News > Culture > Which Worries You More: Uppity Coloreds, or Uppity Dames?

commentary
TUESDAY JULY 17 2007 4:00 PM

Which Worries You More: Uppity Coloreds, or Uppity Dames?

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD

Tags: bob novak, hillary clinton, barak obama, old white guys

In this photo, Bob Novak, the guy who outs women CIA agents in order to punish their husbands, is talking to his homie, Confederate Memorial Association President John Edward Hurley. Notice that Bob and John and those other dudes in the background are all old white guys. AKA, the only people that count.

No, seriously! Here's Bob talking to a bunch of other white guys about the negroes and the women folk over at "Meet the Press," an Important Media Outlet that Matters and that coincidentally is dominanted almost entirely by . . . white guys.

"Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope."

The answer to the titular question, though, is that Bob's more bugged by the uppity women than by the uppity Negroes--he and Hugh Hewitt agree that these people who "reject conventional forms of political action"--you know, like public platforms they're not invited to appear on--are scary.

the venom that comes out of the mouths of some of these women, particularly, Im not trying to be sexist, but theyre so vicious toward [Bush]. And I dont think that really contributes.

Ladies, it's *not nice* to be angry at men who, oh, think you should be broodmares for the republic. Stop arguing and *be productive*.

Bob also says that if Hillary wins, really that's just giving Bill a third term. Because, you know--just like in the Plame outing--women have no identities of their own. That's the kind of traditional value conservatives like Novak can really get behind.

Bob Novak's Republican Party: We Hope, Because We Believe Americans are Racist Woman-Hating Neanderthals.

There's a slogan for ya.

Bitch_PhD can't wait for the argument about how divisive this post is.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 9

Comments

d20

San Francisco, CA

September 2003

JUL 18, 2007 08:58 PM

i don't know how many times we're going to have to say this, but a current state of inequality doesn't in any way justify an equally wrongheaded push the other direction, because said push will not result in equality. equal and opposite forces: balance. swing, followed by backswing: not balance.

or in get-it-through-your-skull terms: two wrongs don't make a right. being sexist in the opposite way of the current sexist climate does not even remotely help the problem. i don't know how much clearer that can be.

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost

February 2007

JUL 18, 2007 09:00 PM

chainlink said:

Bitch_PhD said:

chainlink said:

Bitch_PhD said:

You get back to me when women have held virtually all the positions of political power for over 200 years, and ask me if it's discriminatory to vote for a woman b/c she's a woman, and yes: at that point, it will be. Until then, give it a rest.

So regardless of the issues, vote for the woman because we've never had a woman President before ?

How about you stomp your feet and cry and say " It's not fair! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" ?

I'm not telling people who to vote for. I'm telling them not to be dumb.

And in your case, not to be a sexist dick. Or chick. Whichever, I don't care.

How again is saying vote on the issues not on someones gender being a sexist dick Bitch ?

Dismissing feminist argument by telling someone to stomp their feet and cry is being a sexist dick, Dick.

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost

February 2007

JUL 18, 2007 09:01 PM

d20 said:
i don't know how many times we're going to have to say this, but a current state of inequality doesn't in any way justify an equally wrongheaded push the other direction, because said push will not result in equality. equal and opposite forces: balance. swing, followed by backswing: not balance.

or in get-it-through-your-skull terms: two wrongs don't make a right. being sexist in the opposite way of the current sexist climate does not even remotely help the problem. i don't know how much clearer that can be.

And you know this because in the past, simply saying "okay, we're all equal now!" has worked so well. As opposed to actually tackling real facts on the ground. Mmhm.

Saraphine

SUICIDEGIRL

Pennsylvania, USA

JUL 18, 2007 09:02 PM

I have no PhD so I am confused.

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JUL 18, 2007 09:04 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
Voting for a woman for president based on the fact that she is the FIRST major party woman candidate is NOT discriminatory IN THAT CONTEXT. Y'all can wish/pretend that we were all born under rocks yesterday, and that sexism doesn't exist if we just all plug our ears and say "lalalalala I believe in gender neutrality" but that don't make it so.

So, lemme get this straight...you're harping about how sexism exists, but yet profess to voting for Hilary simply because she's a woman, not on the issues. You know, like people w/a working brain in their heads vote. Then again, Bush got voted into office twice. But I digress.

A man voting for a male candidate over a female candidate, simply because he is male = sexist.

Voting for a white candidate over a minority candidate, simply because they are white = racist.

Voting for a straight candidate over a gay/lesbian candidate, simply because they are straight = prejudiced.

A woman voting for a female candidate over a male candidate, simply because she is female = OMG I AM WOMAN IT'S NOT SEXIST (IN THAT CONTEXT) POWER TO THE PUSSY!!!!11!!!!one!!

Your tired banality in the name of feminism is like a double amputee - the argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

-TM

Chainlink

Key West, FL

August 2005

JUL 18, 2007 09:05 PM

Bitch_PhD said:

chainlink said:

Bitch_PhD said:

chainlink said:

So regardless of the issues, vote for the woman because we've never had a woman President before ?

How about you stomp your feet and cry and say " It's not fair! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" ?

I'm not telling people who to vote for. I'm telling them not to be dumb.

And in your case, not to be a sexist dick. Or chick. Whichever, I don't care.

How again is saying vote on the issues not on someones gender being a sexist dick Bitch ?

Dismissing feminist argument by telling someone to stomp their feet and cry is being a sexist dick, Dick.

Implying that you are acting like a child is not sexist. Try again. With more feeling.

I dismiss your argument because it is moronic and juvenile not because it's feminist, Bitch.

Thanks though.

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

JUL 18, 2007 09:11 PM

Bitch_PhD said:
And you know this because in the past, simply saying "okay, we're all equal now!" has worked so well. As opposed to actually tackling real facts on the ground. Mmhm.

"Real facts?" Interesting. Here are the "real facts" you've presented thus far.

1. Voting for a candidate on gender alone is A-OK, as long as the candidate has ovaries.

2. Anyone that tries to point out the faults in your argument is a.) sexist, b.) a dick, or c.) a sexist dick dick.

3. Fighting sexism w/vice-versa sexism gets the job done. Wow. if someone hates you for who/what you are, all you have to do is hate them back for the opposite reasons, and the world will soon become a rainbow land of gumdrop equality!

-TM

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA

February 2004

JUL 18, 2007 09:17 PM

Bitch, this is the problem. A major problem. EVERYTHING you don't like is sexist to you. You've called sexism multiple times in this thread when it simply isn't so. After a while it starts to have a numbing effect and it's easy to dismiss your claims of sexism outright, especially when they're obviously bullshit.

Often you overly simplify things to the point of absurdity. Yes, only 16% of congress is female, but that hardly proves there is a sexist conspiracy out to get female politicians. Perhaps the majority of voters in their area liked the other candidate better?