If we are the ones we have been waiting for, then we have met the enemy and he is us.

arguments. Make an argument. Come on you can do it.

Define please.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Alice Walker - In Search of Our Mother’s Garden, Toni Morrison; Maya Angelou; Paula Giddings - When and Where I Enter; Anna Julia Cooper, Fannie Lou Hamer; SOUJURNER TRUTH; Harriet Tubman; Johnetta Cole; you know . . . womanism.

than your hurt?! I don't begrudge X's pain for Michelle and Barry, and I dont' ask her to feel my pain for Hillary. Let's feel the pain together.

There's no engagement, there's no discussion here. Both sides are at fault and, yes, if you are involved in a campaign, Michelle Obama, you're going to get hit. Chelsea's taken hers, Bill's taken his and now Michelle can take hers. She's not off limits.

I love this job!

Number one, I think referring to either candidate as an "affirmative action baby" is disrespectful and rude, and has no place in our discourse.

Number two, could a woman with Obama's resume be considered a serious candidate for President.

Are there some outright racist fucks in my state? Duh, Yes. They vote Republican.

Are there some Democrats who won't vote for a black man? Duh, yes. These fucks are about equal to the Democrats who won't vote for a woman, so they balance each other out.

Are there plenty of well meaning Democrats who still hold to racist ideas? Duh, of course. Everyone in this country is educated to be racist. Period. Full Stop.

Should Wright be a legitimate issue? No, a white politican's pastor would never be an issue, even though many on the netroots have tried to make it so in previous elections, it just backfired in this one. But the problem with Wright, to many white people that I know, is this.

White people, believe it or not, understand "black anger". They feel it is perfectly justified. They know that if they had been shit on and kicked on systematically, they way blacks have been with the institution that is the US Government, they would be justifiably pissed off, too.

What white people are afraid of is retribution. So when you have someone like Wright, who to a lot of white people that attend pretty Plain Jane churches, he is seen as reactionary and desiring of retribution from white people, for something that most of us agree is a bad thing, and needed to be stopped.

They don't feel that Obama is their ally, which poor white people need as much as poor black people. Obama used the existing race divides in this country, to prevent the poor blacks and poor whites, and poor latinos from working together, and he needs to be castigated for it.

So I think it's right that the GOP will go after Michelle Obama? No, but I didn't think it was right when they went after Teresa Heinz Kerry, Tipper Gore, or Hillary Clinton, but that won't stop them, and neither will Obama admonishing them not to go there(while continually interruption or speaking over his wife I might add).

And wow.

Just remeber, at the heart of nearly every lynching is a white woman.

Yeah, a white woman who was viewed as the property of the white men who did the lynching. Nice Unity you got there.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I am not a fucking racist. Most of my family in rural America who are not voting for Obama are not fucking racists. I'm sick of being called one every time I criticize Obama.

As for Michelle Obama she said something stupid. It's going to be used and taken out of context just as Hillary's "baking cookies" quote was used and taken out of context (it was actually a part of a longer statement about the balance and trade offs women make). In this regard, she isn't being treated any differently than Hillary was in 1992 or how other wives have been treated. I thought Obama's attempt at defending her was lame because he cut her off and then offered this very professorial defense. First, he didn't need to cut her off. I thought she was much more impressive than he was, frankly, Second, if he's going to cut her off because she's his wife and he doesn't want people fucking with her, then a little emotion might not be such a bad thing to show as a political matter. Thirdly, I have defended Michelle Obama on this blog and others from the rumor that there's some videotape out there of her railing against "whitey" because I don't believe it and I find it to be a racist smear job by the GOP.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the fact that Obama is black gives him the right to go around calling female Senators cutie and female factory workers and reporters sweetie. And then apologize with the lie that he calls all kinds of people sweetie. You and I both know that's not true. He calls women sweetie and he does it in a derogatory and demeaning way, designed - especially in that reporter's case - to put them in their place. That Obama is an African American who has also suffered discrimination does not give him a pass on using sexist, demeaning language. There is a long history of sexism within the African American community, but that doesn't make it right.

Finally, when you throw the tag of racism around so casually, you make it all the easier for the GOP and others to use actual racist attacks (rather than simply calling Obama out on his sexist bullshit) against Obama because the charge loses all credibility. The other day an Obama advisor actually said that calling Obama's foreign policy "naive" was a racist comment. Tell me, is there any criticism of Obama at all that would not be "racist." Because at a certain point it starts to get fucking ridiculous.

That monkey t-shirt was absolutely appalling. But so was the sign in front of the same guy's establishment that said he wished Hillary Clinton had married OJ. I find both appalling and said so at the time. I can't help but notice a number of Obama blogs haven't bothered even mentioning the Hillary sign. But then abuse of Clinton or her campaign isn't news.

This is not a competition. Sexism is real and sucks. Racism is real and sucks. Trying to turn it into one is a loser for women and AAs.

I'm not even going to address your comment about lynching because it is hateful and wrong and I don't even know where to start. I will say it's very nice of you to let white men - who have oppressed women and african americans and many others -completely off the hook.

FYI: One of our favorite trolls is calling you out over here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/steveau...

is what Barack Obama has done up to now to address these problems and heal the breech; and what he plans to do (specifically) as president to bring us together.

We all know we have major societal problems of economic and educational inequities that are exacerbated by racism and sexism. What we need are proposed solutions for leveling the playing field and concrete plans to realize them.

Can you help me with this info, X?

“the overwhelming majority of those who are the chief beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women.”

There are more white women on welfare too. It's because there are more white women.

Michelle Obama? Some Republicans made a video of her talking. Her words only. WTF?

Please explain how Hillary is "the biggest affirmative action baby of them all?" How was she running around on the backs of blacks? Is she responsible for Ferraro's words via "the Clinton rules" or do you have proof Geraldine was following instructions?

BTW - Didn't prominent Obama supporters say the same thing as Ferrraro without anyone getting outraged?

You quote a racist. That's anecdotal evidence. The racist mentions the South. Obama has won most of those states.

How racist is our country? Please explain. How is feminism racist to its core? Please explain with examples.

Then you finish by blaming all white women for lynching. How exactly is lynching "returning to the public discourse, gaining a following, clothing itself in new garb?" Can you provide any examples?

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

Please explain to me why it is either rude or disrespectful. It is true. Why do we have and need afirmative action? Becasue there have deen other actions, like the establishment of the nation, that explicitly and systematically through law, economy and violence, to actions to suppress the endeavors of first Native Americans, African Americans, adn then women. No, all pain and suffering is not equal. A lynching (death) is not the same as disenfranchisement. Genocide is not the same as apartheid (read Jim Crow until 1975). Police brutality is not the same as an insult. The threat of rape or death is not the same as sweetie. That little stunt pulled by the GOP was below board. They put her life at risk.

an equally or more competent person who would not get where they were if historical overlords had their way. (See: stereotype threat.)

The "affirmative action" program at my grad school is simple: don't throw the application away when you read the name, sex and ethnicity. I know, I sat on the admissions committee. (we are in CA so that's the most we could do.) In other words, don't look a the name, look at the resume.

The thought experiment is easy: take the resumes of each candidate, and remove the names. Tell me that someone with Obama's resume would have even gotten a call back. I'd submit that Edwards wouldn't have gotten a call back either.

Alright - let's check this out. How do you figure Clinton is an Affirmative Action benefiary? Were her grades lower than other students when she was accepted into Yale Law School? Was her internship at Yale Children's Center something that some man with higher scores than her wanted and didn't get because they wanted a woman in there? Did Bill marry her out of pity? Was her performance as chair of the Legal Services Corporation, where she not only protected the budget from planned cuts during the Reagan years but expanded budget by several million dollars, substandard? What about when she joined the Rose Law Firm? Or is it her inclusion twice in the list of the top 100 lawyers a fluke? A bone they decided to throw some chick? When she out rounding up federal funding to build medical facilities so that rural Arkansans would have better access to healthcare, was there really some guy doin' all the work? Or when she took on teacher testing? Or when she created her homeschooling program for kids who didn't have access to HeadStart - was that just some little cream puff they threw a sweetie? Maybe the fact that she is portrayed as a dominant administration force in every serious account of the clinton white house - was that people just tip toeing around her gender? Now, as senator, first she was troucing Giuliani and then a well-known, well-liked, moderate and better funded congressman from Long Island. She has a 60% approval rating the last time I checked which was several points higher than the average. Affirmative Action?

Go ahead - tell us where she performed in a substandard fashion and got ahead because of her gender.

BTW, white women as a group earn slightly more than black men as a group - both earn approximately 75% of what white males make. There is less than a 2% difference in white female income and black male income. But, white women have dramatically more college degrees than black men do. In the real world, a woman with a college degree earns about the same as a black man with a high school degree. Factor in the number of African American men with criminal records (also a result of bigotry), and the wage discrimination against women grows.

Your post was ignorant and misogynistic.

A lot of white folks in Kentucky aren’t going to vote for a black man. I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion.

There is racism in Kentucky. There is racism in all 50 of our wonderful states and I feel pretty sure if you went to the right parts of "Nebraska, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska," you could find people who will make statements much like those made by the Kentuckians quoted in The Carpetbagger Report. These remarks are ignorant, offensive, and unrealistic. After all, even the Bush administration has appointed many minorities to "positions over the white race."

However, even the Carpetbagger Report admits that the evidence is all anecdotal and the person who wrote that post is drawing conclusions way beyond anything supported by the non-existent data. S/he admits it but goes ahead and draws the conclusions anyway.

I don't find such logical tricks convincing.

Wouldn't find them convincing if they were made about the African American community, either.

The Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching was founded in November 1930 in Atlanta, Georgia, by Jessie Daniel Ames, a Texas-born southern woman active in suffrage and interracial reform movements. She and twelve founding members established the ASWPL as an arm of the Atlanta-based Commission on Interracial Cooperation, an organization working for racial harmony. The ASWPL’s founders, all active in Protestant churches and interracial organizations (they were later joined by members of Jewish women’s groups), wanted to prevent lynching by educating southern whites about its causes and prevention. They were convinced that lynchings were sanctioned murder and the result of “false chivalry,” the use by white men of white women’s virtue as an excuse for racially motivated violence against blacks. The ASWPL sought to convince white women of their responsibility to refuse to play a helpless role in that process.

from The Handbook of Texas Online

This is old history but since the subject of the role of white women as complicite in lynching has been brought up, I thought it might be relevant.

See also http://sherrychandler.com/2008/03/30/ass...

You're blaming white women for lynching? What the fuck? Talk about bigotry - you're off in freeper territory.

This is an incredibly creepy, hateful, regressive post. I was right the first time out - a toilet overflowed.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think the fact that Obama is black ...

Class, repeat after me:

Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.

Now, the reverse:

Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.

Choose black first or white first--whatever. We do walk the linear line.

So many people (too general?) refer to Obama as a "black man" as if that was that. His dead mother's dna (we're talking dna or...?) has been wiped clean off the map. You want sexism? How about accepting the annihilation of his mother's life and her genetic contribution? Guess what: Obama is a black man is racist and sexist! A goddamn double bill!

No matter who you vote for, just remember:

Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.
Obama is a White & Black man.

Now, the reverse:

Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.
Obama is a Black & White man.

Why bother with such designations? Because, in terms of Obama's genetic background, it is the quantifiable truth.

++++

Take ownership of the word, use the language against itself, make it mean what you want it to mean, make it proud.

Here’s the thing, Xeno; it’s a matter of shining a light in the darkness, when everyone is looking the other way pretending something isn’t happening. I don’t know what got said about Michelle, but I gather it was somehow offensive; I do know that it was widely condemned because that’s what all the headlines implied in the articles I didn’t read. I did see a photo of the T-shirt, and isn’t that just typical low-brow asinine cracker humor? Widely condemned, as it should be.

In this country, today, in the public sphere, it is no longer acceptable to use racial epithets or caricatures for black people. Even flat out racists know that, and only a few fools still try – when they do, it backfires. A huge, overwhelming chorus of voices rises up, and they are ridiculed – as they should be. Nobody gets away with that sort of thing anymore, and that’s good. (Code words, oh yes, still with us; another generation and even they will be verboten.)

There is now, IMHO, a bit of an overshoot in political correctness when it comes to racial epithets, at least with ones seen as directed towards AfAms. The whole business about the Clintons being racist, or encouraging racist behavior, is a false construct – since when is “fairytale” a racist term? The sensitivity towards racist slang, fully justified sensitivity, mind you, has some people seeing words or phrases as racist where no such intent exists; remember niggardly, the perfectly fine Scandinavian word for penurious that cost some poor fellow his career because some uneducated fools were offended by the sound of it, never mind the meaning.

Meanwhile, the use of misogynist terminology is everywhere. It is imbedded in the language, imbedded in the way in which women are viewed and treated. It is so ubiquitous that even people of reasonable intelligence can’t see it. The MSNBC crew are mystified, honestly mystified, by Hillary’s complaints about their language; they are so used to that terminology, that POV, that women can be publically, casually derided and belittled, they see nothing wrong with it. With the current state of the language, a David Shuster can say “Pimping Chelsea” as casually as a 30’s redneck would have said “Nigger Ho” and was just as bewildered as to what might be wrong with doing so. Our world has largely moved past the free use of racist language, and that’s a good thing; with misogynist language, not at all.

But again, as with racial epithets, there is a little bit of oversensitivity at work right now, a little bit of overshoot in the outrage. “Sweetie” could be an example of that. In many parts of the country, such words are common forms of casual endearment. They are not mocking or condemning but just the opposite; they are simply shorthand offerings of warmth. All over the South, one hears “Honey” or “Baby” or “Sweetie” from men to women and women to men and women to women (men to men, not so much) in everyday conversation. In Eastern Europe and in Canada, women call men and other women “Darling” all the time. Is all of that wrong, or demeaning? Depends, I suppose, on the context, like so many other language issues, but generally it is not.

Barak Obama is not a misogynist. With what we know about his mother, her strength and her independence, he wasn’t raised that way. What we know about Michelle, she would slap him silly if he pulled that crap. Are some of his supporters misogynists? Yes. Will he take their support and their votes? Sure as hell. Will he openly condemn misogyny? I expect so; right after the nomination is concluded. He’s a politician, running for office; he’ll take every vote he can get.

Same for Clinton. Neither Hillary nor Bill is racist. Not a bigoted bone in either body. Are some of her supporters racial bigots? Yes. Will she take their support and votes? Sure as hell. Will she openly condemn racism? I expect so; right after the nomination is concluded. She’s a politician, running for office; she’ll take every vote she can get.

You ask why there’s uproar here about misogyny but not as much about racism. I think, and speaking only for myself, that it is a matter of doing what needs doing and there’s only so much time in the day. The racist stuff, thousands of voices, no, millions of voices, will rise up in outrage. Adding my voice is superfluous. But with misogyny the voice I raise will be heard, and might actually make a difference. Of the long list of things that are wrong in the world, I have to choose what I speak out on. I have to try and make the maximum impact from one little voice.

If I write about racism in America today I will be one of a thousand thousand such voices; I will be lost in the roar. But if I write, as a man, condemning misogyny, I can be heard and I can perhaps sway some minds. I can make it OK to treat women like equals and not like chattel. I can make it not right to casually demean women through the language. In some small way, I can push the culture in the direction I want it to go - to where it needs to be.

It isn’t for me an either/or choice in terms of what offends me. I’m as offended by “darkie” as I am by “ho”. It’s simply a matter of leverage; where can I apply pressure to make a change? There are plenty of people taking care of racist talk, and after a lot of years of trying we have the idiot overt bigots on the run. Long ways to go on the whole equality thing for blacks and other racial minorities, for sure, but the language battle is being won now and that is hugely important. It is, I truly believe, just one generation away from language equality to social equality. I condemn racist epithets, without reservation. Speaking out against misogynist epithets doesn’t mean I’m suddenly abandoning that position. Misogyny is the next language battle to be fought, that’s all.

Does that make sense? If not, tell me and I’ll try again. I hope we’re OK with each other on this, Sweetie; I truly do.

(Nice job poking a stick in the hornet's nest; I always admire a brave agitator. Good to be reading you here again.)

failure to connect with working-class whites.

There is an unspoken premise contained inside that Obama is undisputably the best candidate, therefore the fault is with the voters rather than the candidate. Failure to vote for Obama = racism.

I'm a white male, but I know racism still exists. Many times in my life I have seen an otherwise rational person open their mouth and spew out bigotry and hatred. But those people are the exceptions, not the norm.

The ignorant and stupid will always be with us.

But Aeryl is wrong, the racists and misogynists don't cancel each other out, because they are usually the same people. Bigots are equal opportunity haters.

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

or invisible now--due to this campaign.

White working class voters especially are just another voting bloc to be addressed--like other blocs and groups.

(of course, rich and powerful white men are still funding-- and the puppetmasters for-- all the candidates, as usual)

how you understand misogyny and how it fits here. Is a position or person somehow beyond critique because of gender or sex? Is animus in a particular instance sufficeint reason for extension to a general catgeory?

xenophon -

your comment is just rhetorical claptrap. an ill-tempered diatribe in the guise of a contrarian argument.

you cite:

[“the overwhelming majority of those who are the chief beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women.” ]

do you not rejoice when any american gets a hand up from affirmative action?

are there not more white women in this country than any other demographic subgroup - by miliions?. so is it not to be expected that "the overwhelming majority ..."?

if the statement you cite is true, is there something wrong with that fact? has some white woman who benefited from affirmative action taken something from you or yours? Or is there not enough affirmative action to go around, enough for all?

affirmative action is not a zero-sum game where some win and some lose.

go back in your cave and sulk some more.

do a follow-up on calling my shot but...

This election has brought out how racist the country still is. How racist, to its core, feminism is (I don’t include black feminism or womanism).

Simply Bullshit.

I'm actually not going to offer anything other than that lest I get too meta.

I'd much rather go smoke.

Not gonna harsh my high man.

I don’t include black feminism or womanism

LOL.

Stop.

**sorry LAM-bert!!!, but no I've got nothing good or nice to say and this can only end poorly so I'm just sayin my piece and leaving it at that.

i didn't mean to step on your line.

apologies.

if the statement you cite is true, is there something wrong with that fact?

Here's the rub...

when I hear people complain about Affirmative Action (black got a job over a more deserving white, so it should end), I reply with

"The largest group to benefit from AA are white women." as the defense of the program.

Xen did some special judo on this one.

And notice the source of the link...

"Male Matters..."

If that isn't snark? LOL Fuck it I'm going to smoke like I said I was.

To Kill a Mockingbird

Xenophon: Just remember, at the heart of nearly every lynching is* a white woman.

Therefore, white women cause lynching -- are you saying that; can you define "heart" in this context?

Sigh, intolerance comes in many tiresome forms, and the last time I looked, we are all on this ship of fools together. And despite lambert's urging for a serious consideration of you and your post, you cannot expect me to feel that you mean well or wish a further progressive dialog to occur with the aggression inherent in your theoretically simplistic premise.

I am leaving for now & don't wish you to take it as me ducking out on the "argument" you demandingly crave. I'll be happy to argue toe-to-toe, after a previously made obligation, but in the meantime I ask you to acknowledge ["own"] the rage that gave energy to your post, and I'll consider your premise that my kind [white women] are [present tense, which you used: "is," see above*] at the heart of lynching.

But in the meantime, I feel like you'd like me to wear the bullseye, in a game of "Pin the Tail on the Honky." [I regret and apologize in advance if that's too much snark, but it just seemed too obvious not to use -- as sarcasm. I'm actually trembling with fear.]

These legacies of slavery of men and women of all colors and races is deep and wide and terrifying, and paved with blood and tears. But I did not cause it, and I always strive to undo it if I'm able, whatever my circumstances and wherever life leads me to be standing.

And after all is said and done, I get to have my dignity insulted [your "panties in a bunch"] over a misogynistic remark IF I WANT, 'cause that's my thang.

Later. Anybody need anything while I'm at the store? Leah, some puppies? CD...stakes for your tomatoes?

Am I blaming white women for lynching? Aside from specfic cases, absolutely not. However, to deny that , in reality or symbolically, on the other side of that dark, hulking, smoldering, piece of slaughtered flesh hanging from the may pole is a woman. To deny that lynching is the politics of the body and domination is farce. To pretend that this drama was played out over any other image or rationale than white supremacy is lunacy. And to pretend that the ultimate symbol and myth surrounding this event was not a white woman is just cowardice. That is why it bothers us. That ugly little truth that we push into the closet as we whisper like a mantra "I am not Racist!"

Lynching is a systematic form of terror that supports and under girds an economy and a culture. That culture is based on codes, laws, written often, by men. Rooted however, in the condition of one's status in this "American Society." The idea of American equality is a myth. America is built on the idea that providence (read GOD) will reward hard work with prosperity. We shorten it to the concept of merit. However, this has never been the case. And is not the case to day. You see all things being equal America is a land of equal opportunity where hard work is met with reward, and the ability to rise up, to make progress, to evolve is limited only by one’s “god given” ability. American laws are “just and impartial;” we are “a nation of laws not of men.” None of these things are true. Not a single damn one. Never has been but, someday may be.

Now, ask yourself, what the hell happens if all things aren’t equal? This incredibly efficient machine, this perfect equilibrium that removes all resistance to advancement save perseverance, talent, providence and will, that levels all other vicissitudes of life – how powerful a mechanism that must be. I mean think about the “promise of America.”

Hey you over there! Tired, Hungry, You! Come over here, and if you have talent and grind and a little luck you can be more here than you are there.

That is a hell of proposition.

It’s a proposition I believe.

I mean think about it. How powerful, efficient, and effective a system of government and economy must be in order to remove all the burdens to advancement save, talent, hard, work and luck. That is a hell of a machine. A very powerful machine. Capable of phenomenal feats. I think America is that.

However, while I believe in the efficiency of the machine, its efficiency has nothing to do with the initial conditions in which it is operating.

But herein lies the rub: The American system of political economy is incredibly efficient and powerful. Therefore, it does a marvelous job at perpetuating its initial conditions. We live in a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Roughly half of which are for non-violent drug offences. Blacks and Hispanics make up more than half of all people in Jail. And yet private companies make a profit from the incarceration drug arrests and immigration violations.

Lynching was a system of terror that supported the plantation agriculture in the south and industrial production in the north. The agents of this system of terror had names like Ku Klux Klan, Pinkerton, Wells Fargo, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or just Police. Today the names remain the same, and so do the targets – the rank and file of Americans. (Hillary is not rank and file and Barack can’t personally lend his campaign 10 million. But, I digress).

Where African Americans were concerned this system of suppression, oppression – terror, had a tried and true formula. Instead of drug offences, like they use today, they used the rape laws held over from the slave codes. This is why blacks were required to step down off sidewalks, look down (it was against the law to look directly at a white person – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emit_Till ">reckless eyeballing
they called it), address every white person as sir or mam no matter their age.

The pattern goes like this: a charge of rape, sexual misconduct or threat is charged against a black man, either by a white woman or in the name of a white woman. The rumor spreads, the indignation grows, the fear of a black beast grows and . . . we find said black male swinging charred and dismembered from a poplar tree. The variations are endless. But they all pretty much begin the same: “That nigger raped a white woman.”

That is the Logic of lynching. Yeah, I know makes you squirm don’t it. Barack had a mother; has a wife, and two daughters . . . but sure he is misogynist. May be. But really, is sweetie the best evidence?

(Well, except me. That should be a rule.)

The difference is in the basis for the criticism. I won’t vote for Obama because I don’t like his policies = fair. I won’t vote for Obama because I’m afraid he’ll do awful things because he’s a black = racist bigotry. I won’t vote for Clinton because I don’t like her policies = fair. I won’t vote for Clinton because I’m afraid she’ll do awful things because she’s a woman = misogynist bigotry. Plenty of both of those bigotries still going around.

It is still about property, and domination. Many people still view blacks as escaped property, as chattel that have gotten too proud and need to keep their place. Many people still view women as escaping property, as chattel that should know their place. Both are vile. Neither one is more ignoble than the other. Both must be condemned at every opportunity.

Xeno, you mentioned – in all caps, so I noticed particularly – Sojourner Truth. You do know about her falling out with Fredrick Douglas, over voting rights? She, and the many white women who had fought for the end of slavery and the full enfranchisement of blacks since before the Civil War, were rightly offended by the Fifteenth Amendment giving voting rights to black men while leaving women without a ballot voice. This after Douglas had spoken out early in support of full suffrage, in recompense for the many kindnesses and support he had received from white women and, as he himself said, because it was the right thing to do.

Douglas made a political deal, accepting voting rights for black men because he felt that it was all he could get; that if he held out for universal suffrage, he would get nothing. Truth saw it as a sellout; it was. Not always fair to look back and condemn people for the political deals they made at an earlier time, but that one surely was a betrayal of alliances. Women, he said, would just have to wait, and it was so; they had to wait for 50 years.

And don’t go get all dictionary on me. Misogyny is the blanket that covers all the sins. “Institutionalized sexism” may be more accurate in some instances, but it flows from misogyny. Hatred isn’t always expressed by violence, but often by fear and expressed as derision. Fear of women being truly equal, of women holding power, of women making decisions that benefit women instead of men making decisions that dominantly benefit men.

The language of sexism is surely hateful and misogynistic, as surely as bigoted language directed at any racial group is racist. The use of strong language to condemn that which needs condemning in no uncertain terms is, to my mind, not improper. If people don’t like being called misogynists, they should try not acting like one.

Finally, can’t we all try just a little bit harder to get along here? Too much fussing over “fairytale” and “sweetie” while the real issues go begging for discussion. A hundred and fifty years on since women and blacks first openly joined hands for universal human rights and still the arguments rage. Much of it is fueled by the ruling class, including their MSM mouthpieces.

While oppressed blacks and oppressed women fight each other in the gutter over scraps, the rich fat old white men settle more comfortably into their easy chairs and smile amongst themselves, have a quiet chuckle over how easy it is to manipulate the rubes and then send the darkie butler out to instruct the kitchen maids to serve up another helping of roasted poor babies.

We have better things to do than fight amongst ourselves.

What did she say that was stupid? Please explain.

Except for the unsubstantiated AIDS claim what did Wright say that was untrue?

Then you also know about her fall out with white feminist for their similar failure (like Douglas), to support racial reforms. American first wave feminism has a structural racial flaw that plays out till today. The first is the root in negative eugenics, which usually plays out as reproductive rights. The other is the assumption of equality that perpetuates the same patterns of exploitation and inequality, this time with women in charge. Both of those dimensions in feminism make it inherently racist, those that are conscious of these defects usually hyphenate or choose alternative nomenclature like – womanist.

"Because, in terms of Obama’s genetic background, it is the quantifiable truth."

Without a doubt. Now, what does that have to do with the reality of the socio, pollitical, cultural construct of race and how it impinges of the liberty and life chances of the individual?

Obama is a misogynist? For calling someone sweetie? Rude, perhaps, but a woman hater? You really want to call a black man a woman hater, in a room full of white women as he goes through Kentucky and Indiana. In Tennessee, you want to paint Michelle as not just unpatriotic but hostile to America. Why not just take her to the Lorain Motel. Saying that Chelsea got pimped out is not going to increase the likely hood of harm. I wouldn’t have said it. But . . . damn it . . . while folk here at Corrente may all be well versed and tolerant when it comes to issues of race. For those of us who live in a white world with Black skin. Everything is not all right. You may not be able to notice it but . . . they are ginning the image that Obama is anti white, and that is creating a very dangerous place for him and his family to be. And you do this without the slightest clue.