Ready for the Trolls...

[semiotic_pirate]

As I sit here drinking my first bit of coffee... With just the intention of checking my email I open up my laptop. Of course, I am drawn to checking on who has posted about what since the last time I left the LJ environment - mainly because my inbox is glutted with comments and replies.

A very interesting post here that describes a reverse scenario where all the misogynist behavior aimed at HRC is transformed into racial bigotry toward BO.

And ginmar posts about the above while adding her own erudite commentary.

Now. What I would like to see, and if anyone has access to this information or can point me to somewhere on the hugely interconnected web I would appreciate it, is a site that lists ALL of the misogynistic behavior that has been blatantly rampant since HRC first threw down the gauntlet and announced her candidacy. Because, every time I go and use this blatant misogyny argument I am expected to dredge up a countless number of instances to wave in front of the Doubting Thomas' face. They seem to think that it is "no big deal" that it isn't all that prevalent, and that it is only appearing on the fringes.

Usually in cases like that I describe above, the person isn't content with just saying they disagree with what I say, or my opinion, or whatever statement I've made... NO. They have to virulently disagree and say that I'm wrong and stupid and on and on. Even after I've been able to drag forth all the data that's out there. But. In this and all other cases, I want to be able to decide whether or not I want to make the effort, and not have to weakly flail about because I can't point to the large volume of proof. I want to have the option of making a choice.

So. What say you all?

Comments

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

I've got to say this first: as a white male, I don't claim to be an expert on either racist or misogynistic statements made during this campaign. So, I defer to the opinions of those more expert than me.

However...there have been a lot of things said in this campaign that just make me cringe a little. The recent "sweetie" comment to a reporter. The "likable enough" remark from a couple of months ago. Lots of stuff.

(As a digression, there's a reason why I generally refer to Sen. Clinton by both title and last name. Last name alone is common, but risks confusion with the 42nd President while he's active on the campaign trail. Calling her "Hillary" seems disrespectful of her position, and possibly her as a person.)

Speaking also as a guy who likes none of the three current contenders, I'm also not very comfortable by the apparent media fawning over Sen. Obama. One gets the impression that 18 months ago, the media was all set to support the historic possibility of electing the first woman to be President, but dumped that concept like a hot potato when the chance to elect the first African-American to that same office came along. And, as a result, Sen. Clinton is getting the short end of the stick.

Remarks and incidents that otherwise might be criticized for misogynistic behavior are given a pass during this campaign if they serve to diminish her chances of election. Foul hits are being overlooked by the referees, because the referees have taken sides.

(Of course, some of us think that is nothing new. But I digress...again.)

Regarding "one site," that may be tough. I'm surprised that ginmar doesn't have a resource or a link, it seems like it would be something she'd be touting. That doesn't mean the source doesn't exist (in fact I'll bet one does), it may only mean she hasn't liked to it.

Sadly it seems to me that some of the most well-known progressive websites have openly thrown in their support to Sen. Obama, so you probably won't find the info on the DailyKos.

Late last week I came across an opinion column that seemed to capture a lot of what I think you're looking for. I could be wrong, I think it was in the online version of the Washington Post. I wish I'd saved the link.

Where do you draw the line...

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

... between the front-runner drawing fire and racist/sexist sniping?

Hillary was all but sworn in at the start of the process, not merely as the presumptive Democratic primary winner, but as the presumptive next president. Likewise, Obama, once he had the upper hand, didn't seem to like the heat of the spot-light.

In Hillary's case, it the same as never needing a lid for a basket of crabs -- the rest of the competition are always more than willing to pull her back into the depths. In Obama's case, he's got a pretty thin record out in reality-land -- a solidly liberal state senator and under-achieving US Senator. His claim as to bipartisan uniter is so unsupported as to risk arrest for vagrancy. He enjoys hob-nobbing with a collection of dubious characters (unrepentant terrorists, for starters) and sends his wife out to carry political water for him, but wheezes when she draws fire for carrying his polictal water.

Politics is a blood-sport. Either you have a tolerance for the slings and arrows that come with the rallies and chicken dinners or you don't. It is not sexist to apathetic (or worse) towards Hillary, nor is it racist to be apathetic (or worse) towards Obama.