A thought or challenge to those who think Hillary Clinton lost the nomination because of sexism.
Do you believe that every time a woman loses to a man, sexism is the cause? If Obama had lost, would it have been because of racism? Anti-male sexism?
How condescending do you think it is to assume a woman cannot lose a contest with a man because of sexism, hatred of women? Of what use is it to win a contest simply because one is a woman?
Historically men have fought to the nomination of their parties to become presidential candidates. Do we want a country where suddenly a woman wins this competition just because she is female? Would not a victory count more if we allowed a woman to lose despite her gender but because the majority of voters disagreed with her proposals, policies, or simply because voters did not like or trust the woman?
If we do not allow a woman to compete honestly with a man, how has feminism done us any good at all? We might as well climb back on the 19th century pedestal and surrender to the notion that women must be protected because they lack the character, the brains, and the skills to be judged honestly against another woman or a man?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Tex // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:52 am
For a brief moment Puff…you and I are in accord. Just about all the ‘isms’ have garnered some negative attention..some well deserved..while others mislabeled.
The war of the sexes has been a popular battleground in the media for most of my lifetime.
History reveals that there has been some very noteworthy women that have attained high esteem and important leadership positions in the world. In our post modern views through the magic looking glass…the influence of gender has been mainly the op-ed types fanning the fires.
As William Paley, former Pres. and CEO of CBS News many years ago, when that network was viable told some journalism students that the function of a news department..”is NOT, seeking the truth by careful investigative methods…it is a BUSINESS!”
That pretty well says it all in that whatever sells..print it.
2 admin // Jun 10, 2008 at 10:46 am
How’d we get from isms to bashing the press? Anyway, glad we linger on similar soil for the moment, Tex. And thanks for reading and commenting here. Keeps me on my lib toes.
3 Rick Whitman // Jun 12, 2008 at 9:22 am
Whats all this whining about Obama’s lack of experience and HRC’s vast amount of experience? How much qualifying experience does the Constitution require? How much does the job require? There is no amount of specific experience that qualfies a person to become president. Look at Richard Nixon. He had loads of experience in both state and national politics. Look where it lead him. Would you like him back? Check out
Eisenhower’s record…or Grant’s. Outside of the military neither of them had any qualifying experience for that most unique of jobs in the world, the presidency. They just relied on their common sense and integrity, as most presidents try to do. HRC lost due to the voter’s perception of her personality and ideas, not due to her sex or experience.
4 admin // Jun 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Not amazingly, I agree, Richard. I know my main objections to HRC are that I do not like her and do not trust her. Secondarily, I think she is no more qualified than Obama, and I surely trust Obama waaaay more than HRC. In spite, of course, of all the lie fire she ducked in . . . .
Leave a Comment