Log in

No account? Create an account
heart + stomach
Advancing the sum total of human knowledge and endeavour!
Delicious LiveJournal Links for 6-5-2008 
6th-May-2008 11:41 pm
heart + stomach
7th-May-2008 07:20 am (UTC)
PHD comic: Ouch.

Obama: See, this is what I've been saying about Hillary since the beginning. She's not the feminist candidate, even if the alternative was someone who's neutral. She's a hardball-player who's trying to out-aggressive the Republican men. The Reps aren't nice people when they do it, and she's no better. In fact she's worse: people will judge what a female President can be based on her, and she'll be a pro-corporate, pro-war traditionalist. There's no change there for feminists to hold up as a better way of doing things.
7th-May-2008 07:24 am (UTC)
What the hell is that Men's News site?! It's insane!
7th-May-2008 07:33 am (UTC)
LOL have you seen the article about how it's all Josef Fritzl's mother's fault?
7th-May-2008 07:46 am (UTC)
Say WHAT now?!
7th-May-2008 09:50 am (UTC)
It's a very very special site.
7th-May-2008 12:39 pm (UTC)
Both bear a remarkable resemblance to the women’s platform of the Community Party of the USA – but that’s another story

Because it's not possible to agree with anything that The Others like, at all.

Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure I agree with a chunk of UKIP domestic policies, and I think the BNP had one policy I had no problem with once.

I can't read the rest of that screed, it's Just Wrong. And I hope it'll only be read taken seriously by people that are already McCain voters anyway.
7th-May-2008 07:28 am (UTC)
Except the link is about Obama, not Clinton. Don't turn an article about one candidate into saying the opposite about the other.

In fact she's worse: people will judge what a female President can be based on her,
You mean how we'll never have a woman in power again after the 80s?

There's no change there for feminists to hold up as a better way of doing things.
Eh, I don't want to point at a woman in power and say "see, we're better." I want to point at a woman in power and say "see, we can have power."

- I'd vote for Obama, but I'm just saying.
7th-May-2008 07:44 am (UTC)
Regardless of what we’d like, people will say “This is what happens when you get a woman President”. Now if that’s a disaster, it hurts the chances of it happening again soon. What would almost be worse is if it is a wasted opportunity – we finally get a woman in, and she plays it exactly like the men have been for the last 50 years. Sure, having people get used to the idea of a female President is going to be a good thing, but can you imagine the difference if it was someone with actual compassion and strength, instead of Hillary? She’s put so much on being as ‘strong’ as the boys, she’s now in the position where ever saying no to war will be seen as weakness (not that she’d ever say no to war.)

I know the article is about Obama, I’ve just failed to see how Hillary has ever been the feminist candidate. I think she’d do more damage than anyone else out there.
7th-May-2008 12:58 pm (UTC)
Part of the problem is that in order to get anywhere in politics women have to be even more aggressive than men. This is not a good thing.

I worry that Hillary's tactics are going to divide the Democrats and let McCain in. I don't think Hillary will be a good thing, but I'm certain McCain will be worse.

That site is special isn't it. Some of those comments are mental. Its quite amusing to read everything on that list and consider each one a reason to vote for the guy.
7th-May-2008 01:03 pm (UTC)
Do you and Steve both realise you're referring to the male candidates by surname and the woman by her first name?
7th-May-2008 02:57 pm (UTC)
No, sorry, its one of those unconscious things I guess. I'd probably have used Barack's first name if I mentioned it, but John McCain's first name keeps slipping my mind. (And if I'd said "John" would you know who I meant?)
7th-May-2008 06:13 pm (UTC)
Well, to be fair -- even though I try to refer to Senator Clinton by her surname -- the campaign has been using her first name rather than her last name on merchandise (i.e. bumper stickers, lawn signs, rally signs, etc.). I suspect this has two reasons: to make her more "accessible" and to, well, not confuse people.

Though you could ask why they didn't use "George" instead of "Bush" for George W. Bush' campaign merchandise, but. Well. THEY'RE BOTH GEORGE BUSH!!! Anyway.

Edited at 2008-05-07 18:15 (UTC)
7th-May-2008 11:36 pm (UTC)
That, I feel is a mistake. It seems to me that even her campaign are showing that women should be 'accessable' and familiar through the use of a first name. Barack Obama is perfectly accessable while using his surname.

(Though I confess to a certain level of ignorance which may or may not be common among the various voters - that I associate neither 'Barack' nor 'Obama' as a given vs family name so neither is more familiar to me.)
7th-May-2008 11:47 pm (UTC)
Well, ask just about anyone who's been following this campaign extensively and they'll tell you Senator Clinton has run a terrible campaign. So that you've interpreted her/its use of "Hillary" for merchandise is a mistake does not surprise me.

*le sigh*
7th-May-2008 07:11 pm (UTC)
Yep, that's because everyone is. There's already another "Clinton", so it's "Obama and Hillary" everywhere.
7th-May-2008 11:41 pm (UTC)
There isn't another Clinton running for a presidential nomination as far as I know. And certainly not high profile enough that "Clinton vs Obama" could cause confusion.

It grates with me: not just in personal conversation but in the media coverage and even her campaign: using the familiar instead of her surname just says to me that she's not worthy of the same level of respect as the men.
8th-May-2008 08:13 am (UTC)
Actually, I see it as the opposite. “Hillary” makes it more personal. If she does anything, she will do it, personally.

I think “Clinton said this”, when there’s both of them on the campaign trail, just introduces the smallest question as to which one it was (Bill is still big on people’s radars). Nevertheless, I have seen “Clinton and Obama” used, it’s just become the norm to see “Hillary” in the headline.
7th-May-2008 04:52 pm (UTC)
I read about halfway into that "Men's News" article before I had to go back because I wanted to stamp "CITATION NEEDED" all over it.
7th-May-2008 07:25 pm (UTC)
The Shakesville article is very good. And yeah, it depends entirely on where you are. 3/4 of the World is off-limits for a start, and most of the rest is merely intolerant.

The "having to watch what you say, do and imply every second of the day" is exhausting, and I guess I didn't think about how often it must still apply to Lesbians in the UK. I'm happy when I see same-sex couples holding hands. (But then I like to see people spread the Happy, and kick the repressive traditionalists.)
7th-May-2008 09:01 pm (UTC) - Shakesville - thank you!!
I really, really appreciate the LGBTQ links you post here in general, and I loved this blog post in particular! As a not-completely-straight, not-completely-white-but-seemingly-so woman engaged to a white man, I sometimes mournfully feel like I've given up any queer or outsider cred I once had. But it was great to read the comments on that blog and realize that I still know quite strongly where my loyalties and sympathies lie, even if it's not always advertised to the outside world. :)
This page was loaded Jan 18th 2019, 1:57 am GMT.