Bringing Sexism Back

In his goodbye to Hillary Clinton, the always entertaining Michael Moynihan writes:

The Democratic primary was a lose-lose proposition for the image of American tolerance: If Senator Obama lost, ours was an irredeemably racist country. Senator Clinton lost, and we are infected by sexism. But whether viewed through the prism of radical gender feminism or a boy's club media conspiracy, the truth is considerably less complicated. The vaunted Clinton machine—devoid of fresh ideas and facing a dynamic, inspirational opponent—simply couldn't compete.

But we need not choose between these two conclusions. It's probable that Clinton ran an inferior campaign, as Moynihan argues. And unless Hillary nutcrackers are somehow emblematic of gender equity, it's blindingly obvious that Katha Pollitt was also right: This campaign inspired myriad public displays of misogyny, many of them deeply dispiriting. Perhaps another woman wouldn't have prompted questions like "How do we beat the bitch," or calls to iron the shirts of hecklers. There is a tendency to dismiss sexism against Clinton because "it's just her." But sexism is no more particular to its object than racism. Surely it matters that instead of saying "I disagree with this policy proposal," Tucker Carlson chose to say of the would-be candidate: "There's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary." Unless you think there is something new about comparing assertive women to castrators, saying "but there is!" really isn't an excuse here.

There is no need to overplay the relevance of Facebook groups like "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich"; the misogyny that matters is more subtle. The tacit biases Kristof mentions are quite real, as any social psychologist will tell you, and they suggest that most people are disposed to perceive a woman as either likable or competent--not both. There is tradeoff, and Clinton's noted lack of likability is at least partly attributable to her strength. That's not to say that some women won't be able to strike a balance, somehow coming off as assertive without being tagged a robot, a school marm, or Lorena Bobbitt-esque. But it's a huge disadvantage, and five seconds of watching Chris Matthews sputter through a broadcast should only make that more obvious.

Anyway, this seems like a good time to link to Charles Johnson's wonderful post on what Hayek teaches us about rape. I wrote about sexism and the Clinton campaign here, here, and here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Libertarian Librarian||

    Bitch is the female equivalent of asshole. It is no more sexist than Asshole. Hillary is a Bitch and Bill is an asshole. Simple as that.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Kerry, you have some valid points and you're right about a lot of them. But I think in some ways this is just the way the world works. Compare the treatment of Hillary with the treatment of Margaret Thatcher, it is basically identical. Many men and women find competent women threatening (as both a sexual figure and sexual competition) and its engrained in their nature.

    You can call it sexist, but no matter what happens to society, men will think of women as different creatures than men, and vice versa.

    The result of that is various predjudices will come into play, I dont know if anything can ever be done about it.

  • Episiarch||

    In his goodbye to Hillary Clinton, the always entertaining Michael Moynihan writes

    Is that a swipe at MM? Because an intra-reason slapfight would rock.

  • ||

    I don't pay attention to Mr Carlson, but I hope he took some heat for that statement. This country is not -irredeemably- racist or sexist, but there is still plenty to go around. Sigh.

  • Toast||

    Bitch is the female equivalent of asshole.

    Or "dick", which is probably more equivalent because one would never call a woman a dick. In any case, while there were certainly sexist episodes during Hillary's campaign, I never saw the "beat that bitch" comment as one of them.

  • Curious Hussein George||

    Women aren't opressed. They control half the money and all the pussy.

  • Matt Welch||

    Is that a swipe at MM? Because an intra-reason slapfight would rock.

    Alas, Moynihan is particularly entertaining....

  • Curious Hussein George ||


    Or "dick", which is probably more equivalent because one would never call a woman a dick.


    I know lesbians who routinely use that epithet towards other women.

  • ||

    Hillary was beaten by Oprah. A likable, competent woman.

    Misogyny in our culture has faded into the background noise. You can find it if you look for it, but it's much less an obstacle than say, being of short stature.

  • ||

    I call "BS" regarding Kerry's claim of sexism. Campaigns are competition, not unlike sports. I think the fact that most women have not had much experience competing in sports, especially contact-collision sports such as hockey and football makes it difficult to understand that "make me a sandwich" is no different than "hey Crosby, you stink". No Obama or McCain supporter really thinks Hillary should make them a sandwich anymore than a New York Ranger's fan thinks that Sidney Crosby stinks. It is only a game!

  • Nigel Watt||

    Hillary probably makes shitty sandwiches anyways.

  • ||

    Am I a Neanderthal for not giving a shat about this misogyny stuff? We'll make pithy comments about Kerry being an elitist, about Kennedy being a drunk, about Bush being a redneck, about McCain being a mummy, and on and on. But if we make pithy comments about Clinton being a chick?

    Whiny bitches. "Go back and make me some bacon and eggs!"(*)

    (*)Cedric Maxwell.

  • Episiarch||

    Alas, Moynihan is particularly entertaining....

    Who would have thought?

    No Obama or McCain supporter really thinks Hillary should make them a sandwich anymore than a New York Ranger's fan thinks that Sidney Crosby stinks

    There is some merit to this. When you insult someone for whatever reason, you tend to try to use aspects of them in your insult. So when insulting a short person, you might call them Napoleon, or when insulting Jesse Walker, you might call him a Poindexter. Whatever.

    The point is that it is very difficult to determine if an insult is truly misogynistic, or is just using something about the person (that she is a woman) as a starting point for the insult.

  • Cool Cal||

    Under a different moniker, I posted a comment on Ms. Howley's blog that I think relates directly to the comment that Tucker made. I don't think that the very fact he feels she seems castrating points to sexism per se. Like I've said before, I feel very strongly that the combination of authoritarian statist policies in the person of a female politician disturbs men on a metaphysical level. What is unfortunate is that Tucker was unable to articulate this. So without further ado ... My original comment:

    I suspect that Clinton's problems, if they really surface in any existential way at all, with sexism, misogyny, etc. would have more to do with the confluence of her gender and her politics. I would consciously have no problem electing a woman per se, that is if she were Christine Todd Whitman for instance. Where I imagine the problem arises with most men of the conservative, libertarian, and even centrist persuasion is in Mrs. Clinton's ideological zeal for nanny statism and overall government control as it relates to her identity as a female, and thus to her relationship to a male public. While she would be criticized simply for her liberal ideals in a relatively analytical discourse were she a man, a more visceral reaction results due to the deep subconscious associations with female emasculation. A politician who wants to run one's life and take his individual rights is taking his liberty. A FEMALE politician who seeks to do the same is taking much more symbolically … his manhood.

  • Episiarch||

    By the way, nice Justin Timberlake reference, Kerry.

    (yeah)

  • Cool Cal||

    By the way, that sandwich thing was totally unfair. We all know it takes a village to make a sandwich.

    Good night everyone!

  • Paul||

    Wait, wait, wait... we're losing perspective here. The question remains: Did Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic primary due to sexism, or are we pointing out sexism in people that didn't figure in the primary?

    How many Democratic voters didn't vote for Hillary, casting their vote for any of the other Democratic candidates... because of sexism?

  • Paul||

    Is that a swipe at MM? Because an intra-reason slapfight would rock.

    Alas, Moynihan is particularly entertaining....


    I'd pay a dollar to see you ladies at Reason go at it...

  • ||

    Anyway, this seems like a good time to link to Charles Johnson's wonderful post on what Hayek teaches us about rape.

    Nope, not buying it. The existence of rapists does not, through spontaneous order, provide me with benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. The existence of rape generates a widespread presumption of female virtue and male baseness and guilt that hurts men generally -- in divorce and child custody and in criminal cases, for example. Males, but not females, are considered suspect in the company of children and must be careful about being alone with them. But it also affects daily life -- in any sort of relationship dispute, the presumption of female virtue and male baseness is present.

    Female sexual victimhood is considered horrifying, but male victimhood is considered amusing. Prison rape is funny. Lorena Bobbitt is funny (of course he deserved it). Abused husbands are pathetic losers (and funny).

    Occupations that are male-dominated are presumed to be that way because of sexism and require redress -- not so female dominated occupations. If females perform more poorly on some measure (e.g. SAT scores), then the measure is suspect. If males perform more poorly (high school grades) that is considered a reflection of male deficits (e.g. short attention span). And then there is the Althouse rule.

    All of these can be seen as a side effect of the near universal presumption of female virtue and male guilt.

  • Paul||

    But it also affects daily life -- in any sort of relationship dispute, the presumption of female virtue and male baseness is present.

    Slocum, you've been married before and...let me guess, divorced at least once?

  • Tacos mmm...||


    No Obama or McCain supporter really thinks Hillary should make them a sandwich anymore than a New York Ranger's fan thinks that Sidney Crosby stinks

    There is some merit to this. When you insult someone for whatever reason, you tend to try to use aspects of them in your insult. So when insulting a short person, you might call them Napoleon, or when insulting Jesse Walker, you might call him a Poindexter. Whatever.



    So you wouldn't see anything wrong with a Facebook group called "Barack Obama: Stop Running for President and pick my cotton"?

    When you use aspects of someone's race to insult them, it's making an insulting racist comment. Just like when you use aspects of someone's gender to insult them, it's making an insulting sexist comment. Seems pretty simple to me.

  • ||

    Likable and competent:

    Giada DeLaurentis, Ellen DeGeneris, That woman governor from Texas, Martha Stewart,


    Hillary Clinton is an annoying loudmouthed self serving asshole with some bad ideas. It don't matter what sex she is, she's not much of a human bein

  • ||

    and Tucker Carlson is a Costco sized douchebag

  • ||

    Uh, Hillary never struck me as particularly "strong" (whatever that means), so let's put that meme to rest right away. She allowed herself to be blown about every which way by the winds of the primary voters. She never once said anything substantial that primary voters were likely to disagree with her on at that time, and totally contradicted herself when it presented a temporary advantage.

    On the whole, her demeanor was of a weak person with no idea what she stood for thinking she could appear strong if she yelled and screamed and accused enough.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    All of these can be seen as a side effect of the near universal presumption of female virtue and male guilt.



    How many ways do you know to say "whore?" And how many derogatory terms can you think of for a sexually promiscuous man?

  • ||

    You know the Eskimos had 43 different words for snow, but only one word for whore. Make of that what you will.

  • Paul||

    How many ways do you know to say "whore?"

    One: "whore."

    Like I only know one way to say 'ho'...that would be 'ho'. Only one way to say "skank"... that would be "skank". Is there something I'm missing, here?

  • ||

    "The point is that it is very difficult to determine if an insult is truly misogynistic, or is just using something about the person (that she is a woman) as a starting point for the insult."

    I have some sympathy for this viewpoint, however, professional MSM commentators should earn their pay. Sure, the first insult thought of is often the (stereotypical) cheap shot, but unless you're going for the Don Imus image, you should edit yourself.

  • Curious Hussein George||

    "Barack Obama: Stop Running for President and pick my cotton"?

    Cotton is picked quite efficently by machines. Despite Barack Obama's God-like powers I would imagine he would be an inferior cotton-picker.

    Hilary Clinton, can probably make an excellent sandwich. Particularly if Huma Abedin is involved.

  • Famous Mortimer||

    What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

    Answer: Nothing. I already told her twice.

  • ||

    I still don't get the Rad Geek post. All men keep all women in fear, because some men rape? Huh? The post scorns us rubes for not reading through the argument or grasping it's subtleties, but why should I read something that begins with nonsense? (The main interesting point I see is actually very general: the possibility of (real) crime of any kind constrains all of us in many ways, and yes, this is very problematic.)

  • Franklin Harris||

    On the whole, her demeanor was of a weak person with no idea what she stood for thinking she could appear strong if she yelled and screamed and accused enough.



    In other words, Hillary is a bully, just like her husband.

  • ||

    Slocum, you've been married before and...let me guess, divorced at least once?

    Bad guess. Just one long marriage, no divorces.

    Let's put it another way, would anybody...ANYBODY seriously argue that law-abiding, middle class young black males are somehow, via emergent network effects, advantaged by the street crimes committed by young black male criminals?

    To ask the question is to answer it -- such an argument would be considered both obviously wrong and patently offensive. Everybody recognizes this guilt by association is harmful to young black males. So why would anybody think otherwise about men generally?

    The answer to that is easy -- the presumption of male depravity (males are 'testosterone poisoned' don't you know).

  • ||

    "Clinton's noted lack of likability is at aleast partly attributable to her strenght" =
    a handful of arabians with box cutters drove planes into skyscrapers. Only delusionoids would buy either.

  • ||

    I can't side with Hillary because my opinion of her is formed by her past and her husband's past. I just don't trust her.
    I have no problems electing or working for a female leader, but have the strong conviction (and experience) that women leaders are just as flawed as male leaders.
    That said, I do remember times watching/reading the news where I was aghast at what I perceived to be blatant sexism in the treatment of Clinton. But I still discard the options she presents - if anything, my favoritism for the underdog would make me want to see Clinton succeed in that environment. Maybe so if she wasn't _that_ woman.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Paul | June 13, 2008, 6:05pm | #
    How many ways do you know to say "whore?"

    One: "whore."

    Like I only know one way to say 'ho'...that would be 'ho'. Only one way to say "skank"... that would be "skank". Is there something I'm missing, here?

    ***

    Try pronouncing it "hoo-er". It adds a Continental flair when ordering arugula salad and a double-half-decaf latte.

  • ||

    Really. What is so "competent" about Hillary?

  • Jervas||

  • Jervas||

    Specifically the ad hominem part is pretty similar to what Epi said.

  • ||

    Episiarch writes,

    hen you insult someone for whatever reason, you tend to try to use aspects of them in your insult. So when insulting a short person, you might call them Napoleon, or when insulting Jesse Walker, you might call him a Poindexter. Whatever.

    The point is that it is very difficult to determine if an insult is truly misogynistic, or is just using something about the person (that she is a woman) as a starting point for the insult.


    Short is a characteristic that is viewed negatively in our society. So is nerdiness. That's why making reference to them is a good way to insult somebody. Bitch, as you say, is an insult that focuses on the characteristic "female."

    So, what insults have candidates been subject to that allude to their maleness? Tallness? Handsomeness?

    What you did there was score the point for the people arguing for misogyny, by demonstrating that femaleness is like shortness or geekiness in its esteem in our society.

  • ||

    Bitch, as you say, is an insult that focuses on the characteristic "female."

    No, "bitch" focuses on people who whine and complain and make life difficult. Indeed, it's used to refer to males at times.

    I'm not nearly misogynistic enough to think that every woman is a "bitch".

  • ||

    And how many derogatory terms can you think of for a sexually promiscuous man?

    "man"

  • ||

    Indeed, it's used to refer to males at times.

    ...in order to compare them to women. Calling a man a bitch is meant as an insult to his masculinity.

  • ||

    joe,

    I'm not sure about that -- I often hear gays calling eachother bitches, and they presumably aren't concerned about old-fashioned ideals of masculinity (God bless them).

    What about women calling other women bitches? Are they misogynists too?

  • Nigel||

    But what's wrong with being sexy?

  • ||

    How many ways do you know to say "whore?"

    Two:

    1. Whore
    2. Politican

    I'll leave to you to decide which fits Hillary better.

    What you did there was score the point for the people arguing for misogyny, by demonstrating that femaleness is like shortness or geekiness in its esteem in our society.

    joe--I'll happilly call McQueeg an "ill-formed, goose-stepping, hyper-authoritarian cunt" or Obama a "pandering, dickless, neo-Fabian, Great Society throwback" without a moment of doubt. And I bet I won't get called on it.

    But, call Hillary a "power-crazed, shiftless, absolutely corrupted, souless, sodden bitch" and all of sudden you're a hair shy of a wife-beater? Not buying it.

  • ||

    I often hear gays calling eachother bitches

    I usually hear "fucking queen!"

    What about women calling other women bitches?

    Could that fall under the same flag as young black dudes calling each other "niggah?"

    "Bitch" is a fairly utilitarian word. You can use it, obviously, to insult a a member of either sex, or to describe a particularly difficult situation, as in "What a bitch of a time," or just as a synonym for complaining.

    Am I forgetting any?

  • ||

    I agree with Moynihan, it wasn't sexism that sunk Clinton. She has a reputation that goes beyond her gender. She is phony and duplicitous. Cattlegate, Rose Law firm, White House Travel, carpetbagging, coverups, etc. The Democrats ignored all of that. But pretending to be a duck hunting redneck was just too much even for them. She says Bush forced her to vote for the war, yet she isn't going to bring the troops home. Demanding delegates from states that she earlier argued shouldn't have any. Etc.

    Her gender is a dainty clutch purse in comparison to the other baggage dragging along behind her.

  • ||

    Chris,

    What about women calling other women bitches? Are they misogynists too?

    It's a matter of separating the sheep from the goats. "Are they misogynists?" is a pointless question.

    It's a misogynist act, and women do that all the time. You can also find black people who put down other black people in racist terms, gay people who put each other down in homophobic terms, etc.

  • ||

    Brandybuck, I haven't seen anyone question the idea that there were things people disliked about Hillary Clinton that had nothing to do with her sex.

    But even then, there was this irritating tendency for some people to express their disapproval in very gendered language.

  • ||

    Dammit! forgot "not" again.

    Chris, it's NOT a matter of separating the goats from the sheep.

  • jtuf||

    Hillary faced some genuine sexist attacks such as the "iron my shirt" sign. She also had a double standard for sexism in one case, the upset over comments about her clothing. A picture of Bush's codpiece during his Iraq visit inspired a bunch of articles. So did a picture of Obama's torso. The genuine sexist attacks against Clinton are shameful. Hopefully activists can clean up their manners soon.

  • ||

    School marm can work, see Margaret Thatcher.

  • ||

    I think Hillary probably got as many votes due to her being female as she lost for the same reason. Barack Obama probably lost votes because he was black, he just as probably gained some for the same reason.

    Hillary could have been treated sexist and it still could have nothing to do with why she lost. Sometimes the drawbacks of being treated differently can blind folks to the benefits of the same. When the drawbacks vastly outweigh the benefits (as it has in recent past for both blacks and women), I agree there's a problem. But when they don't, that's called being a human being. It's tough for me to see where being black or a woman hurt either candidate in their campaign.

    We all get treated differently in some ways based on who we are. Good or bad, it's the way it is.

    That said Obama's race might hurt him in the general which would be a shame even though I'm not voting for him. We'll see, I guess.

  • ||

    As for media coverage, there were some goodies thrown HRC's way, like frontrunner attention early on, and some "woman making history fluff pieces". But that she faced a great deal of misogny is simply a fact.

    Let's say that only 16% of voters wouldnot vote for a woman. I am for public and private attempts to change that "human nature" (dubious on that claim; "human nature was created by the incentives and controls of yeateryear and people's ultimate adoption of them as "what everyone knows is just how men and women are"). 16% say no just because of the gender? This is not tribalism, how?

    Since organized force of governments and sometimes outside of government forces helped create and re-ineforce these sexist stereotypes about women, (no voting rights, strange property conditions, strange wills provsisions, etc, leading to views of competent professional women as rare), they should now seek to help purge the taint [taint provided for the kiddes, have fun!]

  • ||

    MNG,

    But surely Hillary Clinton pulled strongly from the female vote simply because she's a woman.

    It's not that we shouldn't try and change certain ways we deal with people different from us, or that it's okay to heave sexist slurs at women in the public eye.

    It's just that I think it's dangerous to mandate that people of different backgrounds and characteristics be treated exactly the same at all times. Sometimes the ways in which we are different are some of the most attractive things about us. Why give up the good with the bad, if the scales come close to balancing in the end?

  • ||

    MNG,

    Even assuming one wanted to do that, how? How do you convince people to be willing to vote for a woman using govt coercion.

  • Paul||

    ...in order to compare them to women. Calling a man a bitch is meant as an insult to his masculinity.

    And calling Hillary a bitch was an insult to hers.

  • Paul||

    But surely Hillary Clinton pulled strongly from the female vote simply because she's a woman.

    Of course she did... meaning she benefitted from sexism. And no, that's not a snarky comment. I mean that. Someone pulled the lever for her and avoided a man because of her femaleness. Sexism. Plain and simple.

  • ||

    joe,
    "Bitch" is way too polite a word for that cunt Hillary.
    I don't wish her death, but I do want her to be poor and unimportant.
    Can I pray to that dick God for that?

  • alan||

    In the future, ladies, a decent comeback to 'iron my shirt' would be something on these lines: 'use a dryer for five to ten minutes. It's 2008, you don't want to look too starchy.'

    Just thought I would help the cause.

  • alan||

    Of course the most devastating come back to 'iron my shirt' would be 'get laid.' But that would just be cruel. Those guys yelling at the rallies are Young Republicans. They are fully aware of how bad they suck.

  • Zombie Tim Russert||

    For someone who dislikes "myriad public displays of misogyny," you sure do appear on Red Eye a lot.

  • ||

    "Of course she did... meaning she benefitted from sexism. And no, that's not a snarky comment. I mean that. Someone pulled the lever for her and avoided a man because of her femaleness. Sexism. Plain and simple."

    Right. My point was simply that Hillary Clinton could have received sexist treatment, and STILL not have lost a single vote (on balance) due to it. The same with Barack Obama and race.

    That's not a defense of the sexism, but it's an argument against it being the deciding factor in the race.

  • ||

    You can also find black people who put down other black people in racist terms

    So you admit it! BTW, I think Brandybuck and Voros McCracken make some pretty good points re: Hillary Clinton.

  • Federal Dog||

    "Perhaps another woman wouldn't have prompted questions like "How do we beat the bitch," or calls to iron the shirts of hecklers."


    Oh, please. Talk about dispiriting. I honestly expected more of Kerry Howley.

    Those "iron my shirt" guys were painfully obvious Hillary plants. She stopped everything dead in its tracks, had a spotlight turned on them (literally), dedicated a preplanned portion of her speech to how she was a victim of sexism, and worked the sheep in the crowd on that basis. It truly pains me that people are so freaking gullible as to think that an actual sexist would speak in terms of ironing shirts.

  • Some Cunt||

    Wait. What are we supposed to call bitches now?

  • ||

    Where's Cathy Young when you need her.

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    Snide comments about Hilliary Clinton being female are "sexist." But snide comments about John McCain's age, Ronald Reagan's age, George H.W. Bush's lack of sex appeal, Richard Nixon's style of speech, Gerald Ford's alleged clumsiness were what? All "acceptable" forms of the "rough and tumble" of political discourse?

    I am no Obama supporter but I still cannot see how or where, as the Hilliary defenders are now alleging, that he "went sexist," unless the mere fact of gathering more delegates than she did is somehow "sexist."

    Identity politics is tiresome.

  • ||

    Joe,

    I read that, in the US, more men (usually boys) get raped than women --- but the male rapes go unreported. I never understood how "unreported" statistics get tallied, but I know that the number of rapes I see cited is not the same as the number of rape convictions. I have no idea if it's accurate, but (lacking evidence) I cant discount the possibility. Assuming arguendo that it's true (more males are raped than females) how does that affect the Brownmiller hypothesis? I mean, if perception (and therefore fear) is one thing and reality another, wouldn't her hypothesis still be valid?

  • Episiarch||

    Short is a characteristic that is viewed negatively in our society.

    Well, you would know, joe.

    See? I'm being a "bitch" and a "dick". Is that sexist?

  • ||

    i thought the "iron my shirt" thing was staged. was it?

  • ||

    I agree with Voros here: Right. My point was simply that Hillary Clinton could have received sexist treatment, and STILL not have lost a single vote (on balance) due to it. The same with Barack Obama and race.

    That's not a defense of the sexism, but it's an argument against it being the deciding factor in the race.


    It was a Democratic primary.

    Art-POG - "Admit" what? I merely observed that fact. You make it sound like my observation somehow rebuts my point, or that I was loathe to acknowledge it.

    Wicks, two things that completely absent from this thread: Hillary Clinton supporters, and accusations that the Obama campaign launched sexist attacks. You dreamed those both up.

    Tommy Grand, you can read lots of things on the internet. I suppose with prison rape that's possible, but it wouldn't make much of a dent in Brownmiller's hypothesis if the criminal fringe that compels all women to curtail their behavior in the outside world also behaves the same way on the inside world. Seriously, have you ever, even once in your life, altered your behavior, avoided doing something you would otherwise have done, or even given a passing thought to whether you need to take extra precautions as you go about your daily business in order to make sure you aren't raped? I sure haven't.

  • ||

    And, of course, it's putting my joke name up again.

  • ||

    I am surprised at Kerry.

    I think she should check out Camille Paglia over at Salon.com.

    Camille rocks! IMHO she nails Hillary to the wall over and over.

    Hillary is the product of a large dysfunctional family with a weak father and weak male siblings. She dominated that family, and her modus operendi to all males is domination.

    When she was in front in the polls, she condescended to all the males. Then when Barak beat her in Iowa, she cried, and made a comeback.

    The flip side of her domination approach is her masochistic clinging to Bill the womanizer because she needs his power to support her own persona.

    None of these traits over time endeared her to the masses. She has a core of old Gloria Steinem anti male rabid feminazi followers, but she fails to turn on the 21 century competent women she needs to get over the top.

    Her Iraq war vote and the perception that she is a neocon certainly did nothing to help her. Her campaign was staffed with submissive girly men and the women at the top only fanned rumors of her bisexuality. All these factors, not a crude misogynist reaction, did her in.

    Kerry, I expected more from YOU!

  • ||

    I'm trying to care. But I'm not trying very hard.

  • Episiarch||

    joe, I am assuming it is using your joke name because you have threads open in multiple tabs or windows. The browser is keeping one cookie for all instances of this particular site, so if you use a joke name in one thread and then switch windows to another thread and post, it may grab the cookie and use your last post's handle.

    This is speculation, of course.

  • ||

    "Seriously, have you ever, even once in your life, altered your behavior, avoided doing something you would otherwise have done, or even given a passing thought to whether you need to take extra precautions as you go about your daily business in order to make sure you aren't raped? I sure haven't."

    Well, yes. I have. I don't know if that makes me a "bitch" or a chicken or paranoid. But I definately have made decision based in part, on my fear of being raped. It's hard to say if this fear has an effect on me every day, or just sometimes. Psychology is tricky that way. I think some men might be in denial about this fear and the consequences it has on their lives and decisions. Maybe I just watched Deliverence Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption too many times.

  • ||

    Referring to Hillary Clinton as merely 'assertive' reminds me of the guy whose pit bull mauled the face off a toddler: "Daisy was just protecting her puppies."

    You don't have to go back to Vince Foster, just remember how last month she was evoking the assassination of RFK.

  • ||

    Or was that 'invoking?'

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Michael Moynihan

    I LIKE MIKE!

    Let's see, Bushitler is just politics but Bitch Hillary is sexism. WTF?

    Clinton's noted lack of likability is at least partly attributable to her strength

    No, it's not. Her lack of likability is precisely because she has the persona of a bitch.

    I'm going to go plant my petunias.

  • ||

    Art-POG - "Admit" what? I merely observed that fact. You make it sound like my observation somehow rebuts my point, or that I was loathe to acknowledge it.

    joe, I wasn't rebutting your point, I was using what you just said to buttress a point I tried to make to you a couple weeks ago (tht you probably forgot by now). The point, irrelevant as it is now, is that black people spend a lot o time oppressing other black people and wome are often the first to get in the way of other women (which of course doesn't excuse extraracial racism and extragender sexism). Of course, this is banal, and why almost nobody complained about what Cosby said, but rather how he said it.

  • ||

    And libertreee, I'm convinced that your post says a lot about your particular psychology. And this is from someone who agrees that Hillary Clinton's comportment and style of speech can be at times off-putting.*

    *True, of course, of any politician. And FWIW, Huckabee's "style" is vey smooth, but what he says is fucking awful.

  • FDM||

    She lost because she played the popular vote against the delegate vote and hoped to strongarm the convention to make her a candidate. Simple strategic error. You have to play by the rules that are setup. Beyond that, who gives a rat's ass that she is a woman? She is a power-hungry politician that sees herself as elite ruling class. Reason enough to hope every manner of ill befalls her, including, but not limited to, every form of disease and bodily injury. Same for Obama. Same for McCain. Same for almost every other congresscritter -- the lot of them should be tried properly for violating the Constitution and when found guilty hanged from the nearest cherry tree in D.C. until dead. Anyone think I'm a little fed up with politics as usual in the US?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    All of that analysis aside, Hillary would have one if Obama had stayed home. Obama is charismatic, speaks well, smiles, has presence and their really isn't all that much in hard policy to differentiate him from her.

    It's the girl theory. If there are two equally hot chicks you want to date, you'll pick the nicer of the two.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Would have one? One what? A wee knee?

    Duh, Hillary would have WON! She would have won.

  • ||

    The "Iron my shirt" heckling came from two guys working for a local radio station.

  • ||

    Am I the only one that thinks Chelsea has grown into quite a peach?

  • ||

    Brotherben, I can see and respect that. As long as a guy could put the specter of hr parents out of his mind, he could be quite happy with Chelsea.*

    *This is not a dig at the Clintons as politicians but a very real acknowledgement of the fact that I'd be gettin' kinky with Chelsea and then be assaulted by the thought of Bill sticking a cigar inside Monica's pudendum.

  • ||

    The "Iron my shirt" heckling came from two guys working for a local radio station.


    Yep, Jacob. From some cheesy drive-time show in Boston, to be exact.

    But what do you think are the odds you'll get any acknowledgement of that from either one of these folks in the thread?

    Of course the most devastating come back to 'iron my shirt' would be 'get laid.' ... Those guys yelling at the rallies are Young Republicans.



    Those "iron my shirt" guys were painfully obvious Hillary plants.



    Sigh.

  • Federal Dog||

    It's not surprising that the campaign found the "iron my shirt" guys at some radio station. What is profoundly stupid is that anyone would think that a couple of sexist assholes could waltz past legions of gatekeepers into a completely choreographed campaign rally to harass Hillary Clinton with a huge homemade orange sign that said: "IRON MY SHIRT!"

    They were there to play a very specific role that the campaign planned would be a centerpiece of media attention. An older woman (or women) came up with that obviously bogus shit. No actual sexist, much less a couple of 21-year-old guys, thinks in such archaic terms.

  • ||

    Feminists everywhere should rejoice at her defeat. Had she succeeded in lying, whining, crying, bullying, mudslinging, arm-twisting and blackmailing her way to the nomination, then it could easily be a century before another woman was seriously considered for the presidency.

    Sexism is the only reason she got as far as she did: the press pretended that she had something to offer, for no other reason than her gender. The voters of new york gave her a senate seat as a consolation prize for having had the poor judgement to marry Bubba the Slut, and her "accomplishments" in that office are few.

    She is probably the most evil person from the left wing to seek office since Richard Nixon.

    To hell with that bitch.


    -jcr

  • ||

    Am I the only one that thinks Chelsea has grown into quite a peach?

    Meh.

    She's like a college girl who has a nice body for the moment, but you can take a look at her mother and see where she's going to end up. If she wasn't rich, she wouldn't even be worth the exercise of a one-night stand.

    Of course, the most repulsive thing about her is the socialist pablum she spouts when her mother's pimping her out for campaign appearnces.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Upon further reflection, I apologize for calling HIllary a bitch. I love dogs, and I deeply regret comparing any dog to a politician.

    -jcr

  • Geotpf||

    I never understood why "cunt" was considered so much worse than "dick". In any case, there's no direct male version for "bitch". "Bastard" probably comes closest.

  • ||

    TWC,

    That, and she voted for the war.

  • ||

    Federal Dog:

    The guys in question were from this radio show (Wikipedia). Typical cheesy shock-jock crap. I don't think there needed to be any sort of stealth, finessed conspiracy to prompt a couple of their resident nimrods to act stupid for attention.

    I do give you props for actually returning to the thread to address the discussion of your post.

  • Federal Dog||

    No one said anything about stealth or finesse. The Clinton campaign had anything but. But then again, it didn't need any: People believe exactly what they're told to believe.

    Wherever the campaign found them, those kids did not come up with a half-century-old slogan and crash police-state-level security with a huge homemade orange sign without the full direction and cooperation of the people running that media event.

  • deluded guy||

    She's like a college girl who has a nice body for the moment, but you can take a look at her mother and see where she's going to end up. If she wasn't rich, she wouldn't even be worth the exercise of a one-night stand.

    Good. Because I'm going to look like a bronzed Greek god with washboard abs when I'm 62, and I don't want to be stuck with a subpar woman.

  • ||

    "She is probably the most evil person from the left wing to seek office since Richard Nixon."

    Nixon from the left wing.

    Ah, you gotta love insanity brought on by ideological nuttiness.

    You know, two other leftists I hated were Goldwater and McKinley.

  • Hugh Hefner||

    Am I the only one that thinks Chelsea has grown into quite a peach?

    At 100' she is passably cute. Nice can too. Closeup, she is a two-bagger.

  • ||

    "It's not surprising that the campaign found the "iron my shirt" guys at some radio station."

    Again, insanity by ideological nuttiness is a marvel to behold.

    "The Clinton campaign totally planted those hecklers."
    "Actually, if you look it up it started with some shock jocks who do this kind of thing all the time."
    "Uhh, yeah totally, they were pawns of the machine."

    Jesus man, if you some of you guys want to know why many people who didn't like Hillary all that much still felt the hate on her was irrational to such a degree that it might have been sexist, then look in the mirror.

    "People believe exactly what they're told to believe." Well, you're right there, though in a way I kinda doubt you know or would appreciate...

    "Hillary is the product of a large dysfunctional family with a weak father and weak male siblings. She dominated that family, and her modus operendi to all males is domination.

    When she was in front in the polls, she condescended to all the males. Then when Barak beat her in Iowa, she cried, and made a comeback."

    This is why it's kind of hard to take Camille Paglia seriously, or you as a semi-rational human.

    Knee-jerk psychoanalysis aside, I know I always associate crying with domination. But you know libertree, there is a psychoanalytic concept that may explain your comments: projection.


    HRC plays dirty ball, has few principles, and has a bizarre ambition. Just like Mitt Romney for example or scores of other political canidates. The people who hold her out to be the devil are very strange...

  • Kolohe||

    I find the whole 'iron my shirt was an inside job ' somewhat less credible than the same being said of the Maine, but more credible than the same being said of 9/11.

    But nontheless, not very credible. Ol' Friar William's Shaving Kit says that morning zoo types will always be able to rise to the challenge of being puerile jerks without any outside help.

    I think the post-mortem's all discount the fact that Hillary herself was something of an empty (pant) suit at the beginning herself. Remember the 'found my voice' thing?. From launch to NH, her campaign was just a vague 'return to normalcy' of the Clinton era - which btw, I and many others would be perfectly happy with - but was not sufficient to create the energized following required to win. Unlike, say, Obama - or her husband 16 years ago.

    And whatever subtle nuanced stances that one has when one is 'experienced' she jettisoned quickly. As a trivial example, during one debate, all the rest of the candidates were demagoguing against lobbyists, Clinton made the good point that lobbyists also lobby for stuff Democrats like, stuff like labor rights and the environment. But this didn't last long, and soon she was on the bash-wagon with everyone else.

    And of course on the larger issues she tried to be too cute by half. She basically said NAFTA was a mistake, which was at direct odds with her 'return to Clintonism' core message. And on the AUMF, saying that it was a vote for more diplomacy was the most ridiculous statement of the season. A message of 'right war, wrongly executed' - essentially Kerry's message - may have still worked, esp with a coupling with the promise of withdrawal.

  • ||

    I know I always associate crying with domination.

    Hillary is a control freak. The crying is about manipulation and manipulation is all about control. To be able to dominate one must first be able to control. Comprehend?

  • ||

    Tom wrote: " Typical cheesy shock-jock crap. I don't think there needed to be any sort of stealth, finessed conspiracy to prompt a couple of their resident nimrods to act stupid for attention."

    No, but getting their signs into the event was a good trick.

    And timing their outburst so well with what Clinton was saying - *right* when Clinton was talking about how difficult it is to change society.

    And Clinton being able to call for the lights to be turned up, right then, and getting it done right then. (I mean, what are the odds that, in the middle of the typical town hall event, someone would be right there at the room's lighting controls and ready to turn them up on request?)

    And of course Mark Penn is big in the PR business, so he likely has lots of connections with media outlets like WBCN.

  • ||

    The whole 'sexism' thing is absurd, in that she managed to come in a close second behind one guy, and beat the other half dozen or more MALE candidates like a rented mule.

  • PDruillet||

    Most of you American males lack any sense of aesthetics and you tie your personal self esteem into how close your date/wife/significant other resembles a department store mannequin. As a result, you have very boring taste in women.

    Chelsea Clinton is a uniquely beautiful woman, and if you can not appreciate that the fault lies in you
    and how you measure up qualitatively speaking, and not in this woman, who happens to be an exquisites beauty measured from the top of her oval face down to the supple spread of her luscious rump.

    Here, we actively seek the off beat beauties, the rare barococo; for us, it is about sex, sex and even more sex, and sex is an adventure to be savored, but for you Americans, it is all about status, status, and more status, and sex is just an early negotiation in a joint venture.

  • Episiarch||

    Most of you European males lack any sense of heterosexuality and you tie your personal self esteem into how close your date/wife/significant other resembles a man. As a result, you have very boring taste in women.

    Chelsea Clinton is a uniquely heinous woman, and if you can not appreciate that the fault lies in you
    and how you measure up qualitatively speaking, and not in this woman, who happens to be an atrocious beast measured from the top of her crumpled face down to the wide spread of her Clintonesque rump.

    Here, we actively seek the utterly flawed, the common bar-room tramp; for us, it is about feeling superior, superior and even more superior to Americans, and that is an adventure to be savored, but for you Americans, it is all about something which doesn't involve obsessing about another country, and sex is just sex.

  • ||

    PD-Conservatives in America, and this seems to include these authoritarian-libertarian types, are very funny about sex. Look at all the hate on this thread for Bill Clinton because the man likes...pussy.

    Yeah, I know I hate a guy who likes pussy.

    The funny thing about that, given that many of these authoritarian-libertarian types share traditional dislikes of gays, is that where I come from hating a guy because he likes getting pussy would make people think one is, well, "queer" was the word we used...And we meant more than "odd" (though we would have thought that as well)

  • ||

    I must add this as it is pertinent to the subject. At least for me it is. Maybe that is important to undestanding brotherben.

    Women for decades have asked for, and recieved, some measure of equality. When men treat them as equals, they start crying foul. We men can be a crude bunch when running in a herd. We call each other all sorts of ugly names and make fun of any number of shortcomings we percieve in each other. Part of the problem, imo, is that women want equality in society right up to where we treat them the same as we treat each other. They want no part of the vulgar and profane comraderie that men enjoy. And men, being creatures of habit, aren't quite sure how to respond to such equal but seperate demands.


    Or maybe I'm just a chauvinist pig that doesn't play nice with women.

  • Rad Geek||

    Tommy_Grand:

    I read that, in the US, more men (usually boys) get raped than women --- but the male rapes go unreported. I never understood how "unreported" statistics get tallied, but I know that the number of rapes I see cited is not the same as the number of rape convictions.



    Ross Perot's Trade Policy:

    Tommy Grand, you can read lots of things on the internet. I suppose with prison rape that's possible, but it wouldn't make much of a dent in Brownmiller's hypothesis if the criminal fringe that compels all women to curtail their behavior in the outside world also behaves the same way on the inside world.



    This question I can help out on.

    I know of no empirical data that suggests that men are raped more often than women are. It's certainly true that very few rape survivors report what happened to them to the police, and that male rape survivors are even less likely to report it to the police than female survivors are. But there is fairly extensive research on unreported rapes, and it does not indicate that the unreported rapes against men are anywhere near numerous enough to make up the difference.

    Obviously, there is no perfect way to determine the number of sexual assaults that aren't reported to the police. However, the best ways at our disposal to get a grip on something like the rough scale of the problem are anonymous victim surveys, in which researchers randomly sample a population of men and women (most often with telephone surveys or paper surveys), ensure the anonymity of the respondents, and ask them whether certain kinds of events have ever happened to them. Victim surveys like these are the kinds of surveys that are generally being cited when writers refer to the large proportion of rapes (over 90% of rapes against women, and an even higher percentage of rapes against men) that go unreported. Since the victim surveys are anonymous, and carefully designed to be as specific and objective as possible in their questions; and since there are no legal or social consequences attached to responding to the survey, as there are for making a report to the police, these tend to give a much more accurate picture of the situation than police report statistics do.

    One of the most systematic, largest, and most recent victim surveys was the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, for the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Justice. The surveys were done in late 1995 through early 1996, with the research reports coming out from 1998 to the present, and (in spite of the name) collected a great deal of data about the incidence, prevalence, and nature of violence against both men and women, including battery, rape, and stalking. You can read a great deal about their findings on rape in their research-in-brief report (1998) (which includes a couple of pages of discussion on survey methodology, pp. 13-15), their full report (2000), and their recent research report on rape victimization (2006).

    What they found is that about 3% of U.S. men (about 1 in 33), and about 18% of U.S. women (about 1 in 6), have suffered either a completed rape, or an attempted rape, in their liftimes. If you look only at completed rapes, and exclude attempted rapes, the numbers are about 15% (1 in 7) for women, and about 2% (1 in 50) for men.

    If rates of rape have remained relatively stable since 1995-1996 (police statistics indicate that, if anything, they have gone up; but as noted, police statistics are hard to rely on) then about 0.3% of U.S. adult women (about 300,000 nationally) and about 0.1% of U.S. adult men (about 100,000) have been raped in the past 12 months; and that there have been about 876,000 rapes committed against women in the U.S. in the past 12 months, compared to about 111,000 rapes committed against men. (The incidence numbers are different from the prevalence numbers because female rape survivors are much more likely to have been raped repeatedly than male rape survivors.)

    Thus, while it's appallingly common for men to be raped, and more men have been raped than most people think, women are nevertheless much more likely to be raped than men are.

    I have no idea if it's accurate, but (lacking evidence) I cant discount the possibility. Assuming arguendo that it's true (more males are raped than females) how does that affect the Brownmiller hypothesis? I mean, if perception (and therefore fear) is one thing and reality another, wouldn't her hypothesis still be valid?



    For what it's worth, Brownmiller is certainly aware of child sexual abuse against boys and the rape of adult men in prison. She discusses the former in her discussions of child molestation and of serial killers. She discusses the later at some length in a section of Chapter 8, "Power: Institution and Authority" (pp. 257-268). Brownmiller was, in fact, one of the first writers to conclude (remember, she published in 1975) that the rape of men in prison was systematic, widespread, and an instrument of prison hierarchies of power. She believed (rightly, I think) that the phenomena tended to support her theories about the use of rape as an instrument of gendered hierarchies of power, not to undermine them.

    If it were true that more men were raped than women, then no, I don't think it would much affect her hypothesis, firstly because her hypothesis, as you note, has as much to do with the felt threat of rape as it does with the actual incidence of rape, so with men, if there were in fact widespread stranger rape, but it were never talked about much, and especially not as something that threatens all men in daily situations, you wouldn't expect it to have the same social effects. Similarly, and just as importantly, since the threat of rape (by other men, not by women) doesn't generally lead to men being exhorted to seek protection from women, you wouldn't expect it to have the same dynamics for sex-class that the threat of rape by one group of men has on women, who often are exhorted to seek protection from other men. And, thirdly, what we know about the situations in which men are most often raped (it is extremely rare for men to be randomly targeted for rape by strangers, outside of some well-defined spaces like prisons; but, while most women who are raped are also raped by someone they know, not by a stranger, the existence of a significant number of men, who randomly target women for rape, in everyday situations, at large in the outside world, does create a significant threat, which Brownmiller is describing in her Myrmidon theory, and which does not generally exist for men. (If the rape of men were more common than the rape of women, then no doubt widespread rape might have other systemic effects on men; but not the effects, as discussed by Brownmiller, that the threat of random stranger-rape in the world at large has on women, since the threat profile for men would be different in character.)

    But, as I said above, see the victim surveys on actual incidence and prevalence of rape. As far as I know there is no evidence that stranger rape, or intimate partner rape, or acquaintance rape is more commonly suffered by men than by women.

  • PDruillet||

    MNG -- what do you mean by authoritarian-libertarian? That is contradictory.

    You are not bothered by the low and common behavior demonstrated by your former President Clinton while he held the highest office of your land?

    I have no opinion of your internal political matters, but please, try to avoid embarrassing yourself by making assumptions. I for one hate poodles.

  • ||

    Here is what people don't seem to get.

    Hillary Clinton is a groundbreaking woman in presidential politics the same way Lurleen Wallace was a grounbreaking woman in Alabama politics.

    Absent her hubby's coattails, Hillary is never elected to the US Senate. Period. She cherrypicked an open seat in a blue state. She had all of the incumbency advantages name recognition, party support, money) with none of the disadvantages (voting record). All she hasd accomplished inb politics is due to her choipce of spouse.

    There are women in the Senate who earned their way on their own. Debbie Stabenour, Barbara Boxe (ugh!) and others. That feminists hold her up as some sort of trailblazer is fuckin' pathetic.

    How that for sexixt denunciation?

  • ||

    A lot libertarians are authoritarians. Many versions of libertarians take a point in history in which massive deficiencies in power exist (deficiencies as in differences in economic bargaining power, or permeated stereotypes and prejudices for examples) which were created by past uses of fraud/force and they say "ok, now there must be absolute respect for private choice." They know that such a starting point makes sure that differences due to bargaining power or stereotypes will be supported and all in the name of "liberty."

    If I'm a Native American whose lands were confiscated from him, whose culture was often forcibly denied him at gunpoint, who was placed in places of low economic value, who was actively discriminated against via government sponsored force, fraud and propaganda, (which then creates and reinforces permeating stereotypes about how "my people" are lazy, unintelligent, etc., which then makes more people less willing to hire me, loan me money, buy stock in my company, etc), then to, when I start to get a hand in government and start thinking about using its power to offset some of the burdens imposed on people like me, say "whoa, government is bad, property is sacred, you gotta bargain with whatcha got, etc" is of course to support the authoritarian structures in place at the time.

    A lot of libertarians know this, and like it, concerning many of the groups they dislike (women, native americans, blacks, the poor, athiests, "hippies", etc). They don't think government is incompetent, far from it, they are actually worried government WILL have an effect, that is taking some advantage they fell ass backwards into and giving it to people they think deserve to suffer...


    As to Clinton, I'm not sure what the low and common behavior you are speaking of is. His spineless triangulation strategies? Yeah, I kinda did not like that. But I imagine you mean that he had sex with a woman who wanted to have sex with him when he was married. No, I'm not bothered by that one bit I'm afraid.

    You need sexual purity in your leaders?

  • ||

    Authoritarianism is not "support of state force" to most people. It means a psychological pre-disposition to defer to and honor traditionally established sources of authority and traditional values. The government is just one possible source. The church, the community, the "business community" are others. And yes, for a lot of libertarians that goes just fine with their "libertarianism."

    For example imagine a town in which 90% of the citizens are fundamentalist Christians (easy to do, they exist). In any given town, maybe 5-10% of the citizens are owners of businesses or rental property. Now citizen A is a known athiest. The town "authorities" can make sure this guy (a bad apple in their eyes) can get no job to feed his family and can deny him a place to live. Hell, they can even covenant to exclude him from buying property to make his own freaking house (hey, it was done all the time before Civil Rights).

    They've ruined this guy, and no government force occurred at all. In fact, what they would be worried about is a government law forbidding discriminating against a person because of their religious beliefs based on their religious beliefs. So you see, these authoritarians would make perfectly good...libertarians...

    Just replace athiest with "black", "gay", "Moslem" or whatever out-group you want, and "fundamentalist Christian" with any in-group you want, and you can get this writ pretty large.

  • ||

    Let me anticipate an often found lame retort: he can move.

    Well, goody. If you don't like NYC's ordinance limiting cabbie lisences, or Chicago's ban of geese livers, or DC's ban on gun ownership (etc, etc) you can move too. About 75% of the things complained of in posts here on H&R could be answered by saying that you could move to another locality.

    I hear Georgia is nice.

  • No Name Guy||

    J sub D, I've had Democrats respond to that accusation by saying without Hillary, Bill would be a used car salesman in Little Rock.

  • ||

    As to Clinton, I'm not sure what the low and common behavior you are speaking of is. His spineless triangulation strategies? Yeah, I kinda did not like that. But I imagine you mean that he had sex with a woman who wanted to have sex with him when he was married. No, I'm not bothered by that one bit I'm afraid.

    You need sexual purity in your leaders?

    Do these actions make Clinton a bad president? Hell no. Do they strongly imply tha he has a character flaw? Hell yes. Do character flaws automatically make someone abad president? Hell no. It's possible to be bothered by someone's private* behavior, but no to the extent that yu deny out of hand his efficacy as leader of the free world. It's not an awful, awful case of hypocrisy like, say, Elliot Spitzer.

    *Not sure how private your behavior is when you're a public official.

  • PDruillet||

    Thank you for the clarification of that concept you have developed. It is still a terrible abuse of your language, though, to try to put the square peg of 'authoritarian' in the round hole of 'liberty'.

    If your concept was correct, than any form of pacifism would also fall under the description, 'authoritarian.' In fact, even what you would call positive liberalism (actually that is closer to how we describe it) would fall under the common set of 'authoritarian' creeds because the system of advocates it imposes does not prevent injustices from occurring, and demonstrably over history even worsens the matter (as with Algerians here).

    So, if a political environment is either Syndicate/Anarchist, Communist, Pacifist Libertarian, or Positivist Liberal and social injustice exist to a great extent in any of these, than under the rules of your conceptual frame work they all must be forms of authoritarianism.

    Sorry, but your misuse of language does not graft well with reality. You would be better off finding another way to frame your logic, or, better yet, find a better schematic of logic.

  • ||

    MNG, Clinton's liking pussy does not make him a bad guy, but I will say that cheating on your wife, gettin' freaky wth a subordinate and lying about it means you have a character flaw.*

    *Everybody has character flaws.
    **The Right wing tried to crucify him out of personal animus as much as anything else.
    ***I don't know the intimate details of the Clintons' marriage. Maybe Hillary was cool with it. If not, Bill should beat off like the rest of us like I hear some guys do.

  • PDruillet||

    It's possible to be bothered by someone's private* behavior, but no to the extent that yu deny out of hand his efficacy as leader of the free world.

    Nicely put.

  • ||

    Er, shoud read personal/partisan animus.

  • ||

    Nicely put.

    Thanks. My keyboard's killing me, though. I'm impressed you could read that.

  • ||

    PD
    You are right it is hard to square what an authoritarian believes with a belief in expanding liberty. But what I said was that it is easy for many libertarians to square their libertarian beliefs with authoritarian beliefs. That is, of course, because I don't think most versions of what is called libertarianism actually expands liberty. This is why so many critics of libertarianism call it "propertarianism" or "contractarianism" because expanding liberty seems to be a secondary (if that concern).

    Art-A man who does not cheat on his wife is a better man than one who does, but I can't fault any man for liking sex so much he cheats at some given time.

  • SIV||

    I hear Georgia is nice.

    Naaa, you Yankees would hate it. Stay home where it is civilized.

  • ||

    "If your concept was correct, than any form of pacifism would also fall under the description, 'authoritarian.' In fact, even what you would call positive liberalism (actually that is closer to how we describe it) would fall under the common set of 'authoritarian' creeds because the system of advocates it imposes does not prevent injustices from occurring, and demonstrably over history even worsens the matter (as with Algerians here)."

    If one person were to steal another's stuff, and that person went back over to get it and you were to pop and cry out "wait, theft and tresspass is wrong, any aggression committed in furtherance of is wrong" then yes that pacifisim would indeed further authoritarianism.

    Re: your point about positive liberalism: Look over my example about the small town again. If the state the small town were in passed a statute that said that rental owners and business owners could not discriminate against applicants because of their lifestyle, religious, political choices or racial/ethnic/gender characteristics, and they even enforced this statute with force, then where would the authoritarianism be? It strikes me liberty has been expanded a good deal (people with unpopular [or just unpowerful] could freely exercise beliefs and practices without fear of reprisal) for a very low price (renters and business owners would lost the "liberty" to use their economic advantages to exert coercive pressure over others).

  • ||

    "Naaa, you Yankees would hate it. Stay home where it is civilized."

    In my Con Law class the prof once said "if you are asked about a famous case in which civil liberties were expanded against a state practice that seems about 150 years behind the rest of the nation at the time, just guess somebody v. Georgia or Mississippi. You'll be right more often than not."

  • ||

    Art-A man who does not cheat on his wife is a better man than one who does, but I can't fault any man for liking sex so much he cheats at some given time.

    I can respect your beliefs but must say that I am a moral scold this way. Meaning I will fault but not condemn somebody for this kind of behavior. Of course, both our viewpoints are pretty common.

  • ||

    Nixon from the left wing.

    Look at what the man did, not what he said.

    He ended the last tie of the dollar to gold, and imposed wage and price controls to prevent the market from coping with the inflation he unleashed. Watergate was a side show. The damage he did to this country is still with us.

    Why do you think Bubba Clinton was such a good buddy with old Tricky Dick?

    Ah, you gotta love insanity brought on by ideological nuttiness.

    You're rather smug, for one so ignorant.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Do these actions make Clinton a bad president?

    No, his desire for power and his belief that he was above the law are what made him a bad president. Banging the fat chick was incidental, lying about it under oath was a crime.

    -jcr

  • ||

    John R
    The idea of "right" and "left" are inherently relative (concepts as in "to the right of" or "to the left of").

    For all of his career Nixon was "to the right of" his major opposition, whether JFK, Pat Brown, Humprhies, McGovern, or whoever. He was a man of the right.

  • ||

    Mr. Nice Guy,

    A lot libertarians are authoritarians.

    If there ever was a libertarian revolution, what % of the regulars on this board do you think would support rounding up Unions officers?

    5%? 20%?

    "Force is appropriate in defense of property. Do I actually have to wait until someone's selling my television on the street corner before I defend myself?"

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement