HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » McCamy Taylor » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next »

McCamy Taylor

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 15,140

About Me

Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/

Journal Archives

What Is the Biggest Angry Voting Block in the US----Women! Because We are ALL Oppressed.

You can slice and dice the US electorate in many ways. Rural versus urban. Old versus young. Black versus white. Immigrant versus native born. However, there is one demographic that transcends age, race, birth status, economic status. That is gender. If you are a woman in the United States, you are a second class citizen.

We have all been there. We are denied promotions. We are forced to train the newly hired men who will become our bosses. We are paid a fraction of what men make for doing the same work. Our ideas are ignored in meetings. Our ambition is treated as shameful--unfeminine.

Our bodies are kicked around like footballs by men trying to score ideological points---why protect the already born when you can protect the unborn to show your "family values"? We are denied birth control then condemned for trying to raise children we "cannot afford." We are condemned if we ask the fathers of our children to help in their care---"That whore probably got pregnant to collect child support," say the woman haters.

If we speak up to question our lot in life we are called "bitch", "witch", "castrating." We are told that issues which affect us are less important than issues which affect men---our concerns are just "women's and children's issues." We are told that we can have our equality after our men have their equality. We are supposed to be happy with "trickle down" equality---if our men get ahead, then we will get ahead. In this last respect, we are treated like children, who derive their social status from that of their parents---

Fifty years into the new feminist movement that started in the later 1960s, women are still treated as infants. Well, this "dumb blond" stopped being a child many decades ago. She is a grown up, and she expects to be treated as a grown up.

It is not my job to make men feel better about themselves by hiding my intelligence, agreeing with them when they are wrong or apologizing before I (reluctantly) have to set them straight in order to keep them from making fools of themselves and steering our organizations into disaster. I expect to take part in a dialogue about the policies which will guide my company, my country, my world. I expect to have my voice heard. And I don't think it's right that in order to do this, I have to assume a gender neutral name, so that trolls will not flame me for being female.

I am not smart in spite of being a woman. I am smart, in large part, because of the shit I have been forced to endure because I am a woman. The oppression which I have suffered (and yes, even a physician in this country suffers oppression, if the doc is a woman) has taught me a lot. I have learned to value my own opinions, to distrust social dictum. I am willing to cast off the old and look for a new, better way, if the new, better way will make life better for all of us, especially the children, who---as the dependents of adult women who have been turned into children themselves----are doubly disenfranchised and doubly oppressed.

How did sexism affect my life? Let me count the ways. It started before I was born. My mother, an Emory grad, could not go to medical school because she got married and had a child. Having a spouse and child would not have been a barrier to a young male pre-med back in the 1950s, but it was an absolute barrier for a woman. And guess what? Twenty years later, when I applied to medical school, I was told by several interviewers to reconsider my career choice. My sin? I had married an engineer. I was told that if I wanted to keep my husband, I would have to rethink being a doctor, because he would never be able to stand the shame of having a wife who made more money than him. By the way, we recently celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary.

As a child, we moved from apartment to apartment. Even though my mother was a computer scientist for NASA contractors and later NASA, she could never get a home loan, because she was divorced. In the 1960s, banks would not write a mortgage unless there was a man's signature attached. Oh, and speaking of computer science jobs, my mother was interviewed and hired by one firm in the 1960s. Then the real boss got back to town. He summoned his secretary into his office. He had her sit on his lap. He told my mother that his firm only hired women to be secretaries---

We have come a long way, baby, but we still have far to go. And one of the hurdles we need to overcome is the myth that a woman president is unnatural. That a woman who wants to be president must be some kind of freak. That a woman as president can not keep us safe. That she will be too easily swayed by the men around her. That she will not be able to accept campaign contributions without repaying that money in quid pro quo, because women are weak, puppets, devoid of ideas, fueled only by a single desire---the desire to please the men around them, meaning that we do not judge women on their own worth, we judge them by the worth of their men.

Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:54 PM (86 replies)

Happy, happy! Joy, joy! Ren and Stimpy React to Clinton's Anouncement that She Will Run!

Here they are, our two pals Ren and Stimpy, demonstrating the two very different reactions at DU to Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's upcoming announcement that she will run for the office of POTUS. Oh boy! We are in for a fun primary! We all want a fun primary, don't we? It would not be a Democratic primary if it was not a food fight at a monster truck rally!

"I'll teach you to be happy. I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

Look, Sally, look! See Hillary run! Run, Hillary, Run!

&list=RDjfNajFYPljQ#t=4
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Apr 11, 2015, 04:42 PM (1 replies)

Born This Way

Why do we choke up when we see a stranger empathize with a gay couple denied service in a restaurant? Being kicked out of a Mexican eatery in Mississippi seems like such a first world problem. There are folks all over the world who are being murdered for their sexual orientation and the color of their skin and their religious beliefs. Why does this little--in the relative scheme of things---bit of discrimination evoke such a massive amount of emotion?

For all our rhetoric about the right to freedom and happiness, if you are born in the USA, you are expected to toe the line. This is true for men, who are told from an early age that big boys do not cry. And for girls, who are told that little ladies do not fight. Since sorrow and anger are two essential human emotions, we resist the social boundaries. We try to express our true feelings--our emotions of anger, sadness and love. And time after time, we get knocked down, slapped back, ostracized, criticized---until it seems that the only way we can survive is by wearing a mask.

And so, we enter adulthood hating the selves that we truly want to be. We enlist in the military and allow ourselves to be used as fodder for the latest war for oil, because being a soldier means that we are real men. We accept 78 cents on the dollar of what our male coworkers make and do not say a word or make a wave, we allow our children to grow up in poverty, because being a doormat means that we are ladies.

But secretly, we long to be ourselves---the true selves which society condemns. And so, when we see someone else, say a person of color or a gay couple or someone who is disabled or a member of a minority religion treated unfairly, cruelly, we react. We can not cry for our lost selves---we have absorbed society's criticism so completely that it now defines who were are. We have been incorporated into the machine, perfect little cogs and wheels which do not question their function. But in our hearts, we remember and know This is not who I am. I was forced to be this way. And so, when we see someone else who has the courage to stand up against those all too powerful social forces in the defense of someone else, a stranger, we say our quiet Thank yous. Because that person stood up for all of us.

All of us are Black. All of us are Gay. All of us are Women. All of us are Children. All of us are Disabled. All of us are Muslim. All of us are Different, squares pegs forced into round holes, our rough edge smoothed down, the wounds of our social indoctrination still raw no matter how old or successful we are.

Put your paws up, baby. You were born this way.



Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Mar 30, 2015, 02:20 PM (0 replies)

Isn't It Time for the Human Race to Grow Up?

Sexism is alive and well in the U.S. today. Take my own profession, medicine. A male doctor who is not a complete dick is treated as something special. A female doctor who is not 100% Mary Poppins is a "bitch." Another way to say the same thing: patients will not tolerate a female physician who does not act motherly, but they often respect--and continue to consult--- a male physician who is curt, abrupt or even downright rude---like the one who started a visit by saying to me "I will ask the questions and you will answer the questions and you will not say anything else." Yeah, he was an asshole, everyone knew it. But a man like that can maintain a practice. His god-complex is a sign that he is good at his job.

On a related note, if the corporation is run by "good old boys" who thank the Lord each day that they were born men and not women, because being a man makes them "better", lower level staff will be tempted to scapegoat females, even females in positions of power--i.e. their bosses--- because they know that the Good Old Guy(s) at the top are so eager to discredit the female competition that they will readily believe that the woman executive caused the latest disaster--even if she had nothing to do with it. The female executives will be required to "prove" that they are loyal and up to the job---but the harder they try, the more threatened the men will become, and the more eager they will be to accept any criticism of their female colleagues. Hillary Clinton is a victim of this. We have all seen how often she is "accused" of doing the same things that male politicians do. She can only get a break when she is practically doing a Mother Theresa routine. Those who write and read the mainstream news know that their Good Old Boy bosses are scared to death of not being better than even a single woman, and so they level vicious attacks on her as a cheap, fast way to earn favor. Everyone wants to get ahead. If they can get ahead by blaming their mistakes on a woman---then "cherchez la femme".

Of course, anyone who has to label him or herself "better" than someone else in order to sleep at night is a bundle of neurosis and self doubt, and really should not be in a position of power. But it is these same scared little boys and girls who crave power--or rather the illusion of control---so that they can stop being frightened. And so they claw their way to the top of the dog pile. But no matter high they get, they never stop being afraid. And their fear paralyzes the organizations which they control, preventing them from enacting meaningful change in order to 1) increase profits 2) improve services and 3) build a lasting enterprise. They create a house of cards which looks flush on paper but really has no more substance than a soap bubble, and if they are lucky they cash out. And if they are unlucky, they go bankrupt--and find a woman to blame. All because 10,000 years ago, before the advent of agriculture, those who did not have wombs had to have a different mindset and different hormones in order to track and kill mammoths in order to feed those who did have wombs.

Of course, the third world has it twice or maybe even a hundred times as bad. There, women are treated as chattel, property. There, the poorest man knows that at least he isn't a woman. It helps him bear the indignity of his life. And if it all gets to be too much, he can use his woman as a punching bag and know that his culture will say "She had it coming. She gave him lip. She showed her ankles." You have to wonder, if all that rage against social injustice wasn't being channeled against women, maybe the victims of oppression would notice who the real enemy is. Maybe they would create a well organized, effective resistance, rather than houses of cards, like ISIS and Al Qaeda which temporarily boost their machismo, but in the end are just "sound and fury signifying nothing."

All this effort spent keeping women suppressed---excuse me, I meant to say safe--is a drain on our time and resources. Dwindling resources. Our overpopulated world can no longer afford sexism. There are no more mammoths. When we want to eat, we no longer have to hunt. We no longer have the option of hunting. We have to work together to create a social and economic structure capable of feeding and providing shelter for the billions who now live on our planet.

Isn't it time for the human race to grow up?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:48 PM (35 replies)

What Makes Clinton Stronger.

1. Men ganging up to attack her. Her star began to rise in New Hampshire when Edwards and Obama did a dog pile on her during the debate. My mother, an Edwards supporter up until then, switched immediately to being a Clinton supporter after watching how well Clinton handled herself in the face of what she considered male bullying. Sorry to all the guys out there. I know you did not create our sexist, woman bashing world and I am sure that you are not personally guilty of sexism. However, you live in a world where women get paid 78 cents on the dollar, are accused of "asking for it" if they get raped at the age of 11 and where reproductive politics take a back seat to economic politics, even though lack of choice is why so many children (as in over half of them) live in poverty. Men---especially heterosexual men---have benefited from sexism all their lives whether they realize it or not. They attack women from a position of power--at least that is how it looks to women.

2. Her tears. Forget Muskie. That was a whole other gender. A woman's tears are her weapon. Society does not allow women to get angry--they label angry women "shrill", "hysterical". Society prefers that women cry to show their sorrow and their anger. Those were not "crocodile tears" in New Hampshire. Those were a woman's feelings. Those were all women's feelings. When Hillary cries over the plight of third world children forced into sex slavery or folks here at home who can not get necessary health care, she completely negates all the "war hawk" rhetoric. She does not have to actually mess up her makeup. It is enough for her to get a little choked up and misty eyed. Yes, I know the guys think that it is unfair that women use their tears. But remember, we make 78 cents on the dollar, do not have access to birth control, have fewer opportunities to become professional athletes, are tossed on the Hollywood rubbish heap when we turn 30, get passed over for promotion---- and are called psychotic if we get mad about it.

3. Denigrating motherhood. Every time someone says that being a mother is not an important job experience or that "women's and children's issues" are optional (and yes, it really was posted here at DU), they buy into the old myth that raising a family is not a vocation, it is a vacation. Those who claims that motherhood does not teach important life skills which can be useful in the White House--can you cite an example of a mother who was a bad president? No, you can't. Because we haven't had a woman president. Not yet.





Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:26 PM (3 replies)

It Takes a Mother to Raise a Country....

...and that is why I love---and support---Mother Hillary.





Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:49 AM (8 replies)

The Reverse Psychology Worked! I Am Now PRAYING that Clinton Will Be Our Nominee.

Finally figured it out. This is America, the land of the rugged individual. When so many self styled liberal pundits join each other in lock-step to declare that they would rather poke out their eyeballs with flaming hot skewers than allow former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be our Democratic nominee, it can mean only thing---they love the woman. They are trying to bolster her middle of the road creds for the general. They know that she will be the nominee, and therefore they are playing Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch.

"Oh please, Mr. Democratic primary voter. Don't make me vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. I'd rather do anything than that. Yes, I would."

Brilliant strategy! Declare that she is a "war hawk"! That will reassure the independents who are worried about terrorists and who fear that a woman does not have the balls to keep them safe. Remind us that she attended Christian prayer breakfasts in Congress---last I heard, only about 80% of the American electorate consider themselves Christians. What else? Oh, yes. The Patriot Act. Because voting to give the telecoms immunity was such a thorn in the side of Obama during the 2008 general election. Yes, indeed, I can not remember how many soccer moms and NASCAR dads I heard questioning Obama's judgment on that one. While you are at it, blame her for the Iraq War. Since even the most historically challenged American recalls that Bush/Cheney and Powell are the ones who tricked us into war, this will make you look like a bunch of idiots with a grudge, negating the effect of any other barbs you may lob her way.

So, all you playful progressives, keep it up! Tell mainstream America over and over again how absolutely, disgustingly moderate you think Senator Clinton is. And while you are at it, repeatedly mumble "She's ok on women's and children's issues. I guess. For what that's worth." That way you won't have to worry that the nation's women---who tend to be a little left of middle---might take your ranting at face value. In fact, alienate as many women as you can. It will only solidify her base, which will rally around her as they perceive her being the target of yet another witch hunt. Yes, it means that many of you will suffer, condemned as sexist pigs for your increasingly shrill attacks on the woman. But hey, your personal reputation is a small price to pay in order to pave the way for Eight More Years!

Oh, and consider this. What if Clinton has decided to take a page from her husband's playbook? Bill Clinton chose to run with Al Gore rather than a VP from the North or West, because picking a running mate like himself made him seem more self assured in the eyes of voters. More comfortable in his own skin. So, if I were Bill Clinton, I would suggest that Hillary pick a strong woman to run with her. A woman like Elizabeth Warren. But I'd keep it quiet. That way when Clinton and Warren do their surprise team up at the convention, it will be one of those "Let's all come together" moments that Democrats love--like the one in 2008 when Obama chose Clinton to be on his team. I saw that one coming from a mile away, though many at the time called me crazy. "What? Obama embrace Clinton? That woman is the evil-anti Obama! It will never ever happen!"

Isn't politics fun! And don't you wish you were a fly on the wall when Clinton and Warren had their little talk? Who here really believes that if Clinton offered Warren the VP slot--and a shot as the highest office herself in eight years---Warren would "Just say no"? How does it feel knowing that Hillary Clinton has the power to do what you only wish that you could do---put Elizabeth Warren in the White House?

Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:25 AM (3 replies)

Oil Industry's "Cure" for $2 gas? Invade Iran! Jeb Will Do It! He Said He Would in the 1990s!

I'm gonna make this fast and easy, because folks don't have the attention span they used to. This will not be a twenty paragraph OP with links and pics. This will be a 20 item list.

1. Gas Is Going to be $2 a gallon this summer

2. Exxon's profits are dropping

3. If we invade Iran, oil prices will go back through the roof

4. Jeb Bush is in the pocket of Big Oil

5. Jeb Bush helped write the "Project for a New American Century" in the 1990s, which called for invading Iraq and Iran, "liberating" their oil.

6. Jeb Bush's Brother, W. used 9-11---which happened on his watch due to his ineptitude---as an excuse to invade Iraq.

7. Oil prices were through the roof under W.'s watch.

8. In 2005, W. wanted to invade Iran, too, but the Pentagon would not let him. Did not want war on three fronts.

9. Did I mention that oil prices are going to drop to $2 a gallon this summer? Yeah, I did. Twice. This is the third time. That is because cheap gas is what this is all about. Or rather, the oil industry's plan to raise the price of gas back to $4 a gallon.

10. The NeoCons and their puppets---NYT, WaPo, certain factions in Israel, the GOP---are now demanding that we invade Iran. They are currently trying to soften up the American public to accept the idea of another war for oil in the Middle East.

11. Jeb Bush's number one problem if he runs for president will be his brother and father's oil-hawkish tendencies---they both went to war in the Middle East---and the fact that Jeb also is a well documented hawk who advocated invading Iran for its oil back in the 1990s.

12. America wishes we had never gotten into Iraq. America is leery of getting into Iran.

13. Jeb Bush's best chance at being president is to trick Dems into nominating someone who is not well known, so that the GOP controlled MSM can shape the debate on that person's "character." You know, call him or her a "waffler" a "fake". This will put the Dem nominee on the defensive like McGovern in 1972, keeping him or her from focusing on Jeb's many weaknesses.

14. Jeb Bush will crash and burn if he has to run against someone who already has a well known persona that can not be morphed by the MSM. Or against someone who is too charismatic to be trashed.

15. The Dems must nominate someone who is absolutely charming in person that no one in the press will want to trash his or her character---like another Obama---or someone with so much history that the public already knows the person. Howard Dean, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton all fit the bill. In other words, we need either charisma or fame. Or both. Give me a nominee with charisma and/or fame and I will jump on the bandwagon. Give me someone who is unknown to the majority of independent Americans and that person had better have "I wanna drink a beer with him/her" potential.

16. So, if you want someone fresh and new, ask yourself "How many independents will want to drink a beer with my candidate?" If the answer is "Not too many, but he or she will do great things once in office!" you are backing the wrong candidate.

17. If Jeb "wins" or steals this election, we will be at war in Iran, our national debt with go through the roof again, you will be paying $4 a gallon for oil.

18. Since this is a free country (for at least two more years) you have a right to ignore number 17 and parrot the GOP whose current talking point for the Dem primary is that Clinton is a "war hawk". Go on. You know you want to say it. War hawk, war hawk, war hawk. Rand Paul called her that on Meet the Press last year. Rand Paul told the nation's Democrats that if they nominate Clinton, she will be perceived as too "hawkish" for independent America. I am sooo glad that Rand Paul has our party's best interests at heart. (Yeah, I am being sarcastic).

19. Anyone who rushes to defend Rand Paul and spit on Hillary Clinton in the replies to this thread is, by definition, a Republican. No, this point is not negotiable.

20. The "enemy" is not any Democrat. The enemy is Jeb Bush/the NeoCons/ and Big Oil.


Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:26 PM (13 replies)

It's Fresh! It's New! Clinton-Castro 2016

Still the most unbeatable combo we have. The fact that so many Republicans are all over Clinton---i.e. three separate House committees--proves that they are scared of her.

The latest little bit of pathetic criticism which I read here at DU was that Clinton looked old. And tired.

Dudes and Dudettes, you think women in office is "old and tired" because you are Democrats. You will not determine the outcome of the general. That will be the unaligned so called Independent voters who have to have something fun and new given to them in order to capture their attention and get them to the polls. Well, to them, Clinton/Castro will be extremely new and lots of fun. When a woman with a real shot at winning is at the head of the Democratic ticket, it will be the hottest ticket around. We will see a national debate on gender. We will see a few NASCAR dads vote against her out of fear of a strong woman. We will see even more Soccer moms and GOP women vote for her in disgust at the wretched behavior of the NASCAR dads.

We will discover who really wears the pantsuits in this country.

And with Castro on the ticket, we beat the GOP once again when it comes to the ever growing Latino vote---and pave the way for President Julian Castro in 2020 (I am betting she won't run for re-election) or in 2024.

If we can only persuade Al Franken to run a (pretend) campaign so that he can take part in each debate and drive up the ratings, the Democratic primary will be even more fun and more new. We also need a couple of uber-lefties to get out there and scare middle America with their uber-lefty talk, so that middle America realizes that Clinton is not the Marx spouting Lesbian witch that the Republicans will try to portray her as being.

I can not wait.


Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Mar 12, 2015, 01:47 AM (2 replies)

1968/2016: Humphrey/Clinton

Here's a lesson that I learned in 1968. Back then, I knew people who loved Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP and the eventual Democratic nominee after the food fight on steroids in Chicago. The folks who loved him were often (but not always) Black. They loved him because of all the things that he had done for Civil Rights. As LBJ's VP, he had worked like a dog to gather the necessary vote to pass the Voting Rights Act and other legislation.

However, equal rights under the law were not the only issue on the table in 1968. The other big topic of concern was the draft. Young men were dying in Vietnam, in a war which LBJ could not win but from which he could not extricate the country, either. Realizing what a mess Vietnam was, LBJ decided not to run again, so that he could concentrate on ending the war. His man, Henry Kissinger, conspired with the GOP candidate Nixon to derail the peace talks and keep the war going, because the war was Hubert Humphrey's big weakness among Democratic voters.

You see, all those young men subject to the draft and their friends and family members hated LBJ as much as Blacks folks loved him. I remember, in the same week, going with my 3rd grade teacher (Black) to greet LBJ when he arrived in Austin and attending an anti-war rally where he was vilified by my mother's UT friends.

The hatred of LBJ rubbed off on Humphrey. Being LBJ's VP, he could not run against the war---it would have been disloyal. So, he was labeled a hawk. He was reviled. A man whose focus had always been on domestic equality under the law was suddenly transformed into some kind of war criminal. No one cared about the good he had done at home for underprivileged people. They looked at him and saw only WAR. They were convinced that his only reason for being in politics was to promote war.

Humphrey lost by the narrowest of margins. Nixon, who ran on a campaign of "Four years is enough to end a war" promptly escalated the war and illegally invaded Cambodia and Laos. He is responsible for many more deaths of young US men. No doubt, some of those men stayed home in 1968 as a "protest vote" against Humphrey the Hawk. Some of them probably voted for Eugene McCarthy. And their votes may well have cost them their lives.

What does this mean in 2016? Be very careful of labeling any Democratic a "hawk" and deciding that a protest third party vote or stay home vote is the best way to turn the party to the left. Those protest third party votes in 2000 did not turn us to the left. They gave us eight years of Dumbya and then a middle of the road Obama. Those protest third party votes in 1968 did not turn us to the left. They gave us the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Washington Post (briefly) turned us to the left because Nixon/Mitchell threatened some of Katie Graham's media holdings and so she turned loose two of her reporters on Nixon in order to get even. That is not likely to happen again, not with our current MSM. If we buy another GOP Neo-con we will be at war in Iran. If the Dems keep the White House, we won't. It is as simple as that.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:44 AM (34 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next »