Reply #154: Hillary Clinton is sane, but McCamy Taylor's essay was not.

[Missouri Blue]

If it was meant to uncover "the conspiracy" against females and connect it with Clinton's plight, and to blame Obama supporters for being part of it, then it has failed. No matter how it's re-iterated, males don't see that conspiracy, and almost unanimously, they don't see themselves acting in concert with it, neither by motivation nor by action, I assure you.

I know, who cares? Except that maybe 95 percent of women don't see it that way either. I don't think reiteration will help the argument gain credibility even within her own gender.

That's not to say there hasn't been incessant sexism leveled at Clinton, definitely it has been. I have been shocked to read the names conservatives will call her, in blogs and on discussion boards, where I've locked horns with them. They've called her a whore, a witch, a bitch, a bull-dyke, a harpy and a cunt, and worse. (I don't consider calling her a liar to be sexist. They say that about Bill, too.) But really, you can't give what they say any more meaning than a black eye. The men (and sometimes women) don't care about reality or truth to any of those terms. They are insults, and meant to hurt, raise blood pressure, distract, and soil without any regard for truth or accuracy. If we give them an absurd amount of thought finding all these connections, the insults have done collateral damage. We take our eyes off the ball if we over think and over-analyze them. It's better just to return insults, as low as it feels.

Now, the boundaries of opinions are not neat, it's obvious that many Democrats have serious misgivings about Clinton. I'm new here, so I'm not deeply read in what Obama supporters have said, but I presume it has been caustic, and unfortunately, sexist insults are some of the most effective.

IMO, there is no formalized male conspiracy to oppress women, but I've seen on the Internet that in disputes between a man and a woman, it's uncanny how the men will close ranks against a woman. Even if it's none of their business, even if they don't quite know what's going on, and the men who don't go along or who defend her are treated as some kind of traitors. I've been there, done that. It definitely doesn't go any further than immediate dominance, but it cumulatively does its damage, to women and society. Women must be familiar with it and learn to repress themselves, meanwhile men don't notice anything strange about their behavior, so you definitely won't get anywhere arguing about some kind of social-economic conspiracy.

Further, I don't say that other forms of sexism aren't present in this country. Just hearing questions like: "Is the US ready for a woman president?" Look at how many countries have had women presidents, prime ministers and such! We're about last in the world, and we're still asking that question? Many other countries have done it. That ground has been broken already, and we missed the opportunity to be significant. In other words, we'd be doing nothing that the world needs. The Presidential glass ceiling has been broken in places like the Philippines and Pakistan. So, the fact is, no ground will be broken by Clinton.

I hate to point out that the roles for women in both of those countries don't seem much better than prior. I'll bet women aren't at equal pay in either place. It's remarkable how little things really changed for women. I question if a woman in power will help other women, just like a man in power doesn't necessarily help other men.

That's why I advise against seeing Clinton as the great-hope-for-women candidate. The fact that we ask if we're ready is sad, but don't make the mistake that Clinton is better for POTUS because she is a woman, therefore "groundbreaking" and beneficial for women. It makes about as much sense as saying that Nixon was a better choice as POTUS because he was a Quaker.

For the record, I think insane males are much more damaging than insane females; male insanity is measured sometimes not by annoyance, but by body-counts. It doesn't help to back a sane candidate with insanity.