I've been trying to get a psychological grip on the anti-Hillary hate: Sexism

[lindysalsagal]

This is making sense: But of course, it's just one person's opinion: It's just pure sexism.

The Puzzling Vilification of Hillary, A Psychoanalyst’s Perspective: Huff Post, 05/27/2016 05:15 pm ET | Updated May 27, 2016

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-wolson/the-puzzling-vilification_b_10146812.html

This is one line that gets to the heart of it: Any woman would face this bias:

At the most vulnerable time of their lives, babies are completely dependent on their mothers for psychic and physical survival. No one will ever have more power over them. Fathers, at best, are background, supportive figures. A cold, unresponsive, rejecting mother can threaten a baby’s existence and elicit extreme self-protective rage. I believe that Hillary’s coolness and ambitious assertiveness has evoked this unconscious primordial dread, resulting in her highly unfavorable ratings.

Not saying I'm absolutely sure this is true, but, it's food for thought: No matter her personal details, this hatred is unavoidable in the case of female leaders.

[thejoker123]

1. Well as a father

It's certainly not true that "fathers are background figures". That's pretty damn offensive.

[lindysalsagal]

2. Look: There are great fathers out there. This is psychological generalization

especially about past generations.

The piece is not about men. It's about how any female leader would be getting hit with the HRC arrows. It's not unlike the arrows the first black pres would get: Inevitable, regardless of the specific details.

[thejoker123]

6. It's not a generalization

It's an incredibly sexist, offensive, ignorant statement.

I am willing to accept its not something you focused on when reading this piece, but you, assumingly as a woman, must understand what a visceral reaction such a statement would get from a father in 2016.

[lindysalsagal]

9. The term mother refers to the care-giver role. If in this man's case, he's the care-giver, then

the term father doesn't apply to him. I know of women who have had affairs and abandonded their kids to the husband. In those cases, the term mother refers to the function, not the person.

This is not personal: It's about psychological functioning. I don't know that man, or anything about him. No one is being insulted here, unless they demand to feel insulted.

Which happens all the time on DU.

[thejoker123]

13. Wow

That was some insane spin.

Frankly, as a progressive I find you accusing me of "looking to be offended" becaause as a father of 3 I was offended by an article you posted where the author considers fathers mere "background figures" in the raising of their children even more offensive than the actual OP.

I mean while I'm sure you don't realize it or intend to, you sound like every right winger I know.

"Blacks just looking to be offended"..."women just looking to be offended"....sound familiar?

My children are the most important things in my life. And like almost every dad I know who didn't grow up in the 50's, I have sacrificed and equally shared in the emotional and physical caregiving of my children since the day they were born.

Is it really so hard for you understand why calling fathers "background figures" as it relates to the caregiving of their children would be like a smack in the face offensive?

[lindysalsagal]

15. ok. permanent ignore. I'm not here to fight. Find someone else.

[thejoker123]

16. Sounds good

[ProudProgressiveNow]

8. +1 nt

[yallerdawg]

4. Whatever you do...

stay away from Freudian psychoanalysis.

You'll get way past offended!

[apcalc]

3. I think the hatred is this:

She's a threat to the old order. Since she first broke on the scene years ago and said she just didn't stay home and bake cookies, the good ol boys who favor one and only one role for women, wanted to minimize her. Better not let the womenfolk get ideas!

She is a self determined woman who wants to live her life as she wishes.... and now wants to lead! An uppity woman! A radical! Scares the shit outta them.

[lindysalsagal]

7. All that is certainly true. But I've been thinking there's something even deeper going on.

And I think this mother-fear-resentment thing rings true. We are so vulnerable and dependent on mommy, and she has way too much power over us. Someone like HRC, who we've all known for decades, could easliy trigger this unconscious reaction.

It's the only thing that explains the toxic vitriol. It's not rational. She's not actually firghtening: But fRump is.

That's why it's so puzzling to hear even women spit out how they fear her and see him as a savior: It's all freudian subconscious fear.

[smirkymonkey]

5. K&R

[Wilms]

10. Puzzling is how other democracies routinely elect women leaders. n/t

[TCJ70]

11. Oh, good! This crap again!

I didn't support Clinton in the primaries and I'm still skeptical of her today. It certainly wasn't out of misogyny. It stems from commitment to ideas. We'all see how her time in office goes. She's going to win. But I have very low expectations.

[Marr]

12. Saying dislike of Hillary Clinton is, ipso facto, sexism is saying there's nothing to her but

her gender-- or that she's a faultless, universally lovable saint and no one could ever, reasonably dislike her.

She's a politician, and a human being. Some dislike her for her politics, real or imagined. Others for some perceived dishonesty. Some dislike her for truly petty things, like her laugh. I've no doubt there are sexists who don't like Hillary Clinton simply because of her gender, but saying that is the main explanation is more insulting to Hillary Clinton than anyone else.

[riderinthestorm]

14. +1 nt