You think that stopped under DADT? Discharges of queer service members increased year over year for the entirety of Bill Clinton’s term.
I’ve never ever understood why people thought it was their business that she stayed with Bill or not. I also thought it was another misogynistic swipe to dislike, judge, and cynically decide she stayed only for her career. Maybe she loved her hound dog husband. Stranger things have happened. And as said above it really is no one’s business but the Clinton family’s.
If that was it, then why did she never run for anything until after her husband was President, and then start with a position as high as the Senate? It would have been quite reasonable for her to go from lawyer to state legislator, or even the House, back when they were in Arkansas. That’s what the start of a political career generally looks like for someone rising on their own merits.
It may be that the Right’s hatred of Democratic women is entirely caused by their politics, but the way they choose to express that hatred is still overwhelmingly misogynistic. Just like their hatred of black Democrats might be political, but they choose to express that hatred in racist ways. And white male Democrats like Biden might be just as hated, but that hatred simply isn’t expressed, because without racism or sexism to fall back on, they don’t know how to express hatred.
Expressing your hatred in misogynistic or racist terms is misogyny and racism. I don’t recognize the distinction that this post is trying to draw.
Yes, it is misogyny and racism. But it explains why they don’t level the same attacks against Republicans who are female or black.
Perhaps because she had researched health, housing and education in migrant workers with Walter Mondale in the 70’s. Then in '79 Bill appointed her to chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee. From 88-92 she was on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital’s Legal Services.
Then in 1994, she was the chair of the task force for National Health Care Reform.
She was also the first first lady to have a post grad degree and already have an established, professional career.
While I have no idea if there were better people for the position than the president’s spouse, it’s not like she was new to this world.
Yeah the issue is those who feel “excused” to reach for the conveniently available and well established hate toolkit by there being political reasons to disapprove of a public figure.
Somewhat analogous to how they are willing to “forgive” the moral and intellectual deficit of, say, Herschel Walker because they approve of his political positions.
If someone just stopped at “I just plain don’t like/trust him/her, and I can’t justify it to you” I would not presume the worst. OTOH when they try to explain and justify and all the explanations come from a wrong place…
Funny thing though - I can’t imagine someone saying something like " I can’t understand why a First Gentleman was appointed to such a position". People would just assume he was appointed based on his education and experience unless he was somehow well-known to have been a SAHP starting shortly after college.
We’d have to get into a situation where we had a First Gentleman I guess. I could see a president running into criticisms for appointing a relative to a position even if it was a male. It smacks of nepotism even if the person is perfectly qualified.
This is absolutely true.
.
Somehow, this was her fault, not his. At least, i, personally, have heard a lot more people tell me about how they can’t accept that she stayed with him than say that he is unelectable because he’s a dog.
I’m a registered independent. And somehow i got on the trump campaign’s mailing list. I got a LOT of letters urging me to send money to the trump campaign. And they were all deeply and overwhelmingly misogynistic. They didn’t say, “trump is good”. They didn’t even say “Biden has these bad ideas”. They said, “if Biden is elected, Hillary will be the power behind the throne. Pelosi will get her way. Harris might come to power.” Not a mention of a dangerous man, it was all about the risk of women in power.
I was surprised at how blatant it was. And i got a lot of these mailings.
They may vote for them and “sing their praises”, but a lot of women in the conservative world also complain about being treated like second class citizens.
These guys know that they have to put up a front of being egalitarian, but they still harbor these attitudes.
And it’s not purely a matter of disagreeing with their politics. They get a degree of personal hate that is entirely unwarranted.
Wow, tokenism as a counterargument? Are we really back in the 20th century?
“Some of my best friends are women, hur hur hur”
Say what now?
Look, I’m not a fan of any politician who mocks me. If you’re a Democrat who engages in sincere, respectful debate about the best ways to advance leftist concerns, we can be allies even if we disagree on the particulars. But if you demonstrate open contempt toward me, we ain’t gonna be allies.
For these reasons, I like Clinton less than Obama but more than Joe Lieberman. Does that make me antisemitic? I like her less than Elizabeth Warren but more than Kristen Sinema or Joe Manchin; does that make me anti-Appalachian and anti-Mormon? I like her less than Trevor Noah but shitloads more than Bill Maher; does that make me anti-atheist?
This is a chump’s game. Certainly there are strains of anti-Clinton rhetoric that are grossly misogynistic; but suggesting that my three examples demonstrate misogyny is going to require a lot more evidence than you offer.
If you ask right-wingers — not when they’re trying to refute a sneer, but just out of the blue — what they think of Amy Coney Barrett as opposed to John Roberts, I figure they’ll sincerely answer, with no other agenda, I wish he were more like her. And when I asked folks who voted for the McCain-Palin ticket — again, not to see if I could draw a tokenism response, but on its own — what they thought of the ticket, they said stuff like I like him, and I like her more.
And so on.
First I said two of them. Exp. 1. was during the campaign. What she said was hyperbole, but it was not untrue. I just don’t see where a male would get the same disdain for stating what appeared to be the obvious at the time. Particularly about a competitor during a campaign. Exp. 3 was a joke, but she’s not allowed to make jokes. I can’t prove that these are sexist attitudes, but they have the appearance of it to me. YMM obviously V.
Yeah, competitors in primaries say a lot of things about each other. Nothing she said was out of the ordinary. If you’re positioning yourself as a moderate and the other guy as a leftist, this is all pretty standard stuff. Nothing contemptible about it. Men are not expected to be nice when they’re fighting a campaign.
And the other thing. Just sarcasm. It’s not so profoundly out of the ordinary as to reveal something fundamental about her character.
Maybe not but studies show that many would view that behavior as positively aggressive, fostering motivation, eyes on the price … if she were a man.
Hilarious, really, for anyone to point to HRC as a defamer of her primary opponents so extreme as to be exceptionable, in the context of Trump’s unprecedented but apparently quite acceptable maligning of his primary opponents in that same season.
I don’t think the context of Klobuchar’s rages against her employees would look good on anyone. Even before these things started coming to public notice, Schumer tried to tell her she can’t treat employees the way she was doing.
And there’s nothing about Hillary Clinton that’s even remotely comparable to Klobuchar in this respect.
Hey she let Trump beat her what a b**ch. 