Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Well, women are childish. We know this.

Thread: 

Top blogger, A lister, Obama supporter, and "progressive" Avarosis:

Is Clinton acting out because Obama told her no to VP?

... Hillary's bizarre behavior of the past couple of days ... [may be] be due to Obama having told Hillary directly (according to the latest rumor)* that she won't be his VP. As I've written repeatedly, there's a certain illogic to Hillary's actions of late, and something is missing from the story - something that would explain what she's doing and why. An irrational, emotional response to not getting the vice presidency is certainly one theory that explains her childish and destructive behavior. It's a temper tantrum.

Avarosis.... Avarosis. Wasn't he the blogger who had a hard time making it on $75K?

Double shot? Cinnamon?

Of course, anybody who's heard Hillary speak, or seen her, knows that none of what Avarosis says is true. He wishes it were true -- for reasons I can't begin to speculate on -- but it is not true. Like all the members of the "creative class," he's trying to "create his own reality." Good luck to Avarosis. I hope he finds what he so richly deserves.

NOTE * And it would, of course, be irresponsible not to speculate, based on an unsourced rumor and no evidence at all. When you drink the Kool-Aid, the writing is the first thing to go.

NOTE One of the great benefits of this campaign is that it should have completely destroyed the idea that the "creative class" [cough] is in any way progressive, or speaking for any other constituency than its own narrow self. This is simply not progressive thinking or language. A side benefit is that they've also destroyed the "progressive" brand. Maybe now we can just return to the word "liberal," or invent something new. It's an ill wind that blows nobody good, eh?

0
No votes yet

Comments

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

(and holds up a pot and kettle too, all while admiring his lovely glass house) ; >

He's always been melodramatic, but this is above and beyond--he was better when it was directed against Dobson and Gannon/Guckert and the GOP.

Rain's picture
Submitted by Rain on

I always thought men on the left were more sexist than men on the right, despite all the superficial lip-service paid to women's rights.

Right-wing men generally have strict boundaries for women-folk's behaviour - but only as a general lip-service thing. When it comes down to it, they will overlook the individual's femaleness when it comes to talent & skills etc. They don't waste talent or resources for the group interest, no matter what gendered or racial or whatever'd package it comes in.

Not so on the left IME, they are fine with having far looser boundaries on acceptable behaviour for their women-folk, again - as a general thing, like a generic lip-service theme to equality, (words are cheap) ie when it doesn't threaten them to say so - but not when it comes down to the crunch. They can't see any further than the individual's femaleness as a threat to the group self-interest.

Submitted by lambert on

So as a crusty old unreconstructed WASP, I fit firmly into the "right wing" category. My motto is "it's all about the writing." Sigh. And I see the whole treatment of Hillary as a very simple justice issue. (Granted, I'd like a far better analytical frame, but I think that is to be developed in the context of what Blogosphere 2.0 would look like.)

Learn something new every day.

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

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

*I* never thought I was being sexist, admiring the video-constructing artistry of other Hercules fans (most of whom are females) as much as I did the stars of the videos.

But I got brought up short the other night over the to-me innocent phrase, "eye candy."

Still trying to wrap my head around that....

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

My observations have been that yes, Leftist men just have a whole nother set of gender constructs they expect women to fit into.

We are supposed to be trashy, because we have embraced our sexuality, so when we don't sleep with them, we just aren't being good enough women(the slut-shaming reversal).

While we may be pro-choice, we are also supposed to be willing to have an abortion, so when unplanned pregnancies happen and the woman doesn't want to abort, we aren't being good enough women.

We are supposed to have "moved past" outmoded constructs like marriage, but if we still want commitment, we aren't being good enough women.

We are still expected to shut up and wait our turns, we are still not allowed to be ambitious, unless it is in the service of a man.

We are supposed to tolerate being objectified, because we are putting ourselves out there, with our revealing shirts and short skirts. "You paint your nails and put on makeup, you'd be mad if men didn't notice!" They say, never considering the fact that I do these things for myself, not for their enjoyment.

I work with some very sweet Republican men, who buy into the right wing gender constructs. They may be a tad bit patronizing, wanting to carry things for me, hold open doors, apologizing for bad language that might offend my delicate sensibilities. Constantly questioning why my fiance and I aren't married(we've been "engaged" for 3 yrs now). But they are polite, and respect the job I do, and the competence I have.

I've sustained more sexist abuse from men I share political views with, than from those I don't.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

I had simply not thought about it, but what you two are saying about the different nature of right vs. left sexism rings true for me personally and my experiences.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I agree that it seems bigotry from "our" side tends to be more rooted in exploiting "liberal" views on sexuality as a cover for misogyny. This is especially prominent amongst young men--and women.

I don't think liberals are more bigoted than conservative males. At all. Conservatives exploit religion to entrench misogyny. And males of all political persuasions justify misogyny on sexual grounds behind closed doors and use misogyny as a way to establish their identity as "men" (read: not women).

Quick, somewhat OT question: I realize that "misogyny" refers to a visceral hatred for women and girls, hence, many people preferring "sexism" instead, but isn't it better to avoid including "sex" in any word used to describe something negative? Perhaps I have a one-track mind, but whenever I see the word "sex" it immediately triggers extremely positive associations so attaching it to bigotry or to rape ("sex crime," "sexual assault," "sex slavery") it can't help but frame these issues in a counterproductive way, as something positive, if not, sexy.

Basically, would you be outraged if someone exposed goodism in our society? Of course, not. Words matter.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Genderism.

And as for "sex crime" "sexual assault" and "sex slavery" there is already a perfectly good word for that.

It's called rape.

Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville does a lot of posts about how the word rape is disappearing from our discourse, and the implications of this are truly horrifying.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I have noticed that even in cases of child rape the papers use "sex" and modifiers like "inappropriate" or "underage" instead of "child rape," sexualizing what is truly a hate crime against a child. Sometimes they avoid it all together and just flat-out call it "sex." Last week, I read about a case in which a 42 year-old man raped a 9 year-old girl for years until she became pregnant at 11 and the paper described the man as having had a "sexual relationship" with the girl. Not only did they sexualize the brutality but they also basically romanticized it, making it seem as if this was between two adults.

I have heard the word rape more often in locker room "humor" than I have read in the Times coverage of actual rape cases.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

In discussing the FLDS children being returned to the compound. The reporter said the 14-year-old girl was forcibly married against her will, and after resisting her "husband" for six weeks, she was finally "forced to have sexual relations with him." That's called RAPE (I hollered at the dashboard), not "sexual relations."

The more sexist a society, the more likely a court is to find, as in Texas did today, that there is "no urgency" about systematic child rape.

Those who would call us hypocritical who are weakening in our support for Obama overlook entirely that feminism is a much larger issue than abortion rights.

Submitted by lambert on

... rape is an act.

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

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

what it's an act of kinda depends on which end of the action you find yourself, though.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by lambert on

... or a mentality, or even a pattern of behavior.

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

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

an act.
or one of a series of acts.
or part of a pattern of behavior.
but yes, an act; an instant, an incident, a decision to follow up on an impulse in a certain way, and then the required physical movements in sequence to complete that followup.

very few rapists aren't serial offenders, btw.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

...has "tantrum" programmed into his Treo, right before "water the orchids." And right _after_ "water the orchids."

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Echidne was making.

Sexism hurts women, it hurts girls, and it hurts gay men, because they too, are subjected to gendered attacks. (He's gay, he must garden!!)

Which is why you'd think someone like Aravosis would stand against sexism too, but he's too invested in his CDS to take notice.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

hurts all who get painted with them -- of any sort.

I think a lot of the Clinton hate is transference of impotence and rage against Bush and the GOP--but then Obama wouldn't be getting this much unthinking love if that were the case, i guess.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That a lot of gay men buy into a lot of sexism.

IMO, I think it is particularly virulent in gay men who can "pass" for straight, they don't get subjected to it by total strangers, their friends care too much to do it to them, so they don't really see it as a problem. And, IME, they do buy into the gender constructs to a certain extent, so they don't see the harm.

My best friend is a total femme in personality, but not in the way he puts himself out to the world(though he gardens!!) and he can be terrible about the sexism. I've heard him make horribly sexist remarks about Clinton, and also Republican women. I've had to smack him around a few times.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i think it depends on the individual and environment, etc--and society is totally sexist anyway, so it wouldn't be surprising if people were--gay or straight. I don't any guys who don't have at least one very strong female friend who we would never be sexist with or see as a lesser being.

(i think many of us are freer with language, but hopefully it's meant playfully and not demeaningly.)

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

much attention? It's kind of sad (although this whole campaign has been sad) that they are so insecure and full of self doubt that the Obamots still can't follow the rulez, ignore her. Oh, I guess they forgot they're supposed to be in "ignore" mode - if you don't acknowledge her, she'll go away.

I take all of this as fuel for Clinton's campaign heading into the convention. And why not? We've suffered through enough of this campaign season to deserve a damn good ending, right? I mean, what could be better than a full out, in your face battle on the convention floor?!! Answer: nothing. Obama couldn't put this thing away and now he's going to limp to the convention where I predict she will take the nomination. Damn the party, full steam ahead.

I love this job!

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

although OT, I think the two scariest words are 'Armed and Righteous.'

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

"COUNT THE VOTES" and all hell breaks loose... some power she's got!

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

he snorts it.

i suspect he had a few lines of K before he wrote that piece of claptrap.

anyway, consider it an excellent view into his mind.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

all former republicans... all cheerleaders in the raging sexism that has been the hallmark of this primary.

All cheering on the post-partisan BS candidate.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

and many of the regulars there.

They abandoned the sinking ship that is the GOP, join our party, and want to kick us out.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

of what it means to be a Democrat, we're called racists, dead-enders, members of the dry pussy demographics (for us ladies), ignorant, etc. because we fail to embrace the latest "post-bullshit du jour" meme. Sheesh.

Submitted by lambert on

... about invasive species?

And I also want to know how much of Obama's margin is due to cross-over votes in open primaries. Not only do we have the press picking our President, we've got Republicans picking the Democratic candidate!

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

Boston Boomer's picture
Submitted by Boston Boomer on

Avrosis' anti-Obama rants from the time of the McClurkin episode. There are also DK diaries attacking Avrosis for his anti-Obama rants. These people don't know the meaning of the word authenticity.

Historiann's picture
Submitted by Historiann on

I don't know if I'd say that right-wing sexism was more benign, although the men that Aeryl works with sound like basically decent, not terribly ideological men who can recognize and reward talent, so good on them. But, I'm familiar with the dynamic of so-called leftist men who are deeply antifeminist. Part of this has to do with the fact that some left men--especially (in my experience) but not restricted to Baby Boomer men--can't stand to be out-lefted by women, and especially not by younger feminist women. They claim that their ideology embraces feminism, and yet when it comes down to it, they're just as elitist and blind to feminist issues and concerns as any right-wing ideologue. This makes it feel like more of a betrayal, because they claim (and perhaps genuinely believe) that they're on our side, whereas the right-wingers will come right out and say that they're anti-feminist.

When I was a very young scholar, I was stalked by a senior male scholar in my field (at least my father's age, if not older) who showed up whenever I delivered a paper to argue with me. My work made some claims about manhood in the seventeenth century, and yet I think that he took my analysis about a particular historical articulation of masculinity as a personal insult. He wouldn't just argue with me--throughout the paper and the audience Q and A, he would rock back and forth in his chair, and his face would become red. It was a disturbingly personal reaction--as though I was accusing him of beating his wife or something. And this guy was a sterotypical baby-boomer left wing academic!

Submitted by lambert on

We need some sort of intermediate stage between the "treat everyone as the individual they are" concept, and the "broad brush" concept.

For example, I myself have stereotyped the "creative class" [cough] er, class, as latte drinkers, and made fun of the subservient relation implicitly demanded of me by them with the "Double shot? Cinnamon?" riff. (I'm not "creative," therefore working class)

Now, in some ways, that is all so, so richly deserved. And the "creative class" is small and self-identified.

But the same problem occurs more generically, as in the discussion here. I don't that "Let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung" is really an answer. Translation: If the shoe doesn't fit you, why are you trying to put it on?

But there is some deep human characteristic to take part for whole and generalize -- which you have to do, but is also dangerous. It's a form of power, and like all forms of power, it needs a check. The requisite checks ought to be built into the very language we use, but I don't know how to do that, or I don't know that I do it.

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

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

always thought men on the left were more sexist than men on the right, despite all the superficial lip-service paid to women’s rights.

no, not even close. Lefty men reject violence against women. As bad as it has gotten in lefty blogosphere, it is not even close to freeper land.

and some blogs are worse than others. Booman has been totally unfair, but never sexist.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Many "righty" men reject violence against women, too. And I'm not even talking about the sexism of some bloggers, when I talk about the left vs right sexism, more RL.

The gentlemen I work with, are all married, all disapprove of abortion, their wives don't work. And they hate wife beaters. They've kicked tile installers out of the store, once word got round that they hit their wives.

Left vs Right sexism takes different forms, but they both still exist and cross over, with things like domestic violence(the Christian Discipline folks are a whole nother ball of wax, I'm speaking of run of the mill people, who don't hold the extreme views espoused on either side).

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

I'm always arguing with myself against extrapolating from anecdotes to stereotypes, like most folks, I guess. It's a lifelong struggle, but an important one.

Submitted by lambert on

More an opportunity to create. The whole problem isn't a language problem, but part of the problem is a langauge problems.

A stereotype prints or it does not (see original meaning). In RL, very few things are that binary, and generally, if they are, I would argue that they are because of systemic stress. Rich/poor....

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

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

for Campaign for Economic Democracy - Tom Hayden's erstwhile grassroots organization. We were discussing the wage gap between men and women. Board member Maurice Zietlin, a professor of sociology at UCLA, interrupted the round table to say that he wanted to quit talking about women's wages and get back to issues of economic democracy. What can you even say to that kind of blindness?

It's difficult for some guys to see their mom as a member of an undervalued group. Her wages are limited not by her gender, but by the fact that she's mom and who expects mom to earn a lot of money? She's mom. Where's the glory in that?

Heh.

In the sixties, at anti-war demonstrations where the National Guard had been called in, it wasn't unusual for a cry of "chicks up front" to ring out - the thinking being that it was less likely that the National Guard would start firing if they were looking at a bunch of girls. I guess Kent State brought that notion to an end.

Privilege is tough to give up - especially in front of your peers who haven't. I think that's why men frequently get so much better on the issue as they get older.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

the deconstruction of the gender assumptions we were ALL socialized into. Of course, it's (kinda) easier for women to do because we have the most at stake (of course, some women never do *cough*old bat Phyllis Schlafly*cough*).

But a lot of men do this deconstructing at a superficial level (being pro-choice, against gender violence, etc.). But there is a deeper level of structural and symbolic violence (yay, Bourdieu) that requires A LOT more work from all of us to deconstruct and fight against because it is less visible and harder to pin down.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

is like arguing North vs. South racism.

There is an old saying "In the South they let blacks get close but not too big, in the North they let them get big but not too close."

I'm not saying it's true, but IIRC the last busing riots in this country took place in liberal Massachussetts.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

In the late 70's, here in Louisville, because of the Supreme Court mandated segregation plan. The one they just threw out as unconstitutional.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

And don't forget that "white flight" took place in the big northern/east coast cities.

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Ian Welsh's picture
Submitted by Ian Welsh on

not get too carried away. Those sweet Republican men want to take away your right to abortion, think it's ok that you're paid less than men and so on. That's what they vote for. If that's what you want, go for it.

Honorable conservative men have always believed in protecting women, treating them well, etc... But they also think they know what is best for women.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

The republican party is the party of misogyny. No doubt about it.

Which is why the rabid sexism on display during this primary has been such a deep shock and disappointment for many of us progressive women.

And why we're also fed up with the Roe v. Wade blackmail.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

And sometimes has a lesser affect on our lives.

But those sweet democratic men want to take away my right to choose, if they disagree with the choice I make(a lot of Dem MRA's out there).

I haven't seen many democratic men get upset about the fact that women don't make as much, outside of the internet.

Yeah, the fact that this shit has been coming from our "allies" is a true smack in the face, and it didn't show up overnight. These feelings have always been there, all the way back to the "sanctimonious women's studies set" and before. We are just now seeing fully unleashed, especially because no one, especially men, are standing against it(with a few notable exceptions like lambert-sweetness :).

As sad as it is in this day and age, a feminist(womanist) message must have men as its allies, b/c too many stupid men won't take the message seriously until they hear it from a man. Which is why, if Obama had taken the lead in disowning and disavowing these unnecessarily sexist attacks, I could probably vote for him.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!