We could have had HER!
My fantabulous new blogroll-feed plugin is already paying dividends: I saw this post from Egalia almost as soon as she put it up. On Meet The Press this morning, Hillary was asked about the prospects for a woman president:
Cliff Notes version of the interview as reported by Reuters, in case you have trouble seeing the video:
Now secretary of state in the Cabinet of her onetime rival President Barack Obama, Clinton said it was a “daunting” challenge for a woman to run for president.
“It will take the right woman who can make the case and win the votes and get elected. I am certainly hoping it will happen in my lifetime,” she told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program.
When pressed whether she would run again, she said, “I have absolutely no belief, in my mind, that that will happen.”
Clinton declined comment on the presidential prospects for outgoing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was Republican contender Senator John McCain’s running mate in last year’s race.
Pressed on whether she thought Palin had the right attributes to be president, Clinton replied: “That is up to the voters to determine.” She added that putting together an election campaign was a complicated venture.
“I am just going to leave it at that,” she said. “I do want to see a woman elected. I hope it is a Democratic woman who represents the type of approach that I happen to favor.”
We could have had her. She’s such a stateswoman, so brilliant and knowledgeable and diplomatic. And feminist.
But no, instead the Obamabots had to destroy her so we could have Dreamboat Barry: all hope and no change.
Hillary says “it will take the right woman,” but who is the right woman? Until Sarah Palin came along, it was easy to believe that all the misogyny was for Hillary alone. Just some kind of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. But as I wrote last year:
Just look at Sarah Palin. She’s different from Hillary in almost every respect, yet she’s being assaulted just as Hillary was, only to an even more intense degree. It’s a virtual lynching. A burning in effigy. The hysteria of it, the ferocity of it, terrifies me.
It’s not Clinton Derangement Syndrome or even Palin Derangement Syndrome, but Woman Derangement Syndrome. Any woman who reaches for that brass ring is going to be crucified. And, sad to say, there is a subset of self-described feminists who will help drive the nails.
84 Responses to “We could have had HER!”
-
Chip says:
It wasn’t a woman thing it was a power thing. The Democrat Power brokers could not let Hillary win because she would have been a loose canon. Pelosi and Reid were shaking in their boots at the thought that Ms. Clinton might win. So Obama the empty suit was elected so that they could control what goes on. The Republicans ran McCain because they thought they were going up against Hillary and he was the candidate to fight her. Worked out real well for them too.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:32 pm EST -
FLAConnie says:
Pelosi and Reid are actually running things? Guess I’m living in an alternate universe. Dumb me, I thought the Republicans were still in charge. Health care reform is delayed, and what’s being proposed is catering to the insurance and pharmeceutical companies. The climate change bill is not coming down hard on big coal. And the talking head Republicans are the ones who are most often quoted or talked to by the media. We, the people, are still screwed.
The one positive outcome from the election: at least someone with common sense, ability, intelligence and diplomatic skills is Secretary of State. Go Hillary! A vision of sanity in an insane world.
-
Lorenzo says:
On a completely different note, your “previous page” button does not appear to be working, one just gets the front page again and again.
-
Violet says:
Ah, thank you, Lorenzo. That’s what I get for jiggying with the code on the live blog. I believe I’ve fixed it back now.
-
Sandra S. says:
Honestly, I love Hillary, and I’m still just sick that she lost (by which I mean obviously was completely ruined by disingenuous rumor mongering by assholes). But that phrase “The Right Woman” just kills me. There isn’t going to be a right woman, because the right woman is always going to be a man.
-
Sis says:
Thanks for the feed links. Now I don’t need to spend time looking for what I know I want to read, and cleaning up my cache from all the wrong turns into the Styx.
-
Northwest rain says:
Personally I can NEVER EVER forgive the Demo party (or NOW or the “feminists”). I knew that the US was an extremely sexist Nation and now we have proof that an inexperienced penis will win over an experienced, talented, smart and knowledgeable woman.
Why should Clinton ever run again? She would deal with the same rigged primary and caucuses.
We needed a leader and we got someone owned by Goldman-Sucks. Everyone will be paying for the sexism that exists — especially the next generation. And frankly I do NOT give a damned about the generation who put 0zero where he is. He is a perfect example for failures who fail and then move on to higher office. This description seems to fit a whole lot of 0bots.
YES WE COULD HAVE HAD HER!
It is doubtful that we will have a woman president in our lifetime. The misogyny is too extreme in this country — the proof is that the US sides with the other misogynistic countries more often than not. The US is still a primitive country. Those are the facts.
Palin may try — but she would have the money bag backers (like Goldman Sucks).
Don’t care — I’m leaving on a sailboat next year. Expatriate is looking better and better.
-
Northwest rain says:
YEA — WOW — VIOLET — YOU GOT RID OF THE *&^&^^%$% NUMBERS!!
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU!!!
-
tinfoil hattie says:
It wasn’t a woman thing it was a power thing.
First commenter is a dude who tells us how we little women have it all wrong.
Way to prove the point, dude.
-
Brute says:
Hello,
I am gay, possibly bisexual, and I have recently realized that men try to oppress me as well. When I am feeling hurt, angry, and bitter, I come here and read this blog. (Although usually it makes me more angry at men — but at least I get to see that there are people out there who “know”.)
As a person with a dick, I have often wondered why men treat me as a lesser class. They feel it is okay to laugh at me and mock me.. they get to mentally bestow “the ultimate insult” upon me: faggot. Dick sucker.
That is, when they are not trying to use me to push down women!! (I still can’t tell who is lower to them in their minds. Because the same people who might call me a faggot if they knew I was bi or gay, would make a joke or misogynist assertion in front of me and expect me to agree.)
…
Ugh… sigh..
Anyways. Just saying hello, I guess. I really feel like the author here has a lot of insight and humor.
Brute
-
sister of ye says:
It really tears me as a feminist that Clinton has made herself subordinate to an inexperienced, adolescent poseur.
Yet as a citizen, I’m glad we have a sane person acting in our country’s interests, whose critical work behind the scenes may never get credited, but is helping our country and the world.
Yes, it is an anti-woman thing, and I’m not sure where it comes from, because from my experience it’s not from the American people. Or not those rational people who give serious consideration to their choices.
We had the triumph of marketing, a new rock star or sports figure. Obama is not the new FDR, JFK or LBJ - but he may be the new Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan, with “Hope & Change” the new Air Jordans or sequined glove.
“But the kids/grandkids love him!” Screw that. We’re not talking Cabbage Patch Kids or any of the fads since. It’s the country’s welfare, not a pet rock or animatronic pet.
Yeah, Goddess forbid we have one of those “irrational” women in charge. Because illegal wars and the sell-out of our country to big and sleazy finance make so much rational sense.
-
Sameol says:
If it makes you feel better, it’s probably not the case than any woman who runs will be crucified, simply because in all likelihood there will never be another woman who has a shot in hell of winning. The hanging offense isn’t Running While Female so much as being the first woman in history to carry a state or actually making it on to a national ticket where it’s possible. So the Napolitanos can run and as long as they stay safely down in one or two or three percent land where they belong, Which they will, they’ll be tolerated, and the parties can point to it as proof that they’re deeply welcoming to the prospect of a female President and don’t have an anti-equality bone in their bodies.
-
TeresaINPa says:
sister of ye.. you are right it is not the american people, they voted for Clinton in the primary and would have voted for her in even greater numbers. It is the old white boys club that killed Clinton and Obama is nothing if not a member of the old white boys club.
-
TeresaINPa says:
brut, when gay men are insulted it seems to be in terms of how like women they are. It is fear of women that motivates homophobia I am sure.
Welcome
-
Luckynkl says:
First commenter is a dude who tells us how we little women have it all wrong.
The second dude wants to point out that Violet’s links aren’t proper.
The third dude is self-absorbed and would rather talk about himself and how PHMT (Patriarch Hurts Men Too) and acts as tho it’s the same thing that women experience. No dude. Even the lowest man on the totem pole is considered above that of a woman. So no, you don’t have a clue what it’s like to be a woman and no, you don’t have anything in common with women. For one thing, gay men are as sexist as any other man. For another, homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical attribute. And for still another, no one knows you’re gay unless you tell them or it’s made obvious.
So there we have it. Men’s sexism hard at work. Either by attempting to invisibilize it or diverting the topic to anything but the subject of women and sexism.
-
Branjor says:
Yeah - and all on a thread entitled “We could have had HER!”
-
thistle says:
tinfoil hattie: “First commenter is a dude who tells us how we little women have it all wrong.”
He also started with a put down of the best person for the job of president, Hillary Clinton.
I want Hillary to run again.
-
RKMK says:
Personally I can NEVER EVER forgive the Demo party (or NOW or the “feminists”).
Well, in all fairness, there’s new leadership at NOW, so let’s insert “Kim Gandy and her cronies” for “NOW” in that sentence.
-
thistle says:
Luckynkl: So there we have it. Men’s sexism hard at work. Either by attempting to invisibilize it or diverting the topic to anything but the subject of women and sexism.
Didn’t take them long did it. The panic that sets in when Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned is interesting to watch.
-
Sis says:
He tried. But he could not get her to say anything derogatory. What a gal.
Are there any of those Hilary t-shirts still available? She makes me so wistful. President or not, she is just amazing, and we in Canada are so far from having anyone like her.
Salut to Lucky, who always calls it true.
-
m Andrea says:
Lucky dear, you know the rules. Never ever irritate a potential ally by pointing out that they’re not really our ally. Next thing we know, you’ll be making derogatory comments about the democratic party.
Feminists have this wacky idea that the only way to get things done is with a majority. Any yet, Machiavelli knew Archimedes could move the world with a fricken teaspoon placed in the heart of one’s enemy.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Thoughts on Hillary ditching Zero and running for NY Gov? It’d be nice to see her as alpha.
-
Unree says:
alwaysfiredup, what a great idea. Write me down for a campaign donation. Because the incumbent is being run out of town on a rail as I type, we New Yorkers might even be spared the ca. 2008 noise about how she’s messing with a man’s right to take the job we wants.
-
cellocat says:
I wonder what Hillary herself wants. I wonder if watching the current health care fiasco makes her grind her teeth every night and hope for a chance to fix it later. I don’t know what I’ll do in future voting, but what the Dems did to her had such an impact for me that I’ll never return to my previous trust of and identification with them. And the thing is, Hillary herself isn’t just any woman candidate. Her intellectual brilliance, her articulate delivery, her unflappability in the face of ferocious attack, and her heart make her a fantastic choice for leadership, and the fact that we lost that chance with the aid of other women just kills me still. I guess I’m just still bitter…
-
Violet says:
Luckynkl, you’re an asshole.
Lorenzo lets me know my page navigation is screwed up, and you take it upon yourself to attack him. New commenter drops in to say hi, and you take it upon yourself to attack him.
No wonder you’ve been banned from every other blog.
-
DancingOpossum says:
And “invisibleize” is not a word.
-
anne says:
I just love Hillary. I can’t help it. You could see that questioner in India wanted to call her Madam President too not just madam. We all do.
Good spot on the sexist dynamics at work Lucky. They probably don’t even realise they are doing it.
-
Sis says:
Well you can add me to your ban now too Vi.
-
Sis says:
To clarify: I’m not blogging anywhere that Lucky is called an asshole. You’ve had plenty of assholes blog here, but in my memory you’ve never called them that.
This is just beyond belief, that Lucky could be insulted on a feminist blog, and you can say “no wonder…”.
-
leis says:
Call me a fucking idiot, but I was totally unprepared for the non-stop misogyny. I expected it from the R’s; I even expected it from men, but I did not expect it from women I knew and respected. They were so quick to believe the ridiculous lies. I’m still in shock. That is what has shaken me and my faith that women will ever have equality. I am disheartened.
Brute-I would say gay men are hated and feared by straight men because they equate you with women. If women were viewed as fully human, they wouldn’t revile gay men as being a bunch of pansy’s and worthy of scorn because you’re just like women. What I mean to say is that hatred of gay men relies explicitly on hatred of women. Woman; the ultimate insult. And I agree that this is one of the best places to go for insight and humor.
-
Violet says:
This is just beyond belief, that Lucky could be insulted on a feminist blog
Why? She IS an asshole. Being a feminist is unfortunately no bar to being an asshole, as you yourself have testified many times in your comments regarding certain third wavers.
I call people all kinds of names — alas, not very nice of me, but I do. Twits, sexists, misogynist freaks from hell, whatever. Asshole fits Lucky. I’m sure she’s a feminist, etc., but she is, as a person, a raging asshole. Has been for years. As her behavior in this thread makes clear.
-
Sis says:
I think you’re wrong and offenseive on this. And I’m not coming back. I don’t converse privately with Lucky, so I’m not going to go somewhere and bash you. I’m just going to go.
-
anne says:
You know I read the thread from the bottom up Violet, and I thought that Lucky must have said something awful for your reaction, then I got to her post and thought “was that it?”
She’s not an asshole, Sis is right though you’ve had quite a few of them posting here, including a couple right on this thread.
She pointed out a sexist dynamic of men trying to keep the subject on anything except a discussion a powerful woman who deserves more power. I thought it was interesting and observant of her to spot it, not assholery. It was noticeable that not a single woman poster did anything similar.
Is there any way of sorting this out?
-
Sis says:
Anne: I agreed with Lucky, so yes, a “single” woamn poster did something similar. And I’ve done it before and been banned too.
I am not disputing Vi’s right to shape her blog how she will, but anyone, ANYONE, calling Lucky an asshole, or even suggesting she’s in the same league as some of the so-called feminists we’ve called out here, is no blogger I will support.
-
Violet says:
I don’t think Lorenzo’s helpful alert that I’d just fucked up my page navigation constitutes “a sexist dynamic of men trying to keep the subject on anything except a discussion of a powerful woman who deserves more power.” I think that interpretation is absurd.
As for Brute’s comment, he’s a first-time commenter who decided to de-lurk. Lucky’s decision to make mincemeat of the guy was not only outstandingly rude and inappropriate (whose blog is this, anyway?), but batshit. Brute didn’t say any of the things Lucky imputed to him; instead, it was clearly just an opportunity for Lucky to go off on one of her nasty diatribes.
Which is what she does: uses other people’s blogs to go off on nasty diatribes. I almost banned her the last time she was here and tried to turn a thread into something about transsexuals. She’s also been put in moderation before for going off on nasty attacks on other commenters. Some of her commments I’ve never published.
I’m sick of her. She’s a raging asshole. She’s raged across most feminist blogs I’ve visited, vomiting bile everywhere. My stomach knots up every time I see her name here.
-
Sis says:
Ok Vi. You are obviously talking about an incident at another blog which included me. And my take is 180 degrees to what you’re describing. My take is, the fault lies elsewhere.
I wish you the best, blog wise and personally.
But to my mind, you have maligned Lucky in an unforgivable way.
-
Violet says:
Ok Vi. You are obviously talking about an incident at another blog which included me.
No, I’m not. I’m not thinking of any incident that involved you.
-
Sis says:
Well geez. Couldn’t you just give her a warning? Why call her an asshole? She is much revered and loved by those of us who call ourselves radical feminists. She is one of our leaders. As are you.
And anyway, I just think she was right, and not off in her calling it what it was. But if you don’t want those calls made by someone else, say so.
And you’re wrong about something else you said about her, which isn’t mine to correct. I just repeat: she is much loved and she teaches us. She is one of foremothers.
-
leis says:
tinfoil hattie was the first to call out the first dude because he told us “it’s not a woman thing” GAG. Maybe nobody else mentioned it because that is exactly how threads get derailed? As for not calling out lorenzo and brute? Maybe it’s because nobody else thought there was anything wrong with what they posted.
-
Violet says:
I have not banned her. I just put her in moderation.
I have no problem with commenters here schooling the dudes (or other women) when they cross the line into rank sexism, etc. And it’s not uncommon for dudes to derail threads to talk about themselves or change the subject, etc. But that’s not what happened here.
The first guy’s comment WAS off-base and dudely, and several women called him on it. But Jesus, Lorenzo was just letting me know I’d fucked up the code! I’m grateful to him. And the new guy — I thought his comment was friendly and kind of sweet. After all, he was just delurking and introducing himself. Lucky’s assault on both of these people was gratuitously hostile. It’s the kind of thing that makes me want to stay away from my own blog.
It’s true that my temper is frayed with Lucky, but that’s because I’ve dealt with stuff like this before from her.
-
anne says:
Sorry I wasn’t going to respond again, but if that’s a response to me, my point was that no other woman here made a post apropos of either nothing in the original post or what had already been said on the thread, or in Chip’s case telling Violet not to worry her li’l head about misogyny.
Like Lucky noted, it was the three men who did that.
Sexism can be subtle as well as in your face but it has the same result, marginalising women and women’s interests.
I agree with Sis though. Lucky is a leader as are you Violet. I have appreciated this blog so much throughout the election last year and the aftermath this.
-
anne says:
year. (missed the last word ahem).
-
alwayfiredup says:
If didn’t know this was your blog Violet, I’d call threadjack…
-
Luckynkl says:
The only blog I’ve been banned from that I know of is Twisty’s blog. Is Twisty’s blog “every blog out there?” Who knew she was the universe? Truth is, I rarely read or post to blogs. So your statements are rather puzzling to me. How does one get banned from blogs if they don’t read or post to them? And where are you running across all these comments of mine if I so rarely comment?
The last comment I made here was about Michael Jackson. Was MJ a transsexual? I did not know that! Do you know something I don’t? Cuz I’ve certainly never thought of MJ as a transsexual. So why would I bring up the subject? It makes no sense.
As for Lorenzo, no worries. If he’s the Lorenzo I knew from the Ms. boards (I know of no other), we go way back. Back to when he use to brag about how when girls said no to him, he’d just rape them while they slept. So let me get this straight. I’m a raging asshole and not welcome here cuz I point out men’s sexism, but rapists are swell guys and welcome here? Oh, I’m sorry. I mistook you for a feminist. My bad.
-
alwayfiredup says:
…so what do you think are the odds of Hillary leaping from SOS to NY Gov?
-
thistle says:
I don’t know, I found some of the posts at the beginning a bit different.
-
Violet says:
Well, here you go, Lucky in all her glory festering in my mod queue:
As for Lorenzo, no worries. If he’s the Lorenzo I knew from the Ms. boards (I know of no other), we go way back. Back to when he use to brag about how when girls said no to him, he’d just rape them while they slept. So let me get this straight. I’m a raging asshole and not welcome here cuz I point out men’s sexism, but rapists are swell guys and welcome here? Oh, I’m sorry. I mistook you for a feminist. My bad.
The Lorenzo who commented in this thread is a gay Australian medievalist. But Lucky only knows one Lorenzo in the world, and that’s some rapist. So that means I welcome rapists to my blog as swell guys, which obviously means I’m not a feminist. “My bad” says Lucky.
Yeah, what I said. ASSHOLE.
-
Violet says:
In addition to which, Lucky elides the issue of her nasty comments, her being banned elsewhere, and even her attempt (which I never let out of moderation) to hijack a thread here into something about transsexuals.
Yeah, what I said. ASSHOLE.
-
Branjor says:
I thought Brute’s comment seemed nice, but it did have the effect of taking the focus off the sexism against women, which Lucky homed in on. And he just recently realized that men oppress gay men too? He must be EXTREMELY young. And “Brute” is a helluva name for a nice guy.
-
Marcy says:
I thought rather than take the focus off sexism against women, his comment made the point that it’s not just individual woman who are targeted, it’s actually the entire concept of women — anything feminine or perceived to be feminine is subject to the same degrading and dehumanizing treatment directed at both Hillary and Palin this past election. This is so common in our language that most people don’t even notice anymore — the insults — calling someone a sissy, saying someone cries like a little girl or an old woman — things like this that are so accepted make it possible for people like Obama and Axelrod to demonize women and get a lightweight like Obama elected. The mere accusation of racism can now apparently ruin a person’s life and career, but blatant sexism or outright misogyny elicits no condemnation from either the media or the general public. It is socially acceptable to demean women or anything considered woman-like.
-
Sis says:
No I won’t let you get away with this character assassination. I don’t know anywhere else Lucky has been banned, none of the rad fem blogs but Twisty’s, where several rad fems left in support of her. Being banned from Twisty’s would be de rigeur in my book for anyone calling themselves a feminist.
-
Violet says:
Character assassination? So you want me to answer you by supplying MORE information about Lucky’s reputation?
All I can say is that as far as I know (assuming other bloggers aren’t lying), she’s been banned formally or informally at many places. (Actually it was my impression that there’s only blog she’s still allowed to post at, and that after a period of being in constant close moderation.) She is widely regarded as either a nutcase, someone with a severe anger problem, or possibly an antifeminist spoofing a radfem for shits and giggles. I frankly have no idea, nor do I care.
Even if I’d never seen her elsewhere, I would be quite fed up with her on the basis of her behavior here at my blog.
-
kiki says:
The Lorenzo who commented in this thread is a gay Australian medievalist. But Lucky only knows one Lorenzo in the world, and that’s some rapist. So that means I welcome rapists to my blog as swell guys, which obviously means I’m not a feminist.
I really do understand that there’s a serious conversation going on here, but honestly that paragraph above made me LOL!!!! too funny….
-
Sis says:
This sounds like a bunch of really destructive back channel gossiping.
-
kiki says:
this is why I love the internet.
Sis stormed out of here, never to return, at 5:45 p.m. yesterday. 7 hours ad actually a day later she’s still posting.
that’s the kind of thing you just could never pull off in person. the intertubes rule!
thanks all for taking my mind off the original topic which was who we could have had as president. now I’m depressed again. it could have been wonderful! not perfect (it’s politics!) but really so much better. take healthcare - it would have been this or it would have been that - it would have taken some sort of shape - and it would have been up for a vote. she doesn’t dither and she doesn’t equivocate. and I’m getting so tired of that shit.
-
Sis says:
So glad to know I amuse you kiki. But yes, I would have done this in person. I’m not staying here, but I’m also not being silent while a real feminist is being shredded here and others don’t know what the truth is. Even if everything said is true, it’s unbelievable someone could seemingly take pleasure in tearing her down.
I don’t happen to think what you could have had is more important than standing up for yet another woman being trashed. Palin? Anyone? Lucky.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Anyone wondering about the background in this controversy might try googling Luckynkl. Oodles of evidence supporting our host. The gist:
Men = Evil
Transsexuals = NutjobsThere may be more, but that was enough for me.
*****A
-
Sis says:
None of those links and “evidence” come from radical feminists. One is from a known pimp. Another from a known feminist hater, another from a misogynistic male transgendered person (it’s not possible to be transexual).
I’m going to keep doing this until the hate stops or Vi blocks me.
-
Branjor says:
Marcy, I agree that Brute’s comment made that point beautifully, but Brute himself didn’t really seem aware of that and the focus of his comment was on how men treat him.
-
RKMK says:
IMO - Vi’s house, Vi’s rules. She’s entitled to her opinion (and seems to have sufficient evidence on which to base it) and she’s certainly allowed to express it on her own damn blog.
Sis - She doesn’t like your friend and thinks she’s an asshole: big deal. Not everyone is going to like everyone else. Leave if you’re going to leave, but stop throwing a tantrum over the thread.
-
Sis says:
RKMK — this isn’t about whether Vi “likes my friend”. Or who we “like”. (Sheesh) This isn’t even about whether I agree with Lucky’s opinion, or Vi’s opinion of Lucky. This is about fairness to another woman, something this blog has up until now upheld. This blog has never been a place a woman would be so trashed.
But if it’s changing now, I’d suggest you take note. The way one woman is treated, will be the way other women will be treated. You are she. We are Lucky. You know?
-
RKMK says:
This is about fairness to another woman, something this blog has up until now upheld. This blog has never been a place a woman would be so trashed.
How is she being trashed? Is she being called a raging slut? Or a stupid whore? No, she’s being called an asshole, and being called an asshole because Violet has personally witnessed and experienced her acting like an belligerent asshole.
-
paper doll says:
We could have had Hillary. Thankfully we at least have her as SOS.
-
Monchichipox says:
OH Sis you bruise like an overripe peach. Calling someone an asshole really isn’t shredding them. I hope you don’t leave Sis you do some of the best posting here.
Hillary didn’t win because she was a woman and Sarah Palin was pretty much run out of politics because she was woman.
Sad. I think I need a Peppermint Patty.
-
Violet says:
Luckynkl is banned. I don’t know what else I can say about that. Sis demands that I stop “trashing” Lucky “unfairly,” but the only way for me to answer that is to supply more details about Lucky’s behavior here and elsewhere. Which, in turn, will just constitute an even more thorough public discussion of Lucky’s failings, which doesn’t seem to be what Sis wants.
So nothing for me to say. Though honestly, Lucky’s comment #44 should be enough right there to tip people off (there is only the one Lorenzo!). That’s the kind of crackpot shit I normally never let out of the mod queue. “A commenter on your blog is named George! The only George I know is a child abuser! So let me get this straight: you welcome child abusers, yet you call yourself a feminist? Harumph!”
I ban and block lots of people. Lucky is one of them.
-
Branjor says:
***Calling someone an asshole really isn’t shredding them.***
Yes, and telling someone his experience in patriarchy isn’t equivalent to women’s is not making mincemeat out of him.
-
Violet says:
Lucky’s comment #15 to that guy was nasty and completely inappropriate. And just plain cruel. I abhor that kind of crap.
-
Sis says:
No to those who say I should continue to post. I won’t be back.
Seven posters on this thread agreed with Lucky. That’s a majority of the women posters.
Lucky has now been banned on two blogs and one fucked up forum. Lucky’s posting history is vangaurd misogyny fighting, for years and years. Toddlers like RKMK wouldn’t know the history of her work on their behalf, which is why I keep saying you went too hard.
You have one opinion, I know the facts of your reference, and I have another. And yes, I was part of what you’re referring to. Did you forget or not know? I am Pony.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Well, re “transsexual,” that’s what Luckynkl calls them (whoever them are). Sorry I’m not versed on acceptable labels. But if it’s not possible to be one, I wonder that so many dictionaries bother to define it.
*****A -
Lauren says:
As I watched Hillary on Meet the Press, I feel her as my President. I cannot support the democratic party again after what it allowed Obama, and the DNC to do to Hillary. I do support the work of The New Agenda http://thenewagenda.net and Pumapac.org . I remain enraged about the 2008 election.
-
Unree says:
I’ll cast another vote in support of Luckynkl, with the proviso that I don’t know the username and don’t remember reading anything from this person before.
Those commenters *did* deserve an eyeroll. About Chip we all seem to agree. Lorenzo, who was being helpful, should have e-mailed you at one of the addresses you give rather than change the subject away from Hillary Clinton. Changing the subject from, say, Michael Jackson would have been peachy, but your whole point (I thought) was to remind us how disrespected this woman has been and still is; how she never gets her due. I just reread Brute’s comment and it still sounds naive, self-absorbed, and—above all—preoccupied with something other than what you posted.
-
Violet says:
This isn’t a vote. And if you don’t know anything about Luckynkl, you’re really not in a position to judge.
Actually I wish you all were more familiar with her, because if you were, instead of wondering why I’ve banned her you’d be amazed that I’ve ever allowed any comments from her at all. The woman is batshit and vicious. That is, assuming she’s real and not a sock puppet.
By all means, google her. Of course you’ll discover her bizarre beliefs and corrosive hostility to transsexuals, but there’s so much more! She also believes that women are capable of parthenogenesis, that the Bible proves this, that men’s brains are physically smaller than women’s, and all kinds of things. And she delivers her pronouncements with stomach-churning vitriol. I would just write her off as colossally silly, which she is, except that her bile kind of kills the humor factor.
(And if anyone thinks I’m making this up and doesn’t want to take the time to google, this thread will give you a taste of The Wonder That Is Luckynkl.)
-
Violet says:
Sis says (in a comment I just now fished out of moderation):
Seven posters on this thread agreed with Lucky. That’s a majority of the women posters.
You’ve miscounted. But even if you hadn’t, it doesn’t matter. This is my blog.
Lucky’s posting history is vangaurd misogyny fighting, for years and years. Toddlers like RKMK wouldn’t know the history of her work on their behalf, which is why I keep saying you went too hard.
You’re welcome to your opinion, of course, but I disagree about as much as it’s possible to disagree. See my prior comment for my opinion of Lucky.
But I do invite people to google and learn “the history of her work.”
You have one opinion, I know the facts of your reference, and I have another. And yes, I was part of what you’re referring to. Did you forget or not know? I am Pony.
No, I don’t know what you’re talking about. The only connection I know of between you and Lucky is that you both post at Heart’s, and you both used to post at Twisty’s.
If you’re referring to the trans business, that is only one part of Lucky’s history, as I’ve pointed out, and I didn’t even follow that case (though I certainly heard about it). If you were involved in that, I wasn’t aware.
-
Violet says:
So, to sum up: Luckynkl is banned, and I’m tired of talking about it. The End.
-
Three Wickets says:
This is not directed to anyone in particular, but how is a radical feminist different from other feminists? Not asking rhetorically, and I have read and talked about it elsewhere in the non virtual world, but there never seems to be a consistent definition. Is it mainly about complete separation from men. Does radical somehow suggest physical force. What would be some concrete examples of the immediate goals or the means that radical feminists advocate using that’s different from other feminists. Asking for my personal edification. If I can’t help, at least I’ll know when and how to get out of the way.
-
Violet says:
Is it mainly about complete separation from men. Does radical somehow suggest physical force.
It has nothing to do with any of that.
Radical means from the root. Radical feminism sees women’s oppression as the result of patriarchy: a system of gender relations at the very root of our social order. Liberal feminism, on the other hand, is traditionally based on changing laws rather than challenging fundamental social structures. Most of the First Wave feminists were liberal feminists; they believed that giving women the vote would end women’s oppression. The Second Wave (1960s on) was dominated by radical feminism, which recognized that gender relations were deeply embedded in our cultural norms and had to be addressed at the root.
All contemporary feminism is built on the radical feminism of the 60s and 70s. So the question becomes, what does a woman mean when she says she’s a “radical feminist” today? Well, for me it means what it’s always meant (root, gender, patriarchy, etc.) Some women use radfem as a label to signal their opposition to pornography or sex work. That’s really a whole other narrative, but the thing there is that many mainstream feminists today have accepted pornography as fine and good, whereas self-described radical feminists are still more likely to see it as part of the means by which women are exploited and branded as the sex class.
But really, I think that’s a limiting distinction. In my view, feminists who are fundamentally challenging the patriarchy are radical feminists. Feminists who think things are basically okay, just as long as we get equal pay, etc., are not.
-
RKMK says:
Thanks, Vi, that’s actually a really nicely succinct summary.
(For what my opinion is worth, as a nigh-30-year-old “toddler.”)
-
thistle says:
Sister of ye: “It really tears me as a feminist that Clinton has made herself subordinate to an
inexperienced, adolescent poseur.”It tears me as a feminist that everyone is still putting her down for her decision to take SOS. I’m glad she took that position. Why wouldn’t she? An important position like this?
-
tinfoil hattie says:
RKMK, isn’t it time for your nap and a blankie?
(Women aren’t infantilized enough, so let’s call them “toddlers.” Yeesh.)
-
octogalore says:
Re “I think that’s a limiting distinction,” I agree. There are many feminists who “recognize that gender relations were deeply embedded in our cultural norms and ha[ve] to be addressed at the root” who have differing opinions on sex work. In fact, many who believe in a root-based analysis believe that the issue of sex work is a a symptom that would become more egalitarian if the root issues were dealt with, and focusing on the symptom is more of a “liberal feminist” approach.
So I like the “feminists who are fundamentally challenging the patriarchy are radical feminists” approach.
Then, the question becomes: challenging it in what ways? I think there are a range of options here that are all reasonable ways to go about this. On a personal level, I feel economic disparity and subsequent power disparity underlies a whole lot. What do you think?
-
Alison says:
That was interesting, Violet. Now that I understand the difference, I think it’s safe for me to say that I am a radical feminist!
-
Brute says:
Hello all,
I don’t usually check blogs daily, sorry for being absent.
I do think my post was off-topic. So in that sense it was self-absorbed.
Also yes I am young. I had honestly not thought of homophobia’s real root being hatred of women. I actually find that quite insightful and fresh, while it’s what-else-is-new-material to everyone here. So in that sense I am naive.
It’s very true I don’t experience the same thing that women experience. As somewhat indicated in my post.
Thanks for the welcome.
-
m.sakel says:
Great video. I really liked Hillary’s superb diplomatic and compassionate views including her response to Gregory asking her view on Palin: “I wish well well…and in (trying) for Office..” I could not understand the last part dealing with wishing her well in…”Office”? Gregory being a member of the ‘male master media race’ abruptly cut her, symbolically, off and didn’t allow Hillary to complete her sentence! What disrespect, but to be expected from media misogynist fratboys masquerading as ‘journalists’!…Thanks for posting this.
-
Msakel says:
Brute
I liked his views on how gays are discriminated using the same social modus operandi used to control misbehavin’ women. We do have a lot in common–although I do find that some gay guys are just as misogynist in their views as hetero-males. Uprooting homophobic and misogynistic attitudes will require a cultural revolution. And I still think it could have started by electing Hillary…
