Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 02:16 AM - Edit history (2)
great white snark to which I was replying.
That post implied that those whose principles will not allow them to vote for the Democratic nominee cause their fellow Americans to suffer. The point of my reply was that voting for, even electing, the Democratic nominee does not automatically prevent suffering.
I cited actions of the Clinton administration simply because it was the most recent Democratic administration before Obama's and I did not want to debate the current administration. My post didn't even fucking mention Hillary or any other woman.
Should I have gone back to the 1970s for the Democratic administration before both Obama's and Clinton's? Is that is what is really necessary these days to avoid a charge of sexism on DU?
Or is any criticism of any Democratic administration at all going to be deemed sexist now because the Democrat who seems to be running for President currently happens to be a woman?
By the way, Sanders, O"Malley and Webb have all made noises about running for President, too. Was my point that voting Democratic does not necessarily prevent Americans from suffering also anti-white male?
I have been the victim of sexism quite a few times, but my reply to great white snark has zero to do with sexism. It's not even in the same universe. If you really thought the post was sexist, you should have alerted, rather than make an ad hom attack on me. That's what the jury system is supposed to be for, to conceal ugly posts for the benefit of all who read DU posts.
And, of course, heaven forbid you should even attempt to address any fact stated in my purely factual post, when you could just ignore everything my post actually said for the pleasure of insulting me for things my post never mentioned at all.
However, let me not do to you what you did to me by totally ignoring the substance of your post, scant and utterly misplaced and ad hom as it was. Besides, I've seen this issue come up before with other posters.
As already stated, my reply to great white snakr was about voting (or not voting) causing our fellow Americans to suffer. It was not about Hillary. However, your reply certainly was, so I will address that.
FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President who seems to have chosen to run for President herself and certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.
First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.
She has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then signed DADT and DOMA, she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."
Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to qualifications to be President.
I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is sexist. So, neither Hillary nor her supporters can have it both ways.
But, again, that is my response to only hint of substance in your post to me. My reply to great white snark had dealt with none of that. It spoke only to whether voting for one Party or another prevents human suffering. All the other nonsense was in your mind, not mine.
(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and he behaved about that and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain. So even in your imagined version of what my post never said, the charge of sexism is wholly unwarranted.)
You really should think twice before you call any DUer bigoted. That is a very serious charges and require grounds other than merely your ability to fling about the term. Speaking as one who has endured sexism, I must add: Do you really think accusing male and female DUers of sexism willy nilly is going to help the cause of any female running for President, now or in the future, or the cause of any female, period?
Sorry, your ad hom reply said a lot more about you than it said about me or about the cause of equality for women.
On edit, this post was probably an overreaction, but no apology or deletion. If you call people bigots willy nilly, you get whatever reaction your charge gets.