One might say it is quite revealing.

I would hate to go the Ann Althouse route and say that “k” lacks reading comprehension skills, since she sucks, and it’s such a cop-out.

So I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, “k”, and assume you *comprehend* what’s been said by me and others in this thread. You just don’t get it.

I’ll try to recap.

Brad links to MM, talking about sexist coverage of HRC. Several people respond, basically saying “but I hate HRC for NON-SEXIST reasons.” I call BS with the point that, these comments are first an attempt to minimize sexism to HRC; second, seem clearly aimed to make the poster feel better about his own non-sxist self; and third, often seem to actually buy into the sexism but pretend it’s not “Her voice IS like a buzzsaw and that is NOT SEXIST”. Ironically, particularly see your first comment, “k” and also Travis’.

‘k’ then comes back to me with “insult, insult, insult, Brad specially pointed out that HRC has had sexism aimed at her, you’re a liar.” I explain that I actually wasn’t talking about Brad at all, but with the finger apparently pointing dangerously close to ‘k’;s direction, he freaks and rips of several more insults and completely false assumptions about me. As I say, the one who protests too much, etc. etc.

What’s he got? 400,000 viewers per night? Fuck him, we don’t need him, nor Andrew Sullivan, nor Maureen Dowd (offensive to all parties involved). Their analyses are facile and I’m not all that sure they care whether Obama wins in the general election.

I know its your ‘job’ and all, but could i suggest that you all spend way to much time watching television news and reading crap op-ed pieces?

I know, I know, its us that have computers against them that live in DC and write for newspapers. But seriously, what about this Social security bidness?

That is douchebaggery, right there, Travis. The whole point of this post was that you don’t have to support Clinton to be against the sexist tripe the media has been throwing out to make her look bad. When the media turns on Clinton, it’s because her campaign is already in the toilet. When the media turns on Obama, it’s because they’re trying to smear him. The media is shit, and if you don’t like it I suggest you turn off your damn television and think for yourself. I avoid campaign coverage like the plague, and I’ve never been happier.

Anyhow, to Travmo:

My point above= Hillary’s Zimbabwe comments could be used to make a case that she is horrible, but not to confirm what has been the a priori based-on-no-evidence hypothesis that she is and has always has been horrible. Is the phrase I’m looking for confirmation bias?

But it’s only Clinton that gets called “calculating” and “cold”.

hmmm… maybe because she’s the only one of the current candidates who has that rap? Is it unfair? Maybe. Sexist? That’s really (really really really) stretching it; just off the top of my head I can remember Mitt Romney and, oh… say, Al Gore catching the same kind of criticism. Trouble is: every presidential candidate is going to be judged on style points to some extent. Clinton supporters seem to think that she ought to be exempt from all such chatter simply because she is a woman. And that, LWM, is what trivializes real sexism.

or briefly: if any negative comment about Hillary Clinton is inherently sexist, then of course the campaign has been “sickeningly sexist”.

absolutely unbelievable.

The xkcd cartoon is right on and to the point; the non-parallel construction is the singular, specific term “you” in the first panel and the general group noun “girls” in the second panel. Yet McEwan offers “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.” which does not say anything about women in general, only about Hillary Clinton. It isn’t sexist at all;

McEwan said,

That’s what we’ve seen over and over and over again during this primary. Not “Wow, this presidential candidate has positions and strategies I really don’t like” but “Wow, Hillary Clinton is an unlikable Machiavellian devil with a voice like a buzzsaw who’s so manifestly evil that neither she nor her supporters are even real Democrats.”

See the parallel construction there? The first attack is against her politics, the second against her. It certainly is theoretically possible to dislike Clinton personally without it being motivated by sexism; however, McEwan’s point is that she sees this hatred of Hillary Clinton as due in large part to Western culture’s fear of powerful women.

You can call it speculation if you want, but there is a reason large numbers of women (and men) believe in things like the patriarchy. And it’s not over-sensitivity or gender-baiting or whatever when someone says “Clinton is a victim of sexism”. I don’t think it trivializes or weakens the fight against sexism to point out neither Obama or McCain get attacked for being “calculating”, “cold”, and whatnot. All three of them are politicians; none of them are “our buddies”. But it’s only Clinton that gets called “calculating” and “cold”. “Machiavellian” just feeds right into this bullshit. You can disagree with her examples if you really really want too, but Melissa McEwan is not the same as the Clinton supporters who only refer to Obama supporters as ‘Obots’. If you think blogs like Shakespeare’s Sister, Pandagon, and Feministe are in the business of trivializing sexism, I think you’re very mistaken.

The priviledge seeping out of this comment in particular by Travis triggered even my priviledge-dar (doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, does it?):

I don’t think McEwan quite understands that xkcd comic, tbqf. Unless somewhere along the line people who have (rightly) criticized Clinton’s voting record started throwing in “like all women” at the end of their sentences.

First, saying it’s only sexist if someone explicitly makes a statement about all women is lame. The xkcd comic is about a particular form of sexism; that doesn’t mean it can’t be used to illustrate the existence of sexism in general, okay? I’m pretty sure Ms. McEwan understood what was going on in the comic. And if we’re not going to deny the existence of sexism, and the fact that it has been aimed at Hillary Clinton since, like, forever, then the only point of a comment like this one is to absolve the poster of sexism.

If you haven’t personally made sexist attacks against Clinton, then why do you feel the need to contradict a general statement about sexism in this election? Obviously this wasn’t a statement about you. The fact that some supporters of both candidates have gone off the deep end doesn’t mean that every time someone talks about sexism they’re talking about all non-Clinton supporters, just like if someone made a comment about racism it wouldn’t (necessarily) be an indictment of all non-Obama supporters.

If you get all riled up when someone mentions sexism, it just makes you look sexist.

Or are “y’all” as Clinton supporters just unmoved in general by facts?

You all.

“… people here seem the need to get a congrats that THEIR reasons for not supporting HRC are rationale [sic].”

Care to point to anyone, anyone at all, who’s tried to get themselves congratulated for non-sexism in opposing Hillary, Kathleen?

I’ll try to be clear, though no clarity is likely to survive your capacity for tendentious misreading: What people have been saying, repeatedly in any number of ways, is that not all criticism of Clinton, including criticism of her self-presentation or political style, can or ought to be ascribed to sexism. Not because we’re trying to puff ourselves, but because ascribing any and all criticism of Clinton to sexism is a move the Hillarysphere is absolutely addicted to making. At best it’s a category error, at worst it’s a low-blow rhetorical trick, but it never makes a damn bit of sense.

Media coverage of the Clinton campaign has been sexist, both implicitly and explicitly. Media coverage of the Obama campaign has been racist, mostly implicitly and not for as long–but there’s plenty of time between now and November. Both those statements are in the “well what the hell else did you expect” category. It’s this internecine stuff, this insistence on demonizing other progressives who (usually for entirely cogent reasons) don’t support the candidate you support, that’s so tedious and stupid.

Thanks for exemplifying it yet again, Kathleen, as if there were any need.

fair enough. but I tend to find that people do comment when they don’t agree with something some one has said, unless others already are. Which I also didn’t see.

and I know you don’t agree, RB.

oh, a statement like “Not one person here. Brad says right in his post that there has been a great deal of sexism, media-fueled and otherwise, directed at Clinton.”?

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.– Senator Hillary Clinton apologized for referring to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason she should continue her battle with Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.

I’m at a loss to understand the the context of this remark. I can’t even see how it could be interpreted as manipulative since it makes no sense.

Silly me. How could I possibly have read your attribution of “y’all” to mean…

… “you all.”

I recommend that you make a statement that isn’t mendacious or silly.

I didn’t see everyone else agreeing with him. I don’t.

Ah, yes, the old canard. Not commenting on something someone says = agreeing with it.