary Clinton vs. any other candidate, to the minute attention paid to the cost of her clothing (when have you ever seen a news outlet report on how much a man’s bespoke suit cost–but Hillary’s Armani jacket? How can she possibly talk about poverty when she’s wearing a jacket which cost…x). A woman who had mothered children by 3 different men would never be taken seriously as a candidate, neither would a woman who had a child outside of marriage, or identified as an atheist (yet those things were/are perfectly acceptable in male candidates). She has been held to a completely different standard since 1992 when she announced she didn’t want to stay at home and bake cookies. For a young feminist coming of age at the time, I was transfixed by her, and have been a fan of hers ever since. She has done everything society has told her to do in order to succeed as a woman, and society hates her for it. You are right, women are not allowed to have ambition, or be aggressive, or have goals that reach too far. Whether or not you like her policies (and that’s what we should be looking at–POLICY), she is arguable THE most qualified candidate to run for POTUS–probably ever. The fact that Donald Trump is even considered a legitimate alternative should be laughable. Yet it’s not.
So–here’s the thing: as a woman, I’ve been shouting this from the rooftops for years, and yet I get the old sexist runaround. I don’t know what I’m talking about, my experiences are obviously flawed, my judgement clouded by man-hating (fill in the blank), I’m making mountains out of molehills, I should be grateful, look how much worse off women are in (fill in the blank). The fact that as a man writing this you will garner more legitimacy, if I am completely honest, rankles me just a little…BUT, I applaud you for being enlightened enough to see it for what it is and in particular to write about it, and I hope that you continue to do so. Equality never works if only ONE side is fighting for it. We need to be on the same page. So thank you 10x over.
Hear! Hear! Dina!
Pingback: The Story Of How A Woman’s Right To Vote Came Through Nashville–A Story Of Hope | The Boeskool
Pingback: I Believe Joe Biden’s Accuser… I’m Still Voting For Him. Here’s Why: | The Boeskool
Pingback: Third Party Voting, and Other Wastes of Time… | The Boeskool