Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

PoindexterOglethorpe

(28,485 posts)

5. Yep. Here on DU the default assumption of any criticism

Reply to Name removed (Original post)

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 02:14 PM

Dec 2017

of Hillary Clinton, Kirsten Gillibrand, and other women is that all such criticism is automatically sexist and misogynist. As if they are flawless and therefore not to be criticized ever.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Message auto-removed [View all] Name removed Dec 2017 OP

Please, alert us when you do. VermontKevin Dec 2017 #1

Post removed Post removed Dec 2017 #20

I didn't say you were "sexist" I merely pointed out that your promise in the OP is unfulfilled. VermontKevin Dec 2017 #25

Actually, I can do anything I want and not be sexist. Iggo Dec 2017 #2

Especially now that you received the seminal poster's permission. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #12

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2017 #21

Welcome back! Scurrilous Dec 2017 #3

Your oppression is both noted and allowed all the credibility it is in fact, due. LanternWaste Dec 2017 #4

The seminal poster's remarks were cryptic. What "did she do" ? DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #10

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2017 #24

Yep. Here on DU the default assumption of any criticism PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2017 #5

I too, would construct a conclusion lacking any substantiation to buttress it. LanternWaste Dec 2017 #11

bravo jodymarie aimee Dec 2017 #22

An admonition for "man-bashing"! Codeine Dec 2017 #6

Or better, where did it come from? Renew Deal Dec 2017 #15

No shit. demmiblue Dec 2017 #7

Also, men-bashing. demmiblue Dec 2017 #8

I'm all for Gillibrand serving another term or two as a N.Y. senator. nt oasis Dec 2017 #9

I second that, oasis. kstewart33 Dec 2017 #37

Your concern is duly noted. nt Xipe Totec Dec 2017 #13

While I can agree with your topic headline Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2017 #14

I HAVE HAD IT WITH MEN! Skittles Dec 2017 #18

*snort!* nolabear Dec 2017 #27

Won't somebody please think of the poor men. MrsCoffee Dec 2017 #16

Yep. Thinking people can process nuance. BannonsLiver Dec 2017 #17

Of course it's possible. More so for individuals than those who Hortensis Dec 2017 #19

OP states "Regularly scheduled Men-Bashing"? Really? DUers, why is this being tolerated? hlthe2b Dec 2017 #23

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2017 #26

"we who criticize Gillibrand are sexist by default" Link? Nt MikeydaDog Dec 2017 #29

More importantly, why wasn't I given the schedule?! Codeine Dec 2017 #35

Men bashing may have been a poor choice of words standingtall Dec 2017 #28

If other guys decide to not vote for us for standing up for women mythology Dec 2017 #30

It will not be view as simply stand up for women standingtall Dec 2017 #34

Maybe someone else could have written that tweet & that might be true, Motley13 Dec 2017 #31

Yeah? ismnotwasm Dec 2017 #32

At least you can claim that nt Progressive dog Dec 2017 #33

yes, but you can't be pro-sexual harassment without being sexist, usually anyway. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2017 #36

You had me with your subject line BUT Duppers Dec 2017 #38

I want Franken back and I'm STILL PISSED flamingdem Dec 2017 #39