Brace yourselves. With Hillary as their candidate, Bitch will be the new N-word.
Just like there were never ANY legitimate reasons in ’08 to oppose Obama’s coronation (you racist!) the media is reshuffling the deck to stack the odds in favour of their new champion.
Now? There is NO legitimate reason to oppose Hillary, ever (you sexist)!
Anything you raise against her — her judgement, her track record, her policies, the disenfranchising of her OWN voters in order to secure her OWN party’s nomination? That’s all code for conservatives being woman-haters. It’s a “dog-whistle” you see.
That’s exactly the argument “The Atlantic” is trying to build in their subtly-named “The Era Of ‘The Bitch’ Is Coming“.
The sub-head says everything you need know about their biases: “A Hillary Clinton presidential victory promises to usher in a new age of public misogyny.”
You see where this is going, don’t you?
A Clinton victory also promises to usher in four-to-eight years of the kind of down-and-dirty public misogyny you might expect from a stag party at Roger Ailes’s house.
You know it’s coming. As hyperpartisanship, grievance politics, and garden-variety rage shift from America’s first black commander-in-chief onto its first female one, so too will the focus of political bigotry. Some of it will be driven by genuine gender grievance or discomfort among some at being led by a woman. But in plenty of other cases, slamming Hillary as a bitch, a c**t (Thanks, Scott Baio!), or a menopausal nut-job (an enduringly popular theme on Twitter) will simply be an easy-peasy shortcut for dismissing her and delegitimizing her presidency.
It’s nice to see her taking the high road, isn’t it?
In the interest of full disclosure, Hillary will not be the first person in office that ClashDaily has called a bitch. Here’s PROOF. (Oh lighten up. It’s STILL better than what their side called Dubya.)
Come to think of it, BOTH Obamas have been hit with that label. Obama for being prissy and trying to mother us, and Michelle, for being sanctimonious and telling us all how to live. Sorry, guys. Not listening.
The “outrage” in the article is a little confusing, when the same author said “bitch” isn’t such a big deal… it sort of means “tough broad” — her words. (That was her “Bitches Unite” piece.)
So maybe it’s only considered sexist if one can make political hay out of it.
She doesn’t mind dropping the hammer on women, either. That’s not the point she seems to be making. Mocking Palin was easy low-hanging fruit for her. (Some of it self-inflicted.) But seriously — if the easy cheap shot is fair for one side, then don’t cry foul when the other team does it too.
The real problem is that she somehow thinks that sexism is entirely — or even mostly — a problem on the OTHER side. Maybe she’s never visited any of the alt-left websites and seen what happens to the poor schmuck stupid enough to offer a Right-leaning opinion.
It’s the kind of unprintable drek that would be called out as hate speech if levelled at a woman or an ACTUAL homosexual. You can infer the rest.
The author found the Hillary blow up doll naked in a “Game Of Thrones” scene particularly distasteful. *shudder* That’s understandable. ‘Hillary’ and ‘naked’ together in the same sentence is graphic enough.
What was dishonest about this piece? It was dishonest in its silence. She cast an intentionally distorted picture of reality, to paint her opponents as moral monsters. If you don’t understand why that’s a bad thing, look up “straw man”.
The author FAILED to mention two particular things in her hit piece which boiled down to a simple message of “Trump hates women … and so do his supporters”.
The first thing she failed to mention is any evidence that might undercut or disprove her accusations of misogyny.
If he views women are as hostile as she would suggest, what possible explanation could she offer for the new hire his campaign just made?
If Trump’s campaign is struggling the way some suggest it is struggling, and if it really MIGHT be facing an embarrassing defeat, why would he choose Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager? Surely a man would be a better option? Unless he actually though a woman was the best choice for the job and this was trying to reenact the “binders-full-of-women” hatchet-job that worked so well against Romney?
Will THIS eye bleach story (not for the squeamish) be chalked up as a misandry story? Will it be entered as evidence of a “war on men”?
No. It will be chalked up as another political cheap shot against a politician someone just can’t stand. And rightly so. Because that’s what it is.
Face it… you don’t have to be a sexist OR a Republican to have real reasons to dislike Hillary. So let’s dispense with the fake outrage, shall we? If she’s tough enough to live in a man’s world, as you say… then don’t ask for special gloves-off treatment for your candidate.
Politics is a bloodsport. Always has been.
Step up or tap out.