Name the candidates for a Presidential nomination who are displaying a massive, achingly obvious ambition to become President, causing them to conduct carefully calculated and expensive campaigns that display their personal abilities for that office.
Hillary Clinton.
John Edwards.
Rudy Giuliani.
Michael Huckabee.
John McCain.
Barak Obama.
Bill Richards
Mitt Romney.
Name the candidates whose ambition for the job of President brings forth cries of personal hatred towards them from a lot of people.
Hillary Clinton.
Why is that happening? Easy. Strong ambition is an accepted part of the stereotypical male role, while it is specifically listed as a major negative characteristic of the stereotypical female role.
A lot of people get very upset when others fail to conform to their personal social stereotypical roles, especially gender roles. They try to enforce those stereotypes on people who defy them. The enforcement takes the character of ostracizing and expressions of hatred. Yet the twentieth century has not been kind to women who tried to become stereotypical wives and mothers. Consider women of marriage age in Great Britain after WW I when there was only about one potential living husband for every ten women, or during and after WW II when women first had to enter the (stereotypically male) work force. Then the economy changed after about 1960 so that a single worker could no longer support a family on one job. Women had to work, and good paying jobs were stereotypically male jobs. Women had to work, but were looked down on for breaking the stereotypical female gender role and going to work. Things have changed, but gender roles have been slow to catch up.
Now, almost fifty years and two generations after the two worker family has become the norm, a lot of people are really upset that at age 60 Hillary Clinton is violating the out-dated female role typified by June Cleaver as the Beaver’s sweet den mother non-working housewife. Instead Hillary Clinton actually has the gall to try and compete with “the men”, most of who in fact feel thoroughly threatened because they don’t have the ability to compete with her.
That’s what is causing all the expressions of Hillary-hatred. Chris Matthews is a prime example. Hillary could easily do his job better than he does, while he could not compete with her. On a gut level, he knows that, and it drives his misogynistic commentary.
America has a lot of men who depend on gender stereotypes to keep them from having to compete with more competent women. (Rachel Maddow could replace Chris Matthews in a heartbeat, and ratings would quickly rise.) There are also women who have so thoroughly adopted the passive, quiet, non-competitive female stereotype that they feel threatened when Hillary proves that stereotype is not necessary for a woman to be a good and competent person.
That’s what all this rapid Hillary hatred is all about. It’s basically frightened and conservative people who expect other individuals to adopt the gender stereotypes that those people assign to them, and when those others do not adopt those gender stereotypes on their own and prove successful without them, then such stereotype-breakers will be met with anger and will be ostracized.
But society has passed the frightened, angry people by, and their nasty tactics no longer work. Which, of course, will just make them even angrier. Watch Chris Matthews if you don’t believe me. Barring a sudden insight into his own personal fears which I doubt he has the capacity to conduct, he has no choice except to get more and more rapidly anti-Clinton as he joins Bill O’Reilly as part of the nut-job fringe.
I don’t hate Hillary because she’s a woman. i don’t hate her at all. But I’m damned if I’m gonna stand here and let the Hillary-bots cram her down my throat.
We already did the Clinton thing. That’s what Hillary has to offer:
More and Better Bill, with tits
I have no interest in reliving the 1990s, thank you. We already did that, and it was fun for a while, but ultimately, with NAFTA, DADT, and the rest of the lukewarm soup of Clintonism, not a good thing for the Democratic Party.
I notice that you can’t make your case without a very disparaging reference to her gender.
Also, I seriously doubt that you would write so vehemently if Bill Clinton had been merely her mentor and not her husband.
You sound like Chris Matthews, the poster boy for Hillary-hatred. You might have a case to make for why she is not suited to be President, but it is very clearly buried in your comment behind a great deal of anger (or maybe just strong negative emotion), much of it obviously gender-related.
Would you vote for either Huckabee or Giuliani if it came down to either of them against Clinton? Since you are posting here I doubt it, yet I also doubt that you express such vehemence against either of them.
I am addressing the social source of much of the strong feeling against Hillary, not her suitability as President. There isn’t a Republican candidate running who could equal her for pure ability or attitude. Whether Edwards or Obama would be better is a different question, one I am not at this time addressing.
OH my.
Is this a rant or should it be given serious thought? With all due respect to your effort, this is a stretch. Just another play of the gender card.
Many of us who oppose Bill II do so for many reasons. It has nothing to do with gender. Rick b2 wishes to reduce thousands of reasons to 1. It’s idiotic.
While I think there are a number of good reasons for opposing Hillary as the Democratic nominee for President, gender is clearly an extremely important (and non-rational) reason for a lot of people.
Clearly, though, this is not considered a socially acceptable reason to oppose her, but I think the responses to this diary show that gender IS a significant reason to a lot of people. She is rejected by non-Republicans with a level of emotion that exceeds even that people show towards Bush.
Along with the gender bias there are a lot of very defensive people who refuse to admit their bias. Their denial is demonstrated by the strength of their defensiveness. Not being female myself, I really hadn’t been aware of just how strong these emotions are or how widely they spread.
I suspect there is a connection between the strong anti-Hillary feelings and the many attacks that the right-wing has directed towards her over the last 16 years, but it is too simplistic to say that those attacks are the reason for the strong anti-Hillary feelings. More likely it has been political attack agents taking advantage of the gender bias that so many conservatives and men in general have, and the large number of attacks give permission to biased men to express their feelings, even though they deny it is gender bias.
From reading your posts, dataguy, it is pretty clear to me that you are a prime example of gender bias and denial that those feeling motivate you. So thanks for playing.
Seriously. “defensiveness”
Your understanding of those you do not agree with is zilch. I oppose Hillary because once through the Clinton funhouse was enough. Hillary offers nothing beyond Bill. It’s just as simple as that, and if you feel that I am being defensive, that’s not my problem. I’m no dime-store psychoanalyst.
Excellent diary Rick. As one of those “uppty women” who has lived through more than the past 60 years of everyone attempting to tell me what my role and place in society is, I’m not seeing anything here that I haven’t seen all through my lifetime.
I have never been able to figure out what the fear things is all about. Why is it that so many men and women absolutely FEAR powerful women. I know some psychologists posit the theory that men are so traumatized that women can give birth and they can’t (I don’t know, that’s what they say)that to have them as equals in every way would mean that men truly would have to admit they are not superior and that just won’t float with them. What women’s excuse is, I can’t imagine.
I think it all still goes back to the idea that if we can’t put the “other” down, then how can we claim to be superior? And apparently we have to have that feeling of being superior to someone or something in order to have any self-worth. . .rather than do some honest self discovery and recognize the actual worth all of us have.
And for the most part it seems that we love to be “pile on-ers.” The good old “kick ’em while they’re down” thing. Better yet, take them down then kick them. Humans are a very strange species.
All very strange, but not very unexpected.
Business as usual.
If you disagree with their issues and stance on the issues that is one thing. But that disagreement leads to HATRED? Very odd.
Thanks for a very good diary.
Hugs
Shirl
How about fear mixed with jealousy. I think that both men and women are jealous of her, just as in any microcosm of life in the US. Women do not easily support another woman, I have found that to be very true.
Just had a thought about Bush in both elections, many people voted for him despite the fact that in the debates, most notably 2000, he was terrible, lacked even a modicum of intelligence as he displayed, but Gore, well he was too uppitty, too environmental, and he claimed to have inveented internet, which was not true.
then in 2004, Bush is maybe even worse than 2000 in debates, but many people said, Kerry, who would want him, too uppitty, flip flops, and so on.
So I guess if this pattern holds true we can expect to see another Republican in the WH and I just hope it isn’t Guillani.
But Shirl we could speak these things till the cows come home and no one will care.
Yes Rick very good diary.
Jealousy. Interesting. Might be, but I don’t think that just mere jealousy would account for the levels of fear and anger that I see.
I’ve long thought that anger has it’s base in fear. The usual reactions to fear are (active reaction) anger, or (passive reaction) depression.
Yeah, maybe an oversimplification, but it seems to generally work as an explanation.
Could jealousy also be based in fear?
as I said, fear mixed with jealousy. Yes I think fear comes out of jealousy, as in, I am envious that he/she has success, I fear that I may not, I fear that I may not be as accomplished, good looking, intelligent, etc. He/she looks good in contrast to me, therefore I must denigrate them to make myself look better.
well I guess someone should ask Clinton haters why. But I think it has been asked and it’s like Randy H’s answer above. Which disclaims hating, but yet gives a very hateful assesment and response.
Can you imagine what it would be like for a black woman to try for office of President.
I just had another thought and that is how much the media plays into this fear/jealousy thing, by constantly bringing up and focusing these items to feed the fears, settling on things to inflame, like the tears, emontional breakdown, crying, and what for, a little crack in the voice, just like every single one of us has had, maybe even today.
Sure looked like a “Hillary you’re going down” when the video was played over and over again, discussed over and over again..how gleefully everyone clapped themselves and others on the back, look we did it, she’s going down, written off….Oh how I wish they had been so doggedly tenacious and hacked away a bit more at W.
Then what do we see after, we need an NH recount, can’t be true, what happened, we thought we had her down for good..
I think you could say, Rove and Co and the right wing, you know, has completely done their job…
The Jon Stewart take on that was wonderful. “That’s it???”
..and it was amazing that just the slightest sign of emotional feeling was considered “a break down.”
I am so glad Jon is back, just in time or maybe a little late, how I missed him. Yes his take was wonderful.
Yes how dare she show humanity, weak, weak, weak….
I’m adding my voice to the “excellent post” responses.
I’m also interested in the obvious gender divide in the pro and con responders… unless I just missed my guess as to the gender behind the names.
You are probably right about no one or not many wanting to hear.
The funny thing is, the harder they push this BS about her, the more they make me want to defend her and the more I defend her the more I think I could possibly vote for her. And since, other than being crazy as I am, I’m not so much different than most folks I think this continual battering of her plays to her favor. I think lots of folks are getting tired of it. And if she gets the nomination I wouldn’t be surprised if she won the whole thing. Whether they voice it or not, there are great numbers of women and men out there that just don’t like this “smack down.” It is all very interesting.
Psychological games with the mass consciousness. . .very interesting indeed.
Clinton’s competition is within the Democratic Party. If she gets the nomination anyone who voted for Edwards or Obama will vote for Hillary against any Republican. I find it difficult to imagine a meltdown that would change that.
“Psychological games with the mass consciousness” – that’s what Public Relations and Advertising/Marketing are all about. Both have been developing for at least 80 years, and their effectiveness improved even more rapidly since TV became a significant factor in America in the 60’s. It would be surprising if they weren’t extremely effective by now, considering how much money is bet on each process regularly.
Actually, I think if she gets the Democratic nomination a lot of people who would have voted for Obama will stay home and not vote at all. What I’m seeing online and hearing on the streets makes me think that some-to-many-to-most of Barack’s people are operating on the theory that if their guy doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, there’s nobody left in the race but Republicans on either side.
They’re almost a perfect mirror of the Paulians, who seem to think that aside from Ron there’s nobody in the race but hippy commie liberals.
My first thought was that you are correct. But Obama is extremely ambitious, and he is only 46. He has at least four more shots at the Presidency, even if he doesn’t get it this time.
But if he loses this time and doesn’t strongly support the nominee, then his own later chances diminish. Letting his voters walk away from the party without doing everything possible to keep them is not a good preparation for the next time he runs for the nomination.
The Paulians are different. They are members of a third party movement that Ron Paul has temporarily attached to the Republican Party, mostly because the last time(1988) he ran for President no one heard anything he said except the true believers. This time he had the Republican debates to spread his message.
Dr. Paul is working more to get his messages out than to run for President. But his message is very foreign to the current Republican Party. Obama wants to be President, and for that he needs the Democratic Party. He’s no Ron Paul or Ralph Nadar.
I trust both Obama’s ambition and his ability to convince his voters to support the ticket. There are few substantive differences between his message and those of Edwards or Hillary, so that should not be difficult. For Obama, coming in second for the Presidential nomination at age 46 is a great victory and a steppingstone to a future number one.
[Like all predictions of future scenarios this one expires 2 seconds after it is posted.]
I’d say it depends on where you draw the lines. I tend to judge candidates and their ideas in large measure by what kinds of supporters they attract, since in my experience that’s a much more reliable indicator of the kind of official they’re going to be.
What scares me about both fan clubs (and Huckabee’s people as well) is the messianic mindset I’m hearing. I get the sense that for many the ideas don’t matter so much as the person. What I’m seeing, on both sides, is a flaming “true believer” outlook that says that it is impossible for someone to simply think another candidate might be better suited for the job on the merits; anyone who makes that suggestion is obviously an agent provocateur, probably on payroll, and must be silenced and driven out.
Make no mistake, I am every bit as afraid of a leftist mobocracy as I am of a rightist one… and the reactions I’m seeing from some of the “progressives” are making me consider seriously for the first time since the 60s that that might be a real threat on a national scale. The reactions from New Hampshire have made me quite aware, and quite afraid, that a sizable contingent of theoretical Democrats will NOT in fact accept anyone other than Obama as nominee.
I am NOT happy seeing this sort of tactic from people who are at least theoretically comrades in arms, and it says to me that it’s time to back off and reconsider whether this is a battle I want any part of or if it wouldn’t be MUCH better to go somewhere else for a few years and let the cultists wipe each other out.
I must admit that it bothers me that we have no real idea what kind of person Obama is. He’s just not been on the national scene long enough to suit me.
Plus he is running on an updated version of the promise George Bush ran on in 2000 – he’s going to bring a new attitude to Washington. And that’s all. Identity politics and a promise to bring a new tone to Washington. That and a good smile is worth …? Enough to stampede the Press in his favor, apparently. That’s another negative against Obama. The Press likes him too much, and I thoroughly distrust the American political Press.
Huckabee has a great smile, too, and as Digby says, he is Hate behind a great smile. I also have no doubt that he is a Dominionist, but that’s a term Dominionists and theocrats hate.
That’s why I favor Edwards first, Hillary second, and a long way down the list, Obama third. I had preferred Richardson second and Hillary third, but Richardson has all the campaign attractiveness of a three-day-old ham sandwich. Unfortunately.
I also don’t like any Senator as a candidate. The kinds of political compromises they have to make also causes many of them to be quite unsuited to be an executive. Since all the Republicans are incompetents, that’s not a logical screen I can use for this election.
Fortunately, I expect to learn a lot in the next 60 days.
Contrarian.
Thanks.
That’s what I’m trying to tease out. It seems to me that a lot of people have invested much of their lives in learning gender stereotypes and then measuring others by how well they match those gender stereotypes.
If someone breaks those stereotypes and as a result becomes a social loser, then justice is seen to be done. all is right with the world. But if they break those stereotypes and as a result they win in social terms, then they become frightening because they demonstrate that there is no justice in society.
If after all that effort to learn to understand and apply the stereotypes yourself and tho those around you, you suddenly find they don’t work, anger is the normal reaction. That’s especially true because the gender stereotypes are taught through a series of escalating negative reactions from those around you. Those reactions run from “OH, no!” through “You don’t want to wear (do) THAT, do you?” through clear anger up to “Get out of this house and don’t come back!” Or the one every teenage boy fears above all things from his peers “You’re a FAG! Hey Guys. He’s a FAG!” (I imagine that one is even worse if a guy really IS gay.)
I’m sure women have similar sets of escalating social controls, but they never bothered to share them with me.
But anyway, that’s what I think has been happening to Hillary. At least, it’s what I noticed as I watched Chris Matthews spew his emotions all over the screen. And he not only doesn’t realize what he is doing, worse, he doesn’t realize how very obvious it is.
I posted a precursor to this diary over at TPMCafe, and was fascinated by the ratings. Five “5’s” and two “2’s”. There are a lot of strong emotions surrounding this subject. It threatens a lot of people.
Chris Matthews is his own kind of crazy.
There is a deep, visceral hatred of Hillary. It’s been there since Bill was running. The cookie incident triggered the expression of it.
Yes, we all have grown up with the same social conditioning. I’ve sometimes caught myself falling into it, but I make an effort to remember that if I am capable, other women are just as likely to be capable. Also, the stereotypical home school mothers do resent any challenge to their picture of the ideal society.
I admire & respect a lot of what Hillary has accomplished, but somewhere along the way she gave up & joined the corporationists. She would still make a competent president, but I don’t see her trying to make any real changes to the best government money can buy.
I agree with you on Hillary’s corporatist views. But I think the zeitgeist is changing, and the Recession (BBC: The U.S. Recession has arrived.) going to speed that up. (I am predicting a combination of both recession and inflation lasting at least two years, even if Congress and Bush do everything right this year. They won’t.) Besides both Edward’s and Huckabee’s populist messages and David Cay Johnston’s total indictment of the corporate domination of American society since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution in his book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill), today’s Dallas Morning News started its editorial page today with an editorial entitled Peter Goodman: Reining in the free market – As financial unease grows, regulation is coming back into vogue. The Dallas Morning News is the most conservative and Republican newspaper in Texas. I am shocked to see this on the front page of their Sunday editorial section.
Edwards has also pushed the discussion towards more populism, much the same way Tom Tancredo pushed the Republicans towards the anti-immigrant position. Since Edwards is publicly funded (assuming the FEC pays his checks) he can probably stay in the race until the convention even if he loses. His effect on the Democratic message has been nothing but positive, and will continue to be.
Granted, right now Hillary has too many old line Bill Clinton advisers, but if she gets the nomination I suspect she will bring in advisers from both other camps. And no one will ever be able to accuse Hillary of being stupid. She sees the way the wind is blowing, and she may also feel she can pick off Huckabee voters by moving towards populist messages and policies.
Then too, the spate of recent Obama endorsements by powerful Democrats indicates that they don’t think she has a lock on the nomination, and they can risk their futures by opposing her. She is going to have to react to that, fast. Again, the Bill Clinton years and people cannot drive her, and I expect her to have already recognized that.
So while I agree with you that she has been way too corporatist up until now, I don’t think it can last. And especially after listening to her take Tim Russert apart this morning, I think she is probably the Democrat’s strongest candidate against the Right-wingers. [Edwards second and Obama weakest.]
Isn’t it nice to have to choose among three outstanding candidates and depend on nuance? January is shaping up to be a very interesting month, and apparently February 5th is not going to be decisive. Our Texas Primary on March 4 may well still be significant. [I hope to go to the county caucus as an Edwards delegate. Since I am the Precinct chair, it is very likely that I can.]
So overall, while I don’t care for the corporatist message she has been presenting, I just don’t think it can last, nor do I think she is wedded to it if abandoning it will get her the Presidency while sticking to it will get her what Tom Tancredo has gotten out of running. She is both smart and adaptable, and I’ll bet on an FDR move on her part – abandoning the bankers’ free market idiocies. I think it is a better bet that one that Obama will be able to deal with the right-wing slime machine if he gets the nomination. But again, nuances of difference between three good candidates.
I don’t like candidates who are shifty and pander to the moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqj_JGwGTXA
I don’t like candidates who don’t want to fall backwards..does that mean the candidate doesn’t want to leave Iraq..the new crying game..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk&NR=1
When a person has a baggage of a “vast right wing conspiracy” included in their luggage it means the candidate will probably lose.
You must hate politics. Successful politicians can always be described as shifty and pandering to the moment. Any person in the political arena who cannot be so described has another description – “loser.”
The “vast right wing conspiracy” is out there and aiming at any Democrat who comes along. Here is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce threatening any Democrat who opposes the corporation practices. From Steve Benen we get the report Swift Boat Liars aren’t gone, they’ve just changed candidates. Are the Bob Perry – Richard Mellon Scaife – Joseph Coors family fortunes all aimed at Hillary?
Yep. Unless some other Democrat is nominated. Then they don’t go away, they just shift their sights.
If you look at the size, power and nasty history of the VRWC it can be really frightening. But that is looking at the past and deciding that the enemy is unbeatable. Who is best prepared to deal with those anti-American enemies? I’d say the Democrats have no better candidate ready to deal with them than Hillary. After that, Edwards appears ready but has not demonstrated his ability to deal with the enemy for nearly as long or as effectively, and Obama has no track record at all and is merely a pig in a poke.
If you want to look at the past and be frightened by the massive VRWC and run away from our best candidate for dealing with them, fine. You are looking at the past and throwing up your hands and saying “They are too powerful. Let them have what they want while we cower in the Dark.”
Times have changed, and the Democratic Party is changing. McGovern just called for impeaching Bush, for Christ’s sake. I think the party needs to go a lot more populist, but a really big vessel doesn’t change course in an instant. At least the change has started and the direction is better than it was.
If you want to look at the past and cower in fear of a fighting Democratic party with powerful woman and in fear of the danger of the VRWC, fine. You are wrong. I think we should look at the future and make the most rational decisions regarding who the Democratic nominee for President will be without letting fear control our decisions.
I’m listening to Hillary on Meet the Press right now. The woman is really, really good facing a man who is a clear enemy of Democrats, of the American people, and of Hillary. Listen to her if you can get past your fear and anger. She is really impressive.
I’m also not ready to reject Hillary as a nominee before the primaries have really started just because of fear. That’s what you are advocating. You are wrong.
Except for the parts on gender bias, most of this post is off topic.
Rick, I am watching Meet the Press right now too, and I agree with you wholehardedly. I love the way you are articulating this whole thing, finding words I have been unable to.
And I agree she is doing a great job on MTP, and I agree that she is right now the best person who is still running to be President, Edwards second but I think there is little chance of that.
Well more later after MTP is over.
there is no gender bias in that post, you are making something out of nothing. If Hillary’s credentials are shoddy at minimum, being in the White House doesn’t make her more qualified then Barack Obama or John Edwards.
If you want gender bias..she couldn’t control her husband what makes you think she can control a nation.
I think you should look up Clinton’s record, I posted quite a bit from wikipedia the other day. To say she was “just in the White House” is in error….look up her record and then tell me she was “just.” Furthermore, she has an extensive and impressive record from high school on….in all kinds of areas;
link
Yeah you did manage to use gender bias, thanks for that, good to see, (not). wow, I am so aghast I won’t even go there.
so are we to blame here for the failures of Clinton I like the draconian Immigration Reform Law Bill signed in 1996. Where does her White House credit end and begin, otw there is nothing in her bio that sez she’s ready on day 1 to be commander and chief.
like above her bio is no different then Obama or Edwards
From your response above I believe you have not read her record, therefore I cannot discuss this with you.
I read her record, it still doesn’t make her more qualified then Edwards or Obama. Nothing in her record shows she’s vetted and ready to run on day one.
Whether she or any of them are ready to do the job on day one is a subjective thing that each of us has to decide for ourselves.
Exactly.
Clinton has a long record of activism. To say she doesn’t is dishonest.
I’d say that you are reacting to Hillary based on her gender more than her history. At the emotional level you express strong distrust, and you justify that by blaming her for actions that you would ignore if a male politician had done precisely the same thing. Your very overreaction is a giveaway. Instead of reacting to her as an individual, you have reacted to her as a representative of a group, women, to whom you attribute particular characteristics. A woman who violates those characteristics is automatically wrong, because she is not following the gender stereotype characteristics. [There is no successful politician who does not equivocate, though Obama is the great one in this nomination race. And vindictiveness? A politician who does not practices some vindictiveness towards his or her opponents quickly loses.]
You oppose her because she transgresses the gender stereotype by doing the same things her male opponents dos. That’s gender bias, pure and simple. She has been reported to have done things that violate your view of correct characteristics for a woman. As a result you don’t trust her.
Your defensiveness is clearly demonstrated by the extent to which you strongly defend your views, and like much gender bias, you express that you don’t have any even though your posts reek of it. That suggests that like many males you are unconscious of your bias. Considering the deep social basis of such gender role identities, that would be expected.
And don’t bother to tell me that I don’t know you. I don’t. But I can read what you post, and there is a lot in there to which, willfully or unconsciously, you are blind. That’s where you get “you are making something out of nothing.”
I think that there are a lot of readers here who will agree with me rather than you, and they will also agree that those who support with you for the most part display a similar bias and a similar blindness. It’s pretty clear that the bias runs through American society, as does the unawareness of the bias. That make it a clear social phenomenon.
Your disagreement is not sufficient to change the fact of the broad bias and the similarly broad personal unawareness of that bias.
One last thing. You and several others have expressed a long series of reasons for your strong dislike of Hillary. I’d say you were practicing the “impulse car purchase justification syndrome.” Many of us have seen a car we wanted to buy, made a quick, intuitive decision to buy it with little knowledge, then spent the next two or more weeks collecting facts to justify the purpose. If anyone asks why such a purchaser bought it, instead of admitting that they bought the car on an uninformed whim, they present the collection of details they learned after the decision was made. That’s the “impulse car purchase justification syndrome”, and someone who takes an instinctive dislike to Hillary and then finds a whole series of reasons to justify the dislike is no different.
Anyone who expresses strong dislike for Hillary and has not sat down and worked out the reasons for and against her, then balanced them in a formal decision process is practicing the syndrome. The justification is after the fact. A clear reason to believe this is the case is that no one who has offered strong justifications for dislike of Hillary has even bothered to define gender bias or address my arguments. ALL the arguments come from areas outside gender bias, and the only argument against gender bias is a flat assertion that either it doesn’t exist or the defensive party himself simply is not biased. There is no support for those assertions, suggesting that instead of the bias not existing, it is considered negative and so not the writers simply are unaware of it.
Being male myself, I have been dumbfounded to realize how extensive the bias is, and how uncomprehending the people who practice it are. [I imagine that you women are sagely nodding your heads and say to yourself “Yeah, he’s slow but he’s getting there.” Right?]
I’m new to the party, but I’m not wrong. Once you recognize it, it jumps out at you from everywhere.
Excellent, and I would like to add to that, gender bias against women goes on among women in some of the ways you describe. A popular or successful girl at school or in the workplace for example will often be held in disfavor by other females with the same vaguely defined hate speech.
Women will use the same judgements against other women as men. Not feminine enough, too feminine, coattails of husband, too made up, not made up enough, dress to fancy, dressed to plain, slept her way to the top, must be lesbian. Women do not rush to support other women in far to many cases.
So therefore I expect that some women will not nod their heads with you.
Now when you begin to understand these things and go out on a limb like you have you will now have the attack arrow aimed at you, as in AmericanforLiberty, calling you a shill for Hillary in another thread..
Thanks for the support and clarifications. This has been a remarkably educational experience for me. It looks like this discussion is over, though.
It leaves me wondering what else to do with the ideas. No clue at the moment.
Oh, Well.
Take a little time to check out her record before you say she didn’t do anything except be in the White House., this is just a small bit of her record, there is much more from High School through Collge, in ARkansaw as well.
Wikipedia link
I posted this in the wrong place, sorry, should have been under American for Liberty, not meant as a comment on the diary, Rick.