I feel so torn about posts like this.

I'm a Hillary supporter, and of course think it undoubtedly true that her bid for the Presidency faces the pressures of overcoming an enormous amount of misogynism.

But, really, isn't this just a joke? I'm willing to believe that most of the people in this group are not sexist and just happen to dislike Hillary. So, they're making a joke by adopting a point of view that is bigoted in a laughably outdated, and so absurd, manner. If anything, it seems like this group strengthens women's position because it promotes the laughability of the notion that women only belong in the kitchen.

Regardless, aren't there more important things to get outraged about? Am I way off base here? I'd genuinely like to know.

Well, I was listening to NPR yesterday morning. They have been doing a series on conservative voters on Morning Edition. They interviewed three voters in Texas, and two of them, including one woman, said that they would not vote for Hillary Clinton because women should be submissive to men.

There are probably people out there who are able to differentiate disliking Hillary (for her politics, beliefs, etc.) from disliking her due to the fact she's a woman. But if looking at the Facebook group showed me anything, it is that those things are inseparable for a lot of folks. It becomes really obvious with comments like these (and trust me, no cherry picking of horrifying comments was necessary):

"LOL WHAT A JOKE! CRYING LIKE A LITTLE BABY THE OTHER DAY.ALL CRAPP OBAMA08 DONTGET ME WRONG I LOVE WOMEN BUT NOT TO RUN OUR COUNTRY!"

"Hillary can suck on my balls....then make me a sandwich..."

"obama and edwards both beat thet b***h!!!! awesome!!!!!"

"The best part is, if she did, I'd have a mob stone her as she exited wherever this sandwich was being made. Which would please me indefinitely.
P.S. Roast beef and cheese, if you please."

"bitch needs to know her place"

"I am completely in love with all of you women who joined this group for the right reasons if you joined this group stop bitching like your unshaven butched-out counterparts who did not join this group"

"Wow laura [a feminist commenter who tried to argue against the sexism of the group], I really don't want to hurt women and of course I think women should be able to vote. And the reason men have been running the world is because they have a different perspective then women. They weren't given anything, they took it. By weaker, I mean more timid. We just have different views, I'm not tryin to argue anymore. But really, I was just stating my opinion and you insulted me. I think you just need to get fucked real hard to fully understand a man's power."

"whoever wants a women to run this country better chop off their dick now becuase she will run our country into the ground like mexico. DO U WANNA BE A MEXICAN?"

"Life's a bitch, don't vote for one."

"If your wife comes running out of the kitchen nagging, whats wrong?
her chain is too long."

I think they're being facetious. I HOPE they're being facetious, and mocking those who believe such things.

Ugh. Facebook is home to many snide and snarky groups, but this one surprised me too. No matter how much I read your site, or talk to the average joes and janes out there, I am always surprised by how totally commonplace hateful, narrow attitudes are. Thank you for posting all of these articles. At least it feels good to be aware of what we are dealing with so that we can be more effective, and energized agents of change.

"I'm willing to believe that most of the people in this group are not sexist and just happen to dislike Hillary."

The very name of the group and its stated goal tells a different story. Even if it is "just a joke" its a sexist "joke". There's no way they aren't sexists, if they think that's funny.

"aren't there more important things to get outraged about? "

There's always something more important that voicing opposition to sexism, apparently.

Ugh. Facebook is home to many snide and snarky groups, but this one surprised me too. No matter how much I read your site, or talk to the average joes and janes out there, I am always surprised by how totally commonplace hateful, narrow attitudes are. Thank you for posting all of these articles. At least it feels good to be aware of what we are dealing with so that we can be more effective, and energized agents of change.

I've seen this group, and many like it. I even wrote a long note on facebook the other day about why I hate the word "bitch" and about how there are plenty of reasons to not like Hillary that have nothing to do with her womanhood. At least when I'm scoping out a cute guy on facebook, I can tell if he's an asshole immediately if he's a part of one of these groups.

I don't think it's necessarily a sexist joke. I think they're being facetious. They're adopting an stance that is absurdly sexist and are therefore, at least in some minor way, lampooning sexism.

I don't know about everyone else, but I only have a certain amount of outrage before I get emotionally exhausted. I'll save my outrage for abstinence only education, disparity in pay between men and women, overly lax rape laws, the fight against a woman's right to choose, etc.

It's frustrating that a group that looks like it was created for satire is getting hijacked by assholes. It's also frustrating that real-life sexism against Hillary Clinton has gotten so bad that probably-satire like this hits too close to home. This looks to me like the same style of humor as the "Unforgiveable" clips on YouTube. They make us so uncomfortable that we laugh out of discomfort and then out of the sheer absurdity of the suggestions they make. Like I said, it's a pity that some assholes have hijacked that as a forum to be assholes.

"There are probably people out there who are able to differentiate disliking Hillary (for her politics, beliefs, etc.) from disliking her due to the fact she's a woman. But if looking at the Facebook group showed me anything, it is that those things are inseparable for a lot of folks."

leftie, i think you're right. even the people who think they're being funny by joining the group are promoting sexism by jumping onto the misogynist bandwagon.

those comments are just vomitrocious.

What you have to question is why so many girls are participating in this. Thank about it...do you think guys would participate in a forum that constantly humiliated and degraded in the worst possible ways? No, they wouldn't....yet girls will.

Yes, CG, it IS necessary that this stuff get pointed out.

Here's a quote from shakesville that puts a hole in your argument that we have "better things to talk about and should just stop pointing out all this sexism"

"This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism ... is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.

It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/ trans men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned—and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.

Pretty straightforward stuff."

Simple, so yes we DO need to point this stuff out. It's not funny, and it's not a joke. It's sexism. Whenever I hear people complaining that feminists are always "whining too much about sexism" or "making a big deal of everything" I ask gotta ask them the question, "well gee would this type of thing be tolerated if it were, say, directed at a particular race or ethnicity?" "Do we tell people to shut up and stop whining when they are faced with hate speech?" Usually, unless they are racist bigots, they will say No, neither hate speech nor racism should be tolerated. So why should sexism be tolerated? Simple, it shouldn't.

The fact that some people would tell feminists to stop "whining" about sexism is proof that sexism is a normalized part of our culture - and this is just wrong and needs to be changed. But change won't come if we just sit back in our chairs and hope that people stop being sexist. No, WE GOTTA SAY SOMETHING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I'm not tolerating any sexism and I'm going to point it out whenever I see it. Unless you are a sexist jerk, than you should not be tolerating sexism either, CG.

I've seen a way worse group on Facebook called 'Hilary Clinton Shouldn't Run For President She Should Just Run The Dishes' This has nearly 3,000 members - which, okay isn't as much as 40,000 but still is really bad. For example it has a topic in the forum part titled 'I just don't like Hilary because she's a woman' and , suprise, suprise there's a delightful post by one Matt Kennedy

'They [women] think they're so cool with their vaginas.

You can't even rape people with a vagina!'

How delightful? and 2,924 members think this is okay Just like "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich" a large percentage of them are women.

cg, are you kidding? If you don't believe women are inferior, you don't "joke" about them being inferior, especially when sexism is still very rampant in our society.

Read leftie's comment. My stomach lurched reading those comments she quoted from the group. PEOPLE HATE YOU FOR BEING A WOMAN, cg. They think this shit is acceptable and women play along because obviously the boys give them approving pats on the head for participating in their own subjugation.

I mean, I don't think I'm a sexist jerk. I've identified as a feminist for years. I've only made two simple points.

1) I don't think that participation in this group is necessarily sexist (although I'll grant you that a lot of the members, judging from the comments, probably are). I think if you give more than a passing thought as to why someone might find the group humorous, then that's pretty obvious.
2) I, as a human being, only have a certain amount of moral outrage I can generate in a day. If you have the energy to be endlessly outraged by the constant sea of misogynism that we swim in every day, then I have a lot of admiration for you. I just don't. I shut down at a certain point, and so I'd rather spend my energy dealing with issues that have a direct effect on people.

Oh, CG I didn't mean to imply that you were a "sexist jerk". I was trying to imply that anyone who finds this type of thing funny, makes them a sexist jerk in my mind. I understand you were asking a legit question in "am I way off base here". So again, I just wanted you to know, I'm not calling you a sexist, I'm calling anyone who finds the anti-Hillary stuff (like the website in the post) a sexist. Just wanted to say that because I realized after I posted that my comment could be misconstrued as a direct insult to you, but that's not how I meant it.

yes, some people in that group probably do think they're "lampooning sexism", but clearly most don't. my 17 year old sister, who is cool but hasn't outgrown pandering for the approval of sexist boys, was in that group. and she was because she wanted guys to think she was funny and nonthreatening. BARF.

needless to say i set her straight.

but really, to answer cg's question, there are issues with more heinous impacts on the lives of specific women -- rape, domestic abuse, FGM, etc. -- but what is a bigger feminist issue than squashing the myth that women are second-class citizens, just the butt of jokes, who damn well better know their place or else?

meanwhile, facebook claims that "groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist, or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in immediate termination of your Facebook account." I've already reported that group, and you can too.

meanwhile, a quick search for "Barack Obama" and "shine my shoes" yields no results. at least we have SOME progress in online sensitivity...

Wow leftie, those comments make me REALLY angry. I can't believe there are men out there that would post this type of thing. Do these guys have any women in their lives? I mean, do they really think these hateful things of their daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, etc.? I can't believe that there are women who share in this hate also. It makes me sick to my stomach. BTW, No La Fille Torpille I don't think they are being facetious, I think they are totally serious. Ugh.

Also, Facebook would never tolerate a group that makes fun of Obama's race, why do they allow such a overtly sexist group with such hateful posts that only serves to make fun of Hillary because she is a women? Not that I'm for censorship or anything, but shouldn't hate speech toward women also fall under the hate speech laws? Or are women not considered real people and so sexism is okay (sarcasm)?

Very true, meeneecat.

There was an interview with the Facebook guy on NPR a while back, and he compared Facebook to Myspace along the lines of, "popular kids to the misfits." He is right about that one, and even after opening membership to everyone, I still associate the site with college age assholes.

Not to long ago my sister's friend in high school made a group called "Women are not equal to men... they're better." And at first it was a healthy discussion about just feminist issues...pretty soon it turned into a war about how women are to blame for rape, lack of family structure and so forth. It was pretty sickening to read because these were high school kids writing this shit. I have gotten into some pretty heated discussions about Hillary in particular and this whole race vs. gender thing. But the truth is people are not openly saying that Barack is a (insert n word here) but they are openly calling Hillary a (insert c word here). And this infuriates me, putting their ideas aside and what they have to offer, Hillary is really getting the worst comments possibly made about her. No one has ever made a comment on how Barack is dressed or how thin he is, yet how "fat" she is, is always a topic of discussion or how ugly she is by the definition some other fat bald guy makes. So for the future ladies and gents the only thing we can do is keep talking about this and get involved. Then we have to make lots of babies that grow up to be progressive and not just feminist people but conscientious people who care about others. The greatest change we can make in this world is to raise our sons in a way that in turn will not limit our daughters.
But in the meantime while we are still not ready for this progressive family we should talk to those people (the ones who say all these horrible things) and then maybe one day when they have heard us say the same thing over and over again they might understand. I am actually living proof that this works. I kept pushing and pushing my boyfriend to see my side of things and to try and understand but he was very into Metal and Punk Rock which are not very kind to women in general. So he was kind of there but until he read Full Frontal Feminism he didn’t get it. So thanks Jessica you made my life that much easier; )

I for one feel quite certain that they are not being facetious. You could MAYBE argue that with the "end women's suffrage" groups, but I don't believe it with the sexist anti-Hillary groups. As for whether there are more important problems in the world, yes, there are, but the people on these groups live and vote in this world and have an impact on those problems; thus, pointing out how many people there are that find sexism acceptable is worth one post out of however many there are each day here. And Facebook does not have a good policy regarding sexism. There are only too many examples of them allowing insane degrees of misogyny and then taking down pictures of breastfeeding. Maybe those who are both on feministing and on Facebook should find a way to complain; individuals reporting stuff doesn't seem to work too well.

I don't see this as facetious at all. The action that started this wasn't meant to be funny, from what I know. I see this as people's (men AND women's) internalized sexism finding an acceptable way to vent itself. You may not be able to tell your female boss to get back in the kitchen in public, but you can say it about Clinton.

This is not a world I want to live in. I'm so depressed.

"Like I said, it's a pity that some assholes have hijacked that as a forum to be assholes."

"A pity". Indeed, what a catastrophic loss to society and literature that we are now deprived of more sanitized, less assholey make-me-a-sandwich-bitch humor. I wonder if they sell specialized mourning armbands.

I just found another group with the title "Back to Life's a bitch, why vote for one? Anti-Hillary '08"

The boys who started this group want to make it clear to everyone that, gee, despite the title, they oppose Hillary Clinton for REAL reasons, like, "being a socialist." There is also a huge topic thread entitled: Hillary why don't you shut your mouth and make me a sandwich.

On there, a girl named Bethany tries to post about how it's fine not to support her candidacy, but not to make deragotory comments about women. Here are some responses to that:

"I have no problem with a women being president, but hillary doesn't deserve it.
But the US was started by upper class, white men. When the Bill of Rights and Constitution were created, it catered to those people only. Not saying i agree with it, but just throwing in my 2 cents."

"bethany needs a man to put her in place"

"i bet bethany just needs a boyfriend.
or a pimp."

"bethany must need to get laid then maybe she wont be so uptight......girl needs to have a sandwich in her mouth so she wont tell us her unwanted opinion, How you going to join a group and not agree with it? Can we say some one has a little to much time on her hands?....."

Regardless of whether people join this group to be INTENTIONALLY sexist or that they realize they "hate women" it still proves how hip sexism is. Girls are posting on these threads just to prove how "hip" they are and that sexism doesn't bother them, thus making them less "scary" and more "attractive"

and its not funny, cause there's a real history here. just like a group with racial groups wouldn't be funny. it's not okay.

Willow, did your sister's friend really think making a group called "Women are not equal to men.....they're better" would turn out well?

As you mentioned, people do call Clinton a cunt far more often than they call Obama a nigger, at least in my experience so far though I do live in the deep south now so perhaps the use of the word nigger is elevated here. I can understand on one level why it infuriates you and why we should all work on changing it but on another level, looking at our society right now, during the primaries,i just see it as race trumping gender in the public discourse.

OT: Is it better on these blogs to use "n word" rather than nigger or "c word" rather than cunt or is that left up to the preference of the poster?

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

There's a ton of sexism on Facebook. Try going into the Bumper Sticker application and start tallying all the images/slogans that are offensive to women. Gag. Groups like this one are not legitimate, respectful opposition groups -- they're mocking her, plain and simple. Because she's a woman.

Meeneecat, interesting point: Why wouldn't a group picking on Obama's race be tolerated, but a group picking on Hillary's gender is "just fine"??

Why is racism generally viewed as horrible, but sexism is alive and well? Neither of those things are okay...

And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender? I don't think I've seen any (eg) black people nodding and smiling and perpetuating idiotic black stereotypes and racism in our culture... joining groups that agree with that type of crap... why do some females do it? Do they really want to fit into the "boys' club" that badly?

*bristling with confusion*

after a quick facebook group search for "hillary sandwich" and scrolling through the dozen or so groups the search returned (including one encouraging hillary's assassination while eating a sandwich) i came across this group: "Obama--Stop Running for President and Get Back to the Corn Fields" with all of 2 members. The group claims it was started to protest the various "hillary sandwich" groups but clearly hasn't caught on...apparently racism isn't as cool as sexism?

also, did anyone else with facebook access notice that many of the nasty anti-hillary groups were started by high schoolers? how depressing...

i for one joined the "Hillary Haters: Stop Hating Hillary and Make Me A Sandwich" group.

And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender?

I picture the female menbers of this group to be clones of the two girls kicked off of Southwest Airlines this week. But you know, unenlightened women (and people) are consistently unimaginative anyway.

And I stand corrected... I associate the site with college age AND high school assholes.

Yet another winner: "BRO'S BEFORE HOES (1MILLION STRONG FOR OBAMA!!!)" At least there are far fewer members in that one.

"And why does it seem that some females condone and participate in the degradation of their own gender?"

I always figure women tolerate sexism, or are sexist themselves, because they are hearing it from their fathers and other male family members. I can imagine fathers teaching their daughters to hate their sex, but I imagine its not likely that parent's will teach their children to hate their own race.

I don't know if this is ethical, but you can send a message to the page administrator here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2233338482

Jaina, I think this is why:

Men, women, girls and boys all live together in family situations, educational settings, and later form romantic relationships. They are exposed to one another from birth onward.

It's possible (and common) for people of different races to live their lives segregated from each other. There is still a sort of racial segregation in the US.

Whites do not benefit from racism in their *personal* relationships the way men benefit from sexism in their personal relationships.
Sometimes white people don't even have personal relationships with people of color.

So women are compelled, from a young age, to take a backseat to men. They are taught, specifically, that their most important quality is their ability to attract the opposite sex.
Gender roles are very entrenched, and many women feel comfortable with their "role," because that's just how it's always been in their family/school/church/etc. They don't really benefit from doing so, but they get a little pat on the head from the patriarchy, you know?

POC aren't really compelled to degrade themselves for whites' entertainment or comfort. I don't think they care whether they piss white people off or disturb their sense of order or whatever; it's not like they have to go home to white people at the end of the day (the way women/girls go home to their husbands/fathers/brothers/etc.).

I can’t believe I just spent my Friday afternoon getting all worked up over horrifically sexist, Clinton-related Facebook groups. They pretty much all fall into a few basic categories:

“Don’t you know that her husband CHEATED?!�:

Hillary can't handle one man, how can she handle 150,000,000 of them?
Hillary sucks.....But not like Monica!
If Bill Clinton didn't want Hillary, why would we?
Bill Clinton sucks........Hillary swallows

Classic Name Calling:

Those Who Think Hillary Clinton Is An Ignorant Bitch, Say "I"
Hillary Clinton is a dirty skank.
HIllary Clinton Takes the O out of Country
Hillary Clinton is a stupid whore
Hillary Clinton, What a Douche!!
Hilary Clinton is Where Boners go to Die

“She’s a man!�:

Hillary Clinton is a man, and I will not vote for him.
Hillary Clinton Can't Be The First Woman President Because She Has A Penis
I Wanna Kick Hillary Clinton In The Balls!

“Never mind, she’s a woman, and that’s gross!�:

Hillary Clinton's Menstrual Cycle Was The Main Cause of Hurricane Katrina
Hillary Clinton Has a 40 lb. Vagina

And the most disturbing yet most prolific - those wishing violence upon her:

I Want To Hit Hillary Clinton In The Face With A Battle Axe
I will pay 1 million dollars to see RAY LEWIS stab HILLARY CLINTON
I place the "Run Hillary Run" bumper sticker on my FRONT bumper!
I wanna smack Hillary Clinton
Aggies Who Hate Hillary Clinton and Hope She Dies or Gets Very Sick and Can't Run In 2008
Lets all take a big shit on Hillary Clinton
If Hilary Clinton becomes president, Jack Bauer will probably kill her.

Don’t even get me STARTED on all of the pictures used to represent these groups…

I overheard one of my co-workers in the break room saying something to the effect of: "If Hillary Clinton can't please her husband, how can she please America?" I wanted to kick the asshole right in his stupid face. But unfortunately, that would have cost me my job. *Sigh* Why are assholes allowed to exist?

It's good to want to try to understand why some women would denigrate themselves like that, but I think it's wrong to think that people of color never do the same thing. One way some african-americans do a similar thing is by valuing the lighter skinned people of their race over darker skinned people. I've heard of light skinned african americans either not wanting to date/marry darker skinned people or else having pressure not to from family/friends.

So I don't think it's valid to ask what's wrong with women, in particular, that they would do this to themselves when no one else does. It's not true that women are the only group to do that.

Oh, I am not denying that there is racism within the communities of color, or that there is no colorism. There is, and I recognize that POC internalize racist messages.

But POC do not allow their oppressors to denigrate them the way women allow men to denigrate them. At least not as far as I've ever seen. Women will just giggle and bat their eyelashes, because they have internalized the notion that it's very important to please men.

I wanted to add, that you can report the group to the Facebook administrators. No guarantee of anything at all, but we might as well register our perspectives!

I will say this much.

One of the issues that has flown under the radar is why Hillary has not attracted more support among white women, particularly not nearly as many in numbers as African-Americans of both genders who have thronged to Obama.

Here in red state America, the anti-Hillary dynamics are surprisingly complex. They are not as simple as "a woman should be subservient to her husband". That's for the Huckabee crowd, and they'd never vote Democrat if their salvation in heaven depended on it.

I think we may sell women short sometimes, or assume that their lack of support for a female candidate must somehow be based on obvious stereotypes and most ignorant one at that. Far more enlightened than we give them credit for, women who do not support Hillary have some valid points. a) From a strictly feminist viewpoint, it seems rather hypocritical to support a candidate who is using the support of a man to further her ambitions and using his name and candidacy instead of advancing her own agenda as a woman separate from the shadow of not just all men, but particularly her husband

b) Hillary took Bill back. That is probably issue number one among the white women I talk with. Americans are not a particularly forgiving people and many women in conservative states are particularly unforgiving when it comes to proven adulterous affairs and the women who go back to the husbands afterwards instead of leaving him, painful though it may be.

Hypocritical? Self-righteous? Judgmental?

It's all in how you spin it, but I have to say that women here see her use of Bill in quite cynical terms and I have heard more than one woman say, "He wouldnt' just have slept on the couch had it been my husband; I would have never taken him back".

Hilary Clinton is Where Boners go to Die

As quoted by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, by the way. Sigh. We all have our lapses, I guess.

ComradeKevin,

I see that viewpoint, but it's basically myiopic. The Clintons in 1998 were not ordinary couple. They were the first couple, and Bill was the only thing standing between America and a very conservative Republican ascendancy. The Lewinsky scandal was pushed by that conservative movement not because they cared whether the President was faithful, or whether Hillary was lied to. They pushed it as purely politics. The entire thing was purely politics.

Hillary, bless her soul, was able to see it for what it was, and take that into consideration in her decision.

In any case, Bill was the one who cheated, not Hillary, so why punish her? It's just like... Bush was elected President as Bush Sr.'s son, and now Hillary has to be punished for it because we can't have a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

I really think she gets punished a lot of things that happened because of others' actions.

Comrade Kevin you say these are valid points "a) From a strictly feminist viewpoint, it seems rather hypocritical to support a candidate who is using the support of a man to further her ambitions and using his name and candidacy instead of advancing her own agenda as a woman" and "b) Hillary took Bill back"

First of all I don't see how either of these are valid points as you claim them to be. Hillary taking Bill back has NOTHING to do with her qualifications. Period. Second you say that Hillary is running on what her husband did in the white house - I say that this is a media lie and a right wing talking point. As far as I have seen Hillary has been talking about what SHE has done in the senate and what SHE has been doing for 35 years, this includes working with children, working for health care reform, and working for abortion rights (she's taken the lead on making sure certain legislation was not passed). Neither of the points you mentioned seem valid in my opinion because none of these points have anything to do with Hillary's qualifications. Which brings me to something that has been brought up many many times. Hillary is being criticized because she is female, her qualifications are passed over time and time again by the media and by voters. Instead of looking at her qualifications and what she has actually done, people are judging her based on shallow and irrelevant points such as the ones you just mentioned. Quite frankly, I'm offended that this is your view of what feminists think of Hillary, because in my experience it is no where close to what you have purported our feminists opinion to be. (These "feminist opinions" that you mention seem FAR from feminist, IMHO) I don't know one feminist who says she won't vote for Hillary because she took Bill back. Either the people you talked to aren't really feminists, or you are pulling these viewpoints out of your bum. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

I just realized, in my last post I didn't mean to speak for all feminists, by implying that all feminists would disagree with the statement "I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she didn't leave Bill". Sorry 'bout that. I didn't mean to make one big sweeping assumption.

Finally an opportunity to quote Ainsley Hayes... and I thought that moment would never come ;) - from The West Wing, 3/13, via WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing), one of the episode's arches is Sam Seaborn trying to cope with a female temp's accusation of an allegedly sexist remark to Ainsley Hayes, the Republican Counsel in Bartlet's Democratic White House. This is when Ainsley ends the conflict -

Sam: Hold on, here she is, celia, I asked Ainsley and she said she didn't mind at all plus Charlie said it was okay
Celia: Charlie's a man.
Charlie: Damn right.
Ainsley: we need to make sure that we've got our back when other countries can afford to take on more, this is important.
Sam: I also think its important to make clear that I am not a sexist
Charlie: and that I'm all man.
Ainsley: you're celia? he's not a sexist.
Celia: If you're willing to let your sexuality deminish your power.
Ainsley: I'm sorry?
Celia: I said I'm suprised you're willing to let your sexuality diminish your power.
Ainsley: I don't even know what that means.
Celia: I think you do.
Ainsley: And I think you think I'm made out of candy glass celia. If someone says something that offends you tell them but all women don't have to think alike... I like it when the guys tease me its an inadvertent show of respect I'm on the team and I don't mind it when it gets sexual because I like sex.
Charlie: Hello.
Ainsley: I don't think whatever sexuality i may have diminishes my power I think it enhances it.... the point is that sexual revolution tends to get in the way of actual revolution. Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Pay equity, child care honest to God sexual harrassment and in this case a speech in front of the U.N. General assembly.

My feeling is that if the public discourse about HRC had been a bit less "Celia" and a bit more "Ainsley Hayes" she would not loose. Uniting seems absurdly important to the marginal voters after Bush 43, and in my impression, HRC is not perceived as transcending social cleavages. I'm personally sorry she (likely) won't get the Democratic nomination, but if she doesn't in the end, in my opinion, it's not been because of bad electoral math by her staff, but because people looking for unity were put off by the kind of "Celia" discourse contributions exemplified by this post ("nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones"). Just my two Cents.

Finally an opportunity to quote Ainsley Hayes... and I thought that moment would never come ;) - from The West Wing, 3/13, via WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing), one of the episode's arches is Sam Seaborn trying to cope with a female temp's accusation of an allegedly sexist remark to Ainsley Hayes, the Republican Counsel in Bartlet's Democratic White House. This is when Ainsley ends the conflict -

Sam: Hold on, here she is, celia, I asked Ainsley and she said she didn't mind at all plus Charlie said it was okay
Celia: Charlie's a man.
Charlie: Damn right.
Ainsley: we need to make sure that we've got our back when other countries can afford to take on more, this is important.
Sam: I also think its important to make clear that I am not a sexist
Charlie: and that I'm all man.
Ainsley: you're celia? he's not a sexist.
Celia: If you're willing to let your sexuality deminish your power.
Ainsley: I'm sorry?
Celia: I said I'm suprised you're willing to let your sexuality diminish your power.
Ainsley: I don't even know what that means.
Celia: I think you do.
Ainsley: And I think you think I'm made out of candy glass celia. If someone says something that offends you tell them but all women don't have to think alike... I like it when the guys tease me its an inadvertent show of respect I'm on the team and I don't mind it when it gets sexual because I like sex.
Charlie: Hello.
Ainsley: I don't think whatever sexuality i may have diminishes my power I think it enhances it.... the point is that sexual revolution tends to get in the way of actual revolution. Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones. Pay equity, child care honest to God sexual harrassment and in this case a speech in front of the U.N. General assembly.

My feeling is that if the public discourse about HRC had been a bit less "Celia" and a bit more "Ainsley Hayes" she would not loose. Uniting seems absurdly important to the marginal Democratic voters after Bush 43, and in my impression, HRC is not perceived as transcending social cleavages, particularly not the gender-cleavage. I'm personally sorry she (likely) won't get the Democratic nomination, but if she doesn't in the end, in my opinion, it's not been because of bad electoral math by her staff, but because people looking for unity were caught too often in the kind of "Celia" discourse exemplified by this post ("nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones"). Just my two Cents.

ooops, terribly sorry for the multiposts, I completely forgot Movable Type sometimes needs a decade to process comments.

I think you miss the point of my argument.

Perception IS reality, whether we like it or not.

I challenge your perception of feminism, which is no monolithic entity and comprises a wide variety of different opinions stemming from a large umbrella term that we deem "feminism". Feminism has never been truly unified and you can look at the sex-positive versus sex-negative, Gloria Steinem versus Betty Friedan split in the generation of our mothers in the second-wave to see that.

And we all know how feminism's message has been perverted and co-opted over the years, particularly the message of the second-wavers. The radical viewpoint has been passed off as gospel and more conservative and moderate voices drowned out in the process.

We now have a perversion of feminism whereby objectification of the body is equated with empowerment. We have girls gone wild on one hand and bitch as reclaimed epithet on the other and no matter how you slice it, these are very sharp, contentious dynamics.

But they do not have to be so.

If Hillary could not shake the idea of being her own woman, than why even give the perception that she was using Bill to do her dirty work (South Carolina) or actively stump for her. Why not distance herself from him altogether, or render him to subordinate roles. His behavior and conduct will arguably go down as her failing and that is a very sad commentary upon each of us, irregardless of gender.

So rather than throw stones and try to believe that you know what true feminism means, why not work hand in hand with those of us in the third-wave and redefine it for a modern era while finding unifying tenants that will not result in arguments over discussions boards.

Perception is not reality.

And every time America gets a goofy grin and goes off to the guy who they swoon at or want to have a beer with you can be assured we are in trouble.

People perceived Bush as more moderate than he was, friendlier and folksier than Gore, a guy who would bring CEO business responsiblity (that's got to be an oxymoron) to the presidency.

The perception, the group think, did not pan out.

Perception and group think is not always reality and people can get shafted and manipulated while, in reality, the person is doing the opposite and being the opposite of what they present.

for those of you who have seen the hugely sexist "Anchorman" featuring Will Farrel, you might recognize the part of the film where they discuss the possible onslaught of bears because the new anchorwoman has her period, which attracts bears. Enter Facebook group "Keep Our Whitehouse Bear-Free! No Hillary Clinton!!!" I'm sorry to say it was started by someone I know personally. Sadly, this poor, misogynistic asshole thinks an appropriate retort to a woman running for presidency is to attack her very femaleness: her period. Fucking Pathetic. Tell Vinny how pathetic you think he is at http://smcvt.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8193211081

My dislike of Hillary Clinton comes down to a matter of emotion, then. I simply do not like her. And no, this has nothing to do with her gender. Or her race. Nor do a majority of Americans. And the arguments advanced as to why she is losing often fail to mention that applied to a genuinely likable female candidate, they might have some validity.

I would vote gladly for a woman president, but not for Hillary Clinton.

If Obama had Clinton's lack of charm I would not be singing his praises either. Though it would be interesting seeing African-Americans spin and rationalize and justify all the reasons why he was likely not to capture the nomination.

We have bias and bias can be seen as an evolutionary defect we might someday overcome, or we might accept it as reality and try to call it out with the intent of re-framing the argument and the context.

Hillary's losing has as much to do with the undercurrent of change and rejection of the status quo and any candidate right now running on a platform of experience is going to lose in a Democratic setting. That is not a Democratic motif. That is rather, a Republican motif.

And she happens to be running against a very charismatic challenger, which caters to our sense of supporting the underdog and sticking it to the man, even when paradoxically we are inclined to support the winner knowing he or she has the best shot at winning.

When the challenger Obama flipped the race upside down, the entire dynamic was turned on its head and a lot of preconceptions have now been called into question.

I would think Feminism needs to respond to this accordingly and respond to the fissures within itself so that when the next woman runs for President, she will not face these same roadblocks.

And run a likeable candidate next time and arguments might hold water. I'm not saying run some demure, seen-but-not heard woman with an apron who is quietly deferent to a man but somehow for whom the backhanded compliment "bitch" cannot be uttered with a serious backlash in the process.

My dislike of Hillary Clinton comes down to a matter of emotion, then. I simply do not like her. And no, this has nothing to do with her gender. Or her race. Nor do a majority of Americans. And the arguments advanced as to why she is losing often fail to mention that applied to a genuinely likable female candidate, they might have some validity.

I would vote gladly for a woman president, but not for Hillary Clinton.

If Obama had Clinton's lack of charm I would not be singing his praises either. Though it would be interesting seeing African-Americans spin and rationalize and justify all the reasons why he was likely not to capture the nomination.

We have bias and bias can be seen as an evolutionary defect we might someday overcome, or we might accept it as reality and try to call it out with the intent of re-framing the argument and the context.

Hillary's losing has as much to do with the undercurrent of change and rejection of the status quo and any candidate right now running on a platform of experience is going to lose in a Democratic setting. That is not a Democratic motif. That is rather, a Republican motif.

And she happens to be running against a very charismatic challenger, which caters to our sense of supporting the underdog and sticking it to the man, even when paradoxically we are inclined to support the winner knowing he or she has the best shot at winning.

When the challenger Obama flipped the race upside down, the entire dynamic was turned on its head and a lot of preconceptions have now been called into question.

I would think Feminism needs to respond to this accordingly and respond to the fissures within itself so that when the next woman runs for President, she will not face these same roadblocks.

And run a likeable candidate next time and arguments might hold water. I'm not saying run some demure, seen-but-not heard woman with an apron who is quietly deferent to a man but someone for whom the backhanded compliment "bitch" cannot be uttered with a serious backlash in the process.

"If Hillary could not shake the idea of being her own woman, than why even give the perception that she was using Bill to do her dirty work (South Carolina) or actively stump for her. Why not distance herself from him altogether, or render him to subordinate roles. His behavior and conduct will arguably go down as her failing and that is a very sad commentary upon each of us, irregardless of gender. "

I have to tell you Kevin that this is so last month. I never hear people talk like that about Hillary now....well maybe only Obama supporters.

Yeah, how dare people have a sense of humor about things? The fact that they made a joke about sexism obviously means they're sexist, not that they're trying to use satire to point out social ills. Everyone is not out to get you, you know.

The groups about Obama mainly attack his name and attack him for being a Muslim. Blatant hatred towards Muslims is allowed on facebook...but not open racism against black people.

http://agnesscott.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8490268794

http://agnesscott.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7543307819

The description of this group is great though.

"
He is only 25 percent black and he wears a turban regularly do i have to say any more that nig is a terrorist"

But there are only seven members...far more blatant sexism than racism is allowed (or perhaps the facebook crowd feels better about being openly sexist than openly racist)

What's so unlikable about Hillary Clinton anyway?

Obama is winning the democratic nomination because he's cool and has superb marketing. I live in Texas so we're just now getting bombarded with commercials for the both of them and it's not even a contest which has the better ones. Anyway, so yeah, COMPARED to Obama she's not cool, she has shitty marketing but on her own? What's so unlikable about her? She's always seemed nice enough to me. She has a good sense of humor.

What are your reasons Comrade?

aaaannnnnddd, reported!

"Regardless, aren't there more important things to get outraged about? "

Unfortunately, no, cg. You and others have missed the basic point. All the other issued identified as "more important" are underlain by the misogynistic attitudes of men and women both. There is a reason women don't get equal pay - and it's the same reason people think it's okay to make sexist remarks. There is a reason for every act of violence against women - and it's the same reason. There is a reason for every act of discrimination, no matter how small or large, and it's the same reason.

Until we get at the basis - and it starts with people thinking that "fix me a sandwich" is funny, or not important, or okay, or whatever, we will never accomplish the big "important" goals.

SO...no, there is nothing more important than challenging all this crap - no matter where or when or what context it occurs in.

I personally don't like Hillary's politics, her pandering, and her triangulation. But I defend her vociferously against sexist attackes whenever and wherever I hear or see them because these attacks to hurt us all!

I hear you, MirandaJay. She seems smart and funny, and I learn something new every time she answers a question about foreign policy. I'm pretty sure I would genuinely like HDRC, and I have no idea why she has such high negatives.

I mean, is it just misogyny and threats to patriarchy that have people viewing her through such a lens, or is something about her personally repulsive that I just haven't seen?

The thing is... yes, the group probably was made as a joke. I agree that making blatant sexist jokes can sometimes be a way of poking fun at sexism. I make them now and then myself. But my experience is that the lines can often be kind of grey there. Like my friend who is constantly making race-related jokes, claiming to be poking fun at racism and bringing it out into the open. I did my best to give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile, but at a certain point I started to wonder why he was harping on the subject to begin with. I'm not buying it anymore.

To me the telling thing here is that if it did start as a joke group, presumably made by someone who's not sexist, then why in the world would they keep it running now that there are obviously misogynist posts on it? And why are the members who supposedly joined 'as a joke' still members?
Looking at the posts above I'd say some are jokes and others are truly NOT jokes. The problem with it all is that I'm guessing some people in that group either can't tell the difference or don't care about the difference. :-(

"Yeah, how dare people have a sense of humor about things? The fact that they made a joke about sexism obviously means they're sexist, not that they're trying to use satire to point out social ills. Everyone is not out to get you, you know."

Reality Apologist: Do you think those facebook groups are in fun? They are disgusting and degrading to women and Hillary in particular. Women should be shutting these groups down.

Do you honestly think these guys in these group don't eventually permeate the workplace with these attitudes? Do you think that these same kids are voting for Hillary?

....I should have said in my last statement or would EVER vote for her.

People must complained in the "Hilary Clinton Shouldn't Run For President She Should Just Run The Dishes" group. The group description says, "This is not an anti-feminism or anti-women group. If it offends you, then fuck you. It is against Hillary being in office. Stop the angry posts about guys in the group being assholes, we don't beat or rape or hit women, or anything else you ladies mentioned...so shut up," and "Do not message just to say how sexist we are and how the Lord will strike us down for hating women."

So...people do complain about these groups. Enough people support them too unfortunately. And some people really need to see how kids of working moms can also become doctors, teachers or whatnot. Also, communism does not equal socialism.
I'm realizing a lot of women see feminism as irrelevant because they don't want to advantage of the obvious things the movement as gained for women. A woman who wants to abstain from sex till marriage and be a SAHM doesn't think the things feministing has been thankful for the last two thursdays are helpful to them. They could do these things before feminism. They see nothing to gain from feminism and don't see feminism as being about choice but getting women out in the world world and not caring about chivalrous men.

I've reported the group and send a message the group administrator but I don't know how much that is actually going to accomplish. Like a majority of you on this board I'm pretty ticked off at this group which wholeheartedly supports misogyny and does nothing but makes me weep for the state of America. I'm tired of all these groups popping up with supposedly college educated individuals behind them and even women supporting them. Why is sexism so accepted? I can never wrap my mind around the fact that in the 21st century women are still thought as nothing more than sandwich makers.

But at the end of the day all I'm going to do is get an angry reply back from some asshole saying i'm not supporting "free speech". We can all protest on our own but is anything actually gonna get done? Why don't we all take that frustration and create a group against ignorant people making ignorant statements. I'm for it when you are.

I'm glad we're having a discussion about the role race and gender in a public forum and apparently it takes an election to get that accomplished on a large scale. We are asking tough questions, but we are also traversing territory we have never covered before.

To answer the question directly, why do I not like Hillary? Answer: there is just something about her personality that makes me see her as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered.

Perhaps she is uncomfortable presenting these traits, which reveal her inherent HUMANANITY, to say nothing of her femininity. The moment when she triumped was when she cried before New Hampshire, which was probably her only unscripted, authentic moment of the entire cycle.

And that probably gave her a win in the New Hampshire primary.

A successful female candidate will transcend gender and race. When I look at Barack Obama, I do not see a black man. I see a man. A successful female candidate (and yes, we will see another one in our lifetime, I fully predict) will have the the charisma and the courage to be herself, enough so that it makes us willing to overlook her human shortcomings and see her in terms beyond gender.

Why don't Feministing members think of women already in elective office who fit that criteria? Or lift up women they admire and get them to run for elected office? Or, better yet, run themselves when they are old enough and resolve to have both the experience and the judgment to be a successful politician.

When we have reached that point, then I know Feminism will have truly succeeded.

ComrageKevin said: "Why don't Feministing members think of women already in elective office who fit that criteria? Or lift up women they admire and get them to run for elected office? Or, better yet, run themselves when they are old enough and resolve to have both the experience and the judgment to be a successful politician."

Kevin, see the following article about the fault in your argument of "why do feminists focus on X when Y is so much more important or could be so much more productive" Ugh, we've all heard it before, all it does is invalidate the current subject, and yes, feminists should be pointing out and objecting to sexism, any and all sexism. Period. Check it out:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/

I reported the group and would encourage anyone else who is disgusted and outraged to do the same. I explained in my post that free speech does not equal hate speech and that many of the postings are misogynistic, hateful, and violent. I also explained that having groups like that makes facebook look really bad. By letting groups like that remain, they are just perpetuating ignorance, which is not what one would expect out of a website that started for people who are in school and presumably trying to further their education to better themselves. It is good to communicate to the moderators that the website makes facebook look like a place for ignorance and that it would be in their best interest to remove it to avoid losing members and getting bad press. People are more willing to do things when you point out how it would benefit them.

Comrade Kevin, you call on Feministing members to name some women who would be fit for high office, but haven't mentioned your own list. Who are your nominees? I mean, you claim not to be motivated by misogyny: you just don't like Hillary. If you're sincere, then you undoubtedly can name a few female politicians whom you would support as presidential candidates. Otherwise, it's just "Oh, I have nothing against women. Just this one. And that one. And that one."

Why should someone have to prove that Unree? Can we not take each other at face value on here?

I am not a Clinton supporter but if I were to think of some women who could be viable Presidential candidates in 2012, well I'm very biased towards my homestate but I think either S. Collins or O. Snowe would make excellent candidates though I don't know if I'd vote for them, it would depend on who their Democratic opponent was. All this rhetoric on being a uniter where Obama hasnt been doing it for long and Clinton is hamstrung by her past (wrongly I must say), people like Collins and Snowe have shown what a uniter really can do, even if I dont agree with 100 or even 80% of their specific views.

"...there is just something about her personality that makes me see her as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered. "

You know when I first saw Hillary on TV years ago, I liked her style quite a bit! She was the only first lady or even women at that time that I felt I could relate to. She was a 'career woman' and I loved it!

I think you need to ask yourself if you are critical of her because she does not act like a stereotypical female.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out sexism when it occurs and highlighting the important role it plays in shaping the broader dynamic.

However, I would encourage us to develop unique strategies that allow us to, as a unified force, challenge sexism in the broadest context possible.

And the point of my previous comment was to show how the role of one single individual can supersede identity and identity politics.

Yes, point out sexism when it occurs but understand that in my opinion, more ground will be made when we reshape our arguments and acknowledge that it is not merely as simple as sexism versus anti-sexism. Sexism goes beyond gender identity, racial identity, conservative, liberal, or any -ism I can think of.

And launching a war on sexism will cause an inevitable backlash. So more successful strategies would be to understand the views of those who oppose us and attack bias in any form. My problem with Feminism is that I think it needs to expand its focus, while as it stands now, its focus is on us versus them. That approach is as divisive as it is unifying.

I have known many women who I have looked up to who are not stereotypically female, if by that you mean likeable and authentic. I call them friends, mentors, and inspirations.

They do not resort to attacks and hide behind their gender when it suits their advantage.

Now, onto the larger question of women who I would like to see in a Presidential role or a larger governmental role.

In my home state of Alabama: Lenora Pate, Democrat. Loretta Nall, Libertarian.

In a broader context,

Maria Cantwell, Democratic senator from Washington State.

These are just three, and I haven't even started on the people in the women in the House of Representatives and the Judicial system.

And I like these three, but there is one name left out that I do not like. :-)

ComradeKevin, I believe you are an obama supporter trying to promote your own agenda.

This thread is about the sexism in facebook groups...and yet you in both posts have decided to concentrate on the election only; denigrating Hillary Clinton and promoting Obama.

This is interesting. I think Hillary Clinton is totally charming and witty. She seems really friendly and agreeable as well as extremely competent and strong. So I don't understand this robotic, chilly business. Care to give some sort of examples or explain further?

But what's interesting, when I saw Obama speak I felt like he was smug, glib, cocksure and almost arrogant and contrived. There were good things about him, too, I liked his rhetoric, he was super funny and comfortable working a crowd. But there were moments that seemed very, very insincere.

For instance, I stood in line with a classmate who is a big Obama supporter. He made 50 signs to give to people and also one very large one, it was great looking, that said "Si Se Puede" which is of course, "yes we can" in Spanish. After waiting in line for 4 hours the staff told him he couldn't take his sign or any other one in because "it has to look good for the cameras" They also didn't fill the stadium past the camera area, even though there were at least 2 thousand people still waiting to get in, and plenty of seats available.

Before he began to give us his speech, he talked about one Hillary's bodyguards getting killed in a crash that morning. And he said it like this: "And... well... he died this morning... (shaking his head) so if we could all have a moment of silence and prayer..." But he said it in that same way doctors do when they are breaking bad news to people but are trying to sound like it's hard for them to say because they are emotional about it. Follow? It's kind of an abstract thing to convey. Anyway, it was SO insincere and contrived.

Just my observations.

Comrade Kevin, plenty of us happen to like Hillary quite a bit, so your broad characterization of her as "unlikable" are incorrect.

It's funny that you say you see Obama as "not a black man..." Yeah, that's what folks tend to think when they think of those who "transcend race." You get to see them as "normal," i.e. white.
Saying a person transcends race is racist. Why do you think being a POC or woman is something to be overcome? It often IS, in our racist, sexist society, but objectively, being a woman or POC is not worse than being a white person or a man.

We feminists don't have to come up with a candidate you approve of. Some of us approve of, and wholeheartedly support Hillary.
Lots of people don't like her because she bucks gender stereotypes.
I happen to relate to her. When she told Katie Couric about the boys who teased her in school, I related to that. I think she's funny, brilliant, compassionate and driven. I seriously don't know WHAT she did that's so off-putting to people.
I do know that Obama often comes across as entitled and too-cool-for-school. I don't particularly like that.

Would Facebook tolerate a group that says, "Obama, pick my cotton"?

Just some food for thought.

Kevin, you are a poster boy for "sensitive-guy sexism."

...why not work hand in hand with those of us in the third-wave and redefine it for a modern era while finding unifying tenants that will not result in arguments over discussions boards...

And launching a war on sexism will cause an inevitable backlash. So more successful strategies would be to understand the views of those who oppose us and attack bias in any form...

A successful female candidate will transcend gender and race.

Who is this "us" you are referring to? This sounds like a very subjective definition of "third-wave," from your own imagination. Your personal dislike of Clinton is irrelevant; any woman is going to have a problem doing this, as we see in Facebook. What if someone thinks of Obama as embracing the same list of adjectives you just applied to Clinton? Are you going to say this person is "wrong?"

I have known many women who I have looked up to who are not stereotypically female, if by that you mean likeable and authentic. I call them friends, mentors, and inspirations.

LOL. Replace, "female" with Black, Asian, Latino, handicapped, etc.

I just don't understand why you have devoted so much energy in promoting your candidate, and essentially defending frat boys at their kegger?

Can you name any group of people who face discrimination based on physical characteristics other than women who are still publicly mocked without repercussion? Why don't you register a Facebook group called: "Albinos: U MAD!!!" and see how that goes over.

So rather than throw stones and try to believe that you know what true feminism means

Clearly you are more educated on the subject than I am.

LOL. Replace, "female" with Black, Asian, Latino, handicapped, etc.

I didn't intentionally leave out gay, bi, transgendered, etc. They didn't make it to my fingers quickly enough.

Honestly though, Kevin's so-called "liberal, sensitive" take on misogyny is more insidious than the ingenuous ignorance of some "Joe on the street" guys...they will often surprise you in their willingness to learn.

I'm visiting you from France (excuse my english). I'm appalled at the sexism against H. Clinton, it's violent, and on such a scale ! France is a small country of course, we had some sexist remarks when Segolene Royal was a candidate to the presidential election last year, it was more that she was said "not having the right tool for being a president ;o)" or that she would not be able to have the power, etc. but it seemed less agressive than what you are facing. Usuallay she was called "Segolene" just like Ms Clinton is called "Hillary"... but it was not that violent with all the sexist items (brush, tee shirts, internet c.u.n.t. that I read ...) So I have a question : I wanted to know if you have feminist groups on that particular subject in the US : sexism in the language, sexism in the political or public life... In France we have the "Chiennes de garde", an equivalent for "she watch-dog" that make "noise" when there is some open sexist remark on known or unknown women and it seems to be better since we have that...

I'm not getting something here. Kevin said outright that his reasons for not "liking" her were emotional, he says theres something about her personality that makes him see her "as inauthentic, chilly, remote, robotic, untrustworthy, smug, and self-centered." Ok so theres that, but then people are also saying they don't like Obama because he is "too cool for school" and other things.

Jane then asks "What if someone thinks of Obama as embracing the same list of adjectives you just applied to Clinton? Are you going to say this person is "wrong?"

Well no, why are people saying its automatically wrong for kevin to say them about Clinton? Again he clearly stated he was working on emotion. We can all look at the same thing, the same speech or interview and come away with different impressions. Kevin could be the most enlightened and progressive person in the world and still find Clinton's personality, as much as he has been exposed to, disagreeable. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Sure, it could be and heck probably is at least somewhat rooted in sexism but for every person who says "I dont get how you could think that way, she is witty and so on, Obama is too cool for school and so on" you can get another equally informed person say negative words about Clinton's presentation of herself and praise Obama. Whats the point of this?

The facebook group is bad and if it had good intentions they got beaten off track. I was in a group not too long ago, same thing happened, "no fat chicks", discussing body issues of all types but inevitably it broke down into fat/short/ugly jokes.

And yes, if you replaced female with black this kind of page would get shut down immediately but then again, right now in our society, race trumps gender. That will change and you will be at the forefront of that.

SarahMC:
Comrade Kevin, plenty of us happen to like Hillary quite a bit, so your broad characterization of her as "unlikable" are incorrect.
It's funny that you say you see Obama as "not a black man..." Yeah, that's what folks tend to think when they think of those who "transcend race." You get to see them as "normal," i.e. white.
Saying a person transcends race is racist. Why do you think being a POC or woman is something to be overcome? It often IS, in our racist, sexist society, but objectively, being a woman or POC is not worse than being a white person or a man.

Yes, exactly. I could not agree with you more. I am having such a hard time with that. I have even heard Bill Maher mention something like well he’s not running as the black candidate like Jessie Jackson. Forgive me, but how do you even run that? It’s like Obama and Clinton have to pretend like they aren’t who they are as if what they are is unacceptable or not normal.

In the spirit of fairness, knowing full well that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are perfect people, both have flaws, both have weaknesses, both have made mistakes, and both are not perfect, I would like to see how you respond to this assertion.

And if we realize that attacking people based on a notion of what constitutes sexism, one that has never been clearly defined and comes down to a judgment call on our part, how would you respond to this?

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm

Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics

By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,� “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

The intention was not to hijack this thread to promote Obama over Clinton, nor was it to deliberately inflame, nor was it to supersede my own agenda onto the thread.

The intent, which may have failed, has been to open some eyes and some minds to the understanding that what we are facing here is clearly bigger than man versus woman.

The intent was to show that subsequent challenges to Patriarchy will require alternate solutions.

The intent was to show how quickly rational discourse gets chucked out the window when feeling gets involved.

And the intent was to show that when we throw our support behind one candidate, one which we are firmly committed, we will rationalize away his or her own flaws, accentuate his or her own positive characteristics, and play semantical games from now until eternity without accomplishing A THING.

Solutions are what we need. It's good and well to have a chorus of "ain't it awful", but I ask of you, where are your solutions?

That and the impact is totally up to you.

based on a notion of what constitutes sexism, one that has never been clearly defined...

So, you don't have a dictionary?

Dictionaries are written by those with a bias.

Definitions vary depending on what dictionary you consult.

Everything written by any human being has a bias.

And a personal one at that.

I have as much of a bias in writing this respond to you and whomever reads it as you had in writing directly to me or responding directly.

That's part of being a human.

The key is to look past bias and see the truth as objectively as possible, knowing full well that what effects our judgment is not necessarily based on logic and has as much to do with personal prejudice as anything else.

Those who support Hillary Clinton desire her and may desire a female candidate at all cost, even a lackluster candidate.

We take this all so personally, as though Hillary was our mother and Barack our father and I am as guilty of doing the latter as you are the former.

"The intention was not to hijack this thread to promote Obama over Clinton, nor was it to deliberately inflame, nor was it to supersede my own agenda onto the thread."

Well, it obviously was because you would not stop talking about her and denigrating her.

It's bad enough we had to discuss hillary hatred on facebook, then we had to listen to it from you too.

Don't feed the troll.

"When I look at Barack Obama, I do not see a black man. I see a man."
- "Comrade" Kevin

Yes. Um. Exactly. You see a man.

Others have already pointed out how laughable it is when you, like so many before you, have identified *personality characteristics* of Hillary's that you find distasteful (as if you are revealing some wise, legitimate basis for not liking her, that will *prove* how unbiased your perceptions are), without a hint of irony - you see, these are characteristics that *often* make men like you uncomfortable or turned off, when they are possessed by a woman. They are, I dare say, characteristics most powerful, ambitious people share, and certainly most politicians, share.

Further, how *thoughtful* of you to come here and share what your "problems" with "Feminism" are with us. Yes, I believe you will find that feminism focuses disproportionately on women. If you find that *divisive*, that's kind of your problem. Do you find Affirmative Action *divisive* as well, for those reasons? Do you find other social justice movements that strive to empower marginalized groups *divisive*? Do you find they don't do enough to create special good feelings and fuzzy love & forgiveness fests between powerful groups and historically / currently disempowered groups? If you do find other kinds of social justice movements distasteful and too *us-versus-them*, how do you reconcile that with your love for Obama, who has worked in such movements for many years?

And how thoughtful that you are taking the time to assure us that there will be another viable woman candidate *in our lifetime.* Thank you SO much for your wisdom and your future vision. I won't tell you what *I* hope we see in our lifetime (hint: it goes way beyond having one or two more viable women candidates for high political offices), as you would assuredly find it far too self-centered and bossy, not to mention *divisive*.

Sorry dedf, I could not resist.

The troll sounds a lot like another recent troll...

Wow, here we go again -- a comment on this thread:

"Would facebook tolerate a group that says, "Obama, pick my cotton"?

As I mentioned on a previous comment on this site today, comparing the offensiveness of hillary make me a sandwich to that of obama pick my cotton is so very offensive. one action is denigrating to women, another is dehumanizing to NO END. there's a VERY good reason i'd be more pissed off with obama pick my cotton, and you all should be too.

think a bit more before you make such comments.

Also, another commenter said "in our society, race trumps gender". it's very clear how many white women who have never understood racism populate this site.

let's stop comparing the two, you're pushing away women of color feminists and feminists who define feminism as BREAKING DOWN POWER STRUCTURES (if you see feminism in this way, you'll stop talking about which is worse sexism or racism).

It is known that Obama supporters are trying to infiltrate websites to put down Hillary and promote their guy.

You can smell them out after about 2 posts.

Geek, I understand, believe me. :)

If I may interupt to plug, I made my own Hillary Sexism Watch-esque facebook group a while back.

facebook.com/group.php?gid=8444574564

Is there some kind of concern troll training? I think it must be even better than the trial by fire training I've gotten at my corporate job, because they all learn the same techniques and repeat them over and over so damn well.

well okay anjali,

If you don't want to compare a white woman making a sandwich with a black man picking cotton, b/c the latter refers to slavery and (arguably) the first does not (although I'd say many women throughout history /have/ been slaves to their fathers and their husbands), what would be a more appropriate comparison? "Obama, Shine My Shoes"? No slavery, just social and economic marginilization.

I still bet that one wouldn't be a popular facebook group, b/c people would take the offensiveness seriously.

Denigrate me as a troll.

Think of me as an Obama spy. Read conspiracies into every comment I make, nitpick my opinion, circumvent my good intentions, cast doubt upon the veracity of the words I speak, pile on me when I am down, reduce me to some covert agent with an agenda, sneer at me for pointing out the problems and wishing to seek out solution, if it pleases you.

The question remains.

We know the problem.

Where is your solutions?

Show me your solutions.

Resort to any attack you wish.
See me as a troll, or an Obama spy, or a deluded soul with some agenda of destruction.

The question remains as it always has.

I see your problems.

Now where are your solutions?

I see your outrage.

Where is your resolution>

You see my problems?
You see my outrage?

You haven't begun to see my outrage you sanctimonious ass. How dare you come into our space and demand anything of any us! I suggest you learn some respect before you post again. We are not obligated to address your issues with feminism. You should be ashamed. Learn some humility and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

I'm sorry, Comrade Kevin, but I'm at a bit of a loss-
why do the commentors on this or any other feminist site need to explain themselves to you?
I respectfully recommend that you check your privilege.

Anjali, I understand what your saying, that both racism and sexism are dehumanizing and we should not be pitting one against the other, but I have a question about something you said that seems to contradict your this statements, you said:

"one action is denigrating to women, another is dehumanizing to NO END. there's a VERY good reason i'd be more pissed off with obama pick my cotton, (than sexism?) and you all should be too"

What you are saying here essentially is that one form of oppression is worse than another, that racism is WORSE than sexism. And quite frankly this offends me, as someone who has worked both to end sexism (as a feminist) and racism (working with children in inner city schools) I don't think anyone can argue that either is worse than the other or for that matter any form of oppression is worse than the another, anti-semitism, sexism, racism, whatever - they are all equally dehumanizing.

Racism and sexism are very much intertwined as are all forms of oppression and many civil rights advocates say that you can't address one form of oppression without addressing the others. When you argue that race is worse than other types of oppression, I'm sorry but you are only invalidating your own argument here, namely that we should not be pitting one type of oppression against another. If I have misunderstood what you have said here, please correct me.

But, the fact that you would think that anyone who doesn't agree with you and the statement, 'racism is worse than___ (other forms of oppression', and if someone disagrees, than they "should be ashamed" - well it just disturbs me. It doesn't sound like you are taking a very positive stance in addressing any of the issues of oppression including racism, with an attitude that pits one forms of oppression against another (divided we will fall). I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but, again my main reason for not feeling that one particular oppressed group has it worse than another is because they are all RELATED and are all a result of the power structure that is currently in place. I suggest you read the following article on the common elements of oppression. Perhaps in your life racism has played a bigger part than sexism, and perhaps for you racism has been worse than sexism, but remember everyone has unique experiences and for some homophobia may be the most damaging. When you say one is worse than the other you are only invalidating the experiences of millions of other people who are affected by different forms of oppression in different ways. This is why it is important to form a movement based on changing the power structure and ending all forms of oppression. Of course we can address the individual forms of oppression, such as sexism and racism, but what I'm trying to advocate for here is unity, we are all working towards a similar goal. I cannot express my point of view any better than how this article does I suggest you read it to understand what I'm trying to say here. (sometimes i have a hard time expressing in words what I am trying to say)

The Common Elements of Oppression: http://slanttruth.com/2007/10/03/the-common-elements-of-oppression/

I posted this link on the other thread that was invaded by trolls, but it's useful, so I'll post it again. Sorry it's a little off topic, but I think it's helpful, at least it was to me. The primary goal of trolls is to derail a conversation by using several techniques including:

1. Outward manifestations of sincerity (but, the only goal is to derail the conversation)
2.Flame baiting (inflammatory comments designed to illicit predictable anger)
3.Attempts to provoke futile argument by willfully misinterpreting comments, discussing irrelevant topics, or by ideological manipulation.

Check it out, it helped me understand their motivations and how to better deal with them:
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html

Wow, I wasn't at ALL saying that racism is worse than sexism. I'm the last person to not try to address both -isms together. NOTHING i do addresses one -ism over another. I fear some folks HERE try to make the either/or comparison too often and there's so much talk of sexism being worse than racism.

What I was getting at with my comment was that the comment "Obama, Pick my Cotton" was more offensive than "Hillary make me a sandwicH" and that therefore you cannot compare them. You just CANNOT compare slavery to "make me a sandwich" said facetiously.

Another commenter said what if the comparison was obama, shine my shoes. fine. perhaps those are more equal comparisons (i'm not really sure if they're equally offensive or not, but at least we're not talking about slavery directly there).

I'm not saying it's ok to say woman make me a sandwich. NOT at ALL. i'm a feminist, and i would NEVER say something like that (and would be offended by that statement even though i'm not a clinton supporter). i'm just saying if you want to talk equals, the comparison between slavery and make me a sandwich isn't equal.

that's really all.

meeneecat thanks for the info on addressing oppressions together. but if you see the comment i made, i said EXACTLY the SAME thing (after my note of caution about slavery).

Anjali, again what you are saying here with the following "the comment "Obama, Pick my Cotton" was more offensive than "Hillary make me a sandwicH" and that therefore you cannot compare them. You just CANNOT compare slavery to "make me a sandwich" said facetiously."

But you ARE comparing the two comments, thus comparing sexism to racism. You also justify that by saying one talks about slavery and thus is automatically worse, but you don't seem to acknowledge that women and young girls get sold into sexual slavery everyday and it is rampant. There is racist slavery and there is sexist gender-based slavery. But they are both equally as dehumanizing. There is no hierarchy of oppression here. You may not see it that way, but that's how I see it. Your comment IS a direct comparison of the two. And as I maintained before, there is no hierarchy of oppression (from the article). The racist Obama comment and the sexist Hillary comment are equally as offensive. At least in my opinion.

Folks:

The claim that the "this isn't anti-women, it's anti-Hillary!" excuse is silly because nobody would denigrate a male candidate in this way is 100% correct, in my view.

The problem with the reactions here is the assumption this facebook group is really "anti-Hillary" in the first place.

Like most facebook groups, it's merely an immature attention-getting device. Why pay them any attention, let alone serious attention?

I mean, I've just got a facebok invitation dedicate to the summary execution of all those old people who drive slow in the fast lane. Should I really bother with a blog posts about this horrible anti-old-persons racism?

...exactly.

(Shrug)

Of course you can compare "Obama, pick my cotton" to "Hillary, make me a sandwich". The reason? Neither or these groups are either pro-slavery, anti-women, anti-Hillary, pro-Obama, or anything else.

They're just immature attention getting devices, that's all--on the same level of a 3-year-old saying "I hate you!" to shock his parents, or, perhaps a better example, an 18-year-old getting tattoed and peirced to shock her parents.

To repeat my post above: why bother giving either *any* attention, let alone serious attention?

It's obvious these guys don't really care about either Hillary or Obama; their only purpose is to make the *reader* of their nonsense feel offended and shocked,

Well, they've certainly succeeded in your case, haven't they?

wow. i'm NOT making a hierarchy of OPPRESSION (i'm not saying racism is worse than sexism). I'm acknowledging the difference in degree.

equal: woman make me a sandwich. black man shine my shoes.

equal: black man pick my cotton. woman i'm selling you into sexual slavery.

THAT's all i'm saying.

really, i'm NOT making a hierarchy of oppression. i've NEVER done that here on this blog or elsewhere (on my blog or otherwise). please stop saying i'm saying racism is worse than sexism. i'm making a clarification of degrees of offensiveness above. that's ALL.

So, Skeptic, if this matter is such a waste of time, then why (pray tell) are you repeatedly posting on this thread?

Uppity bitches make him nervous, 13lesslee.

yeah well, we've been seeing an awful lot o that lately, right?
hence the topic of this post.

"...their only purpose is to make the *reader* of their nonsense feel offended and shocked,

Well, they've certainly succeeded in your case, haven't they? "

Yes, which is exactly why they should be banned.

p.s. Leave your condescending
attitude at the door.

If you go to the group and look in the bottom left hand corner of the page, there is a button to click to "report this page" and then you get a box to fill in saying why you consider it inappropriate.

And if you are anti-Hillary but not anti women then go start a group called "Keep Hillary out of the White House because of her policy on healthcare/education/whatever"

I know some people who have joined this group (not as a joke) and I hope that it comes back to haunt them in their professional lives since, as we're learning, everything that goes on Facebook exists forever. But hoping people get punished for their online sexism is unfortunately probably a total fantasy.

One of my old friends just joined a similarly distasteful group called "If Hilary Clinton is Elected, Texas Will Secede." Blech.

this actually made me think of something that happens semi-frequently to me.

i'll be talking to a female friend of mine about feminism and she'll say that she is anti-feminist. That she aspires to be a house wife, who does photgraphy on the sidelines. i can understand where she is coming from, but i always remind her that she is in college therefore she can't be anti-feminist.

in the end i always htink she see how she IS a feminist, but days later we'll have the same conversation.

this facebook group and the number of woman in it, don't truly surprise me as much as it should. i think that it has a lot to do with how patriarchy has/is making woman's rights a joke. i.e. The Rape Shirt, and the idea that woman are only good enough to make sandwiches.
also that woman have the wrong idea about feminism.

i'm late to the discussion, but when i went to report the group i noticed that the group appears to have had all of its message boards suspended. they still direct you to cafepress to buy one of their lovely shirts.

i'm late to the discussion but wanted to mention that when i went to report the group, i noticed that all of their posting boards (comments, pics) appear to have been suspended. they still ask you to go to cafepress to buy one of their lovely shirts.

oh, and satire needs to be smart to work. this group, and others like it, are not smart.

Free speech allows us to know thy enemy well. To me this is like misogynistic porn and music. Don't censor them; it's important to know just how much they hate us.

I will be deleting my Facebook account though.

Although it's depressing to see women participating, it is not surprising. Here is why.

We still live in a society based upon a heirarchy of male status (and with males having higher value); so one of the relatively easy ways a woman can increase her status is by putting other women down.

I won't address the comments about similar self-disparaging behavior by people of color because I don't want to hijack the topic; but this too is an integral part of how racism functions.

This "motivation" for this seemingly paradoxical behavior in any group usually comes from a religious belief (e.g. caste system, madonna-whore) or through instilling self-doubt in a group (e.g. some groups have lower IQs, "scientific "inferiority, observed inferiority, ect) or other belief systems passed on through indoctrination (nappy hair, etc).

just some thoughts

Salut Emelire! Don't worry, your English is MUCH better than my French. :)
In the States, there isn't really any mainstream voice against sexism in the media. We have www.mediamatters.org, which focuses on bias in the U.S. news media. Feminist blogs like this one are really the best starting point for breaking down sexism, in my opinion.
I followed the French election pretty closely, and I was so sad that Segolene didn't win!

yes, thanks, and that was what suprised me the most.SICKENING! then again, you see " baptist school this and that" , ahem- ad nauseam! they all can not wait for their promised anti-abortion rights ole john mc same promises them?

Somehow I think there should be a rival Facebook group called "Ron Paul: Stop Running for President and Perform My Abortion."

re: marnanel's commnt about ron paul? after hearing how great this guy was supposed to be from two gals I met, I went to his site . then I saw that ron paul was both anti-abortion and did not feel that health care for all was an american right. needless to say , I was like WTF???? what could be so great about him??"

and well, having not been in here for a while, I first read the comment up at the far top about how this person said how many in here " maybe don't like hillary because of her, not the fact that she's a woman." to this point, I've been calling and supporting her all the way, but between this washington post[ DC] writer's negative criticism toward obama's supporting fully the repeal on partial birth abortion + birth control for all including low income women;[PA senator's endosement of obama]; and the fact that PA CATHOLICS support hillary[ one of the most ANTI-CHOICE CHURCHES in america!] ; I'm now beginning to stray from the hillary flock and question who's the better , pro choice canidate? [my neice, a feminist and big obama supporter, said to me, " well aunt cheryl, it's at least good to see you somewhat seeing it the way I do."

In my opinion, facebook groups don't need a "sexism watch". It's a joke. As passionate as some of you are about gender equality and sexism, it's a joke. Dave Chapelle made fun of white people for years and the vast majority of white people were rolling in the aisles along with everyone else.

Dave Chapelle's humor was subversive - a member of a marginalized group making fun of those in power. It's not satirical or humorous when oppressors mock the oppressed.

Besides, Chapelle quit his show because he realized that white people were laughing for all the wrong reasons; they didn't get the joke and were instead getting a kick out of racist jokes.

Is it okay for the oppressed to mock themselves? I think most people realize that the facebook group isn't meant as a serious instance of misogyny.

And it's rather hypocritical to claim that a marginalized group can mock the hegemonic group with any more legitimacy than vice versa. Would the same sort of fuss be made if there were a facebook group that mocked men? If not, this one doesn't deserve a fuss either.

re: sam and dave chappell . I guess that's a lot like, well, the notorious andrew dice clay , a comedian whom many women loved to hate back in the 1980's and early 90's . I had not heard of this person in a while, and upon mentioning his name to somebody, they sent me clips of some of his comedy shows. about two years ago , I mentioned something about him to this butch-lesbian gal, and how misogynistic his jokes were, to which she replied, "I love andrew dice! he's so fucking hillarious, as his jokes are only based upon the truth!" then,having seen this guy once in person, and a few times on video, I had to notice just how many women there were in the audience, literally rolling with laughter and embarrassment all at once. and so, I guess the idea is not for women to get upset at this guy, but rather, in the case of somebody like margaret cho; simply be the hard core feminist comedian and tell "pussy jokes" that would give somebody like dice , a run for his money in any comedy battle.[ for the sake of proving this, I had to compare them side to side with video clips of each; and perhaps, the best part with " dice" was when his ex-fiancee'whom was right there in the audience, literally jumped up on that stage and began to literally rip him apart with her own, women's nasty jokes ; thus cutting into him real good!