"You must not use these sexist words when reporting about Hilary Clinton"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Sigvatr**

Ouze wrote:
feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Haha, trying to disprove privilege with facts? Facts are worthless son! CHECK YOUR PRIVILEEEEEGE!

**daedalus**

Sigvatr wrote:
Ouze wrote:
feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Haha, trying to disprove privilege with facts? Facts are worthless son! CHECK YOUR PRIVILEEEEEGE!

There was actually something already for this, kinda:

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.

Relapse wrote:
Then there was the whole age thing the Hillary camp was leveling at McCain, saying he was too old to be president. I wonder how she will defend herself on that front since she is not much younger than he was at the time he ran. I wonder if that will be another forbidden thing to speak of?

I doubt very much that Hillary's age will not be discussed. The health of a candidate is fair game for a presidential election and she would tie for the the oldest president ever elected.

In fact, that disingenuous (heh) article asks if the media will ask such questions of her, deciding that, "in the tank as they are", they will not, when in fact a simple google search immediately returns such aticles, including this one by MSN-fething-BC.

Truthfully I suspect the real purpose of that article is to increase the google ranking of the phrase "Hillary clinton brain damage", in furtherance of the lie pushed a while back that she had suffered a traumatic brain injury,

Actually... I thought the meme was that she broke her hips and had to walk around using a "walker".

So, your argument can be summarized as: Cut this frivolous crap out! There's much more serious things to discuss!

But folks keeping this alive by making silly arguments like: Hey... you know there's a "mens" aisle and "women" aisle in the shoe store? It really should be called Cisnormative Footwear.

**cincydooley**

Wonder how they'd feel about this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure?ref=popular

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

I propose a compromise: I will agree that there have been and will be sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, just as there were on Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren and will be on any other high profile woman who runs in a major campaign; if you will agree that the words above are not intrinsically sexist and are generally applied to any politician regardless of race or gender.

This is a proposition that I would happily agree with

**cincydooley**

You have to remember that Sarah Palin is completely fair game because she's both a Republican and reasonably decent looking.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
You have to remember that Sarah Palin is completely fair game because she's both a Republican and reasonably decent looking.

My god, the amount of Palin smut that popped up not even a month after she was niminated.

**easysauce**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You have to remember that Sarah Palin is completely fair game because she's both a Republican and reasonably decent looking.

My god, the amount of Palin smut that popped up not even a month after she was niminated.

Lol... yeah, once conservatives start plastering this kind of thing there might be an argument for this clubs existance, but this super friends group must have been on holiday for this one

Spoiler:

Its certainly a good thing we are discussing all these bad words too, we wouldn't want to discuss real things that relate to Clinton like her lack of discretion with emails ect

**stanman**

Female Skeletor doesn't appear on the list so I'm safe to continue using it.

**daedalus**

stanman wrote:
Female Skeletor doesn't appear on the list so I'm safe to continue using it.

That's fat shaming dude, not cool.

**koooaei**

Slarg232 wrote:

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

Yeah, good luck with a president that's one dimensional, miscalculating, naive, etc.

**Orlanth**

plastictrees wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.

I don't care about enforcement, enforcement is not relevant.

The question stands: are the list of 'sexist' words forbidden for reference to just Hillary Clinton or all female electoral candidates?

**motyak**

Orlanth wrote:
plastictrees wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

I guess that depends how capable of enforcing arbitrary requests a group of random people with twitter accounts are.

I don't care about enforcement, enforcement is not relevant.

The question stands: are the list of 'sexist' words forbidden for reference to just Hillary Clinton or all female electoral candidates?

I think who made the list, and who intends to enforce it, is very relevant when trying to get all outraged about this

**Steve steveson**

koooaei wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

Yeah, good luck with a president that's one dimensional, miscalculating, naive, etc.

George W Bush did ok.

**Sigvatr**

Obama did oka....wait.

**Co'tor Shas**

cincydooley wrote:
Wonder how they'd feel about this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure?ref=popular

I don't like her, but I now really want that.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Wonder how they'd feel about this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure?ref=popular

I don't like her, but I now really want that.

Will there be a dynamically poseable Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky boxed set?

**cincydooley**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Wonder how they'd feel about this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure?ref=popular

I don't like her, but I now really want that.

Will there be a dynamically poseable Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky boxed set?

No gak, I do believe bill is one of the stretch goals.

**Ashiraya**

cincydooley wrote:
Wonder how they'd feel about this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fctry/hillary-clinton-action-figure?ref=popular

10/10 I want one.

**BobtheInquisitor**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
"Hillary Clinton is a very ambitious women"
This could be set is or complimentary depending on the tone and what words are emphasized. Our society isn't a big fan of ambitious women still.
or entitled, it could be used to imply sue only got this far because of her husbsnd, rather than her own merits

Yeah, I think ambitious typically has more negative connotations when used to describe a woman rather than a man. It's not quite the double standard as, say, "promiscuous", but it is rare to see that word used in an entirely positive context when describing a woman around here. Generally it indicates a woman who put her career ahead of her family (which is often considered worse than when a man does it) or to bring up the image of Lady Macbeth.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

To be fair, most of them are not being used to describe Hillary Clinton, either. At least not in the media that I am aware of.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
Question here. Do these protections apply to other female electoral candidates, or just Hillary Clinton?

They should apply to all female candidates. (Well, the reasonable restrictions. If someone is out of touch, she is out of touch.)

I would not like to see dog-whistle language used to describe any candidate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

But folks keeping this alive by making silly arguments like: Hey... you know there's a "mens" aisle and "women" aisle in the shoe store? It really should be called Cisnormative Footwear.

Sometimes women's footwear can be more comfortable than men's. Sometimes.

**Lt. Coldfire**

The good news here is that our society is officially out of problems if this is how we're spending our time. Job well done, everybody!

**daedalus**

Lt. Coldfire wrote:
The good news here is that our society is officially out of problems if this is how we're spending our time. Job well done, everybody!

Ooooh. You'd think that, but the reality is far worse: All the previous problems, AND we have the new one of not being able to prioritize them properly!

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:
feeder wrote:
Most of these words would not be used to describe a white man with similar political experience running for the white house.

Every single one of those words & phrases was used to describe Mitt Romney during the last election.

Polarizing
Calculating
Disingenuous
Insincere
Ambitious
Entitled
Over Confidant
Secretive
"Will do anything to win"
Represents the Past
Out of Touch

Ouze beat me to it, and did it 10x better than I would have (Not that I'm a closet Romney supporter like he is

)

None of these words are sexist. They've all been used on White Males running for office. None of these are out of line.

**Lt. Coldfire**

What Ouze did there was pretty awesome.

I would take this whole situation a step further. I would say that by considering Hillary a woman, we are in fact being sexist. Why can't she just be considered a person like all the other politicians? In this day and age when you get to choose to be either man, woman or both, I would submit that pointing out her gender is sexist in and of itself.

**daedalus**

Lt. Coldfire wrote:
person like all the other politicians?

You suggest that politicians are people? That's offensive to people.

**skyth**

One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.

**daedalus**

skyth wrote:
One thing to consider is that all the words are subjective and represent an opinion. Theoretically no actual news outlet should use them to describe anyone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing to consider is it is worse to call a woman these things as compared to a man. A man that is described as calculating has a mild negative conotation as well as a bit of positive conotation. A woman described as calculating has a much stronger negative calculation.

It is a strange day for language when one cannot call a spade a spade for fear that it might seem more a spade than another.

**skyth**

The thing is, they're not calling a spade a spade really. That's kind of my point.

For instance, as a man, if I mention I don't like kids...Well...I might hurt a chance at getting elected to a public office, but not all that bad.

If a woman mention that they don't like kids then they lose any chance of getting elected pretty much.

Yes, there is a double standard, and no it is not fair. But it is real in people's perception.

**daedalus**

But as we've never really had a woman get elected for a President, let alone run, can you really say that?

I mean, I guess you could argue that you can extrapolate that from other elections, but the dog and pony show that is the presidency really doesn't seem comparable.

**cincydooley**

And why is it problem now, with Hilary, when it seemed to be acceptable, and even en vogue, to make similar statements about Sarah Palin? Or even Condi Rice?