The General Election from a Sexist’s Point of View… or Hillary’s Ladies, Please Vote for McCain
First off, I am not a sexist. I’m a rather insensitive guy, but I’m not a sexist.
I know better than to say things like:
“Put your claws away!”
or
“Don’t get all hysterical on me!”
But I will say things like
“Wow, she’s got a great ass!”
or
“I’d like to drop a couple kids off in her.”
One of my occupations is raising money for several ProChoice and ProFeminist organizations such as Naral, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parent Action Fund, and Emily’s List. I’m actually one of the top Males at our office. (I was raised in a house full of women so I’m PASSIONATE!)
I have had the chance to sit down and talk with several women who are in the Hill-Demo, you know, over 50, (I won’t say white because we have some over 50 black women who are passionately behind Hillary as well). Many of them are ANGRY. They are flat out MAD. They want BLOOD.
They feel they’ve been wronged by the DNC, wronged by Barack, wronged by the media, wronged by their husbands who told them to put their careers on hold, wronged by their Dad’s who told to be “good little girls.”
This isn’t a column about Why or How they’re mad. There are several of them out there for you to read all over the blogosphere.
This is about the effect of those suicide bomber women who say, “Roe V Wade be damned I want to send a MESSAGE!”
Believe you me, there are a lot of women out there. This has got to be a Sexists wet dream? (Why you ask again?) Because if the deciding factor of John McCain winning the election is the angry Hillary Ladies then they will have sank women’s battleship for a good 20 years.
First off, the Obvious, Roe V Wade, GONE!
Oh wait, let me voice the counter argument:
“But with a Democratic controlled congress, there is no way they will allow McCain to appoint 2 prolife judges.”
Okay, who here watched the proceedings when Alito and Roberts were being vetted, raise your hands. Come on, some of you are lying. I know all of you didn’t. Here are a few highlights from an article in the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402258.html
…To the apparent frustration of some Democrats on the committee, he declined, as nominees traditionally do, to give his specific opinion of the merits of matters that could come before the court….
The judge, when under questioning can, well, choose not to talk about his views on an issue. Although the senate can choose not to confirm a right-leaning “if it’s semen, it’s a baby” justice, they will have some ‘splaining’ to do to the country if the person never comes out and says it. It’s kind of hard to say “Well, we don’t have a reason to not confirm him other than we don’t like the guy.” And what is to stop McCain from appointing another, and another, and another pro-life judge after the Senate keeps striking them down. Nothing. Who will look like they’re trying to participate in the partisan politics of old? The Democrats. Who is trying to maintain their newly regained congressional majorities? The Democrats. So yeah, McCain will get his prolife justices, even if it means one hell of a fight.
But you know what, some of those over 50 Ballot Box Suicide Bombers don’t care about abortions, because well they’re done having kids so they won’t be having any abortions anyhow.
Here’s the second and more sexist reason why Sexist will be dancing the Jig for a Hillary-Led McCain Victory: It will prove the sexist right.
Sexists tend to think woman are crazy and irrational and emotional. And if women vote against their best interests (you know for McCain, pro-life, anti-Ledbetter [the bill that said women should get equal pay and have a right to sue their employers if they don’t] that will seem pretty insane. Sane people don’t tend to hurt themselves in order to hurt others, that’s what suicide bombers and professional boxers do. Doing that will definitely tells those evil sexist, that Yes, women are deranged and shouldn’t be trusted. “You see that’s the kind of judgement women will use in the White House! I don’t want to go to war cause some chick is on her period!” Again, I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s a sexist point of view.
Ooo Ooo and heres the other rub. What Major Party would take the risk of alienating the Suicide Bombers again. Assuming, gulp, Obama Loses why try to support Kathleen Sebelius in the primary in 2012 (and her whopping 22 years of elected experience as a public official) as a Presidential Candidate if she loses and women are going to vote for the other side out of spite. If you’re the G.O.P. it would be a mistake to back Sarah Palin in 2012 (assuming Obama wins) in the primary because if she loses her woman are going to say, “We were Robbed!” and vote for the Democratic Candidate.
The sexists will say, “Hey might as well stick to the old white guys, the woman may not identify with them, but at least they won’t rile up those Femi-nazis!”
Now I’m not saying women will automatically trade sides if their female counter part doesn’t win. I’m looking at it through the eyes of the sexist. Remember any person sensitive to any “ism” sees things as they want to see it. A person sensitive to racism will look at Sen. Clinton not conceding as a way of “emasculating him because blackness.” A person sensitive to sexism will see the calls for her to concede as “they’re just telling the woman to do as she’s told.” We search for justification that aligns with our own beliefs.
So please Hillary’s ladies, I don’t want to seem like I’m talking down to you. You’re mature, you can do as you wish. (Oh shit, that sounds like I’m talking down to them!) And many of you will vote for McCain because you really are Prolife, and you feel we should “win the war in Iraq.” I don’t begrudge you that. If you truly feel McCain has your interests at heart, (and many of you do) then vote your prerogative. For those of you that don’t I’ll ask you the same question I ask my hysterical, irrational, crazy, girlfriend when she’s on a crusade to prove that 2 + 2 = 5 “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?”
Advertisement





Maybe not sexist, but definately asshole. Enjoy your celibacy.
I'm not a racist, but I will say things like, "Wow, he's so shiftless" or "I'd like to rob the international bankers, if you know what I mean."
June 6, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are talking down to them, and you are a sexist asshole.
June 6, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll definitely concede that I'm an asshole!
June 6, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may be sexist of ME, but your examples had me thinking, "He's not so much a sexist as a guy." :-)
SORRY! I know--that's bitchy of me to say. But really, you raise money for NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Emily's List? You are not, imnsho, a sexist.
And I agree with your main point. Electing McCain isn't exactly punishing the sexists of this country. Way to be overly emotional, my sisters.
Luckily, I DO believe that most women have more sense. It will help, the more we EXPECT more sense of them. I mean, of us.
June 6, 2008 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's silly about the post is not the rhetoric, but the idea that half of the human race can be "put on notice" and judged because of the behavior of some members of that group.
Suppose a Clinton supporter warned black people not to riot in Denver, because it would just prove that they were angry and not to be trusted -- just like the racists always suspected.
Nah, sorry. I realize that this is an attempt to ventriloquize the sexist point of view, but the sexist point of view just ain't as important or as well-organized as the marquis thinks it is. It's just not true, for instance, that this would damage the chances of female candidates in the future. The notion that parties would feel it was "risky" to nominate a woman . . . come off it. Who exactly do you imagine making a decision like that? The donor base, through some kind of hive-mind process? Pfft.
June 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I AM that demographic and I'm uncomfortable with their anger that would turn their backs on everything they allegedly have worked for their entire lives.
The woman candidate was comfortable enough that, after careful reflection, repeated her willingness to obliterate Iran, and divide the party into an "us vs. them" slice and dice through each state. That's not what I expect out of a Democrat, and certainly not what I expect from a female candidate.
What never got discussed -- and I mean NEVER -- was how Hillary was going to win PA, OH and MO without the black vote of Philly, Cleveland and St. Louis. So for her to wear her diehard supporters as a badge of honor "disrespects" (to use a Hillary word) the most loyal Democratic voting block.
Disclosure: I'm 58 years old, a white female and a feminist. And no candidate "owns" me or my vote or my mind or my ability to reason. What have we fought for if we're supposed to vote as a pack?
June 6, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously did not get the memo. See, in Hillaryland, no matter what you said or did to disrespect Black voters, they were STILL going to vote for Hillary. Why? Well, unlike the "hard working White people" Dems who would vote for Hillary, but not for Obama, Hillary and her backers saw the Black Dem voters as lemmings. In order for Hillary to work her blackmail, the Dems had to be convinced that Black people would vote Dem no matter how patronizing, no matter how divisive (see the Rob Andrews article above), and no matter how disrespectful Hillary might treat them, but that "hard working White Americans" would not vote for Obama if he won the nomination.
I challenged some Hill fans at noquarterusa (Larry Johnson's increasingly nutty pro-Hillary blog) about why they expected Black people to vote for her in the fall if she got the nomination over the Black constitutional law professor turned US Senator who had won more states, won more delegates, raised more money, and spent it more wisely than Hillary. The responses were either non-responsive "Obama sucks" type messages, or they didn't address the question at all. I pointed out the obvious: if Obama could do what he had done and STILL not get the nomination, there would be no reason for any Black person to think that the Dems would ever support a Black candidate, or that the White dominated Dem party saw them as anything more than mindless drones. Luckily for the party, we never had to have that question answered.
June 6, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. I've shared the same sentiment.
June 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took a good look at a photograph of Hillary's so-called feminist posse outside the DNC meeting and noticed something interesting.
The age of the women was polarized: either they were women who were 60-65+, or they were much younger women, 20-40+. Missing were the late-40's to late 50's women who -- at least here at TPM -- see Hillary's feminism as a faux feminism, and think that her posse is being hoodwinked because they never quite grasped that feminism is not about sexism per se, but rather about achieving gender-free equality.
Maybe, then, we shouldn't be so baffled by the posse's outrage.
Women who are 65+ were, for the most part, already established in traditional wife and mother roles before feminism took off in the 1970's. That we, just 5-10 years behind them, got to ride the new wave must have been truly demoralizing to them -- by the luck of a birth order draw, they missed that boat of opportunity. So finally, here's their chance to get a belated piece of the action -- never mind that they never really understood what the action was about.
The younger women in the photograph are like them, in the sense that they don't understand what feminism is about, either. Why should they? They grew up during the backlash, when our increasingly conservative culture added pejoratives to the term feminism, thereby distorting its meaning and purpose. Who among them wanted to be known as a "radical feminist" or, worse, a "FemiNazi"?
What this suggests to me is that Hillary's die-hards are not feminists at all; rather, they have just been dubbed that by the press, because they are female and they are visibly protesting something.
The sorrow is that they don't know this, in part because their heroine is not a feminist either -- but, instead, just an opportunist.
June 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marquis, I know where you are coming from. I also do not consider myself a sexist, in that I believe women should be able to take any role they want in this world and that they and they alone should have sole control over their own bodies. But at the same time, I simply don't understand their thought processes.
For example, if Hillary lost the nomination, then why does it become her prerogative to have "her night" on Tuesday, instead of him having HIS night? Was Obama considered "arrogant" by her female fans because he actually DID anything to Hillary, or was it because he did not sufficiently "acknowledge her struggle"? How much of their reaction to Obama had nothing to do with Obama, but had to do with how the men in their lives treated them?
I say this from experience. The spousal unit was previously married and divorced from an abusive person. If, during an argument, I said "I think you are wrong", what she HEARD was "You dumb stupid c*nt, what the fcuk do you know?" She projected on me what he had said to her. I think a similar thing was happening here. The anger at Obama is not about anything he did, but a projection on what others have done.
June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink