|
|
Post by flanz on Sept 29, 2016 18:00:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peano on Sept 29, 2016 18:06:01 GMT
Yep. Read this yesterday. Like.
|
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Sept 29, 2016 18:20:02 GMT
I'm getting tired of people telling me I hate Hillary Clinton or telling me why I'm not voting for her based on what they think my reasons are.
I'm also tired of people telling me I hate or dislike strong women when most of the people I look up to are strong women.
I don't hate Hillary Clinton, I'm just not voting for her.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 18:36:35 GMT
How does that article reconcile with the fact that most people who don't like Hillary can name at least one woman they'd vote for, for President, if not a whole list of women?
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Sept 29, 2016 19:12:58 GMT
As if it isn't demeaning enough that a male author is attempting to tell women what they think, here we have another bullshit blog post attempting to shame women into voting for a woman, Madeleine Albright-style. --  If you're already a misogynist, you're going to hate Clinton. Just like if you're a racist, you probably don't like Obama very much. Regardless of party. So is some of the criticism of Clinton based on sexism? Sure, of course. But is all of it? Even a majority? Hell no. There are scores of valid Clinton criticisms that do not require misogyny to make. It's a fallacy of composition: "B" exists inside of "A." Therefore, "A" is the same as "B." I'm not saying "B" (misogyny) doesn't exist. But its existence doesn't do jack squat to unmake "A." Whatever, I'm over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 29, 2016 19:42:57 GMT
I'm getting tired of people telling me I hate Hillary Clinton or telling me why I'm not voting for her based on what they think my reasons are. I'm also tired of people telling me I hate or dislike strong women when most of the people I look up to are strong women. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, I'm just not voting for her. That. I would love to vote for a female presidential candidate - but I'm not voting for one simply because she's female. I respect myself and other women too much for that. I'm going to vote for the candidate that I think will be the best choice for president - without taking sex/gender/race/culture/religion etc...into account. For that matter I would have loved to have voted for any candidate that wasn't a white, Protestant male simply because I think we're overdue more diversity in politics but again - I'm not going to vote FOR or AGAINST a candidate based on their sex/gender/race/culture/religion etc... I respect HRC for the time/effort/work she's put into getting to where she is now. But I disagree with her politically and will not vote for her. (for the record, I'm not voting for Trump either - and I do NOT respect him at all) |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Sept 29, 2016 19:47:31 GMT
FWIW, there is no way in hell I would ever have voted for Carly Fiorina either. Or Nancy Pelosi (if either of these persons had nominated).
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 29, 2016 19:51:30 GMT
Isn't this the third thread that's been started on why people hate Hillary which really summarizes into you hate strong women? I think they might even be the same articles, but maybe not - Huff Puff isn't even trying to pretend to be unbiased for this election. Let me tell you - the continued onslaught has made this non-Hillary hater, wonder if maybe I should hate her. ETA - it looks like annabelle didn't post a separate thread - she posted this same article on page 2 of [Politics] As if it's possible to have unbiased moderating: 2peasrefugees.boards.net/thread/49636/politics-unbiased-moderating?page=2Then of course we had the - you just can't appreciate a flawed woman thread: 2peasrefugees.boards.net/thread/49468/hillary-taught-empathize-flawed-women |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 29, 2016 19:56:41 GMT
From the article.... Oh Hell NO! That statement is 100% false for me. I disagree with Hillary Clinton and have disagreed with her for over 25 years on a point by point basis. One more crapshoot telling me what they think I think and why and getting it completely wrong. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 20:04:40 GMT
FWIW, there is no way in hell I would ever have voted for Carly Fiorina either. Or Nancy Pelosi (if either of these persons had nominated). I love Carly Fiorina! |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 29, 2016 20:14:55 GMT
How does that article reconcile with the fact that most people who don't like Hillary can name at least one woman they'd vote for, for President, if not a whole list of women? Those women aren't running. Hillary is. And of the litany of reasons people give for disliking her, some huge percentage is ridiculously, jaw-droppingly, sexist. It's draped in a lot of pretty talk but it all comes down to the same thing. When you hate a woman for doing exactly the same damn things that generations of male politicians have done with no real repercussions, when you blame a woman for not leaving her cheating husband, when you weave tales about her imminent demise because she got sick on the campaign trail, when you fault her for being ambitious, for Pete's sake ... that is sexism. General you, of course. |
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,521 
|
Post by jayfab on Sept 29, 2016 20:20:05 GMT
How does that article reconcile with the fact that most people who don't like Hillary can name at least one woman they'd vote for, for President, if not a whole list of women? Those women aren't running. Hillary is. And of the litany of reasons people give for disliking her, some huge percentage is ridiculously, jaw-droppingly, sexist. It's draped in a lot of pretty talk but it all comes down to the same thing. When you hate a woman for doing exactly the same damn things that generations of male politicians have done with no real repercussions, when you blame a woman for not leaving her cheating husband, when you weave tales about her imminent demise because she got sick on the campaign trail, when you fault her for being ambitious, for Pete's sake ... that is sexism.General you, of course. YUPPERS SaveSave |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 20:41:50 GMT
How does that article reconcile with the fact that most people who don't like Hillary can name at least one woman they'd vote for, for President, if not a whole list of women? Those women aren't running. Hillary is. And of the litany of reasons people give for disliking her, some huge percentage is ridiculously, jaw-droppingly, sexist. It's draped in a lot of pretty talk but it all comes down to the same thing. When you hate a woman for doing exactly the same damn things that generations of male politicians have done with no real repercussions, when you blame a woman for not leaving her cheating husband, when you weave tales about her imminent demise because she got sick on the campaign trail, when you fault her for being ambitious, for Pete's sake ... that is sexism. General you, of course. Oh, but of course you know the point was that if they WERE running, there are plenty of people who WOULD vote for them -proving it has nothing to do with a dislike of strong women. But your dismissal was just another, in a long line of efforts, to dismiss any resistance to Hillary. Complete with the SEXIST label. Just like all the other labels spewed at those who disagree with any of the Left's version of "the only correct answer". We've seen it time and time again. Eventually they all boil down to "you're a RACIST, SEXIST, BROWN PEOPLE HATING, XENOPHOBIC, MYSOGYNISTIC, HOMOPHOBE", topped off with such predictable accusations of "tit for tat" "I don't like your source" as well as the never ending list of ways to personally attack those that won't bend to "your" way of thinking. The general article, the continual posting of it and all the posts saying the same thing or similar, are just constant attempts to dismiss valid reasons for not liking or not voting for Hillary. Do people really believe they're going to shame people into liking her when they don't, or voting for her when they don't want to? The thought process behind the pushing, shaming and piling on is mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, illogical, for all the "logic" being pushed.  |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Sept 29, 2016 20:41:59 GMT
FWIW, there is no way in hell I would ever have voted for Carly Fiorina either. Or Nancy Pelosi (if either of these persons had nominated). I love Carly Fiorina! Well, my DH worked for HP before and during Carly Fiorina. We have very good reason for disliking despising her. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 20:45:17 GMT
😬 I understand.
I liked how prepared & quick witted she was...never backing down from a question or avoiding them.
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 29, 2016 20:48:03 GMT
Just a rhetorical question...
Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women?
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 29, 2016 21:02:46 GMT
How does that article reconcile with the fact that most people who don't like Hillary can name at least one woman they'd vote for, for President, if not a whole list of women? Those women aren't running. Hillary is. And of the litany of reasons people give for disliking her, some huge percentage is ridiculously, jaw-droppingly, sexist. It's draped in a lot of pretty talk but it all comes down to the same thing. When you hate a woman for doing exactly the same damn things that generations of male politicians have done with no real repercussions, when you blame a woman for not leaving her cheating husband, when you weave tales about her imminent demise because she got sick on the campaign trail, when you fault her for being ambitious, for Pete's sake ... that is sexism. General you, of course. I don't like the political positions whether they are held by a man or a woman. I blame Hillary for actively and nastily discrediting Women Of Bill (also known as WOB) and then saying that all women need to be believed when they say they have been assaulted and/or raped. Allergies can create long-lasting coughs. Frankly, I've never seen Hillary looking better than she has these past several months. HOWEVER - the woman had pneumonia and was up close and personal with the public which included children without disclosing how ill she was. Non-contagious pneumonia isn't really a thing. You may have pneumonia and not be actively contagious because you're on medication that is effectively treating it, but that's not the same thing. Ambition is good. Blind ambition is not. True for women as much as it is true for men. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 29, 2016 21:08:17 GMT
The thought process behind the pushing, shaming and piling on is mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, illogical, for all the "logic" being pushed.  This board has become another arm of MSNBC for all intents and purposes. The political threads in general represent less than half of the US population. They are derisive, dismissive, and guilty of sweeping bias and generalizations. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 29, 2016 21:09:16 GMT
Just a rhetorical question... Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women? Of course there's an unconscious bias against women - hell there's a conscious bias against women. That does not make these articles any more compelling. The people who hate Hillary because she's a woman, don't give a flying fig that they're sexist. And the people who are not supporting her for a variety of reasons beginning with the letter after her name (that's the D for Democrat not the C for Clinton, although she's in the same boat as poor Jeb on carrying your family's baggage) get sick and tired of hearing that the only reason you can't like her is that she's a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 29, 2016 21:12:19 GMT
Those women aren't running. Hillary is. And of the litany of reasons people give for disliking her, some huge percentage is ridiculously, jaw-droppingly, sexist. It's draped in a lot of pretty talk but it all comes down to the same thing. When you hate a woman for doing exactly the same damn things that generations of male politicians have done with no real repercussions, when you blame a woman for not leaving her cheating husband, when you weave tales about her imminent demise because she got sick on the campaign trail, when you fault her for being ambitious, for Pete's sake ... that is sexism. General you, of course. Just like all the other labels spewed at those who disagree with any of the Left's version of "the only correct answer". We've seen it time and time again. Eventually they all boil down to "you're a RACIST, SEXIST, BROWN PEOPLE HATING, XENOPHOBIC, MYSOGYNISTIC, HOMOPHOBE, topped off with such predictable accusations of "tit for tat" "I don't like your source" as well as the never ending list of ways to personally attack those that won't bend to "your" way of thinking. The general article, the continual posting of it and all the posts saying the same thing or similar, are just constant attempts to dismiss valid reasons for not liking or not voting for Hillary. Do people really believe they're going to shame people into liking her when they don't, or voting for her when they don't want to? The thought process behind the pushing, shaming and piling on is mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, illogical, for all the "logic" being pushed. No. MY point was that it's easy to say, oh, I'd vote for a woman. When a strong woman candidate actually presents herself, you (general you) find a million nonsense reasons to hate her. I'm not talking about, you disagree with her politics. I'm talking about the crap nonsense. Not a political thread goes by that we don't hear EMAILS! MEAN! AMBITIOUS! BENGHAZI!* STAMINA! The mere fact that such an utterly repulsive candidate as Donald Trump is running so close to Hillary in polls is evidence of sexism. He would be unthinkable to most people under normal circumstances. Considering that she has done nothing that is actually justifiable as a basis for the white-hot hate she seems to elicit, it seems apparent there is buried sexism messing with some people's minds. I've said it before, I don't deny most people would vote for a woman they liked. But the vitriol directed at Hillary is in a class by itself. The rest of your post is pure frothing. No need for me to respond. *and no, to head off the inevitable attack, I don't think Benghazi is crap nonsense. I think it was a horrible tragedy for those men, their families, and our country. But I also think it has been turned into a political bomb to be lobbed at will in Hillary's direction. In no way does she deserve this treatment. No male president or SOS has been held to this kind of standard for something that went wrong on his watch. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 29, 2016 21:14:20 GMT
Just a rhetorical question... Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women? I don't agree that there is an unconscious racial bias. At least not to the extent that I'm supposed to be a good little girl and just accept. To the contrary, the assumption of this universal unconscious racial bias has created unnecessary division. Most racial or sexual bias I've come across has actually been pretty openly understood as such by the person(s) who held the bias. |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 29, 2016 21:16:03 GMT
Just a rhetorical question... Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women? I don't doubt that there are people who will NOT vote for HRC because she is female. I am equally convinced that there are people who are voting FOR her strictly because she is female. I REFUSE to believe that that everyone (or even a majority) who is NOT voting for HRC is doing so because she is female and/or they are unconsciously biased against her for sexist reasons. Just as I REFUSE to assume that every woman who is voting FOR HRC is doing it based on her being female. I would like to believe that my fellow American voters have more depth to them that that - that they are looking at the issues and the platforms and their records in making their decisions. I know I consider myself to be an educated voter and I'm offended by having it assumed that I won't vote for HRC because I'm biased against women |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 29, 2016 21:18:44 GMT
Just a rhetorical question... Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women? Of course there's an unconscious bias against women - hell there's a conscious bias against women. That does not make these articles any more compelling. The people who hate Hillary because she's a woman, don't give a flying fig that they're sexist. And the people who are not supporting her for a variety of reasons beginning with the letter after her name (that's the D for Democrat not the C for Clinton, although she's in the same boat as poor Jeb on carrying your family's baggage) get sick and tired of hearing that the only reason you can't like her is that she's a woman. I don't think anyone has ever said that the only reason people don't like her is that she's a woman, any more than anyone has ever said you must vote for her because she is a woman, a charge I often hear thrown around by the right. For me, at least, the issue is the vitriol and out-of-proportion anger directed at her. I think much of it is fueled by unconscious sexism. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 29, 2016 21:19:32 GMT
Not a political thread goes by that we don't hear EMAILS! MEAN! AMBITIOUS! BENGHAZI!* STAMINA! WATERGATE! I lived through that time and I fully believe that Hillary's abominable incompetence from beginning to now of Benghazi have not only disqualified her to be Commander and Chief, but are deserving of criminal charges. How many people continued to trumpet how wonderful Richard Nixon was after the details of Watergate emerged? And look at the difference here with Hillary Clinton! Because.... she's a woman. Because she's a Clinton. Because she's a Democrat. None of those reasons are good enough for me. Sorry, not sorry. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 16:44:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 21:20:41 GMT
Oh, but of course you know the point was that if they WERE running, there are plenty of people who WOULD vote for them -proving it has nothing to do with a dislike of strong women. But your dismissal was just another, in a long line of efforts, to dismiss any resistance to Hillary. Complete with the SEXIST label. Just like all the other labels spewed at those who disagree with any of the Left's version of "the only correct answer". We've seen it time and time again. Eventually they all boil down to "you're a RACIST, SEXIST, BROWN PEOPLE HATING, XENOPHOBIC, MYSOGYNISTIC, HOMOPHOBE, topped off with such predictable accusations of "tit for tat" "I don't like your source" as well as the never ending list of ways to personally attack those that won't bend to "your" way of thinking. The general article, the continual posting of it and all the posts saying the same thing or similar, are just constant attempts to dismiss valid reasons for not liking or not voting for Hillary. Do people really believe they're going to shame people into liking her when they don't, or voting for her when they don't want to? The thought process behind the pushing, shaming and piling on is mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, illogical, for all the "logic" being pushed. No. MY point was that it's easy to say, oh, I'd vote for a woman. When a strong woman candidate actually presents herself, you (general you) find a million nonsense reasons to hate her. I'm not talking about, you disagree with her politics. I'm talking about the crap nonsense. Not a political thread goes by that we don't hear EMAILS! MEAN! AMBITIOUS! BENGHAZI!* STAMINA! The mere fact that such an utterly repulsive candidate as Donald Trump is running so close to Hillary in polls is evidence of sexism. He would be unthinkable to most people under normal circumstances. Considering that she has done nothing that is actually justifiable as a basis for the white-hot hate she seems to elicit, it seems apparent there is buried sexism messing with some people's minds. I've said it before, I don't deny most people would vote for a woman they liked. But the vitriol directed at Hillary is in a class by itself. The rest of your post is pure frothing. No need for me to respond.
*and no, to head off the inevitable attack, I don't think Benghazi is crap nonsense. I think it was a horrible tragedy for those men, their families, and our country. But I also think it has been turned into a political bomb to be lobbed at will in Hillary's direction. In no way does she deserve this treatment. No male president or SOS has been held to this kind of standard for something that went wrong on his watch. There's one I forgot to add to the list of ever present, predictable accusations meant to dismiss opposing views. That's one we see a lot, I don't know how I forgot it.  |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 29, 2016 21:22:45 GMT
Not a political thread goes by that we don't hear EMAILS! MEAN! AMBITIOUS! BENGHAZI!* STAMINA! WATERGATE! I lived through that time and I fully believe that Hillary's abominable incompetence from beginning to now of Benghazi have not only disqualified her to be Commander and Chief, but are deserving of criminal charges. How many people continued to trumpet how wonderful Richard Nixon was after the details of Watergate emerged? And look at the difference here with Hillary Clinton! Because.... she's a woman. Because she's a Clinton. Because she's a Democrat. None of those reasons are good enough for me. Sorry, not sorry. Where was your anger when 241 Marines died in Beirut? Was it Ronald Reagan's fault? His DOD? Should people have gone to prison? How about Iran-contra? Reagan and Bush really took a hit for that one. Oh, wait. |
|
|
|
Post by wezee on Sept 29, 2016 21:24:14 GMT
I want to cast my vote for the person that I think will do the best job. I don't care if that person is male,female,trans,black,white or green for that matter. Should HRC lose, being female won't even crack the top ten. Frankly, I don't like either Clinton or Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Sept 29, 2016 21:27:06 GMT
I don't agree that there is an unconscious racial bias. At least not to the extent that I'm supposed to be a good little girl and just accept. Except that science says there is. And not just one study of ten people at some hippie liberal college. Over and over studies have shown we as human beings have unconscious racial bias which permeates humanity no matter where they come from or what their cultural upbringing was. Yale just published a study about preschool teachers unconscious bias against their black male students. Study after study has shown things like two resumes or two applications for housing or surveys rating the perception of a customer service agent, identical except one has a "black" name and one has a "white" name get dramatically different response rates. Unconscious racial bias is a thing. Not accepting that is a conscious racial bias. |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Sept 29, 2016 21:30:14 GMT
Just a rhetorical question... Why is it that people are so quick to agree that there is a possibility that there is a unconscious racial bias, but not that there might be an unconscious bias against women? A very good question. A friend was going on about Hillary's age and how that alone was reason enough not to vote for her. He was silent when I pointed out her Republican opponent was a year plus older and male, putting him statistically closer to a health crisis and/or death. |
|
|
|
Post by sugarmama on Sept 29, 2016 21:31:38 GMT
was this board around then? Oh wait--I was growing up when Reagan was President.
|
|
