I have been unable to blog due to computer troubles, but should be up and running again this weekend. That didn't prevent me from listening to clips from last night's debate. I am irritated over the whole "gender card" crap. HRC addressed the issue last night saying, "I'm not playing, as some people say, the gender card here in Las Vegas. I'm just trying to play the winning card. And I understand very well that people are not attacking me because I'm a woman," said Clinton. "They're attacking me because I'm ahead."
And if you need to point out that you are woman and hear you roar to have the winning card, why the hell not. It's is a stupid "accusation" to toss around because it denies human nature and our need to manipulate to survive. Whether you support HRC or not isn't my concern. But I resent that when people, in this case a woman, play to their strengths, they are criticized. HRC would do better to come out and say, "you're damn right I will play my woman card, just like you play your millionaire cards, your religious cards, your race cards, etc." You play the cards you have. So why is it so unacceptable for a woman to play her gender card? That is pure chauvinism.I play my woman cards sometimes because that is what I have at my disposal to get what I need to do my job. Yes, I smile, ask nicely, act cute to get approval for the printer that I need for my office or to ease the way in the work that I am doing. No one minds or even realizes so long as it isn't abused. And some of this is just natural and very uncalculated on my part. In end, everyone enjoys it because it is called "PERSONALITY". They smile and they feel good about giving you what you asked for because they do it with a laugh. It works both ways. Men use their charm to do the same. They have their golf weekends and the bar nights. They act suave, joke,and flirt as well- sometimes with each other. So get over the "gender card".
Posted on behalf of US West
Friday, November 16, 2007
Playing the Woman Card (on behalf of US West)
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 6:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with US West. People should lay off this gender thing with Clinton. But unforunately, journalists aren't sophisticated enough to do anything other than bang away at this kind of superficial stuff with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer.
In fact, I don't think most of the people who oppose Clinton do so because she is a woman. But the press goes off on that.
Of course, it is true, I think, that there are a lot of women who support Clinton despite major disagreements with her because she is a woman.
No one was accusing Hillary of flirting or using her feminine charms. That's fine--and she should exercise those more, such as they are.
I think the accusation was really that she was playing the victim card. They accused her of saying in effect, "Everyone's ganging up on me because I'm a [insert oppressed class here]." In her case, the oppressed class is women. (OK, it's technically a majority, and they are not oppressed so much any more, but they still lack much in the way of social or political power.)
A formerly lifelong Republican, who now hates Bush, remarked to me recently that he wanted the Republicans kicked out of office and felt the Democrats had a real chance to sweep the whole thing and take the Presidency... But as he put it, shaking his head, "What do they do? They go and nominate a woman or a black. They're throwing it all away."
That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago--that a minority candidate could not win the Presidency due to prejudice--but I think that logic may have been turned on its head now. And that's a truly wonderful story to come out of the 2008 primary season, no matter how it ends up.
Boys are taught that you should never hit a girl. I think some in Clinton's camp would like to use this principle to insinuate that attacks on Clinton by the male candidates are somehow illegitimate. I think that is kind of dirty.
On the other hand, politics is always dirty. And Republicans fight dirty. I've got no problem with seeing Clinton use every advantage she can get in this race. My fear has always been, expressed repeatedly on this blog, that she's unelectable. The more she's willing to fight dirty like that, the more it assuages my worries.
RE: Dr. Strangelove's life long Republican...I guess you can take the racist out of the party but he'll still be a racist.
Re: LTG's comment. I'm reminded of all those times in elementary school when girls would punch boys and then go crying to the teach when the boys hit back.
But I don't think Clinton is doing that. I think she thinks her oppressed class isn't women but rather Clintons. And when it comes to Republican attacks against her, she's probably right.
But most Democrats I've talked to dislike her because of her character (is she the anti-Biden?).
RbR may have misunderstood the sentiment of the person I quoted. That former Republican was concerned only about the electability of a woman or black candidate... He had no problem with either.
I hope I have misunderstood. But my experience with many conservatives is that they use "I'm not a racist but we have to realistic about how other people are racists" as an excuse to make essentially racist arguments themselves.
Consider this. He thinks that the Democrats are stupid for going for a "woman and a black." Under what circumstances would such candidates be acceptable to him (or if he prefers to speak in code, say "electable.").
I understand what you are saying about conservatives and code. But tell me: if Obama were gay, would you still caucus for him?
I know you are a strong supporter of gay rights. But would you risk losing the White House to make a statement? Or would you, reluctantly, urge us all to vote more "strategically" and pick a straight candidate?
These days, being a woman or a black might actually help. But the old, conventional wisdom was that it was--at best--risky, if not downright political suicide. That's all my friend was saying.
Clinton's "electability" or potential lack there of has less to do with her being a woman and more with the fact that she is a Clinton. That is true social progress.
I would also note that many men with whom I have spoken dislike Hilary because she stayed with Bill. They think this speaks poorly of her character and is evidence of her ambition. In fact, I think it bothers men on a visceral level because, correct me if I am wrong, there is still this notion that women are "bounty hunters".
So in a sense a woman candidate of Hilary's caliber affects voters on a level that male candidates simply do not. This shows what still has to be addressed. Women are still held to a different standard.
She is complex, divisive, very smart, very qualified, and very threatening as a result.
Post a Comment