But it just to me felt like it revealed the cynicism in the choice of her, like he has this vague notion of women liking Hilary Clinton because she was a woman so, you know, here's that role model that you wanted.
This whole thing has been bothering me since I inadvertently became a victim of this sort of thinking. I was recently told, in an extra-curricular academic setting, along with three other students, all female, that it seems as though women should support other women politically because "her issues will be more in line with ours" (though I might have the wording just a bit off - isn't it the sentiment that counts?) The speaker was referring to Hillary Clinton, juxtaposing modern politics with medieval thought where women just seemed to go along with the program even when it harmed other women.
In a minute, no more, one of the female students began to rag on Sarah Palin, talking about her clothes at some appearance, saying how she expected to see a plate of cookies, and the others laughed - without the same caveat about women shooting themselves in the foot by not taking other women seriously brought up just seconds before about Hillary. Excuse me but isn't ragging on a woman the same thing as ragging on a woman no matter what the politics?
It isn't a vague notion that women should like Hillary because she's another woman. It's being preached on university campuses. Blacks should band together and vote for a black candidate because he or she is black and for no other reason, too. Apparently, if one is not a member of the dominant dominant culture (both white and male), one automatically will have the same issues as another minority of one's own stripe just because. To me, this is demeaning anyone not a white male, removing individuality, identity, past and beliefs, in exactly the same way that people group into a single blob the people they are prejudiced against.
no subject
This whole thing has been bothering me since I inadvertently became a victim of this sort of thinking. I was recently told, in an extra-curricular academic setting, along with three other students, all female, that it seems as though women should support other women politically because "her issues will be more in line with ours" (though I might have the wording just a bit off - isn't it the sentiment that counts?) The speaker was referring to Hillary Clinton, juxtaposing modern politics with medieval thought where women just seemed to go along with the program even when it harmed other women.
In a minute, no more, one of the female students began to rag on Sarah Palin, talking about her clothes at some appearance, saying how she expected to see a plate of cookies, and the others laughed - without the same caveat about women shooting themselves in the foot by not taking other women seriously brought up just seconds before about Hillary. Excuse me but isn't ragging on a woman the same thing as ragging on a woman no matter what the politics?
It isn't a vague notion that women should like Hillary because she's another woman. It's being preached on university campuses. Blacks should band together and vote for a black candidate because he or she is black and for no other reason, too. Apparently, if one is not a member of the dominant dominant culture (both white and male), one automatically will have the same issues as another minority of one's own stripe just because. To me, this is demeaning anyone not a white male, removing individuality, identity, past and beliefs, in exactly the same way that people group into a single blob the people they are prejudiced against.