Pizza Diavola

45 Comments Add your own

• 1. Feminism 101: Hillary Rod&hellip  |  2008 April 8 at 2:56 pm

  [...] 8th, 2008 · No Comments iam0nly1 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBill Clinton did X policy that I hate [...]

• 2. Hugo  |  2008 April 8 at 2:57 pm

  I am forwarding this on, with a hearty amen. I especially like the reminder — one I am always eager to give — of how each partner in a marriage remains an individual, poltiically and otherwise.

• 3. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 8 at 3:37 pm

  Thanks! The idea is so, so basic to me–I can’t fathom anyone I know saying, “Oh, Mrs. So-and-So is the same as Mr. So-and-So because they’re married,” about people they know (when by “the same as” they mean “a subordinate extension of”). So why do they think it’s acceptable to say that about the Clintons? It makes zero sense to me.

• 4. Barack Obama » Femi&hellip  |  2008 April 8 at 4:41 pm

  [...] Pizza Diavola wrote an interesting post today on Feminism 101: Hillary Rodham Clinton is not Bill ClintonHere’s a quick excerpt … will Michelle Obama have undue influence if Barack Obama wins?… [...]

• 5. Hillary Clinton » F&hellip  |  2008 April 8 at 4:44 pm

  [...] pizzadiavola wrote an interesting post today on Feminism 101: Hillary Rodham Clinton is not Bill ClintonHere’s a quick excerptSomething that’s come up frequently in the comment threads at Shakesville is the conflation of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton with former President Bill Clinton. This conflation can take a number of forms: … [...]

• 6. pocochina  |  2008 April 8 at 5:08 pm

  HELL YEAH.

• 7. pocochina  |  2008 April 8 at 5:08 pm

  Those assholes make me want to fucking break something, BTW, thank you for taking them apart logically while I remind myself that violence is never the answer.

• 8. Melissa McEwan  |  2008 April 8 at 7:26 pm

  Right on, PD.

  I hope you’ll email this to Tigtog at the Feminism 101 blog for crosspostity!

• 9. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 9 at 10:52 am

  pocochina | 2008 April 8 at 5:08 pm

  I just got so tired of the “I hate HRC because I hate WJC” commenting–three in the last week at Shakesville, IIRC–and thought, it would be so great if someone would write a post to link to so we didn’t have to rehash the debate every single time. And then I figured I had no excuse for not writing that post.

• 10. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 10 at 5:26 pm

  Thanks for the FF101 suggestion, Melissa!

• 11. Meg  |  2008 April 11 at 9:20 am

  Thanks for the great post, will be forwarding it on to everyone who makes this claim.

• 12. kateharding  |  2008 April 11 at 9:33 am

  *applause*

• 13. qubit  |  2008 April 11 at 11:09 am

  I might be inclined to agree that it is inappropriate to conflate Hillary and BIll Clinton. The problem, however, is that she often seems willing to do so herself.

  Campaigning here on Friday, Hillary Clinton recalled that voters complained back then about lacking health care, fearing unemployment and facing home foreclosures. “And we listened and we acted and we had the best economy that our country has seen in a generation” …

  Furthermore, when Bill Clinton is out stumping for her, he gives her credit for many actions that happened during his own administration. So if the Clinton campaign is going to devote much of its campaigning to a promise to bring back the days when Bill Clinton was in charge - and when Hillary was supposedly highly involved too - well, why can’t we judge Hillary by Bill to at least some degree, exactly?

• 14. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 11:23 am

  Qubit, the problem with judging Senator Clinton by former President Clinton is that it renders her an extension of him. If you don’t understand why that’s misogynist, please read the post again.

  Furthermore, given that the senator has repeatedly put forth her own policy proposals and said what she would do on issues, it isn’t fair to judge Senator Clinton by former President Clinton. He enacted policies in the past; she’s pushing new ones now and she has her own opinions. Given that she’s currently running for president, perhaps it would be better to focus on what she’s currently propounding rather than what her spouse did in the past, as it’s more relevant to what she’ll do in office.

  Let me put it this way: say that a heterosexual, married couple renovated their house five years ago, and now the wife is thinking of renovating the study. She proposes structural changes such as adding a new window and removing the fireplace. Is the logical response to discuss the pros and cons of her new proposals or to say, “But you two made some changes five years ago! Because you worked with your husband then, that means your current ideas aren’t yours, they’re your husband’s! Let’s argue about your old renovations!”

• 15. qubit  |  2008 April 11 at 12:08 pm

  Let me put it this way: say that a heterosexual, married couple renovated their house five years ago, and now the wife is thinking of renovating the study. She proposes structural changes such as adding a new window and removing the fireplace. Is the logical response to discuss the pros and cons of her new proposals or to say, “But you two made some changes five years ago! Because you worked with your husband then, that means your current ideas aren’t yours, they’re your husband’s! Let’s argue about your old renovations!”

  It would be unfair to say the ideas “aren’t hers”. It would be fair to judge the success of previous efforts that she was involved in. When applying for a new job, is it wrong for employers to judge you by projects you were involved in during previous employment? Even when you personally tout your involvement in those projects as evidence of your own qualification?

  To assume, by default, that a female presidential candidate would be directed by her husband - yes, that would certainly be wrong. But if both of them are off telling you about the great work they did together in the past, when her husband was president, that’s a bit different. Would it be better for us all to focus on what policies she’s putting forth right now? I think it would be, yes. But if her husband’s administration is not appropriate for the general campaign discussion, then why are her and her team not infrequently taking it there? It would seem that’s what they want us talking about.

• 16. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 12:21 pm

  It would be fair to judge the success of previous efforts that she was involved in.

  I think we’re talking about two separate issues here. What you’re discussing seems to be critiques of HRC’s work as First Lady, e.g. her work on health care and diplomacy. Her past track record is perfectly fair game for discussion and evaluating her performance within those roles isn’t necessarily sexist. However, what I’m talking about is the conflation of HRC with WJC, specifically

  -Bill Clinton did X policy that I hate (e.g. DADT, NAFTA), so I hate Hillary Rodham Clinton for it. Bill Clinton enacted X policy, so Hillary Rodham Clinton is (a) responsible for it; (b) also supports it; (c) will continue or further that policy once she’s in office.
  -I don’t want Bill back in the Oval Office. If Hillary wins, Bill’s going to be calling the shots in the office.

  Do you see how that’s different from critiquing what HRC did as First Lady?

  To assume, by default, that a female presidential candidate would be directed by her husband - yes, that would certainly be wrong. But if both of them are off telling you about the great work they did together in the past, when her husband was president, that’s a bit different.

  No, it’s not. To assume that a female presidential candidate would be directed by her husband is wrong and sexist, even if they have worked together in the past. The phrase “great work they did together in the past” implies a partnership between two independently thinking individuals, a relationship where they worked together. The assumption that I’m questioning assumes a subordinate position for HRC, that she’s a minion for WJC to direct. The claims that people make, such as “I’m worried it would be Bill in the White House all over…and I’m uneasy about that” are problematic because although they might address legitimate concerns, such as “I am uncomfortable with WJC’s health care policy in the ’90s, and HRC was involved with that, and I’m afraid that she’ll repeat her past actions,” it’s couched in sexist language that says, “I think WJC is the power behind the throne and that HRC isn’t an independent human being with a mind of her own.”

• 17. Hawise  |  2008 April 11 at 12:50 pm

  Thank you.

• 18. O'Maolchaithaigh  |  2008 April 11 at 2:22 pm

  I have judged Hillary on her own merits, and found her lacking. Her current track record on the invasion, funding and occupation of Iraq is enough.

• 19. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 2:23 pm

  I have judged Hillary on her own merits, and found her lacking.

  Good for you. How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

• 20. Victor Kulkosky  |  2008 April 11 at 2:25 pm

  This is an eye-opening post. We’re so used to hearing and reading “the Clintons” and “another Clinton in the White House,” we stop questioning it. Just as W isn’t “another Bush,” Hillary isn’t “another Clinton. It seems Hillary is in a no-win situation. If she appears too entwined with Bill, then she’s his clone. If she shows independence, then there’s something wrong with the marriage and she’s a bad wife for not standing by her man, yada yada. Oh, and the there’s a “she’s a nasty, cold b—h.” Don’t politicians have to be nasty and cold sometimes? It’s okay for guys, but not gals. We’re ready for gender equality, but we can’t judge men and women by the same rules. Phooey.
  Victor Kulkosky
  http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com

• 21. daranee  |  2008 April 11 at 2:29 pm

  Well I think that your comment that they are two different people is indisputable, but I wonder if perhaps this is not so much a husband /wife thing as opposed a familial thing. George Bush, Jr. was voted in to office because it was thought he would be a continuation of Dad. And of course we have seen all over the country various public officials who are children of public officials. We haven’t really had a case for President like this save Elizabeth Dole whose husband sadly didn’t even support her bid. I don’t recall, but you may certainly correct me, people saying she would be just like Bob Dole. They more were keen on her Red Cross experience.

  I don’t recall ever hearing Margaret Thatcher compared to her husband, because her husband wasn’t a politician.

  So while I would agree that Hillary has suffered sexism on many levels during this campaign, I don’t think this is a case of it.

• 22. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 2:41 pm

  Victor Kulkosky | 2008 April 11 at 2:25 pm
  It seems Hillary is in a no-win situation.

  Precisely. The restrictions of gender stereotypes mean that it’s virtually impossible to “win,” i.e. navigate all of them without setting off any cultural land mines.

• 23. Fredsbone  |  2008 April 11 at 2:44 pm

  Many times in campaigns, mountains are made of mole hills. This article is beautifully written. If the issue was more than the nonissue it is, the posting would consitute a powerful rebuttal to the topics it introduced.
  Having said that my bumper sticker response would be- Two heads are better than one.
  Not one of us knows what goes on behind closed doors. We are, thankfully, not privy to the discussions between HRC and her spouse anymore than we are to those of any other couple in the White House. How much a First Lady influences her President’s decisions is generally unknown to voters. We can only guess.
  Historically the role of the First Lady has her appearing, and I say the word “appearing” for a reason, to be something akin to a cheerleader. The First Lady is a marketed commodity just as much as the President. We all know the roles of the First Lady and many of us know them better than we know the Constitutional limits on the authority of the President. The First Lady is a woman and the woman is servant to the man. This arrangement has been the mold for husband and wife in more places than just the White House
  The Clintons have arisen to power by challenging these traditions and they continue to do so. As a man, let me say, men struggle a lot on this one. It colors our thinking about the entire campaign (I started to write `race’ instead of `campaign’ but that’s another issue!)
  The issue of a woman president is not so difficult a one as the idea of the President’s spouse, her man, being lesser than. While it is an impressive moment for Liberty in our country’s history, one that makes me proud to be an American, it remains a weight in my stomach. Go figure!
  When it was Bill’s turn to be on top in the earlier balance of power Hillary was ambitious then too. She was a far more public figure. She didn’t “stay at home and bake cookies.” She played a more expanded role than your typical First Lady. And how did her hubby react? Was Bill’s sense of his own manhood threatened by this new arrangement of power sharing? Did he “have sex with that woman” to shore up his waning sense of power? If this were the case, the Lewinski affair could have only strengthened Bill and HIll’s connection to each other. They probably have got their act together pretty well by now, much to the chagrin of media, neocons and other thrill seekers.
  Great, I think I just suckered myself into more discussion about the nonissues of the future Presidency. As much as I dislike having fallen for the Republican bait, I have reached a sense of closure here. I’m complete!

• 24. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 3:03 pm

  21. daranee | 2008 April 11 at 2:29 pm
  I wonder if perhaps this is not so much a husband /wife thing as opposed a familial thing. George Bush, Jr. was voted in to office because it was thought he would be a continuation of Dad. And of course we have seen all over the country various public officials who are children of public officials.

  Daranee, your assumption here is problematic because it makes this analogy:

  wife:husband :: child:parent

  Casting a wife’s relationship to her husband as the same as a child’s (dependent’s) relationship with a parent portrays a relationship between equals (spouses) as a relationship of dependency (child to parent). That falls into exactly the assumptions I critiqued in my original post, which is making the wife a subordinate extension of the husband, or in your examples, parent. It assumes that the wife cannot have her own thoughts and is not an entity independent of, and equal to her husband. In my opinion, the relationship between spouses is not comparable to the relationship between a parent and a child, and to make that comparison is only possible if you assume that a wife is a dependent, a subordinate, and a “lesser than” to her husband.

  George Bush, Jr. was voted in to office because it was thought he would be a continuation of Dad.

  The analogy you’re making is that GWB was voted into office because people thought he’d be a continuation of GHWB, hence HRC is seen as an extension of WJC. Seeing a wife as an extension of her husband is misogynist.

  I don’t recall, but you may certainly correct me, people saying she would be just like Bob Dole. They more were keen on her Red Cross experience. I don’t recall ever hearing Margaret Thatcher compared to her husband, because her husband wasn’t a politician.

  I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. Are you saying that because there are no comparable historical examples, arguing that HRC is just an extension and pawn of WJC is not sexist? I can’t argue with you about Elizabeth Dole or Margaret Thatcher because I don’t have the background knowledge and it’s impossible to prove a negative. However, the presence or absence of historical precedents do not mean that slurs and sexist frames used against Hillary Rodham Clinton are not sexist. Saying that a wife is the extension of her husband is sexist, period, whether or not people have said that about other wives in the past.

• 25. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 3:40 pm

  23. Fredsbone | 2008 April 11 at 2:44 pm
  If the issue was more than the nonissue it is, the posting would consitute a powerful rebuttal to the topics it introduced.

  Fredsbone, misogyny and sexism are not nonissues. The denigration of an independent woman as a mere pawn of her husband is not a nonissue, it is reflective of a society that constantly dismisses the work and accomplishments by women. Misogyny is always important and should always be called out.

  As a man, let me say, men struggle a lot on this one. It colors our thinking about the entire campaign…The issue of a woman president is not so difficult a one as the idea of the President’s spouse, her man, being lesser than. While it is an impressive moment for Liberty in our country’s history, one that makes me proud to be an American, it remains a weight in my stomach.

  It must be so difficult to cope with the idea of a man being less powerful than a woman. It must be so hard to face that brief instance of being on the wrong side of inequality. How awful!

  Please read this post on male privilege at the Feminism 101 blog.

• 26. jaredude  |  2008 April 11 at 3:42 pm

  Why not judge her by the horrible policies she’d try to put in place and the incredible amount of money she would waste and economic turmoil she would inflict upon the American public? Why not judge her by her ridiculous speeches about how Obama has no experience when she defended her husband for not having experience 16 years ago. That’s called being two-faced.

  We have not had any other family other than a Bush or Clinton in office for 20 years. Viva American Royalty! Forget about democracy. Let’s just have the Bush and Clinton families run our country for us.

• 27. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 3:47 pm

  26. jaredude | 2008 April 11 at 3:42 pm

  Did you skip the entire post and shit out a comment as soon as you saw that it wasn’t a Hillary Rodham Clinton-bashing post? Read the whole thing. The conclusion is that judging Clinton on her own merits as an individual is a good thing; the conclusion that you’re free to come to is open for debate.

  We have not had any other family other than a Bush or Clinton in office for 20 years. Viva American Royalty! Forget about democracy.

  Regarding the claim that the Bush-Bush father-son relationship is the same as the Clinton-Clinton marriage, which is a partnership between equals,

  Casting a wife’s relationship to her husband as the same as a child’s (dependent’s) relationship with a parent portrays a relationship between equals (spouses) as a relationship of dependency (child to parent). That falls into exactly the assumptions I critiqued in my original post, which is making the wife a subordinate extension of the husband, or in your examples, parent. It assumes that the wife cannot have her own thoughts and is not an entity independent of, and equal to her husband. In my opinion, the relationship between spouses is not comparable to the relationship between a parent and a child, and to make that comparison is only possible if you assume that a wife is a dependent, a subordinate, and a “lesser than” to her husband.

  As for democracy, who is arguing for counting the votes of MI and FL? Who is arguing for disenfranchising two whole states? Your entire argument is stupid; since HRC is campaigning for an elected position and she’s winning votes, she is necessarily supporting the democratic process.

  Stay on topic.

  Let’s just have the Bush and Clinton families run our country for us.

  Were you sentient during the WJC years or the GHWB years? You’re an absolute idiot if you genuinely believe that the presidencies of GHWB and GWB, with their destructive economic and foreign policies, were the equivalent of WJC’s presidency.

• 28. daranee  |  2008 April 11 at 5:16 pm

  I wish you best pizza. This has been no doubt an interesting discussion, but the following statement that you said about me is flat out wrong. I am a woman and I did not make an assumption that a wife is like the child of a man. But I am surprised that a feminist like yourself would jump to that conclusion. Do you think that women are like children?

  “Casting a wife’s relationship to her husband as the same as a child’s (dependent’s) relationship with a parent portrays a relationship between equals (spouses) as a relationship of dependency (child to parent). That falls into exactly the assumptions I critiqued in my original post, which is making the wife a subordinate extension of the husband, or in your examples, parent. It assumes that the wife cannot have her own thoughts and is not an entity independent of, and equal to her husband. In my opinion, the relationship between spouses is not comparable to the relationship between a parent and a child, and to make that comparison is only possible if you assume that a wife is a dependent, a subordinate, and a “lesser than” to her husband.”

• 29. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 5:59 pm

  wife is like the child of a man.

  Yes, you did. You drew an analogy between the relationship between HRC and WJC, and the relationship between GWB and GHWB:

  I wonder if perhaps this is not so much a husband /wife thing as opposed a familial thing. George Bush, Jr. was voted in to office because it was thought he would be a continuation of Dad. And of course we have seen all over the country various public officials who are children of public officials.

  When you say, “It’s not a husband/wife thing, it’s a familial thing,” you’re explicitly taking a marriage relationship, a relationship of equals, and recasting it as a parent-child relationship. The power dynamic between spouses is different from the power dynamic between parent and child, even though both relationships are familial relationships.

  But I am surprised that a feminist like yourself would jump to that conclusion. Do you think that women are like children?

  No, I said that portraying the relationship between spouses (equals) as analogous to a relationship of dependency and unequal power (child and parent), is sexist. There’s a difference between how things are portrayed and what they actually are. I explicitly stated above:

  In my opinion, the relationship between spouses is not comparable to the relationship between a parent and a child, and to make that comparison is only possible if you assume that a wife is a dependent, a subordinate, and a “lesser than” to her husband.

  I am a woman

  Did I make assertions about your gender identity anywhere?

• 30. Fredsbone  |  2008 April 11 at 7:22 pm

  It must be so difficult to cope with the idea of a man being less powerful than a woman. It must be so hard to face that brief instance of being on the wrong side of inequality. How awful!
  I’ve said for years that equality is the growing edge on which we are all perched. For some, overcoming the millenia of male privilege will not happen overnight. Historically womens equality has been one of 1 step forward and two back. Misogyny and sexism, like racism will not ever go away. Aware of this, we should live in trasformation mode to change these entrenched outlooks. What I’m saying is these old bad habits can easily cloud up efforts to sort out who is best for the job. I would celebrate with you totally the election of a woman president. I just am not sure if her positions on issues are any more consistent that her opponents. I have read she has immense support from the military-defense industry– more than Obama. And this makes me very uneasy, no matter who she is.
  This issue of equality is an ongoing one for all of us. It forces each of us to consider how well we treat one another. While I know the struggle will ultimately be for the good of all concerned, my interest in it is a sidebar to the needless deaths of the Bush legacy.

• 31. madmonq  |  2008 April 11 at 9:42 pm

  This may have already been said but

  Newsflash! Hillary is trying to claim a great deal of her experience to be president is because she was first lady. She of course wants to tout the good times and not the bad.

  Newsflash! Like being married to Bill, she’s gotta take the good with the bad. It was 8 years. There was a lot of bad.

  Newsflash! Based on her own merit she’s got all the skills of a fine politician with all the integrity that’s classically associated with it. What’s worse is she has more of the “my way or the high way” attitude that’s attributed to the world’s stupidest human being: GW Bush.

  Some say ‘if a man acted like etc. that’d be considered normal. But if a woman etc etc. Exactly. I don’t want anyone acting like an a$$hole. So I don’t want Hillary in charge.

  Finally.

  Newsflash! Hillary would kiss Monica Lewinski on the mouth if it meant she would become president. All the kink and klass of her husband and the character of GW Bush.

  Newsflash! PASS.

  Vote Obama 08

• 32. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 9:57 pm

  31. madmonq | 2008 April 11 at 9:42 pm

  Feel free to engage the topic and content of the post at any moment, now. The post is about why specific methods of denigrating HRC are sexist. Your comment is a bunch of incoherent asshattery about why you hate HRC. Is it impossible for you to see any post that doesn’t worship Obama without lurching into “defense! defense!” dipshit mode?

  Some say ‘if a man acted like etc. that’d be considered normal. But if a woman etc etc. Exactly. I don’t want anyone acting like an a$$hole.

  Upholding double standards for behavior is sexist. Behavior that is considered standard practice for male politicians evokes horrified reactions when it comes from female politicians. Hold everyone to the same standard.

  Vote Obama 08

  After your well argued comment for Obama rather than against Clinton, how could I resist?

• 33. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 10:12 pm

  30. Fredsbone | 2008 April 11 at 7:22 pm
  For some, overcoming the millenia of male privilege will not happen overnight. Historically womens equality has been one of 1 step forward and two back.

  Fredsbone, if you’re a feminist ally and working to overcome male privilege, you are of course welcome here. However, your comment earlier about finding it difficult to see a man in a position of less power than a woman reeked of privilege, and I’m not sure what you were trying to convey with it.

  I just am not sure if her positions on issues are any more consistent that her opponents. I have read she has immense support from the military-defense industry– more than Obama.

  Consistency is a perfectly legitimate issue to look at in deciding who to vote for. Are there any particular issues on which you have questions about HRC’s consistency?

  As for the military-defense industry, are you thinking of the military or the military-industrial complex? If the former, a number of retired generals and high ranking military officials have endorsed HRC–I don’t think that is necessarily problematic and it probably speaks to their opinions of her Iraq proposals. IMO, retired military officers endorsing a candidate is similar to other endorsements, such as ones by newspapers, politicians, celebrities, etc.–the primary things to look at are (a) what do you think of the person making the endorsement? Is the person credible? and (b) what are the reasons that the person gives for the endorsement?

  If you’re thinking of the military-industrial complex, e.g. defense contractors (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin) and companies with significant investment in defense spending (Carlyle Group, Halliburton, private security contractor groups), then I agree that it’s disturbing and an issue to think about carefully. The presence of corporate money in politics (effectively buying politicians’ votes) has been one of the most corrosive influences in American government the past few decades, and it’s especially worrisome if the corporate money is coming from the military-industrial complex during a time of war.

  While I know the struggle will ultimately be for the good of all concerned, my interest in it is a sidebar to the needless deaths of the Bush legacy.

  They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to fight for equality and at the same time campaign for a Democratic candidate and against Bush.

• 34. madmonq  |  2008 April 11 at 10:32 pm

  Feel free to address only the parts of a reply that the answers were perfectly obvious but you didn’t understand. Ignore those that schooled you. Make sure you assure the rest your way of thinking is morally superior to everyones.

  Or: Use the reasonings of a born again Christian but say it’s not.

• 35. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 11 at 10:36 pm

  34. madmonq | 2008 April 11 at 10:32 pm
  Feel free to address only the parts of a reply that the answers were perfectly obvious but you didn’t understand.

  I’ll address the full content of your replies when they start becoming on topic. This post is not about HRC’s positions as a candidate, it is about sexist framings of her.

  Morally superior? I know this may be confusing, but when people talk about arguments being “right” and “wrong,” they’re not talking about morality, they’re talking about correct and incorrect.

• 36. jaredude  |  2008 April 11 at 11:34 pm

  Pizza: You immediately sling insults the moment someone disagrees with you? I hope that you will read this comment in its entirety.

  “Casting a wife’s relationship to her husband as the same as a child’s (dependent’s) relationship with a parent portrays a relationship between equals (spouses) as a relationship of dependency (child to parent). ”

  I whole-heartedly disagree with your logic here. A 12 year old child is a dependent. A 50 year old person is not. In fact, many parents of 50 year olds are now the dependent of their 50 year old children.

  “In my opinion, the relationship between spouses is not comparable to the relationship between a parent and a child, and to make that comparison is only possible if you assume that a wife is a dependent, a subordinate, and a “lesser than” to her husband.”

  Your conclusion may be valid for some people, but don’t cast that garbage on me.

  “Your entire argument is stupid;” I know you are but what am I? If you spent less time attacking people, you’d compile a much better argument. You’ve back up your opinion very well, but why fling the poo? I (like most humans) tune out when someone insults me. You’ve got something good to say, and I want to listen to you, but I’m not going to listen to someone fling poo at me.

  “Stay on topic.” Read the above.

  “You’re an absolute idiot…” Read the above. I’ll admit that I’ve taken this one slightly out of context.

  That being said, I hope that you’ve made it to the end of this without cursing my name more than 10 times. I’ve read your replies to other comments, and I believe that I have a much greater understanding of the point you are making now. This is not about Hillary. Hillary is merely the example by which we get to see American sexism and misogynistic thinking rise to the surface. Am I getting that correct?

  I also have gotten a glimpse into what contributes to some of your frustration around this topic. When someone trivializes or makes significant issues “non-issues”, its enough to piss anyone off.

  Still, I believe Hillary’s policies to be flawed. Clearly, Bill and Hillary do not see eye to eye on everything. If I honestly felt that Hillary would be an extension of Bill, I’d be working in one of her campaign offices. Alas, she is not, and I disagree that she should be President on that alone.

  I also believe that family power should be vigorously resisted by a democracy. W is a perfect example. The Bush family ties afforded him much more than he deserved. Would the Clintons do the same? I don’t know, and I really don’t want to find out.

  “If you can’t face Hillary Rodham Clinton as an independent person and judge her on her own merits, you’re sexist”. I believe I’ve answered that point.

  The rest of them. I don’t care about, but clearly those are issues that you (and every other woman) have to put up with. I feel for you with having to deal with that crap.

• 37. pizzadiavola  |  2008 April 12 at 12:45 am

  36. jaredude | 2008 April 11 at 11:34 pm
  Pizza: You immediately sling insults the moment someone disagrees with you? I hope that you will read this comment in its entirety.

  I immediately sling insults the moment someone comes in ranting about how awful HRC is when that’s completely missing the topic of the post. If the post had been an endorsement of HRC’s policy positions, her work as Senator, etc., then I could see why you would jump in saying, “Judge her for this policy reason, judge her for that policy reason, judge her for this policy reason.” Given that the entire post had nothing to do with advocating her policy positions, your initial comment was nothing but a thread derail, and I’m tired of seeing those on fora where people are trying to discuss HRC.

  As for reading comments in their entirety - that is extremely rich. Please see my previous response to you.

  I whole-heartedly disagree with your logic here. A 12 year old child is a dependent. A 50 year old person is not. In fact, many parents of 50 year olds are now the dependent of their 50 year old children.

  The reason the analogy holds true is that when people are making the comparison between Clinton (wife) and Clinton (husband), and Bush (son) and Bush (father), they’re saying that Bush 43’s presidency is an extension of Bush 41’s presidency. The idea is that the child is carrying on the legacy of the parent, rather than that the child is a wholly independent agent with his own thoughts; hence the claims of political dynasties corrupting the government.

  Your conclusion may be valid for some people, but don’t cast that garbage on me.

  Then don’t read it. You make the choice to here and read; I’m not shoving my words in front of your eyes.

  I know you are but what am I? If you spent less time attacking people, you’d compile a much better argument.

  Since you seem to have difficulty focusing on anything but the insults, let me quote what I said above. My argument was not merely the claim that your argument is stupid; there were warrants behind it:

  “As for democracy, who is arguing for counting the votes of MI and FL? Who is arguing for disenfranchising two whole states? Your entire argument is stupid; since HRC is campaigning for an elected position and she’s winning votes, she is necessarily supporting the democratic process.”

  why fling the poo? I (like most humans) tune out when someone insults me. You’ve got something good to say, and I want to listen to you, but I’m not going to listen to someone fling poo at me.

  Do you see the irony here? It could attract magnets. If you want to listen to me, get over yourself and listen to me. If you don’t want to, then don’t. This is my blog and my space, and if you don’t want me to perceive you as an idiot and call you one, don’t act like one. Here’s a start: stay on topic. Your initial behavior was nothing more than thread derailment on an unrelated topic. Barging into someone else’s space and spouting off on something they’re not talking about is grounds for being called an idiot in my book.

  This is not about Hillary. Hillary is merely the example by which we get to see American sexism and misogynistic thinking rise to the surface. Am I getting that correct?

  Yes and no. This post is not about HRC in that it is not about HRC’s platforms, speeches, policies, or work. This post is about HRC in the sense that it is about sexism and misogynist thinking that is being specifically applied to her. Sexism and misogyny don’t happen in a vacuum and they don’t happen independent of perpetrators and victims, and HRC is not only an example but a victim in this instance.

  Still, I believe Hillary’s policies to be flawed. … Alas, she is not, and I disagree that she should be President on that alone.

  That’s great. At multiple points in the original post and in the comments thread, I’ve said that I have no problem with people coming up with positions on HRC based on their opinions of her policies. However, once again, that is not the point of this post.

  I also believe that family power should be vigorously resisted by a democracy. W is a perfect example. The Bush family ties afforded him much more than he deserved.

  I don’t think this is a good analogy. For the moment, I’ll leave aside the debate about spouse-spouse v. child-parent relationships, since you seem to be talking about the Bush family’s connectedness rather than the parent-child dynamic between portraying Bush 43’s presidency as an extension of Bush 41’s presidency. The Bush family is extremely well connected, politically: Prescott Bush was a senator, GHWB was head of the CIA, VP, and President, GWB was governor and President, Jeb Bush was governor. They have a long history of political office/influence, have lots of connections among the elite in business and government as a result, and they’re also quite well off. That family power–the friends, the money–allowed GWB to fuck up one business after another, then the state of Texas, and then the U.S., with virtually no repercussions because his family connections bailed him out (Molly Ivins covered these issues well in her columns and her books with Lou Dubose).

  On the other hand, the Clintons lack that political background. They’ve amassed power and connections since WJC was president and HRC was senator, but they lack the trappings of a political dynasty: for one thing, it’s only one generation; for another, they don’t have the family connections and history, or inherited wealth. HRC’s parents were a textile businessman and a homemaker. Her father went to Penn State on an athletic scholarship. WJC’s parents were a nurse and a traveling salesman.

  The Clintons may have arrived in the same place as the Bushs, in the sense that they’ve achieved positions of political power and made connetions among the business, political, and social elite, but it’s like comparing nouveau riche and old money. The D.C. press cadre repeatedly talked about WJC in that fashion, portraying him as a trashy, backwards hick from the South when he won the presidency in ‘92. The difference between the Clintons and the Bushs is that the Clintons have worked their way up to where they are now, and the Bushs were born into it with silver feet in their mouths.

  If two people comprise a dynasty, which you argue is bad, what about the Gores? What about that political dynasty beloved of so many on the left: the Kennedys? There have been many, many political families in the history of the U.S. For a well laid out example, try the Adams family.

• 38. Mark  |  2008 April 12 at 8:07 am

  Hi All: I got a lot of heat for writing back on January 29 about how “spousism” is demeaning and disturbing — my comments then were:

  “My advice to all females aspiring to be President of the United States someday — be careful who you marry. Make it a trophy husband, at the very most, because, to do otherwise, will just subject you to all kinds of diminishing, demeaning, and sexist characterizations.

  What kind of respect are we showing Senator Clinton by calling this campaign a ‘Billary Campaign.’ Billary is dead! For godsakes. It died when President Bill Clinton left office.

  It is now HillBill. Got it?”

  I think that it is sexism to not recognize it is HillBill now…. versus Billary. I am not so sure it is sexism to wonder about Bill’s influence on Hillary. Obviously, partners influence each other. To assume that a spouse would be “in control” of the other spouse, such as Bill controlling Hill, is blatantly sexist. It’s a sexist assumption until proved otherwise, and to prove otherwise would take being a fly on the wall for several years — which none of us can be.

  Vice versa — to assume that Hill had “control” of Bill would be sexist, without having any particular proof of that (which, again, would require being a fly on the wall for several years to gather the data).

• 39. 2xvoice  |  2008 April 12 at 8:21 am

  To me, what this thread demonstrates is the solidity of Pizza’s original point: It is almost impossible to judge Hillary Clinton on her own merits. The supposedly liberal media can’t help dwelling on issues like the time she showed cleavage or the time she teared up or whether she’s not warm and fuzzy enough, ad nauseam. But this isn’t just a recent development. As a whole, the national press corps has had it in for Hillary Clinton since she became a national figure. If she’s seen as a “polarizing figure,” that’s because the press has played a major role in making her that way. Yet examine the coverage: The things people are arguing about are first gender issues: She’s “castrating,” for instance. Yet men who display the same traits aren’t “castrating.” In order to play the game with the boys, she may well have suppressed some aspects of her personality, but don’t men have to do that, too?

  But Hillary isn’t the only figure treated this way. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she was called a “66-year-old grandmother,” as if being a grandmother somehow made it surprising that she could be in a non-grandmotherly job like Speaker. How many of her male colleagues are grandfathers? Most of them, I’ll bet, if they’re around her age, but we don’t see any men labeled “66-year-old grandfather.”

  To borrow from the old Virginia Slims ad: “You’ve come a long way, baby” — but you’ve still got a long way to go.

  BTW, this is a pretty high-quality thread, for the most part. There’s an actual back-and-forth discussion going on. Keep it up.
  Victor Kulkosky
  http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com

• 40. pocochina  |  2008 April 12 at 7:31 pm

  It is almost impossible to judge Hillary Clinton on her own merits.

  I kinda think the point of her post is that it is possible, and we all have a responsibility to do it.

  Oh, and jaredude? You’re ignoring the fact that Clinton, in her own right, can both be a separate person from her husband, and can also have been a valuable political adviser to her husband. WJC had a lot of people in his administration; he happened to be lucky enough to be married to a particularly intelligent one. Doesn’t mean they always agree, it just means you can acknowledge that she’s done work. In other words? HER OWN GODDAMN PERSON.

• 41. O'Maolchathaigh  |  2008 April 13 at 7:32 pm

  Hmm, well, in answer to your question about rtelevance, I saw a statement in the original post that said, “If you can’t face Hillary Rodham Clinton as an independent person and judge her on her own merits, you’re sexist.”
  1.) Most voters, including men and women, are judging her on her own merits.
  2.) The only ones saying she is like BIll are going to vote Republican anyway, so it is only a pitiful and useless attempt to get people to vote Republican.
  3.) The argument over whether HR Clinton is or is not WJ Clinton is a non-issue. You’ve been had.

• 42. Pat  |  2008 April 26 at 7:05 am

  An interesting aside is that while Hillary wins primaries, the nation might question not only race, but also the premise that only white males are capable politicians.

  Though she may have learned from the best, her husband, Hillary’s showings are not only respectable but dignified in their retrospective of the fact that women can compete.

  At this point, little can be presumed that Hillary exists solely because of Bill which to now had been the presumption which often cushioned Obama’s turnout in people rejecting Hillary because of her affiliation with Bill.

  Hillary has shown she can win elections, and that is significant in itself, for herself - a first in American history - and optimistic for women, just as Obama has shown he can win elections for himself based upon himself.

  Whether either is electable in a general election against a white male may be another story, and that is the concern of many voters - as Democrats, as well it should be.

• 43. jaredude  |  2008 May 1 at 4:21 pm

  Family is family, whether by birth or by choice. One need only explore the annals of history to witness bloodshed in the name of families that were not by birth. Europe is littered with corpses of people who have been killed by non-birth families.

  The big question I have is if Hillary loses the popular vote of the Democratic Party but wins the nomination via super delegates… how is that any different than George W. Bush?

• 44. madmonq  |  2008 May 1 at 4:34 pm

  She barely any different from him now. Entitled, arrogant, pigheaded, negative.

• 45. headdesking into eternity&hellip  |  2008 June 6 at 9:04 pm

  [...] criminal trial, static and silence; the fact that a decade ago Senator Clinton’s husband - NOT HER, HER HUSBAND - exercised his constitutional right to grant pardons is a scandal.  This is called a double [...]

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed