The older, wise woman has rarely had a starring role in the American story.... Plenty has been said about the way American women feel invisible once they reach 60, or 50, or — gack — even 40 today...I've excerpted the part of the column that makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not buying into the more specific things that charge Clinton-haters with misogyny. In fact, I think it's tremendously important that we resist merging the struggle for women's equality with the political fortune of this one individual, Hillary Clinton.
Most women in this age bracket remember the day they realized they had become invisible — that moment when the salesman pushing a big-ticket product looked right past them.... when the clerk who was so chatty with the guy in front of them ignores them, when the intern treats them like a nonentity rather than an experienced superior....
The tiny minority of respected, older women... have persisted and struggled and fought to earn positions of power that are usually an inevitable evolution for men of their skill and experience. They get talked over in meetings, interrupted and passed over for promotions, while usually being criticized for their ambition....
We need to be able to criticize, mock, savage, and even hate the President of the United States. If doing that to Hillary Clinton is considered misogyny, then the woman is not qualified to be President.
And, ironically, Donald Trump is superbly qualified: Has there ever been a candidate for President who is more qualified on the criterion of criticizability?
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
A truth about women gets revealed when men aren't automatically interested.
Factor that in when disparaging that interest in younger women.
As for what an old woman should do, I'd say acquire a guy-like sense of humor.
Donald has reached critical mass. You can't even mention Hillary's weight.
I've found that Kroger clerks ignore me when talking to a fellow clerk. I put it down to low salaries.
Except Mary-Beth, but she doesn't talk to other clerks.
Hillary isn't hated because she is an old woman. She is hated for what she is; a grifter, criminal and traitor and the WaPo is hated because it shills for a criminal to become president.
Has there ever been a candidate for President who is more qualified on when it comes to criticizability?
No.
The answer is no.
Something obvious, stated, that applies generally used to provide a reason to vote for her. Nice try.
The older, wise woman
Author already mislabels Hillary.
Hillary is hated because she's utterly corrupt in every possible way.
The next person you meet who wants to push this kind of nonsense, ask them their opinion of Maggie Thatcher.
Personally, I think the country is finally ready for a post menopausal, middle class, Park Ridge scold.
Wait til I tell your father.
I've known dozens of women in their 60's and 70's who are smart, experienced, competent, accomplished -- AND honest and ethical.
None of them is named Hillary Clinton.
None of them have played the "victim card" to achieve their success.
The Dems can't seem to make up their mind whether Hillary should be President because she's accomplished or because she's a victim of misogyny.
"We need to be able to criticize, mock, savage, and even hate the President of the United States... then the woman is not qualified to be President."
Ann Althouse
Well said, the problem is that the same standard should have been applied to Obama, (who is as thinned skinned as they come) but any criticism of him is labeled racism. This name calling will continue with Hillary and now the lefties will call it misogyny.
I have a high-school friend on my Facebook who also happens to be black. He posted a few weeks back one of those meme pictures that said Obama was the greatest US President but because of Republicans and their racism, his agenda was blocked.
I took the opportunity to share this on my Facebook page and comment. This is what we will get with Hillary. Everything against Obama is racist, and everything against Hillary will be seen as sexist. Legitimate criticism won't be considered a factor. It'll be dismissed as sexism. And we won't be able to mock her either, or that will be sexism.
On the other hand, Trump is, as you say, imminently mockable. No one will dismiss criticism of him as racist or sexist. And if he turns out to be a poor president, no doubt Republicans will join with Democrats to remove him from office. We Republicans will be looking to do just that from day one.
Years ago, I had to stop reading Car & Driver, Road & Track, because they were such fan boi's. Pontiac would produce a new POS automobile, and these magazines would welcome it with fawning superlatives.
The Washington Post is no longer serious reading. Can their demographic be more than scorned, childless, middle-aged women?
Does Ms Dvorak collect a pay check from the Clinton foundation?
I know this was still being debated as recently as last month, but was it settled whether or not criticizing Chelsea Clinton is still off limits? Perhaps we could provide some sort of umbrella coverage for all the Clinton women?
It's the culture's fault for not treating her with the level of respect society should grant all people equally. It's only natural. Or, at least, it's the right thing to do. Thousands of years of religious, male-dominated Patriarchy don't disappear overnight.
If the roots of the problem are in culture, then culture can and should be manipulated, partly through language and essays like this one. Universities and politics must change NOW.
Once you have the proper knowledge, it's only a matter of disseminating that knowledge, and bringing this light to others. Slowly, or maybe all at once. This is the purpose of civilization, allowing natural talents to bear fruit.
Equality is next. Progress requires action.
I have a friend, She was extremely good looking in her youth. She says that New York has changed, that people are less civil, more in a hurry nowadays. I don't have the heart to tell her.
It's complete Barbara Streisand. Hillary got where she is because of her husband, plain and simple. Not "in spite of him" as so many of her apologists claim. That New York Senate seat was cleared for her as she climbed over the line in New York State. Would they have done that for a Little Rock lawyer whose main claim to fame seemed to be avoiding prison the way her close business associates did not? Give me a fucking break!
Maybe it's misogyny that so many on the left in Britain hate Maggie Thatcher? Ask the vast majority of Donald Trump supporters if they admire Thatcher, and they will say yes. So are the lefties who hate her selectively misogynistic? Or is it all B.S?
They simply ignore the flaws in their candidate and then express incredulity when others do not do the same. Hillary is deeply polarizing. They would have known this if they had bothered to think about it, but they simply will not even acknowledge what is clearly a fact. This just infuriates people more and drives them to Trump.
"I think it's tremendously important that we resist merging the struggle for women's equality with the political fortune of this one individual, Hillary Clinton." Make up your mind: either support feminism or actual equality. Can't have both, as the linked article shows.
"We need to be able to criticize, mock, savage, and even hate the President of the United States. If doing that to Hillary Clinton is considered misogyny, then the woman is not qualified to be President." Sorry, no. Just as color blindness is the new racism, gender blindness is the new misogyny. Universalism puts down minorities and women. It is an exercise in patriarchal white hegemony. To be countered by the eternal whine of the aggrieved feminist on behalf of "invisible" women everywhere. We'll get four years of it.
"Plenty has been said about the way American women feel invisible once they reach 60, or 50, or — gack — even 40 today..." I've seen this claim repeatedly, along with the exact moment stuff. At 56, I've never had anything that even vaguely resembles such experiences. It does seem likely though, that if it's repeated enough times, people will start to think they've had the experience, rather than evaluating each specific interaction with all its complicated nuances. It's just so much easier to feel put upon.
A woman whose power derived from sleeping with the right man is probably not the best example of a feminist hero(ine).
But bless'em for giving it their best shot.
The tiny minority of respected, older women... have persisted and struggled and fought to earn positions of power that are usually an inevitable evolution for men of their skill and experience. They get talked over in meetings, interrupted and passed over for promotions, while usually being criticized for their ambition....
Inevitable??? What on earth makes Dvorak -- or you, Althouse, since you write this Dvorak's twaddle "makes sense" to you -- believe that the evolution to a position of respect is "inevitable" and not earned? Do you and Dvorak treat all older men with respect, just because they got old? Or are older men who have not "inevitably" reached a position of power just as invisible to you as they are to Dvorak?
I'm not buying into the more specific things that charge Clinton-haters with misogyny.
Well we thank you for that from the very bottom of our hearts.
In fact, I think it's tremendously important that we resist merging the struggle for women's equality with the political fortune of this one individual, Hillary Clinton.
About time some woman put that down in writing. Only here's the basic problem. Whether you choose to believe it or not, women have more than their fair share of "equality." But after a certain point you still have to earn what you get. Did you not earn your professorial position? Did you not earn your tenure? What else have you earned but not received?
We need to be able to criticize, mock, savage, and even hate the President of the United States. If doing that to Hillary Clinton is considered misogyny, then the woman is not qualified to be President.
Hillary has been dining out all her life on the notion that criticism of her is criticism of all women. You can't expect her or her apologists to change now, can you?
ask them their opinion of Maggie Thatcher.
Or if they objected to Reagan's election because of his age.
I suspect a lot of "I don't recall" replies. How Clintonian.
It's not out of the question that the Democrats might attempt to run only women and minorities as candidates hoping to use sexism/racism as a perpetual vaccine against criticism. It certainly worked with Barack Obama: all criticism of him has been racist, by definition.
But as an illusory Emperor's New Clothes gambit this strategy suffers from that gambit's core weakness, the possibility that the veil of suspension of disbelief might be ruptured. Once it is, by a child, by a while male Democrat who want to run, it could easily collapse beyond the point of ever being useful again.
cubanbob said...
Hillary isn't hated because she is an old woman. She is hated for what she is; a grifter, criminal and traitor and the WaPo is hated because it shills for a criminal to become president.
Precisely. Hillary is only a little older than my wife. I love my wife, but then she isn't a dishonest POS like Hillary. I'd have no problem voting for a female president (preferably old with some life experience), but there's nothing on Earth that could ever get me to vote for Hillary, except if I was a member of a jury voting to convict her.
Myself,I'm used to being ignored and talked over. That's the common fate of mankind. Look at poor Mike Pence in that debate.
This article condenses down the problem with women in our society and shits it out for all to see. Reality sucks and they react to it by blame shifting, projection, and lying to themselves.
I wish that these women that are so horrified to "have become invisible" once they hit a certain age could have some self awareness and understand that they're now just receiving the same treatment 80%-90% of men receive *their entire lives*.
There might be something to this sexism thing. Hillary is judged far more harshly than her husband, but he committed far more egregious offenses than her. Mendacious women just can't catch a break.
From an article in today's Seattle Times:
“I see with my own eyes the damage Donald Trump does when he talks about women and how they look,” the girl, identified as Brennan Leach, daughter of a Pennsylvania state senator who later said he had helped her form the question. “As the first female president, how would you undo some of that damage and help girls understand that they are so much more than just what they look like?”
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hillary-clintons-message-to-15-year-old-girl-was-confusing-and-spot-on/
Oh for fuck's sake. Decades of feminism and we still can't raise women with enough spine to ignore what someone like Trump says about a woman's appearance. Here is my question: we have had enough empowerment of women that today's young, middle-class females were raised by women well aware of feminist issues.
So why haven't more women done a better job of raising their daughters to be more discriminating in what to take to heart and what to ignore? How is it that mothers are still raising women too dense to look at a magazine cover and see what Photoshop has wrought, rather than feeling miserable about themselves?
WHY?????
From an article in today's Seattle Times:
You realize the girl is a professional actress, right?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6887368/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2
Did You Know?
Trivia: Brennan Leach played girl with little red bow in Hillary's town hall event at Harverford PA.
I'm not sure why this is female-specific? I'm a mid-40's dude who often feels ignored when there are prettier people around. But that's okay - I ignore them too. I'm confident in who I am and really don't care.
Not all slights are gendered.
Can we charge all those Enlightened haters of Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, and Carly Fiorina of mysogyny ? The only possible explanation is that Lefties feel threatened by Powerful Women.
I'm not buying the "suddenly invisible" argument. Young women, as a class, are the most visually attractive of any segment of humanity (with the possible exception of babies). It's quite natural for young women to become used to everyone "seeing" them when they walk into a room. As they age, women no longer attract the gaze as they once did and it's only natural that they notice their change in status. But, they haven't become invisible compared to men. They've just become invisible compared to younger women.
Ann Althouse said...We need to be able to criticize, mock, savage, and even hate the President of the United States. If doing that to Hillary Clinton is considered misogyny, then the woman is not qualified to be President.
Uh...what? Isn't this coming from someone who happily voted for candidate Obama in 2008? Haven't the predictions lots of us made--namely that there'd be no way to criticize Obama (since to do so would be to brand oneself a vicious racist)--pretty much all come true?
I haven't heard a single "you fellas were correct, we were too caught up in congratulating the country for its historic "first" to acknowledge that the Left & Media would unfairly constrain any criticism of the President and accusations of racism as a tool to stifle dissent."
Hill may be older, but "wiser" ain't happ'nin'.
My mother is 70 years old and highly intelligent. She'd make a great President.
She hates Hillary Clinton. And I mean hates...
Liberals piss her off because she can see how much they have screwed her grand-kids.
When it comes to old women I have to admit I agree with Borat: It’s hard to concentrate on what they are saying.
and I'm strongly clickbait resistant.
LOL!
enc says: "If he turns out to be a poor president..."
Take a moment and think about what will constitute a "poor president". Wake up.
Unless Trump is the "traitor" to the right that the NeverTrumpers fear, by definition he is going to be a "poor president" to the left. The Democrats will make every attempt to remove him from office for this "poorness". This election battle will not be over on election day, it will simply shift to different fronts. I imagine that teams have already been formed in the Democrat think tanks so that they can take full advantage of any early "mistakes" the Trump team may make.
In the "Olden Days", after an election, most Americans more or less resigned themselves to living with whomever was elected (as I believe they should) and tried to make the country work. Most Republicans and Democrats believed in the Constitution and differed only in the details of governing.
As demonstrated by Hillary, many Democrats today believe that a large portion of Americans are irredeemable, despicable people who are worth less than refugees from the Middle East or illegal immigrants. That statement is not a political charge; it is the truth. In their zeal to protect the snail darter; to stop global warming and to do any other thing that the media honors as a "good" thing, they have no sympathy with Americans who do not share their idiocy. Making a temporary "sad face" is about all they have for the Americans who lose their livelihoods and way of life as they march us toward globalism.
After all, have they not offered everyone a chance to attend their reeducation camps (sorry, that's campuses) for free? So long as they conform and become good progressives? By the way, don't think that conservatives will last long anywhere near a campus after the progressives get through setting up the framework for the "free" (read that Federally funded) college education. Only those who go along with the progressive agenda will be allowed to remain on campus to teach or earn degrees. The current "safe space" and "rape" programs are the stalking horses for enforcing progressive dogma on campus.
Colleges failing to implement the proper programs will lose the Federal funds; get it? If you don't understand how that will be done, you probably don't understand the current "Dear Colleague" letter process. Google it. Surprised?
It is all right there, waiting to be further implemented. By the way, one must think a little about how the "Dear Colleague" letter will be used, it is not blatant from a reading of past uses. Just realize that the courts have been silent on their use. Another example of where the Hillary Supreme Court will be handy.
"Free" college education. The progressive agendaIt is much farther along than a dog whistle. Most Democrat voters don't understand what is happening, but will go along with it as it is implemented. The many who are "deplorable"? Down they go along with the deplorable Republicans. Their votes are needed now, so this Democratic campaign is not centered on the "deplorable" issues, just on what a monster Trump is.
Do I seem crazy to you? I actually believe what I am saying. The information needed to substantiate these opinions is freely available; and I don't mean just on right wing blogs.
I hope Trump is hailed by the media as one of the "poorest" presidents in history.
Clayton:
Yes I know she's an actress. That makes it even more....deplorable! To insert the self esteem issues of young women into a **presidential** election!
The mind reels: after Hillary assumes the presidency, her first act will be to create a Federal Department of Female Self Esteem. I wouldn't put it past her.
I've been a racist for the last eight years and will probably be a misogynist for at least the next four.
Race relations and female equality are just a bigger hammer to be used to get Democratic politicians elected.
Some women need to give this "she's a woman" business a rest. There are millions of charming women old and young who are delightful to be around. Hillary is not one of them.
Most women in this age bracket remember the day they realized they had become invisible
I'm in the upper end of that age bracket and I have never felt invisible. And certainly not because I'm a woman. Maybe sometimes a rude sales clerk or extra busy counter guy might overlook....but it isn't just me. They are ignoring everyone. I don't expect people to bow down to me or kiss my regal ring :-)
ON the other hand, I'm certainly not a shy retiring type of person. I'm pretty outgoing and willing to strike up conversations with total strangers who seem to be friendly. So probably why I am not ignored.
Geez Hillary....everything isn't about being a poor widdle woman and being invisible because you aren't getting hit on by young guys. Face it ladies. Some of us aren't young anymore and that would be weird anyway to have a young guy flirting with you. Creepy.
A woman who ages gracefully, acts age appropriate, dresses age appropriate and who isn't walking around with "cat butt face" and a chip on her shoulder, will be recognized and appreciated.
I agree, DBQ! There's so much more to life! Once in a while a young dude does give me the eye. It's weird--maybe he's weird--but it makes me feel good, anyway. :-) Being older is all about freedom, though. Not letting others define me, enjoying retirement...honestly, I wouldn't want to be young again.
Maybe this "invisible" thing will much more traumatic to women raised with social media, with its insistent "look at me...look at me....look at me" mentality.
Me? I look forward to being invisible. There can be a certain power in the fact nobody is paying attention to what you are doing. One can be a sneaky observer. Or a successful drug mule.
"...will BE much more traumatic..."
I, for one, hate her because she's statist scum. Wouldn't be any less statist scum if she had male genitalia instead of the vagina she's campaigning on.
I've excerpted the part of the column that makes a lot of sense to me.
Why didn't you post that excerpt, instead o fthis one?
All I see here is some "when women stop being beautiful young things, they finally start getting treated like everybody else and they don't like it" and some B.S. by an ignorant person blandly repeating some neat stuff they overheard at a cocktail party.
richardsson said... There are millions of charming women old and young who are delightful to be around. Hillary is not one of them.
From everything I hear, Hillary is one of them--somebody you'd want to share a beer with. She just also happens to be corrupt, selfish and power mad.
A lot has been written in the liberal press to explain why it is that women dislike Trump. And whatever has been written about why men dislike Hillary relies on various manifestations of sexism--such as the article Ann has linked here.
It is certainly true that Hillary's has built her entire life around around a single-minded objective: to secure as much political power as possible. It is also true that she repeatedly blames men for blocking her attempts to achieve this objective. But this does not make her a "powerful woman". It makes her a very weak and misguided woman, but a women who is prone to say anything and do anything to reach and secure her ultimate goal. And this goal is power for the sake of power.
It is also true the great majority of men abhor Hillary. And perhaps this is because men, for whatever reason, have a more developed intuitive sense in these matters than women have. That is, they are better able to sense tyrannical personalities.
If Hillary lived a couple of hundred years ago, the Grimm Brothers would be writing about her.
From everything I hear, Hillary is one of them--somebody you'd want to share a beer with.
I bet that's true if you think her jokes about "deplorables" are rip-roaring funny. But to most of us, she remains detestable.
ALP observed One can be a sneaky observer. Or a successful drug mule.
I never thought of that but I do spend quite a bit of time near the border..... ;-)
Well, there was Nixon, you know, the one in the post just above this. And even though I am very old and didn't live or vote in his time, the rhyme "ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, hahaha," comes to mind. We just have more access now.
From everything I hear, Hillary is one of them--somebody you'd want to share a bear with
FIFY
Ask the vast majority of Donald Trump supporters if they admire Thatcher, and they will say yes. So are the lefties who hate her selectively misogynistic? Or is it all B.S?
Excellent point. The hatred of Thatcher is Britain is an interesting example of the angry left and its pathology.
I don't hate her. I just can not think of one thing I like about her. Seriously, not one thing.
I would despise Hillary Clinton just as much if she were a man, because it's not her gender that causes me to despise her. It's her naked criminality and greed, and the fact that if she wasn't Mrs. Bill Clinton, she never would have been a U.S. Senator or a Secretary of State. If she was Hillary Smith, you never would have heard of her and she would have retired in anonymity long ago.
If all of those things have happened to me, and I'm a man, do I get to blame women for being biased against men of a certain age?
69
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा