Sady Doyle on Twitter is discouraged at the media coverage of Hillary:
"You know, this woman puts in decades of work & when she applies for the big job, all I hear is that she's trash, shit, garbage, worthless."
"You know, this woman puts in decades of work & when she applies for the big job, all I hear is that she's trash, shit, garbage, worthless."
"It feels like, alongside the actual race, there's this fight to prove that issues of race/gender/sexuality are "real" progressive politics."
https://twitter.com/sadydoyle
This is something very noticeable about Bernie and his supporters. So-called 'identity politics' get a short thrift beyond the sermon about economics.
Perhaps this is why he does so poorly with women and voters of color.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/26/sanders_faces_demographic_hurdles_in_iowa_beyond.html
But I can understand Sady's frustration when you have even women writing pieces that suggest that this is a 'post gender' race.
How did she arrive at that idea?
"To some, shattering the ‘hardest glass ceiling’ doesn’t seem so revolutionary any more. Others, like Lena Dunham, aim to help bridge a generational divide
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/hillary-clinton-young-women-voters-jill-abramson
Well why doesn't it as it has yet to be done? Why are we in a post gender world when we have made so little progress on gender?
Bernie recently said that gender was less of a problem than race and that couldn't be more wrong. If anything, at least we've had a black President. And a very good one I should add that I proudly voted for twice.
But even now many are scoffing at the very goal of a female President. Why would that even be historically important?
But I found President Obama''s comments very telling yesterday. He said what had seemed to me to be the case in 2008. In many ways Hillary's gender was used against her and that the media often wasn't very fair to her. It's doubly notable as Obama was her opponent.
He can realize this but Hillary haters like Chris Cillizza and Maureen Dowd haven't missed a beat.
There is no question that there are many supposedly nonpartisan pundits that are just viscous in their snarky attitude towards HRC starting with Cillizza and Dowd. Cillizza is particularly absurd as he in the next breath he whines about 'the smallness of our politics.'
I think someone at some point ought to really do a study on the media's treatment of HRC. Figure out just a rough estimate of how much of the attacks are gendered. I'd guess a very great deal.
I mean even now the media is trying to reopen the 90s and Bill's sex life.
She has to have her nose rubbed in it just one more time. On a personal level she was the victim of her own husband's fidelity and then she was victimized by his despicable political opponents and the vile way the media tried to fan the flames.
Now we're hearing that this is 'fair game' and she has to somehow apologize for her husband's behavior of which she herself was the victim.
At least when people try to say we're in a post racial world they are corrected.
https://twitter.com/sadydoyle
This is something very noticeable about Bernie and his supporters. So-called 'identity politics' get a short thrift beyond the sermon about economics.
Perhaps this is why he does so poorly with women and voters of color.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/26/sanders_faces_demographic_hurdles_in_iowa_beyond.html
But I can understand Sady's frustration when you have even women writing pieces that suggest that this is a 'post gender' race.
How did she arrive at that idea?
"To some, shattering the ‘hardest glass ceiling’ doesn’t seem so revolutionary any more. Others, like Lena Dunham, aim to help bridge a generational divide
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/hillary-clinton-young-women-voters-jill-abramson
Well why doesn't it as it has yet to be done? Why are we in a post gender world when we have made so little progress on gender?
Bernie recently said that gender was less of a problem than race and that couldn't be more wrong. If anything, at least we've had a black President. And a very good one I should add that I proudly voted for twice.
But even now many are scoffing at the very goal of a female President. Why would that even be historically important?
But I found President Obama''s comments very telling yesterday. He said what had seemed to me to be the case in 2008. In many ways Hillary's gender was used against her and that the media often wasn't very fair to her. It's doubly notable as Obama was her opponent.
He can realize this but Hillary haters like Chris Cillizza and Maureen Dowd haven't missed a beat.
There is no question that there are many supposedly nonpartisan pundits that are just viscous in their snarky attitude towards HRC starting with Cillizza and Dowd. Cillizza is particularly absurd as he in the next breath he whines about 'the smallness of our politics.'
I think someone at some point ought to really do a study on the media's treatment of HRC. Figure out just a rough estimate of how much of the attacks are gendered. I'd guess a very great deal.
I mean even now the media is trying to reopen the 90s and Bill's sex life.
She has to have her nose rubbed in it just one more time. On a personal level she was the victim of her own husband's fidelity and then she was victimized by his despicable political opponents and the vile way the media tried to fan the flames.
Now we're hearing that this is 'fair game' and she has to somehow apologize for her husband's behavior of which she herself was the victim.
At least when people try to say we're in a post racial world they are corrected.
No comments:
Post a Comment