Gloria Steinem isn't dead and whines like a ...

It's possible that people just dislike Hillary without dismissing all female candidates.

I don't think I'm a racist, but I thought Jesse Jackson was a piss-poor Presidential candidate and I would never vote for him.

 

I really think you gals are wrong. ...

 

I understand that, Smasher, but what about those who think the governor of Alaska is nothing more than a MILF? Or this Letter to the Editor, which ran in the (N.Y.) Post-Star regarding pregnant Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)? There are a lot of people who think like this, and it's scary.

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/12/20/opinion/letters/13187860.txt

 

Depends on the region of the country. One I know of still suffers more from racism than sexism.

 

I thought it was a pretty good column, actually.

 

I said from the beginning that most of those I was hearing from were living in the past. In 2008, at least as many, probably more, people will vote for someone because they are black or female than will vote against them. I still think this is true, and Iowa with its miniscule black population proves part of that. Turns out that the wing of the countries that can't let go of the 60s has it perfect: If Hillary wins, we're racist, if Obama wins we're sexist. I bet if they tie, we're both.

 

Come on, Ron Blachut is so fucking dumb he doesn't deserve any consideration. Those are the letters you read, mumble, "shitforbrains" and give thanks that you don't know anybody that stupid.

There are a lot of people who think every football game is fixed, that government agents are going to confiscate their guns and that water flouridation is a Communist plot. There are people forming militias to fight off the black helicopters. There are extremists on every side of every issue. There are people who will dismiss Hillary out of hand because of her gender, just as there were people who wouldn't vote for JFK because he was Catholic. What can you do?

If Hillary loses, maybe it's time to look at what points she built her campaign around rather than her gender. I doubt I would vote for Hillary because her message hasn't connected with me. That doesn't mean I'll automatically discount a female candidate.

To me there's a certain arrogance in assuming a loss by her is a referendum on gender. Could be that she's just a mediocre candidate who's being outdone by people who have a more appealing platform.

 

Darn. I just came here for the picture of Diane Lane and it's gone. Off I go into my insecurity!

 

I'd like to take a moment to apologize to 21 and all of the other women on the site I offended by posting a photo of Diane Lane. It was in response to Zeke's post suggesting either Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama would make better candidates than HRC.

With that said, by the time the Gloria Steinem's op-ed was published I had already grown tired of the suggestion that I must be sexist because I currently rank John Edwards and Barack Obama ahead of HRC among the seriously flawed group of candidates from which my party is choosing its candidate. It's insulting. We don't need affirmative action within the Democratic party; we need quality candidates, regardless of gender.

 

I don't think I agree with everything Gloria Steinem wrote here, but I certainly am glad she isn't dead, and I don't think she's whining.
The guy who started this thread -- go back and read the piece that made her famous, where she went undercover as a Playboy Bunny, many many years ago. Then ask yourself if you've ever written anything that good, or important.

 

There is an undeniable underlying sexism... even misogyny ... that breezes just under the surface in our country. It's like that micro disturbance just beneath the surface of the salty sea, destined to mutate into a leviathan tsunami.

There are various behaviors that if a woman engages in, is considered a negative, while when a man does it, it is considered a plus.

Undeniably true.

 

That's not sexism -- it's a hot dog in the Notre Dame press box.