WTF.

 Reply

I told them it's like presidency- we'll get a man of a different race before we'll see a woman take that spot. People will applaud the diversity and the gutsy move for a non-white man, but for a woman they'll cry that it's somehow wrong (whilst declaring they're not sexist or anything though) and come up with a thousand rationalities for it.

Most people WANT equality amongst the races. Most people acknowledge racism as still being a problem.

But sexism is quite different. Sexism goes across class lines, color lines, nationalities, and cultures. I've seen it in conservative men and I've seen it in liberal ones as well. I've seen it in men who say they support woman's equality.

 Reply

........

On second thought do other people think the world would have been Hilary who had been elected?

 Reply

They are not comparable!

 Reply

On the one hand, she wants to claim that Palin was a GREAT candidate. And on the other, she wants to hide behind Palin's femininity claiming that Palin is beyond criticism. Palin was a bad candidate. She turned many, MANY people off. Her rhetoric was hateful and divisive. She did galvanize a certain portion of the voting population, but she also galvanized left-leaning Democrats. If Palin really was equal to the task, then she was capable of standing up to scrutiny. End of story.

Rothschild's feminism is not the feminism with which I am aligned. Most feminists denounce it. I'll go one step further. I, personally, was not convinced that a Hillary Clinton presidency would have done a lot to promote gender equality, (although it would have been beneficial in the same way that the Obama presidency benefits African Americans; It would have furthered a culture in which women were seen as leaders). But I don't think Clinton would have promoted women above and beyond her competitor. I think it's false to think that a Palin success benefits other women, particularly when her policies are hurtful to single mothers, to choice, to gay women, and to poor women.

 Reply