athena
athena's JournalFor the n'th time ...
sexism is not a men-vs-women thing. I am so sick and tired of DUers arguing that something is not sexist because some woman out there thinks it's acceptable. Women can be sexist, just like men can be feminist. In fact, the vast majority of women, like the vast majority of men, are sexist against women. If you don't understand that, or if you are surprised by that, go do some reading.
The fact that so many people have such a childishly simplistic (mis)understanding of what sexism means is a perfect demonstration of how far this society has to go before it can claim that it is no longer sexist.
Does the U.S. system "allow everyone to be treated in a timely manner"?
Answer: no, it doesn't. Not only do millions of people have no insurance, but millions of others have insurance that doesn't cover very much. Even those who, like myself, have excellent insurance, are regularly forced to wait upwards of three months to see a specialist for a 10-minute initial appointment. And hospitals and doctor's offices frequently make billing mistakes that increase our total out-of-pocket cost. I've spent hours calling hospitals and being put on hold, just to explain to them that I had already sent in a check that they had cashed but neglected to record in their system. After my last surgery, I spent hours, during my recovery period when I was still weak and in pain, arguing with my doctor's office because they submitted an incorrect claim to my insurance company and then tried to claim my insurance company refused to cover the procedure. The amount they charged me was more than three times what my insurance ended up paying, when, after many phone calls and e-mails, I finally managed to sort it all out. I dread going to the doctor here, and I have excellent insurance thanks to my husband's job. Consider yourself lucky to live in a country that views health care as a human right.
Note that those who don't have insurance often end up going bankrupt when they need emergency care. Tens of thousands of people die from preventable diseases like pneumonia because they lack health insurance. No one in Canada dies from a preventable disease. The only time you have to wait in Canada is when you have something that doesn't require immediate treatment. I know this because I lived in Canada for many years.
Finally, Canadians who travel to the U.S. for medical care usually do so not because of waiting times but because the specific service they need is more readily available in the U.S. than in Canada. When that is the case, Canada pays for it.
By the way, it is against DU rules to post articles from right-wing sources. "It came up in a Google search" is not a good-enough excuse.
Some of us did try to warn people
but they were so overwhelmed by their sheer hatred of Hillary that they didn't hear the message. I thought people had learned their lesson after the 2000 election and was amazed to see that they hadn't. I tried to tell several DUers that the 2000 election showed that one doesn't "teach the Democratic party a lesson" by letting the Republicans win. But they all knew better. 
If you just imagine what kind of a world we would be living in now if Gore had become president in 2000 -- that we probably wouldn't have had 9/11; that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq; that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved across the world; that innocent people wouldn't have been tortured; that there would have been no ISIS; that we would have reduced the rate at which we're destroying our environment; that Samuel Alito and John Roberts would not be on the SCOTUS -- it's shameful and heartbreaking that we made the exact same mistake only sixteen years later.
All I can say is that I hope those who allowed their hateful sexism to blind them to reality are pleased with the very-male and very-macho president they got themselves. I hope they're happy that they kept the presidency of the United States all-male. I hope they're delighted that they are not being led by a highly intelligent, highly experienced, and highly competent woman. I hope they're tickled pink with joy, because their selfish sexism has hurt too many people, and we're only six months into this.
Are they good, kind, and gentle to people of color, too?
Or only to white people who agree with them?
I know a Trump supporter, too. If you're a white person who agrees with her hateful, fearful, and racist rhetoric, she will seem "kind and gentle" on the surface. But there is nothing "kind and gentle" about the contemptuous way she talks about Black people. And the moment you disagree with her hateful rhetoric, she turns on you, and the fake gentleness disappears.
I'm sorry, but a person who supports Trump is a racist. If they were not racist, the dog-whistles blown by the right-wing media would not have resonated with them. There is simply no way that you will not find racism in a Trump supporter if you merely scratch a little below the surface. And there is absolutely nothing kind and gentle about a racist. They are the most hateful and dangerous people on earth. Stop making excuses for hateful people. Stop tolerating intolerance.
Impeachment wouldn't have achieved anything.
It would have made some people on DU feel good, but it would have given a lot of moderates out there the impression that Democrats were being vindictive. Many Democrats, including myself, feel strongly that it is wrong to use impeachment for political purposes, and impeaching George W. Bush would have appeared political to a huge part of the electorate. Nancy Pelosi chose to focus on getting legislation passed. That is why she is the leader of the House Democrats. She is extremely effective in passing Democratic legislation, and stopping Republican legislation, within the limits of what is mathematically possible.
I don't think it's good to imitate the Republicans. Their base is dominated by stupid and uneducated people. If Democrats started acting like Republicans and imitated their behavior on Benghazi, much of the Democratic base would become disillusioned with politics completely and stop voting altoghether.
Frankly, if it weren't Pelosi's comment about impeachment, it would be something else. Those who hated Hillary claimed they would be all for her if it weren't for her Iraq war vote. Yeah, let's just ignore 99% of a politician's positions and focus on the one thing she did that we don't agree with, to the exclusion of everything else. When people hate women, they always find something to latch on to. That kind of attitude is what gave us President Trump. I'm sorry, but I have no tolerance left for sexists who pretend that they're not sexist, just purer and better than everyone else.
Not supporting an extremely effective leader who happens to be female IS sexist.
The sexists gave us President Trump because they simply couldn't handle the idea of being led by someone with a vagina. Now they're trying to take power away one of the best leaders the House has ever had because she happens to have a vagina, as well. Then, they turn around and attack those who object to this sexism of being sexist ourselves.
I've had enough of this. Anyone who posts here about how Nancy Pelosi is not an effective leader reveals one thing, and one thing only: how utterly clueless he is about politics and what goes on in the House.
You should educate yourself before giving into your impulse to attack women because they happen to be women and are by definition less exciting to you as leaders than men are. Here is a start:
Washington Post: Nancy Pelosi turns 75 today. She’s still the most effective leader in Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/nancy-pelosi-turns-75-today-shes-still-the-most-effective-leader-in-congress
Washington Monthly: Nancy Pelosi Is the Most Effective Member of the Resistance
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/04/nancy-pelosi-is-the-most-effective-member-of-the-resistence/
The Atlantic: The Staying Power of Nancy Pelosi
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-staying-power-of-nancy-pelosi/440022/
Alternet: Nancy Pelosi: The Most Effective Speaker of the House in History
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/425315/nancy_pelosi%3A_the_most_effective_speaker_of_the_house_in_history
The Guardian: Nancy Pelosi: is this the most powerful woman in US history?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/26/nancy-pelosi-politician-speaker
So we're supposed to have a different set of laws for Trump
because he can't control what comes out of his mouth?
The problem is not that Trump is "not from the political class". The problem is that Trump has narcissistic personality disorder. That means he has the emotional maturity of a three-year-old. A three-year-old whose face is covered with chocolate will calmly shake his head and say "No" when you ask him, "Did you eat the chocolate cake?" That's what we're dealing with here. The fact that we have a three-year-old running the country does not mean that laws against perjury and obstruction of justice go out the window.
If HRC had become president, there would have been a chance of pushing the Democratic Party left.
The Democratic Party does not move left when it loses an election; it moves right. If Bernie supporters really wanted to move the Democratic Party left, they should have worked their asses off to get HRC and the Democrats in Congress to win in a landslide in 2016. Allowing the Republicans to "win", as they did in 2000, is not the way to make the argument that the country wants to move left. I thought we learned that lesson in 2000, but clearly some people weren't paying attention.
At this point, attacking the Democratic Party will only succeed in weakening it. We absolutely need to win back the House and the Senate in 2018. Relentlessly criticizing the Democratic Party is not the way to accomplish that goal.
Great article comparing women's status in Europe and the U.S.
This excellent article, which discusses women's status in the Chech Republic, Sweden, France, and the United States, is worth reading in its entirety. It is so good that I'm considering reactivating my NYT subscription.
The ending -- the part (below) where she talks about the American woman being told she can do anything -- brought tears to my eyes because of how horribly true it is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/paulina-porizkova-america-feminist.html
Excerpt:
"In America, a woman’s body seemed to belong to everybody but herself. Her sexuality belonged to her husband, her opinion of herself belonged to her social circles, and her uterus belonged to the government. She was supposed to be a mother and a lover and a career woman (at a fraction of the pay) while remaining perpetually youthful and slim. In America, important men were desirable. Important women had to be desirable. That got to me.
"In the Czech Republic, the nicknames for women, whether sweet or bitter, fall into the animal category: little bug, kitten, old cow, swine. In Sweden, women are rulers of the universe. In France, women are dangerous objects to treasure and fear. For better or worse, in those countries, a woman knows her place.
"But the American woman is told she can do anything and then is knocked down the moment she proves it. In adapting myself to my new country, my Swedish woman power began to wilt. I joined the women around me who were struggling to do it all and failing miserably. I now have no choice but to pull the word “feminist” out of the dusty drawer and polish it up.
My name is Paulina Porizkova, and I am a feminist."
Comey is all about Comey.
Comey's focus was on keeping his job and maximizing his own power. That's why he did not challenge Trump when Trump started making inappropriate demands. If Trump had not fired Comey, you would never have heard anything about what went on between Trump and Comey. It makes me sick that so many liberals have fallen for Comey's act. What we're seeing here is two extremely self-centered people -- Trump and Comey -- trying to destroy each other. Neither of them deserves applause or admiration; they are each equally disgusting in their total focus on themselves and their lack of concern for others. If you really want to applaud someone, applaud Salley Yates, who put her country's needs before her own concerns. But she's a woman, and we don't admire women in this society. We'd rather applaud a self-centered male conservative than a patriotic female liberal.
You should read this article about Comey before you go applauding him:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comeys-intellectual-history
When you get to the part about why he felt he had to meddle in the election, ask yourself who would really have suffered. The answer is Comey. The only person who would have been inconvenienced if Comey had not sent that letter on October 28th was Comey himself. He meddled in the election only to cover his own ass in case HRC became president, new and incriminating information was found in the e-mails, and he was attacked by conservatives for having helped HRC win. If he really felt he had to announce that he was reopening the investigation on Hillary, why couldn't he also announce that there was an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties with Russia? Comey assumed HRC would win the presidency and that he would end up looking like an amazingly independent guy with amazing integrity. Comey's whole focus is on looking as good as possible while screwing everyone else. It's sad that so many people fall for it.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 11:55 PMNumber of posts: 4,187
