Misogyny a taboo? Where would you get an idea like that?

It's alive and well. It's happy dappy, tickety boo. It's the last participator sport.

Heck, look on TPMCafe, the so called Liberal Bastion, where guys like Long Tom scratch their heads and puzzle it out, but can't see anything wrong with accusing a woman of pimping her daughter.

I think that there's more to it, Billy. Clinton hatred is there, no question about it.

But I'm thinking back to female politicians and there's a long long record of condescending treatment accorded to them.

Do not overlook a famous Man declaring, with obvious scorn in his voice for the young Woman in question, " I did not have sex with that woman". Listen to the derision in his tone when he snarled "that woman". He has engaged in such serial abuse of women for such a prolonged period, including how he kept on shaming his wife, that he must also have no respect for her. Can you say: Married to a misogynist, boys and girls?

One of the most relevant things Mrs. Clinton has said is that women have a style of leadership that is different from men's but still valid.

Yes, we have all heard much about this alleged alternative style of female leadership, and there is definitely something to it. I have seen it in my own workplace, and in Jeanne Shaheen, for whom I voted three times for Governor of New Hampshire. It would be nice to see that style of leadership from Clinton.

However, that is not the style of leadership we actually see with Clinton. Instead we get a pattern of lack of leadership rooted in an insecure, dissembling personality who seems driven by fears of not projecting a sufficiently man-like image of conventional "toughness", an image that is more bravado than brave. What we know of Clinton's leadership style when she was a member of her husband's administration, with a staff of her own and in charge of initiatives like health care, is that she tends to be highly secretive, controlling and almost dictatorial, rather than a consensus and relationship builder and a good listener.

It would be refreshing to get an inspiring female Presidential candidate whose implicit message was that what this country needs are some women in power who, unlike their bumbling and belligerent male counterparts, think with their brains and not with their balls. But what we have instead is a women whose personal model of leadership seems to be a variant of the traditional, masculine "ballsy" style. Consequently, she has produced a record of bad foreign policy judgment rooted in the same cowardly reactiveness and need to prove herself as the insecure, chip-on-his-shoulder Bush.

To Bluebell:

That's not Hillary's problem. Hillary's problem is Billary. Hillary's problem is that she did not make it on her own.

Interesting enough, the exact opposite could be argued; that 'Bill' didn't make it on his own. People close to Clinton during the Arkansas years would readily admit to you that it was because of Hillary that Bill ascended back to the Governor's mansion in 1982 after his defeat in 1980 (and held it) She was both the brains and the brawn behind his campaign.

And of course, because dear; sometimes, being a bitch is all a girl's got to hang on to

Ruth--

Thanks for writing this. You are right: racism has become socially unacceptable (though of course silent racism is still rampant), but misogyny
is accepted. If women object, they are "acting like victims."

Hillary is so hated, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a very smart woman.

Bluebell-- Whether or not she married Bill, she could easily have become a Senator. She had the education, the credentials, the intelligence and the energy. I'm about her age, and went to an Ivy League school at about the same time. I know many women like Hillary who have become hugely successful on their own, It didn't matter who they married. Like Hillary, most of them kept their last name--which should give you a clue that she name thought of herself as a "Mrs."

If anything, at some points in her career Bill was probably a liability. It would have been easier to do it on her own.

The fact that, after everything that happened during Bill's second term, she was able to win upstate New York, and then win so much respect from colleagues in the Senate is, frankly, astounding

Finally, as for the charge that HRC married a misogynist . . .All I can say is that, speaking as a woman, it's clear to me that Bill Clinton loves women. That's what makes him so attractive. I find him attractive. My 26-year-old daughter finds him attractive. (Though she is too wise to marry someone like Bill, she gets it.)

He is one of those charming womanizers who wants every women he meets to like him--and he genuinely likes them. He is the sort of guy who loved his mother, has good things to say about his ex-wife, and if you're smart, he doesn't feel he has to compete with you to show that he's smarter.

Moreover, unlike JFK, who humiliated Jackie with his girl-jumping-out-of-a cake birthday party, having women call him at the White House etc., Bill was trying, in his own dumb way, to be discrete. He was ashamed when he had to admit to Hillary that he was lying about Monica.

(The fury in his voice when he referred to Monica came at a time when he had discovered that she had foolishly confided in Linda Tripp who was secretly recording their conversations.)

And I honest believe that Bill married Hillary in large part because she is so intelligent. Unlike many men, he admires that and together, in Arkansas, they were a pretty good team.

Moreover, I think he is very proud of her now--that's why he gets so mad about the Hillary-haters. (And, as we know, impulse control was never one of his virtues.)

Who knows what their marriage is like? Who knows anything about anyone else's marriage-- especially after so many years. Marriages are mysteries, even to the people in them.

Bill and Hillary each have serious flaws--as most of us do. (Okay, maybe Obama doesn't but the rest of us do.) And I think that Chelsea is proof that there are andwere some very good things about this marriage. If Hillary had been the victim of a misogynist, we'd see the scars on Chelsea--and we don't.

I honestly just don't see comparing the word bitch to the N word.

If I ask Hillary, "How are you gonna beat that McCain bastard," I'd expect an answer, not a civics lesson.

Homophobia handily beats misogyny for the "Most Socially Acceptable Prejudice" title.

I suspect you mean misandry.

The prejudice is so acceptable that few have ever heard or read the word.

When a woman writes that she will not vote for a white male, it is not only acceptable but praiseworthy, nevermind that no one knows what a white is. I see it written often.

One of the more remarkable election results of my lifetime was when Stephen Cohen, one of those detestable white males I presume, won Harold Ford's former district. The voters chose well whether Cohen wins again or not. Speaks well for the voters to put aside their prejudices.

This hateful male will not vote for Mrs. Bill for precisely the same reasons he would not vote for Mr. Bill. Both are faux Democrats for whom power is all that matters. It is not overly seemly in either gender as we should have learned with the current resident of the White House.

BTW think there would be any prejudice against a homosexual running for president? :-) I would be delighted to vote for a Barney Frank.

Best, Terry

Remember Nona Gaprindashvili.

YOU NEVER HEARD OF NONA?

Shame on you.

Nona was a grandmaster chess player who was the equal of any man, including the most excellent World Chess Champion of her time, Mikhail Botvinnik.

There is an indelible stain on this magnificent lady's accomplishments. Nona was awarded the title of grandmaster as a woman player. There is little doubt Nona could have earned it without such condescension that is not only commonplace but even been nearly mandatory in the past. The older of three female Hungarian chess prodigies of more recent times never quite recovered from the indignities visited on her for refusing to even play women only chess tournaments.

Now imagine that Nona Gaprindashvili had been awarded the title of grandmaster because she was married to a grandmaster. Would anybody care what she did?

This is all not quite the minor matter that one might think in America. Chess players are heroic figures most everywhere but in America.

There has been enormous contention over whether women just don't have the "necssities" to play chess well. That is the conceit of wingers and religious fanatics. Pat Robertson has declared there has never been a woman chess master.

More intelligent discussion has revolved around whether it is male ego that shrinks from the horror of being beaten by a woman that dissuades women from playing well if they play chess at all or whether it is the female brain that is less likely to be attracted a lunatic world that drives many to madness.

Voting for Hillary because she suffers as a woman is equivalent to voting for George Romney because of the fanatical attacks on Mormonism. It would be great in my view if a woman or Mormon became president but to neglect all other considerations is obscene in my view.

I will vote for Hillary when hell freezes over. Has nothing to do with her being a woman but rather a winger.

Best, Terry

"Bluebell-- Whether or not she married Bill, she could easily have become a Senator. She had the education, the credentials, the intelligence and the energy."

Sure, she could have done it on her own. But she didn't! I have respect for women who work side by side with their husbands in the traditional way being helpmates in their careers and sharing their success. Most of my aunts did this. I have respect for women who have been successful on their own. Many in our generation have done this. Her problem is that she wants it BOTH ways. She had the role of First Lady for 8 years. She had 8 years in the White House. I just don't believe she deserves 8 more years. I don't like the dynasties. I don't like the precedent. The Clintons should move on and give someone else, man, woman, black, white or whatever a chance so this country can look to the future. And, of course, I also don't trust her on the war issue because she seems to have a need to prove she'll be the kind of tough Commander in Chief alpha male who's got this country is such a mess.

Comparing gender to a religion like Mormonism makes no sense. You're pretty much born into a gender and very few choose to change it. You can change beliefs any time.

One can change their gender today but Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants cannot change their birth. An Orangeman remains an Orangeman and an atheist remains a Catholic Irishman. Jew is an ethnic and even racial, as well as religious, identification. Near as I can tell it has least to do with religion.

What is a fact is that a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

You can change beliefs any time.

What does that have to do with anything? Rational people change beliefs as often as they change underwear. Otherwise they get to smelling bad.

Best, Terry

There are many women in the US Senate who have gotten there on their own achievements. Amy Klobuchar from my state is one of them. Are you arguing that the only way for a woman to be elected President is to follow her husband? Shall we elect Laura next or maybe we could elect Barbara first and then Laura. It's a shame we didn't figure this out quicker because I always thought Nancy Reagan was smarter than her husband.

please point to the other female senators from the great liberal state of NY

Some misogynists have called Schumer an old woman but both he and Hillary have proven New York isn't liberal by a long shot. Only wingers think that.

Liberals don't support killings abroad nor the dismissal of the poor as irrelevant. They don't think it empowers poor women and children to reduce aid. Liberals don't support the execution of retarded children...

Did Hillary support Bill's interruption of his campaign to rush back to Arkansas to sign a death warrant for a young man who was a juvenile when he committed murder? I really don't know but I have heard no objection to that nor the weakening of safeguards against wrongful executions under the Clinton administration.

Hillary BTW denies she is a liberal. I suggest you take her word for it.

Best, Terry

"Only Hillary is villified for getting last name recognition from her husband. Every Kennedy can thank old man Kennedy for being rich and famous way back in the day- even JFK was didn't get there on his own."

Notice that only 1 Kennedy was ever elected President. Who thinks it's a good idea that we got the second Bush? Again, Hillary's problem is that she wants it both ways. She's had the high honor of spending 8 years in the White House but she wants to play the victim now and whine that she's being denied the White House because of her sex. She's already had the White House. She is not a victim. Now, if Diane Feinstein wants to write in her memoirs that she never had a chance at the highest office despite years as a senator from California, she might have an argument.

Many names tossed about? Funny. Generation after generation have gone to dust and not one ever saw a distant glimmer of a chance of a woman being elected president. Not one of the women you have named has ever made a run for the White House. Nor would any of them or any of us have believed that they had a prayer of winning. Can you name a single woman who has ever come close to winning a single state primary on the road to the White House? Talk is really, really cheap. Delusions like the ones you are spouting can be very costly.

having trouble; hope this doesn't double post

"Enough is enough. Men, get a grip. We're here to stay and one of us is actually running for the presidency forty-odd years after the modern women's women began. Get used to it; we're not going away."

It's not all men. It is a turn-off to see insecure, yes-men types use Hillary to act cool and grasp at a false sense of power. Some of them probably go home and kick their dogs, too. But I think the good news is that they don't represent the majority of American men.

I think it is very possible McCain's statement (that he respected Hillary) was his indirect way of saying he didn't approve of the bitch comment once he realized what had been said. It's possible the comment really caught him by surprise--so I'm not sure you are being fair to him.

I don't think you can assume that McCain meant it when he said that he respects Hillary--not if
you remember this joke he told in 1998:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

If remember all of the remarks made about Chelsea
when she was a teen-ager, you may better understand why the Clintons are so furious about Shuster's
remark.

I think the word misogyny is bandied about in far too cavlier a manner and is overused amongst the intellectual liberal/left.

It means hatred of women. Sexism isn't synonymous with hatred of women in my opinion. Both are bad, but there's a difference between the kind of ignorance, bias and double standards that comprise most sexism as opposed to hate which is something of a completely different order. It appears to me that most of what folks are complaining about and objecting to here---and rightly so---is sexism, but not mysogyny in my opinion.

I think the difference is important and ought to be more carefully observed. Not every sexist is a mysogynist and not every sexist utterance is a mysogynist utterance. People should take more care in the use of this word.

Let me just say this.

I never used to dislike Hillary Clinton. Now I do. My wife and I (and our female friends) can't stand her. Her actions in the last month or so have shown her to be someone who will do whatever it takes to get 51%.

I don't dislike her because she's a woman. Not surprisingly, my wife doesn't dislike her because she's a woman! It's her actions we can't stand.

Many pro-Clinton posters, on this site and others, have started using the "M" word. If you don't like Hillary then you must be a misogynist. That's so depressing. That's gotta stop...

I really hope Obama chooses someone like Sibelius as his running mate. That would be just fantastic. But in the meantime, at our house we're hoping with all our being that Mrs. Clinton does not get to represent our party.

TPM is my favorite blog. It's my home page and I read every post immediately. In 2 years, I have never felt compelled to log in and comment but my horror and shame at the comments here has forced me to speak up.

If you're intelligent enough to follow Josh Marshall, you should be intelligent enough to see the patently obvious Karl Rove "wedge issue" technique at play here as Hillary tries to portray herself as the victim of a sexist attack from David Shuster. And you should also see the bigger picture and its implications.

David Shuster is the only MSM figure to take the Valerie Plame saga seriously and he fought tirelessly in the trenches on that story and many others involving the criminal behavior of Rove & Cheney.

David Shuster is no more a sexist than Todd Gitlin is. He's just trying to loosen up his stiff image by trying to be funny. He put his foot in his mouth and he apologized twice and Hillary is still going after his job.

David Shuster's role, like Olbermann's, has changed from impartial journalist to partisan pundit, and the real issue behind this is that Shuster is not pro-Hillary.

But why, pray tell, is the most courageous MSM figure in the battle against Rove and Cheney anti-Hillary? And why is Hillary willing to sacrifice him for her little PR stunt?

Where was Hillary during the Plame saga? Hiding. She never once stood up for Valerie Plame, the "fair game wife" whose career as a nuclear non-proliferation expert was ruined by real sexists. What are the chances that Hillary will do anything to expose and undo the historic crimes against democracy that have been committed by the Bush Administration.

And you - all of you - should be ashamed that you're falling for this ridiculous ruse of kicking Shuster when he's down in order to create a divisive wedge issue within the democratic party.

You've all been fooled just as badly as the hapless evangelicals who vote against their jobs and their way of life so they can battle the gay bogeymen that politicians whom Hillary is emulating have created.

You're being duped into thinking that sexism in English slang is a more important issue than shredding the constitution, outing a CIA agent, killing a million people in an illegal war and selling out the free press to corporate propagandists.

Ruth Rosen is a sexist. She wants John McCain to say, "That's not the way we speak about women."

I say, "Eww." I hope everyone on this forum would have risen up as one person to shove those words down his throat. We speak about women exactly as we speak about men.

Ruth, I hope you will apologize appropriately for her sexist, misogynist remarks.

Timba,
Bingo
Just saw your post. Thank you for being a voice of reason. I think your word partisan is off by a bit. To be outraged at torture, or the malevolent outing of a CIA agent, or using lies to murder more than a million people for personal gain is not necessarily partisan though the perpetrators are Republicans. To be outraged by Hillary Clinton's vote in October '02 to authorize military force (mass-murder) or to have contempt for what I believe are her dishonest rationalizations for that vote is not partisan.
I think it would be better not to use the language of this administration by claiming any critical statement or condemnation of anyone’s pattern of behavior is partisan. The label "partisan" is a thought stopper in much the same way the label "conspiracy theorist” is. Everything else you said was right on target. JF

Seems to me Schuster is exactly who Hillary should go after. It's one thing if a sexist pig like Matthews or Limbaugh says things like that, but it's downright horrific when a so-called "good guy" does it. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

To JFb2tcm (or whatever),

Just for the record guy, "pimping" is not a non-sexist, gender neutral word without misogynistic connotations. I can't understand how any person of intelligence or integrity could make that argument.

The word has moved into mainstream language from Gangster Rap, where it is all about misgony. The connotations of the word by definition import a cultural freight, part and parcel of which is extravagant/excessive exploitation, always with a sexual subtext.

I'll grant that you seem slightly more articulate than the average troll. But your argument, such as it is, is so profoundly wrongheaded and dishonest that I really can't be bothered to respect you.

Shuster's credentials or lack thereof as a journalist are beside the point. I'm actually unimpressed, he's another hack. But regardless if it was Seymour Hersh or Robert Novak, his comments would have been out of bounds. Shuster himself recognized that his comments were out of bounds, as he tried to qualify them even as he uttered them "in a weird way." That's pretty much a tell right there.

Shuster's suspension is entirely appropriate. There are worst misogynists out there than Shuster. Unfortunately, he didn't have the clout and position that the more offensive among his peers did.

As for the 'outrage' over Hillary's vote in 2002... well, for sure. She voted alongside most of the Democrats to authorize the use of force under certain circumstances. It wasn't a declaration of war on Iraq, as well you know. It was certainly a craven moment for the Democrats... but they've had lots of craven moments.

But I find it interesting that you dwell on this. It's as if there's a package of blood libels that you keep in your back pocket to wave at a moments notice. It makes me wonder at your integrity.

I'm not particularly a fan of Clinton. But I do know misogyny when I see it. And I do know when someone is pretending to be objective but grinding an axe.

You really would seem more comfortable at some place like Little Green Footballs. It really does seem more your style.

Pimpin addendum,

One more short quote from the same article:

In 1889, Koch recorded a series of "Puempfrage" or "pimp questions" he would later use on his rounds in Heidelberg. Unpublished notes made by Abraham Flexner on his visit to Johns Hopkins in 1916 yield the first American reference: "Rounded with Osler today. Riddles house officers with questions. Like a Gatling gun. Welch says students call it 'pimping.' Delightful."

Last one from a Charlottesville Newspaper about the new slogan for "Charlottesville Running Company" and quotes the woman owner Francesca. Its entitled “NEWS- Feet pimping: Local biz has plans for your feet by MEGAN MILLER, published September 20, 2007”

This is not your Grandma's advertising slogan -- ..... ......it represents a metamorphosis of sorts for a p-word. The slogan is "Pimp Your Feet," a command now strewn across t-shirts and repeated over the airwaves of FM radio 106.1, the Corner, and attracting plenty of attention-- and not just from runners. "People get it's just for fun," says Charlottesville Running's Francesca Conte. "It's catchy because exercising and running should be fun, too."

Please read the article by Jane Hamsher (of Firedog Lake fame) from AlterNet:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/76513/#more

Peace,
JF