So Modern Feminists Are Apparently Bigoted Bullies And Gender Supremacists…Now What?

The first step is to call them out on it.

Item:

“While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Ms. Albright, 78, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing a woman to the country’s highest office. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders, 74, often speaks of, she said the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

This is pure bullying, misandry and tribalism, anti-male bigotry and a double standard—not that there’s anything wrong with that.

No male politician, pundit or celebrity would dare argue that a man not only should but must vote for the candidate with testicles, because it would be immediately attacked—correctly—as sexist, bigoted, irresponsible, divisive and as an aside, stupid. How can intelligent people make a physiological feature that is unrelated to ability and competence the defining one in choosing a President?

Unfortunately, there’s an answer to that: this was how Democrats elected and re-elected the first black President, with over 95% of voting blacks using color as the prime reason to chance handing over immense power to an inexperienced, untested amateur at leadership and management. Yet even African-Americans were not so blatant and shameless as to openly state that any black American who didn’t vote based on pigment was deserving of eternal damnation. A former Secretary of State did that to bully women into voting for Hillary Clinton, however, as Clinton beamed.

hell1

The disgusting episode, and the fact that feminists themselves did not immediately condemn it, is a smoking gun. The progressive female lobby doesn’t respect equality or fairness, and that is no longer its objective. Now it is endorsing  a male-abusing double standard. Women can accuse male students of rape following a consensual sexual liaison on campus and must be believed, while the male student will presumed innocent, punished and vilified without due process or sufficient evidence. Women, unlike men, have only to proclaim their gender to be judged more capable and worthy of leadership than men—the exact duplicate of racist attitudes used to subjugate blacks for centuries.

Item:

“In a car crash of an interview to promote their new chick flick, How To Be Single, Dakota Johnson and Leslie Mann flirt shamelessly for a full three minutes with interviewer Chris Van Vliet. First, Mann behaves like the drunken wedding auntie from hell, yelling to Van Vliet, “You’re handsome! Look! Hot guy”! Then Johnson, perhaps still in character from “Fifty Shades of Grey”, orders the interviewer to take off his shirt, adding, “You look like you pump iron. You get swolled up. Swole patrol.”

Van Vliet – Cosmopolitan’s Bachelor of the Year 2011 – appears flattered, and plays along with the duo’s lechery. Hey, he’s hot, buffed, was wearing a tight top, so – to borrow “rape apologist” language we’re painfully familiar with – he was asking for it, right?

I have seen other outrageous examples of this through the years, but the Mann/Johnson routine was the worst, and, of course, the ethically-inert news media pronounced it “hilarious.” I’d love to hear a feminist defense of it, and see if a single legitimate argument could be concocted to defend the sexist mugging. It was a joke? When have feminists ever accepted that argument from men treating women as meat? (To experience the full degree of insane intolerance feminists are demanding from the culture, just review NARAL’s deranged rants yesterday about virtually every Super Bowl Commercial as sexist.) Time for men to get a dose of their own medicine? What did Chris Van Vliet do to justify making him the scapegoat for centuries of male objectifying of women?  If he didn’t mind, why should anyone else? That argument has been specifically maligned in relation to male attentions to women. The most popular defense currently seems to be that women can’t be sexist, just as blacks students demanding segregated “safe spaces” on campus and black professors condemning the white race isn’t racist.

And male or white citizen who meekly accepts such a transparent double standards deserves the second class citizen being prepared for them.

Equality, diversity, justice and equity will be impossible if women continue to go down this route, as Hillary Clinton and her democratic supporters encourage and enable it. (There is virtually nothing so wrong that Clinton wouldn’t embrace it if it allows her to prevail, and no, that is not unfair in the least.) This unapologetic promotion of double standards is toxic for everyone and everything—men, women, society, democracy. It must be stopped in its tracks, which unfortunately requires some rare human qualities: guts and integrity, to begin with. Some young woman with principles should have stood up and told Allbright to her face that her “special place in hell” remark was unconscionable.  Chris Van Vliet should have shamed the actresses on camera and on the spot. Can you imagine what would happen to a male celebrity who  called for, say, HLN’s Robin Meade…

robinmeade

…or Donald Trump’s favorite moderator, Megyn Kelly…

megyn-kelly2

..to take off her blouse?

Neither men nor women, if they are ethical and responsible, should tolerate the imposition of ugly gender double standards on U.S. society. Add this to the myriad other reasons to reject Hillary Clinton. Her supporters aren’t just corrupt, they are bigoted, sexist hypocrites.

91 thoughts on “So Modern Feminists Are Apparently Bigoted Bullies And Gender Supremacists…Now What?

  1. A couple of comments.

    One, of course you’re right — women shouldn’t vote for Clinton because she’s female. This issue shouldn’t be thrown around in speeches either — it’s irresponsible and dangerous. Speaking for my own little bubble of female progressive friends, Clinton’s gender doesn’t even get mentioned in discussing the pros/cons between the two candidates — and most of them are for Bernie.

    Two, I hope that you’re not arguing that gender doesn’t come into play even when it’s not discussed. We’ve only had male Presidents for a reason — most people (men and women) feel that men are more capable to do that job. We’ve been wired to think that way. It’s pretty easy to dig up research from our recent history where that very argument was made. Heck, I remember back from my college days where fellow pol/sci classmates argued that women were too emotional to hold that office. The fact that candidates and pundits don’t say it out loud now doesn’t mean that they (and their constituents) aren’t thinking it, they are just too smart to say it. (Well, I can see Trump making some Meghan Kelly-esque derogatory comments toward Clinton if she gets the nomination, but the remaining Republican field is too smart to say anything.”)

    • Two, I hope that you’re not arguing that gender doesn’t come into play even when it’s not discussed.

      No, just as I’m not arguing that race hasn’t been an issue and isn’t still in impeding African Americans.

      The women-in-leadership problem is difficult, and based on evolutionary biases. Humans see leaders as big and strong, hence male, and that bias is often relevant as unfair as it is. Example: if a jury isn’t going to find a female defense attorney as forceful as a male, I don’t want one when I’m standing trial for murder. As you know, trial law is about 85% male. What do you do about that? Have women act more like men? MAKE litigants hire women? One of the best, smartest, most eloquent lw students in my law school class looked like cheerleader and has an Annette Funicello voice. What was she supposed to do? Dress to hide her figure? Chop off her hair? Gain lots of weight? Throw acid in her own face?

      She gave up, joined a firm and practices transactional law.

      • Actually, I have had cases with female trial attorneys who are usually NASTIER than the male ones. They’re the ones who are a lot more likely to interrupt you during oral argument, be a lot louder and more strident during objections, and a lot quicker to make threats about hurting you personally and professionally. The only time I’ve ever actually gotten physical with another attorney (as opposed to just threatening or throwing stuff) was with a woman who decided she was going to school me on the way to act during a deposition and poked me in the chest while pointing at me. I grabbed her wrist and calmly told her if she touched me again I’d tear her arm off, then applied a little pressure to make my point. She’s been through five jobs since, she keeps getting asked to leave for fighting with other attorneys. Sure I’ve run into a few jerk male attorneys too, but usually you can fight back effectively without looking like a bully there, though even then it’s unwise to make threats you can’t or won’t carry out.

        • You’ve told the story of threatening this female lawyer before, and you always seem strangely proud of it. Has anyone ever told you it’s really creepy?

          • I am proud of standing up and putting a woman who seems to think getting angry and pointing fingers will get her ahead into her place. I dislike women who think shrieking and threatening makes them powerful. It doesn’t. It makes them bitchy and hateful. If that had been a guy we would have fought it out then and there. Oh, and as for the creepy quotient, why don’t you give me your phone number? I promise I’ll get back to you the minute whether you think it’s creepy means anything to me.

          • Some day I might write about this. How does one handle a threatening, physically intrusive woman? Does gender matter? Are the rules for a woman different than for a smaller man? Should chivalry and deference to women still be a societal value?

            If Steve’s female lawyer looked like this—and I know a female bodybuilder defense lawyer who could rip my lungs out…

            —would that make his conduct less “creepy”?

            • You’ve covered this Jack — remember your story of the woman who punched or slapped (I don’t remember) the college sports jock at the bar?

              • What is appropriate behavior for anyone who jabs their finger into your chest while telling you they are going to file ethics complaints against you just for doing your job? If it was guy on guy no one would blink if the non-jabbing guy grabbed the other guy’s wrist, put him in a hammerlock, and slammed him face up against the wall, telling him he could apologize or have his arm twisted until it broke.

                A lot of folks would probably say the jabbing guy brought it on himself for getting up into the other guy’s face, a la Mario Puzo’s “Godfather” Don Vito Corleone’s remark that “There are men in this world who go about demanding to be killed. You must have noticed them. They quarrel in gambling games, they jump out of their automobiles in a rage if someone so much as scratches their fender, they humiliate and bully people whose capabilities they do not know. I have seen a man, a fool, deliberately infuriate a group of dangerous men, and he himself without any resources. These are people who wander through the world shouting, ‘Kill me. Kill me.’ And there is always somebody ready to oblige them.”

                Yet a woman who engages in similar behavior should get a pass simply because of her gender? I don’t buy that. Today’s women seem to have a belief that they are still entitled to all the protections of their gender as well as all the opportunities and more afforded to men. Men are just men, grunting, smelly, unintelligent, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are good for moving the couch, shoveling the snow, and doing the simplest tasks, but women are the future, the visionaries, the progressive, and six degrees of awesome simply by virtue of their gender.

                • “If it was guy on guy no one would blink if the non-jabbing guy grabbed the other guy’s wrist, put him in a hammerlock, and slammed him face up against the wall, telling him he could apologize or have his arm twisted until it broke.”

                  For the record, I would blink. You would be escalating the situation when it wasn’t warranted.

                  Similar things have happened to me. Each time, I backed away and immediately threatened the other attorney with an ethics complaint. That is how lawyers should behave.

                  • I agree with everything Beth said. Putting someone in a hammerlock and slamming them against the wall for poking you in the chest? That’s outrageous.

                    • People get angry when others violate their personal space or cross a boundary they don’t want crossed, EO. Once you lay hands on someone else, even if it’s just a poke in the chest, which IS inappropriate, all bets are off. You can bluster all you want, but once you cross that line and touch someone in an unwanted manner, it should some as no surprise if you get hurt. I had an adversary threaten to break my arm for getting overzealous in a cross-examination and slamming down a document on a table. I believe his exact words were “I’ll break your fucking arm if you do that again.” Nothing happened because he didn’t go that extra step of grabbing my arm and trying to break it, but if he had, I tell you now, as God is my witness, I would have twisted his behind his back and broken it instead, and damned be the consequences.

                • “If it was guy on guy no one would blink if the non-jabbing guy grabbed the other guy’s wrist, put him in a hammerlock, and slammed him face up against the wall, telling him he could apologize or have his arm twisted until it broke.”

                  Gotta add to the chorus of “I would.” I’m not sure if you’re an unusually violent person or if you just pretend to be one on the Internet, but wow.

                • Have you considered that Vito Corleone, thief, murderer, pimp, bookie and petty warlord is not an appropriate role model? That overreaction to every slight is what led to the downfall of his eldest son?

                  I’m going to echo the other people here, if you go all Kylo Ren on someone for poking you, male or female, I’ll blink.

                  • Go Kylo Ren? That’s a new one, but I do understand as a long-time Star Wars fan. I was thinking more Hank Voight of Chicago PD (who smashed someone’s hand with a pool cue for telling him to kiss their ass) or Andy Sipowicz of NYPD Blue (who beat the snot out of a mobster for disrespecting him). Yes, a lot of it is wishing I could be this dominant figure who could just deal out punishment on the spot to anyone who crossed me. Unfortunately, for every time I put someone in their place, there are about a dozen where I had to just bite my tongue, from an abusive harangue by a judge who harangued everyone, to a guy who whistled tunelessly to himself for a half hour while I was waiting for my oil to be changed, the former because haranguing back would have been career suicide, the latter because causing a scene in a car dealership waiting room over annoying whistling, as opposed to violation of my personal space, might have compromised the goal I was there for: getting my oil changed.

                    Corleone was more anti-hero than outright villain, and maybe given his background that was inevitable. He always attempted to reason with you first, but that was your one and only chance to get in line before he used a bit more… vigorous approach. Sonny was killed because he went charging off to avenge his sister after yet another beating at the hands of the sleazeball she married, not knowing, or thinking, that things were hot (a situation of his own making) and he might be heading into an ambush, which he was.

                    • Yes, a lot of it is wishing I could be this dominant figure who could just deal out punishment on the spot to anyone who crossed me.

                      Right, abused geek fantasy, one day I’ll show them how wrong they are, one day I’ll show them all. Thing is, that’s the origin story of a supervision.

                      You do understand that the reason not to just strike out at anyone who you dislike for any reason isn’t that it’ll cause you to have a bad day but because it wrong to hurt people? When you say things the way you’ve been doing, you sound as if you have no empathy.

                    • I don’t go around looking to hurt people, just like I don’t go around looking for trouble. The objective is to give trouble pause before it decides things are a little too quiet and to see what kind of mischief it can play on me, and, if trouble comes knocking, to make it sorry it did. I disagree with the blanket statement that it is wrong to hurt people, we apply necessary force every day to stop those who step out of line, and maybe, if necessary, to extract information we need to stop those with villainy on their mind. It is wrong to hurt INNOCENT people, and anyone who does that is a psychopath. If you insult someone, or offend him, or hurt him, you are no longer just an innocent person, and it should come as no surprise if you get hurt. I have zero empathy for those who cause trouble or come looking for trouble.

    • “Two, I hope that you’re not arguing that gender doesn’t come into play even when it’s not discussed. We’ve only had male Presidents for a reason”

      Well, because men generally make better leaders. Obviously. I mean, it’s either that or a global conspiracy theory of patriarchy. The number of cultures and tribes that had mainstream female leadership can be counted on the hands of a bad shop teacher.

      So we’re caught between two choices: One: There’s something biological at play here, something driven by evolution, that puts men in the position or the protector and provider and puts women in the position of care giver. Or Two: A world wide, cross cultural patriarchal conspiracy to keep the wimmins down.

      Or course some of this is tongue in cheek. That said… Strong women used to succeed despite male disapproval. Margaret Thatcher being one of the best examples. They ran on platforms of their merits, showcased why their ideas were better, and succeeded against odds because they were genuine Strong women. Those strong women don’t really exist anymore. “Vote for me because I’m awesome” changed somewhere along the line to “Vote for me because I have tits.” Think that’s too crass? Fair enough. Hillary Clinton: “Don’t vote for me because I’m a woman, vote for me on my merits. One of those merits is I’m a woman.” Please explain the difference to me.

      Does gender come into play? Oh, absolutely. For various reasons, women have been seen as the weaker gender, unable or unwilling to compete with men in the arena of ideas and policies. So what’s the answer to it? Why, refuse to compete in the arena of ideas and policies, and point out that your external plumbing features match. Of course.

      Beth, you as a feminist, should be frothing at the mouth whenever someone says they’re a woman as if it’s a legitimate job skill.

      • Oh what, you didn’t hear about the temples to the Goddess they keep finding under the crypts of cathedrals in Europe? When Constantine came to power he made it his first order of business to suppress that cult so he could install male bishops to back his chosen rulers. Charlemagne and Olaf and Ethelbert were just keeping that going.

        Ahaha, feminist conspiracy and mythology aside, there are still some genuinely strong women. We elected three female Republican senators in 2014, all of them with impeccable records. However, since they were Republicans, I think there is a genuine belief they were elected in spite of their genders, definitely not because of them.

        There is a default belief, I think, that anyone not a white, straight, believing male who runs on a conservative platform is either a traitor to his/her group, or has been brainwashed to be part of the system. Women can’t be conservatives and still be true to their gender, because conservatives are against equal pay and the absolute right to abortion on demand. Blacks can’t be conservatives and still be true to their color, because conservatives want to keep them in the ghetto or throw them back into chains. Hispanics can’t be conservatives and still be true to their heritage, because conservatives have this funny idea that borders mean something.

        If you are any of those things and became successful on your own, your first obligation is still to forward the interests of your gender or your color or your heritage, because there are many more who are not successful and are in need of a helping hand. If you decide you’re going to go conservative because it might actually fit better with the business you are running or enable you to keep more of what you actually worked for, then you have betrayed your gender, your color, your heritage, and the blood of every woman who gets beaten to death by a drunk husband or dies from a botched abortion because there was only one clinic in the state, of every black man shot dead by a racist white officer, every Hispanic laborer who keels over in the field because that’s the only job he could get, is on your hands.

        • “We elected three female Republican senators in 2014, all of them with impeccable records.”

          Truth. I was going to write more on the difference between a strong female leader and a weak one. That there’s institutional bias against women is inarguable, but that doesn’t mean the answer is to hand out positions like Ticker Tape at a Susan B Anthony parade. Strong women win because they’re strong enough to overcome the biases arranged against them. Weak women ask for the job because they have a vagina.

          Hillary Clinton is weak.

          “There is a default belief, I think, that anyone not a white, straight, believing male who runs on a conservative platform is either a traitor to his/her group, or has been brainwashed to be part of the system.”

          There is another default belief among the Democratic Party, that every time a minority or female candidate fails to win it’s because of racism or sexism. I think there’s people who would have thought that had Obama lost to say… Colin Powell in a general election, that’d be racism. The problem is that this mindset makes the demographic weaker. They don’t have to look at themselves and see how they could be better, they can look at society and bitch about how bad it is.

          • Colin Powell was regularly called an Uncle Tom and other names having to do with him being a traitor to his race until he embraced Obama and publicly told the story of how the death of a Muslim soldier with the last name Khan soured him on the GOP as a bunch of racists.

            Frankly I am not sure I believe the whole story, or at least I am not sure that he sincerely flipped just on the basis of the death of that one soldier, since he was part of two administrations that saw many more fall and a career officer prior to that, who fought in Vietnam when racial tensions in the military were a much bigger problem.

            I think he believed that GWB had hung him out to dry in front of the UN with regard to the WNDs and was angry about that. I think he also believed that he might get his credibility back with the media and the intelligentsia by riding the incoming Obama wave. So he grabbed onto that story, threw his weight to Obama, and presto, instant redemption, because the black community was only too eager to have his gravitas on their side.

  2. At least two sets of rules here.

    Another example would be Gloria Steinem’s…um…patronizing comment
    about Millenial Women opting for Sanders because that’s who the “boys” are for.

    Deserving of mention would be the late Geraldine Ferraro remarks from 03/11/2008: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

    To their credit, sites like Slate & HuffPo gave Ferraro an obligatory slap on the wrist, and though she quit the Clinton campaign a day later, she remained unapologetic.

    Steinem is doing the “Tolerance Two-Step” mea culpa and will weather this easily.

    These weren’t ‘dog whistle’ incidents, they, and Albright’s, were delivered with all the subtlety of a Fog Horn and would be career-ending for those without proper ideological certification.

  3. It is consistently amazing to me that Hillary continues to play the gender card. She is a feminist? Bull. This is a woman who was cognizant of, allowed, defended her philandering husband, even when he took advantage of a young intern in the White House, As with everything else, Hillary is a feminist on the campaign trail, and a pathetic, coat-tail riding liar the rest of the time.

  4. Ms. Albright’s statement is the perfect representation of what I’ve been talking about; the Democratic Party has absolutely no intention of trying to win based on its ideology or policy when they can divide the population into little segments of “oppressed” to conquer Republicans.

    The Democratic Party is morally bankrupt.

  5. Is it really bigotry or gender supremacism for a woman to look at a list of presidents that is 44 names long and 100% male, and to say “This time it’s gonna be one of us?” I mean, it may reflect poor priorities, especially if the particular female candidate sucks, but Albright obviously thinks Clinton is qualified for other reasons. I don’t see her at a Fiorina rally, and I doubt she’d support her over Bernie if they were the nominees. You’re right that it’s tribalism, but that can be justly motivated when a tribe is disadvantaged in some way. I just don’t see “anti-male hatred,” or even anything that would lead to men being disadvantaged or mistreated in society.

    • “Is it really bigotry or gender supremacism for a woman to look at a list of presidents that is 44 names long and 100% male, and to say “This time it’s gonna be one of us?”

      Yes.

      In the Seventies, I had Greek relatives who supported Siro Agnew for President because it was “time” for a Greek President. Utter crap. It’s time for a female President when a female is clearly the most qualified person to be President. For various reasons, including lack of opportunity, societal norms and tradition, that has never yey been true in the United States. Since it has never been true—I’d say Abigail would have been a much better POTUS than John Adams, but she had no experience or formal education—that complaint is emotional rather than rational. If the first black baseball player had been Pumpsie Green, it would have put blacks back 50 years.

      Yes, saying that gender alone is enough is bigotry.

      • I don’t think that was what Chris was saying. If you had two equally qualified candidates, and one was female and one was male, can you pick on the basis of gender?

        This happens a lot in the real world. You can look up dozens of studies where an employer receives many identical resumes. Those with female names or with “black-sounding” names tend not to get initial interviews, and those with male generic-sounding names do. There’s bias everywhere — even if people don’t even think they are choosing on the basis of gender or race, they are doing it at a subconscious level.

        • “Equally Qualified Candidates” are myths. They don’t exist anywhere outside of a classroom setting. If you had two actually equally qualified candidates, you could throw your vote either way and feel happy about it, but because it will never happen, the point is moot.

            • Those “studies” are “studies” Beth. They take things like identical resumes and change “Mark” to “Mary” and while that might prove bias in hiring, it doesn’t prove that there’s such a thing as identical applicants. What’s the chance that two people not only take the same classes, get the same marks and have the same job history, but also format their resumes identically? What’s the chance of the interviewer asking the same questions, and getting the exact same answers?

                • So what? If it makes more sense to you, only deal with the forst 80% of the comment:

                  Those “studies” are “studies” Beth. They take things like identical resumes and change “Mark” to “Mary” and while that might prove bias in hiring, it doesn’t prove that there’s such a thing as identical applicants. What’s the chance that two people not only take the same classes, get the same marks and have the same job history, but also format their resumes identically?

                  • My experience parallels HT’s. Although I only personally hired around a thousand law enforcement and correctional officers, during the later half of my career, I have helped screen and interview thousands more, and the “all things being equal” scenario is essentially a myth in the real world. I say this having worked for an agency that had a slight bias toward hiring well-qualified females and minorities, simply because we had very few applicants (well-qualified or otherwise) in those categories. I took comfort in the fact that turnover was a fact of organizational life, and the well-qualified applicant who was unsuccessful today might be my top pick in a month or six weeks when the next vacancy occurred. I often referred well-qualified applicants to other agencies who were hiring when we were not. Due to experiences early in my career, I considered gender as irrelevant as race in deciding who would or would not be a good officer and employee. There are no doubt women who would make an excellent President of the .U.S. It is a shame that none of them are running.

                • Beth, what are you bothering with this for? HT picked an impossible argument, making your point about (I think) similar resumes, enough alike to be a 50/50 choice, into an absolute “identical twin” situation. This is a stupid and particularly childish kind of argument: “You said I could” “Yes, I know. But …” “No, you said so. You said so.”

                  • Oh get over yourself. The argument was “all other things being equal” could you choose a candidate based on sex. Well sure “all other things being equal” you could flip a coin. But all other things have to be equal, if you have similar, but different candidates (as all candidates will be) something will distinguish one from the other. That thing should not be their gender.

                    • “something will distinguish one from the other. That thing should not be their gender.” In other words, you had no argument to begin with.

                    • I think his argument was completely valid:

                      He said, in a perfect scenario in which both resumes are EXACTLY the same except gender, that one should be able to flip a coin and be content with the result. Hence, gender IS irrelevant when resumes are EXACTLY the same.

                      Except, that never ever occurs in the real world. So we find ourselves, because of silly studies, such as the one Beth cited, leading everyone through a nasty confirmation bias that if two resumes, which may only bear passing similarity with each other, and the male one is selected over the female one, we cry foul. Regardless of whether or not the male’s resume may have actually had a real world non-gender based edge over the female’s.

                      I agree with Humble, the study is useless.

                    • ““something will distinguish one from the other. That thing should not be their gender.” In other words, you had no argument to begin with.”

                      No Penn, my point is that there’s no such thing as “All other things equal” when it comes to real life job qualifications. I think you even agree with me on that. Which is why it blows my mind that you’re accepting Beth’s premise which relies on two candidates identical in every way but gender.

                      If there’s no such thing as a set of identical applicants, Beth’s point is meaningless. That’s all I’m saying.

        • Haha, another lawyer who is a hiring partner told me ANY resume with Chimmiqua or Jamal up top gets round-filed, as does any resume with “Women’s law Forum” or “Law Students for Strict Interpretation” or something like that among activities. His firm doesn’t want controversy or people with crazy opinions. He also checks young women’s hands for wedding or engagement bands when he interviews them by shaking hands with the left hand, for the simple reason he doesn’t want to hire someone and have her almost immediately go on maternity leave.

        • It’s a little offtopic, but I think the name thing is a bit misleading. Names are not completely information free. Black sounding names suggest things about the class of the individual, and tell you something about their parents. The proper comparison for DeShawn might be JimBob rather than John. I would also suggest that they imply that the candidate in question was raised by parents who are big into race based politics. The study I looked at claimed to rule it out… but I don’t buy their explanation of how. I see a couple of issues there.

    • “Is it really bigotry or gender supremacism for a woman to look at a list of presidents that is 44 names long and 100% male, and to say “This time it’s gonna be one of us?”

      Yes. Yes it really is. Every election has to be seen uniquely, and every candidate must be supported on their merits. Skin color or gender is not a merit. Anything less than that is per se bigotry.

      More, you’re being completely ignorant of history. 1776, a bunch of men sign a document creating a new country, those men led other men against yet more men to carve out the borders of that country and defend it. To this day, men are still being forced into selective service and the workplace death gap is 97% and mostly based on the deaths of soldiers. Throughout history 30 of those 44 had some amount of military experience. Perhaps there’s more to it than penis those 44 names are the names they are.

      • Well, women weren’t invited to any of those penis parties, so that analysis is pretty weak. Also, we’ve only had the vote for a century, so there’s that too.

        • Because I’m sure that women would have lined up in droves if only they were invited. Just like I’m sure that Henry would have given the Americans America, if only they’d asked nicely.

          • I thought Jack forestalled this squabbling with the easy answer: Humans see leaders as big and strong, hence male, and that bias is often relevant as unfair as it is.

            Children recognize power atavistically, first as physical, and only later on as mental, social, financial, political, and so on and so on. The first lessons underlie the others: what for thousands of years defined leadership. It is not necessary now for our political leaders to be physically powerful, though there is still a bias, particularly in the wealthier countries against very thin (healthily thin) people being in command. “Skinny” is still an insult. So is a female or gay tag used for someone just not being aggressive enough, missing the ball, losing the race, not wanting to waterboard the frat pledge. It continues to underlie decisions: choosing up sides, hiring practices, marriage, and electing presidents.

            What’s happening now seems to be an almost unconscious overreaction to this “natural” bias. The arguments that “it’s time” or knee-jerk support for a woman, black person, short guy, etc. are all extensions of being in favor of the “underdog” for no reason except that he or she falls into the category of underdog. The confusion and the arguments start when underdog is lifted up out of the mosh pit into the limelight to achieve parity, diversity, fill a space that has no other meaning or purpose than to fill that category. Now the underdog is no longer an underdog but an equal-but-different dog, which bothers people even more. Nobody, including the underdog, may have been ready for the lift. So EBD dog is upped to a level above equal, and everybody who identifies with or who has a vested interest in EBD dog’s success feels like they’re there too.

            Anyway, that’s my take on how Obama got into the White House, and how Clinton may follow him. This is not just Irish Catholics voting for JFK — pragmatically speaking, there wouldn’t have been enough of them, nor enough money (there was a lot of that) — this is where many women and many liberals come together to feel good about themselves. For no reason. And if they fail, they are going to make life miserable as far as possible for the rest of us. It verges on crazy but I guess it’s just stupid.

    • Plug any currently tribe into this sentence:
      There’s a special place in Hell for ______ who don’t help each other!”
      Try:
      men
      white people
      Republicans
      Tea Party members
      Now, is that bigotry or not?

      • Men: I wouldn’t hear it as bigoted, since it could stand in for “people;” even taken literally, it doesn’t ping my bigot-dar.

        White people: This would provoke a gut level “Bigot!” reaction from me, as do most statements prompting white identity politics such as “white pride.” I’m not sure if it’s bigoted, but the history of white identity politics is so tied up with racism that I’m not sure it’s possible to separate the two. For one thing, white people face no structural disadvantages related to being white people, so the sentence is at best nonsensical.

        Republicans and Tea Partiers: Definitely not bigoted statements.

        • My point is that what Albright said is not bigotry if you truely believe all people should help other people and if you actually believe in Hell. Under those conditions it’s a statement of faith.

          If you think Hell is a construct of small minded religious zealots then the symbolic act of sending someone to a special niche there is already a form of bigoted sarcasm and asssigning special places there for people you loath is even worse. Especially if the people you offer to send there actually do believe in Hell.

          It was a spectacularly tone deaf and awful thing to say at anytime and in the midst of a political campaign it boggles the mind. UNLESS you are a Hillary supporter. Then it’s cute and everybody should just shut up.

          • Baloney. No religion says that you have an obligation to assist multi-millionaire power-seekers, and saying that Hell has a place for you if you don’t do it is a lie. Otherwise its guilt-mongering and bullying. There’s nothing cute about it.

                • Huh? What is this:

                  “My point is that what Albright said is not bigotry if you truely believe all people should help other people and if you actually believe in Hell. Under those conditions it’s a statement of faith.”

                • Spectacular failure on my part.
                  A serious part of Christianity is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And it is also part of Christianity to help and serve others. It’s essential. Emphasis on all people. Failure to love and help others is serious. When people use expressions like “a special place in Hell” to further a completely opposite goal from the goal of religion it’s cynical bigotry. Albright wasn’t advocating helping all people she was damning people who do not obey her arrogant biases.

          • If you think Hell is a construct of small minded religious zealots then the symbolic act of sending someone to a special niche there is already a form of bigoted sarcasm and asssigning special places there for people you loath is even worse.

    • What’s an “us”?

      Also, if an “us” can’t trust a “them” to consider “our” interests when making important decisions, then everyone has a problem.

      I get that one of the factors making a person more likely to help another is how similar their experience are, when it comes to big picture thinking and decision making, there is no excuse for using that as the deciding factor, or even a very big factor.

  6. What on Earth was Madeleine Albright thinking when she said that? I hope the third former female Secretary of State has more sense than the two in that photograph.

  7. I return to the case of the Tuskegee Airmen. If they had been given an easy road they would have failed. Because they were actively and strongly victimised throughout their training only the very best, most determined, made it through and as a result when they went into combat they excelled.

    Not a proponent of racism, sexism or ??ism; but also not a proponent of quota systems.

  8. For some reason, there are no “reply” indicators under either of your entries, probably because they were exactly and absolutely equal, in some ways…. so I’m putting them here:

    Texagg04 the study is useless.
    Reply: okay, I never said it wasn’t.

    Humble Talent: no such thing as a set of identical applicants,
    Reply: The same reply I would give to your “”Equally Qualified Candidates’ are myths. They don’t exist anywhere outside of a classroom setting. If you had two actually equally qualified candidates, you could throw your vote either way and feel happy about it, but because it will never happen, the point is moot.”

    Trivial bullshit over vocabulary, HT. I read what was being said as “All things being equal,” which is not a scientific proposition. It is however a comparison that employers, even before they had recourse to Human Resource Management, have always had to deal with. I understand that absolutes are easier for you, but beating people over the head with them just says you aren’t willing or able to make arguments to the main point — in this case, involving human beings that are (or should be) understood as having individualities, including gender differences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.