Friday, April 11, 2008

Whining about discrimination

Badtux whines about Clinton's whining about sexist discrimination in the campaign.

There can be no doubt, however, this discrimination does exist.

[h/t to Reclusive Leftist]

Badtux makes some logical solecisms in his criticism:
Bad press? It's not because she's a prickly personality who rarely gives reporters the time of day. It's because she's a woman.
First, the idea that Clinton "rarely gives reporters the time of day" is bullshit hyperbole. It's inconceivable that a presidential candidate is going to ignore the press. More importantly, the idea that Clinton is justifiably objecting to blatant media sexism does not entail that she or her supporters believe or assert that sexism is the only reason for her bad press. But it is still a big reason.

If Clinton were getting bad press because she "rarely gives reporters time of day" or because she "shunned the online progressive community in favor of sucking up to big wigs," then one would expect the bad press to be about, hmm... maybe not giving reporters the time of day or sucking up to the big wigs, instead of about "her voice, its her pantsuit, or it's her cackle, it's her hair, or it's her putting up with her husband".

Secondly, note the disingenuous comparison of apples to oranges:
[Hillary Clinton's] campaign workers and supporters keep whining...

BTW, you'll note that Obama *never* plays the victim card. Ever. When things go down hard on him, he *never* says "you're just biased against me because I'm black." [boldface emphasis added]
Badtux is comparing Obama himself to Clinton's campaign workers and supporters. But of course Obama's supporters do complain about racism.

It's also the case that racism is much less acceptable than sexism in the United States; Obama doesn't complain as much about racism as Clinton complains about sexism because there's less open racism. A pundit can put the words, "Take out the garbage!" in Clinton's mouth but if anyone were to put "Give me a watermelon" in Obama's mouth, they'd be fired in heartbeat... and rightly so, without Badtax telling us to STFU and suck it up.

And how much does Clinton herself actually play the "victim" card anyway? Yes, I've heard a little snark, and we know how much Badtux the Snarky Penguin hates snark.

I don't think Clinton would be a very good President. I think she would continue the occupation of Iraq. I think she would attack Iran. I think she would perpetuate the fundamental economic issues that are turning the US into a third-world country. (These are not just Republican issues, e.g. Bill Clinton's NAFTA, welfare "reform", media consolidation.) I don't think she would take the savage reprisals against the Republican party that are the primary justification for having a partisan political system in the first place.

I don't think Obama would be a very good President either, for exactly the same reasons. Of course, either of them would be a thousand times better than McCain, but that's just saying a poke in the eye with a sharp stick is a thousand times better than being drawn, quartered and burned at the stake.

The problem is, though, we're being suckered into choosing the Democratic nominee for all the wrong reasons. Not on the basis of substance, but on the basis of image. Image is created, by and large, by the media, not the candidate; a candidate can destroy his image on his own (cough Guiliani), but he cannot create it on his own. And when we make our political decisions on the basis of image, we are ceding effective control of the political process to the owners of media, who are, to a man (and I use "man" advisedly), batshit crazy neocons, defense contractors, outsourcers, pension stealers and Rupert Murdoch.


  1. Woman! Get in the kitchen and bake me a pie!

  2. I like this post.

    James, STFU.

  3. I wonder, how many times has Hillary Clinton been pulled over by the cops over the past ten years for Driving While Being A White Woman?


    -- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

  4. What's your point, Badtux? When's the last time Barack Obama had to go to a shelter because his wife was beating him?

  5. When's the last time Obama got raped? Or was forced to carry an unwanted child or risk a back-alley abortion? Fuck dude, black men got the vote before women did.

  6. By that lights, when was the last time Hillary Clinton had to go to a shelter because her husband was beating her?

    Obama, on the other hand, *HAS* been personally pulled over by the cops for "driving while black". All black men of his age have undergone that experience. He doesn't talk about it, but that's because it's not useful for his purpose of winning elections. See, he's not running as a victim. He's running as a winner. There's a big difference there.

    As for the notion that black men got the vote before white women, black men got the vote in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Prior to that, they were systematically disenfranchised. This isn't even *ancient* history, for cryin' out loud. Go watch "Mississippi Burning" and get back with me, okay?!

    - Badtux the Observant Penguin

  7. Go watch "Mississippi Burning" and get back with me, okay?!

    Read Against Our Will and get back with me, okay?

  8. See, he's not running as a victim. He's running as a winner. There's a big difference there.

    The fundamental hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty here is that you're comparing Clinton's supporters (i.e. women) to Obama himself.

    You're not telling Clinton to stop whining about discrimination, you're telling women to stop whining about discrimination.

  9. Err, no. I asked how many times has Hillary Clinton been pulled over by the cops for the past ten years for Driving While Being a White Woman. I asked how many times Hillary Clinton has had to go to a shelter because she was beat up by her husband. I didn't say anything about "all women". That was you.

    My point was that pulling out the victim card and playing it when you were running against a black man was, well, stupid. It simply isn't applicable in that situation. Given that, the only reasonable thing to do is to do what Obama and his campaign staff are doing -- running as winners, not as victims. Ferraro was not some random nobody. She was a top Clinton campaign executive. Penn was not some random nobody. Penn (source of many of the other "whaah, people are biased against Clinton because they hate women!" statements) was the top Clinton campaign executive. We're not talking some random Joe Blow supporter whining about discrimination against their candidate here, we're talking about top campaign staff. And frankly, it's unseemly and turns off racial minorities of all stripes. I doubt Clinton would have won California if she'd been doing this whining back then, because our substantial and very wealth Indian (from India) minority know very well what kind of discrimination black and brown people face every day in most of America. All they have to do is leave our little enclave of sanity and drive 100 miles into the Central Valley and encounter it personally, where they won't be served in restaurants and will be pulled over by the cops for "driving while brown".

    Hillary has undoubtedly faced some discrimination in her past. But whining that she's more discriminated against than a black man just makes her look, well, stupid. The facts and figures simply do not support such a statement.

    - Badtux the Statistics Penguin

  10. Hillary is a great candidate. She has not complained! She is strong and has been a fighter!! She would have every right to complain, because the media and some of the talk shows have bee terrible to her!! Discrimination still exists!! What is up with David Letterman and Hillary'
    s pants suits??? If his child was a girl, he would sing a different tune.
    Anyway in many of the work places discrimination still exists as well and it won't stop until we speak up!!
    simply glue and paste or click on hyperlink!
    Please help out today!!

  11. One of the things that really pisses me off is women whining about work place discrimination. The 'glass ceiling'.

    Ladies, want to get more money at work. ASK FOR IT!!!.

    Thats the big secret. When getting a job or a pay review, ask for more money, negotiate. Thats how men get more money. thats it. Women may have many legitimate grievences but this one is bullshit. Employers will always pay their workers as little as possible. If you don't fight for it, you won't get it.

  12. CC: Sigh.

    First of all, it's dumb to let other people "whining" about anything piss you. All you have to do with a true whine is note its irrelevancy.

    Second, if you've been paying attention for the last couple of decades, you would realize that women are irritated when a man calls them "ladies", unless you're directing them to the bathroom. The term is needlessly provocative.

    Third, workplace discrimination entails more than just being paid less. There's outright discrimination in hiring and promotion, sexual harassment, biased evaluations and other factors.

    Last, and most importantly, women are not fucking stupid. They figured out your "big secret" a century ago, when they asked for — even demanded — the vote. They're asking for equal pay, they're not getting it, and when they ask insistently, they piss you off with their whining.

    Honestly, CC, I didn't create this post so half the people I enjoy reading, yourself included, could irritate me in the comments with their sexist bullshit.

  13. Thank you for taking the time to create a blog post on the video "Mad as Hell/Bitch".

    The video was created by two grassroots supporters who met online, IndyRobin and GeekLove08. It took 4 weeks to create the video as we were collaborating via e-mail and we had a lot of material to work with. Both of us are fairly new to YouTube-- I started to create videos in February and this was IndyRobin's first video.

    We believe that the message of misogyny, as well as the character assassination of Hillary Clinton, by the media is an important one. We are "mad as hell" that television has become what Edward R. Murrow had warned about in 1958 when he said "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

    Thanks to people like you, the video has gone "viral" spreading through the internet, and perhaps inspiring people to speak out against the media.

    If you and/or your readers have the opportunity, we would appreciate it very much if you could go to the original video post on YouTube and RATE the video, post a COMMENT on the video, and FAVORITE the video. These actions will help the video earn YouTube "honors" which may help further promote the video online. (You can get to the YouTube site for the video by double clicking the video on your blog.)

    Thanks again for your post.


    P.S. The video is NOT an anti-Obama video, but rather a video against the media bias. However, for those who do support Hillary Clinton, a donation to her campaign, for those who can afford it, would be great. There is a donation link on YouTube. The donation link appears when you click "More info" that appears next to the video information "Added: April 06, 2008". I will also try to post a link here too -- Click to Donate. Thanks.


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.