September 8, 2017

"I agree with everything Jill Filipovic says about the barriers that society has created that keep women from responding appropriately to men who seek to harass or intimidate them."

Says a letter to the NYT editor about “Donald Trump Was a Creep. Too Bad Hillary Clinton Couldn’t Say That,” by Jill Filipovic (Sunday Review, Aug. 27). The letter-writer, George C. Thomas (of Warren, NJ) continues:
Missing from Ms. Filipovic’s account, however, is the inconvenient fact that for decades Hillary Clinton responded to allegations of sexual assault against her husband by denying those charges on his behalf and by vilifying the alleged victims.

I don’t know whether it’s ironic or pathetic (maybe it’s both) that Mrs. Clinton helped strengthen the barrier she confronted in the debate with Donald Trump.
Yes, that's true. I was just wondering aloud about whether Mrs. Clinton's book addresses this difficulty, not that I have the slightest hope that it does, but I'd love to hear what she'd say about this if she ever really did "let [her] guard down" (as she claims she is doing in the new book).

Another letter to the editor about the Filopovic piece, from Pamela Rothstein in Falmouth, Massachusetts, says:
My response now, as it was back then, focuses on the one action that could prevent such behavior in political debates: a clear, definitive directive that candidates remain at their chair or lectern when it is not their turn to speak. Period. No moving around. No stalking. No intimidating.

Ms. Filipovic says that the moderators did not instruct Mr. Trump to physically back off, arguing, “It would have been uncomfortable, and they would have faced accusations of bias.” It is time for debate organizers to step up and accept responsibility for preventing a repeat of such behavior.
Rothstein doesn't seem to realize that viewers look forward to seeing how the candidate moves around. We have an animal-level instinctive judgment that we like to get a chance to exercise. We got a lot out of the difference between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in this segment of a debate in 1992. We feel as though we're learning something about the candidate's humanity (or lack thereof). Do we have a real person or an uncanny-valley simulacrum?

If a candidate moves around the wrong way, he's hurting himself. In my all-time favorite debate clip, the candidate who moves into the other person's space — and apparently thinks his behavior is winning — makes a terrible impression (and the other guy scores brilliantly with a slight nod):

80 comments:

John Christopher said...

I have to count for at least half of that clip's 900,000+ views.

mockturtle said...

I wonder what barriers were thrown up to prevent the masseuse from pursuing her sexual assault charges against Al Gore at the three-hour massage session.

Gahrie said...

"I agree with everything Jill Filipovic says about the barriers that society has created that keep women from responding appropriately to men who seek to harass or intimidate them."

Perhaps.

But society has certainly provided many inappropriate ways for women to respond to men who they feel have sought to harass or intimidate them.

Frankly I am a little tired of all the whining from women given the current balance of power between the sexes.

TestTube said...

Why did this behavior not become (much of) an issue until Hillary came along.

The only other time I heard the chattering classes in an outrage about this sort of thing was...Hillary again, this time in her Senate race.

Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth the first seemed to do keep their heads in even more intimidating environments, some of which where literally losing your head was a very real possibility.

Feinstein, Pelosi, Boxer, Seibilus, Palin, Perez, and about a zillion other woman politicians manage to survive and thrive in this same political environment.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yes, that clip of the Gore-Bush debate never gets old.

"Rothstein doesn't seem to realize that viewers look forward to seeing how the candidate moves around."

Not only that, but our eyes are trained to watch people on camera moving around. It gets boring to have the camera focusing on static objects for long periods of time, even from different camera angles.

It's pretty silly to complain about candidates "intimidating" each other by moving about. As many people have pointed out, if Hill was intimidated by Trump, how would she be able to deal with Putin or any other world leader?

I can't stand Angela Merkel, but I'll give her credit for one thing - I don't believe she has played the gender card very much. (Tough as nails Thatcher certainly didn't.) Correct me if I am wrong about that; I might be.

JPS said...

If they're correct, the excuse-makers, including especially she herself, are laying out a compelling case for what a terribly ineffective president Mrs. Clinton would have been.

I get the sense we'd have had a memoir down the road where she explained how everything that went wrong during her presidency was the result of one sexist world leader or another, one domestic opponent or another, or just the Basket of Deplorables at large, being so unfair to her. We'd read some narration where she wanted to take some unbelievably bold action, but her advisors or her predecessor or her inner monologue told her not to, and she felt straitjacketed.

Rob said...

What about Dingell-Norwood?

Hagar said...

It is a very odd thing that the feminista keep harping on this when the video clearly shows Hillary! stepping in front of Trump and he takes a step back and stands beside his lectern while she has her turn with the microphone.

A very inconvenient fact indeed.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Sorry, but there are no 'barriers' other than those which are put up by individual women who can't handle themselves.

Story time: I used to teach preschool at a church school. A new pastor was hired who immediately got the nickname 'Pastor Perv' among the teachers. All the old ladies at the church thought he was sooooo charming, etc, but he was a super lechy creep who made overtly sexual comments to the teachers.

Two or three of us handled him correctly, which was to stare back impassively and say things like, "I don't discuss my underwear at work" or "That's an inappropriate thing to say, I don't appreciate it and I want it to stop now." The harassment ceased immediately. The rest of the teachers would titter and blush and refuse to respond to him directly but would bitch and moan and complain endlessly when he wasn't around. It was maddening.

dreams said...

Liberals live in their own world, their constructed bubble world. Didn't Hillary invade his space?

The Vault Dweller said...

I don't recall Trump stalking Hillary around the stage at all during the debate. In fact that would seem opposite his character, he isn't a follower. I recall Trump largely staying put where he was standing when it was Hillary's turn to speak. That DOES fit his character. I'm Donald Trump and I don't move for anyone. If Hillary moved herself near Donald, he can hardly be blamed for invading her personal space.

Ann Althouse said...

"Frankly I am a little tired of all the whining from women given the current balance of power between the sexes."

You're whining.

sunsong said...

Hillary seems incapable of just being herself in public. I imagine she is calculating every word and sentence for their possible impact. Perhaps she would honestly answer a question one on one...but I kinda doubt it...

ALP said...

Camille Paglia has interesting things to say about women and male harassment of women throughout her writing. Basic summary: working class women of color don't put up with harassment shit from men - they give it right back. They pretty much roll their eyes at simpering middle class white women and their inability to stand up for themselves in the face of a verbal attack.

Its too early in the am (out here on the west coast) for this "women can't think for themselves because the barriers society has placed in their way are just too damn high for skepticism and independent thinking poor dears" kind of shit.

Decades of feminism and I'm still waiting for an onslaught of independent thinking women!

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Its too early in the am (out here on the west coast) for this "women can't think for themselves because the barriers society has placed in their way are just too damn high for skepticism and independent thinking poor dears" kind of shit.

Decades of feminism and I'm still waiting for an onslaught of independent thinking women!


Preach it, sister.

n.n said...

An oversize novelty gavel worked for Pelosi.

Has she tried to treat people with respect. Democrats have a problem distinguishing between binary sexes, discerning the gender spectrum, and between individuals based on character not color, and also life from an inanimate clump of cells.

Class diversity, including sex diversity, that deny individual dignity, and Pro-Choice that avoids reconciliation. Progress. A baby step forward. A giant leap backward.

rehajm said...

Coaches boxes painted on the floor would work. Dingle your Norwood over the line and you're assessed a time penalty.

mockturtle said...

Misplaced has identified a common behavior among females. They would often rather discuss an interpersonal problem with a third party than confront the problematic person directly, whether the person is a male or a female. This describes my older daughter to a tee but my younger daughter isn't afraid of direct confrontation. The fear of 'conflict' or worse, incurring someone's anger or even displeasure, is often behind this.

As others have shown, plenty of able women have been successful leaders who ignore barriers rather than whine about them. They are a minority! We should accept the fact that most women are not cut out for leadership position. Those who are will make their own way in spite of obstacles.

rehajm said...

Life is easier when you're not an asshole.

mockturtle said...

working class women of color don't put up with harassment shit from men - they give it right back.

Yes! Maybe because my younger daughter is racially mixed she is more inclined to confront than my all-white older daughter.

The Godfather said...

Do you remember the Ford-Carter Debate in '76? At the beginning of the debate there was some technical glitch, I think with the sound. So Ford and Carter both just stood there at their respective podiums, doing and saying nothing. If one of them had walked over to the other with a smile and said something like Isn't this a funny situation? he would have won the debate hands down. But neither did, and then I think they each wandered off stage to wait for the sound to be fixed.

Caligula said...

"If Hillary moved herself near Donald, he can hardly be blamed for invading her personal space."

Well, obviously he can be blamed, because he is being blamed. The different camera angles make it difficult to be sure, but overall it does appear that it is she who has wandered into his space while he remains close to his lectern.

And yet NYT has the resources to examine all the camera angles and hire experts who, assuming the venue can be measured and camera locations are known, should be able to render accurate 2-D views from a God's eye view directly above the stage. Not that I'd expect them to do so: after all, they have Hillary Clinton's word about how she "felt" about whatever happened.

Yet the higher level view remains: Even if one were to stipulate that he did invade her space, and if this is such an effective tactic to get one's opponent rattled, why didn't Clinton use it against Trump? Are we supposed to believe she's just somehow somehow sooooo nice that she wouldn't even think of doing such a thing?

Or must we fall back on the hard reality that, for whatever reason, she was vulnerable to this sort of pressure and he was not and, if so, who's fault is that? Even assuming he did what she says he did?

It's not, after all, as if anyone was (or could have been) subject to any credible threat of physical mayhem from one's opponent in this situation. Nor is it as if dealing with boors, rudeness, and other non-criminal affronts (real or imagined, they feel the same) is not part of life. If she can't handle the controlled environment of a political debate, what else would she be unable to handle?

Gahrie said...

You're whining.

Because I'm the one who is being discriminated against and shit on, yet I still have to listen to a bunch of angry women talking shit about me...you included.

I am tired of being treated like a splooge stooge.

rhhardin said...

Castration fantasy castrates women.

reader said...

Althouse said

"'Frankly I am a little tired of all the whining from women given the current balance of power between the sexes.'

You're whining."

It's funny - I read that as bitching. Sorry for the coarse language but that seems the term to best describe the voice I read that statement in.

rhhardin said...

Today there's personal pizza, personal watermelon and personal space.

Mark said...

Another example of a debate moment involving movement - a tiny movement/moment yet one that spoke volumes - occurred when GHWB was caught looking at his watch during one of the Clinton-Perot-Bush debates. The moment was devastating to GHWB and just like I can immediately recall the way GWB brushed off Gore's stalking, I similarly can immediately recall GHWB making that watch-checking mistake.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

As others have shown, plenty of able women have been successful leaders who ignore barriers rather than whine about them. They are a minority! We should accept the fact that most women are not cut out for leadership position. Those who are will make their own way in spite of obstacles.

Back in the olden days of my 80s childhood, we girls were taught to be assertive. That was the buzzword and a fine one it is. It encompasses strength, dignity, self-assurance, courage, self-respect and independence. I don't know why that has fallen out of fashion in favor of teaching girls that they have 1,001 things to whine about and blame others for, and that they are too weak to solve their own problems or learn to ignore naysayers, but what a massive step backward that is.

Gahrie said...

It's funny - I read that as bitching. Sorry for the coarse language but that seems the term to best describe the voice I read that statement in.

That's a fair cop.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Back in the olden days of my 80s childhood, we girls were taught to be assertive. That was the buzzword and a fine one it is. It encompasses strength, dignity, self-assurance, courage, self-respect and independence. I don't know why that has fallen out of fashion in favor of teaching girls that they have 1,001 things to whine about and blame others for, and that they are too weak to solve their own problems or learn to ignore naysayers, but what a massive step backward that is."

I think, maybe, that the difference was between triumphing as a woman in a man's world, and trying to force Girl's World rules on the rest of us. It is inner feelings versus external indicia. The problem for Crooked Hillary here is that we had just gone through eight years of the First Woman President and weren't ready for another four. We didn't want another passive aggressive whiner as Commander In Chief, but someone who could protect us in a much more dangerous world. We instinctively turn to dominant males in times of danger, and this sort of female whining by her just reinforces why it is good that she lost.

Henry said...

I think candidates should not only not be allowed to move around, but shouldn't be allowed to speak either. We will determine who to vote for by the power of their silent, pained expressions.

Susan said...

Given that the lectern didn't have a handy ashtray for throwing she probably did feel limited.

Maybe next debate she can bring pepper spray to brandish at him as she walks around. That's what all the girls carry these days.

BDNYC said...

Didn't Trump just stand in one spot while Hillary walked toward him?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Henry, they could also employ the Sympathetic Head Tilt, first described by Aussie Tim Blair more than a decade ago:

http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/008097.php

Silent, pained expressions + Head Tilt like a dog who is begging for Milk Bones.

AJ Lynch said...

What BDNYC said at 11:51AM

exiledonmainstreet said...

A mime act or silent interpretive dance would be good too.

Drago said...

sunsong: "Hillary seems incapable of just being herself in public"

How could you possibly know that?

After decades of seeing Hillary under different circumstances (including dodging sniper fire!) why would you conclude anything other than this IS Hillary being herself in public. This is precisely what she has programmed herself to be decade after decade.

Hillary has successfully constructed an artificial world in which her defense of Billy transgressions against women no longer even exist, nor ever did. I doubt she would even admit to having attacked those women on Billy's (actually hers) behalf.

Those women matter not one whit when it comes to Hillary gaining and wielding power..nor to the legions of liberals/lefties who supported her and Bill.

Bay Area Guy said...

G: "Frankly I am a little tired of all the whining from women given the current balance of power between the sexes."

AA: "You're whining."

Me: Well, What ABOUT Dingell-Norwood?

AlbertAnonymous said...

That article is absolute drivel... more garbage from the NY Times.

Society is so biased against wymmyn, its so hard to be Hillary, she had it so hard and people just don't understand because they're all deplorables and bigots...

GMAFB

Otto said...

Framing, framing, framing ; "No stalking". Remember as Mead says always notice "colored" words.
Legal definition of stalking;
Like domestic violence, stalking is a crime of power and control. Stalking is conservatively defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear." [1] Stalking behaviors also may include persistent patterns of leaving or sending the victim unwanted items or presents that may range from seemingly romantic to bizarre, following or laying in wait for the victim, damaging or threatening to damage the victim's property, defaming the victim's character, or harassing the victim via the Internet by posting personal information or spreading rumors about the victim.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

BDNYC said...

Didn't Trump just stand in one spot while Hillary walked toward him?

No. Trump finished his turn speaking near the front of the stage, in line with his lectern. Hillary then started her turn by walking between Trump and his lectern, to address people on his side of the stage. Trump then walked back to stand in front of his lectern, which put him about three feet behind her.

At no point did he stalk or follow her. At no point was he in her space, nor breathing down her neck, figuratively or literally.

Howard said...

Much in the way the popular self-esteem child-rearing philosophy has crippled millennials physically and mentally, modern feminism has the effect of making women emotional cripples. This is because feminism is pushed by a professional feminist class instead of being led by professional women. The professional feminist class would work themselves out of a job if women were actually strengthened by feminism. The feminists of the lost generation and the depression/WWII generation understood that the male work environment was tough, demanding, ruthless and rewarding so they acted accordingly by adaptation.

Howard said...

I don't know, Drago. Hitlery keeps the old temper well stifled in public: it's too bad because it would be fun to watch her go into full ashtray flinging mode on pay-per-view.

mockturtle said...

One of my great-great-grandmothers was a pioneer who, after a grueling voyage from Wiscosin, settled in Colorado with her husband, a young son and newborn daughter born along the way. Two weeks after arriving, my great-great-grandfather died of typhoid. She managed to untangle all the legal red tape on the property he had secured as well as the shares in a mine he had purchased and started a cattle ranch. I'd be very surprised if she whined even once.

dbp said...

Hillary doesn't do anything without planning: Does anybody think her incursion into Trump's side of the stage was spontaneous? I don't.

I am sure it was planned and meant to rattle Trump. It didn't work, but his innocuous behavior is still presented as sinister.

I recall that at the time, the Democrats tried to make something of it, but most people who saw the video didn't see any problem with it.

One wonders at the lack of cognitive dissonance in the left: They portray GWB as a dunce and yet he made Gore look like a fool in their debate-incursion situation. Meanwhile, HRC (the most qualified presidential candidate in the history of the USA) could not perform the same trick on the (supposedly) buffoonish Trump.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

Bollocks. They keep trotting this out because they don't understand how men (and an increasing number of the tougher sort of women) in competition interact. They think this is a gotcha but it actually reads as weakness to a significant part of the electorate.

Darrell said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...No. Trump finished his turn speaking near the front of the stage, in line with his lectern. Hillary then started her turn by walking between Trump and his lectern, to address people on his side of the stage. Trump then walked back to stand in front of his lectern, which put him about three feet behind her.

So, Hillary's lie was totally debunked last week, which means it's time to make the same argument again. Pretty soon it will be in the history books. The Left has its methods.

Kevin said...

Ms. Filipovic says that the moderators did not instruct Mr. Trump to physically back off, arguing, “It would have been uncomfortable, and they would have faced accusations of bias.”

And if the moderator were to do that such that the preferred candidate wound up winning, would the moderator also be there to help her when Kim starts exploding hydrogen bombs and launching ICBMs over Japan?

William said...

If Hillary doesn't feel sorry for herself, who else do you expect to do it?.......I wasn't crazy about either Trump or Hillary. I don't think either party clearly won the debate, but Trump comes across as genuine.. It's a strange phenomenon. Trump is obnoxious but for that very reason he seems sincere. Hilary has less rough edges than Trump, but her smoothness seems slick and unctuous and inspires distrust.

William said...

How is it that no one ever criticized Margaret Thatcher in a sexist way?

Dave in Tucson said...

Probably the reason HRC couldn't (or didn't) call Trump a creep is because it sounds juvenile and weak, more like she's a damsel in distress, and not a leader wanting to take on the most powerful job in the world.

And if the Democrats truly thought it would've helped HRC to call Trump a creep, you certainly would've heard it from every proxy and sympathizer within the party and the media.

JaimeRoberto said...

The buck stops somewhere else.

Ralph L said...

we girls were taught to be assertive
One of my young female co-workers took an assertiveness training class in the 80's, and it helped her a lot. Do they still have those?

SGT Ted said...

Look, all of this article is "poor little woman being picked on by the mean, creepy man" sexist political bullshit that progressive women rely on when they cannot argue the issues, or perform well in the political arena.

"I agree with everything Jill Filipovic says about the barriers that society has created that keep women from responding appropriately to men who seek to harass or intimidate them."

Yea, that's bullshit. Women seek to intimidate and harass men all the damn time using the female privilege that men won't retaliate physically, as well as the double standard that angry women are righteous and angry men are dangerous. Women are also all too quick to abuse authority as a retaliation tool to punish men who anger them. Women falsely accusing men of violence and abusive behavior is routine in divorce proceedings and yet no woman is ever held to account for falsely swearing before a divorce court judge.

Poor little picked on women are obviously not fit to be in tough leadership positions, so it's a good thing Hillary didn't win.

Drago said...

I don't know, Drago. Hitlery keeps the old temper well stifled in public: it's too bad because it would be fun to watch her go into full ashtray flinging mode on pay-per-view.

Agreed Howard. But I think sunsong was attempting a little rhetorical dipsy-doodle maneuver to try and push the idea that, golly, that Hillary is really quite fuzzy and loveable in private, of course!, but, darnit!, no one ever gets to see that wonderfully warm and delightfully funny Hillary personality because patriarchy, Breitbart, Hitler and men.

The reality is Hillary is hilariously violent, out of control and emotionally unstable in private, so Howard is completely correct that it would be an absolute blast to watch Hillary really be herself!

Plus, between Trump and Hillary, I think we both know who is more likely to go "all in" on Russian chick prostitutes....

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dick Cheney sat down during all his Vice Presidential debates (I think), and my recollection is that he handily bested his opponents in all of 'em.

Jupiter said...

BDNYC said...
"Didn't Trump just stand in one spot while Hillary walked toward him?"

Actually, Hillary was just standing in front of her podium, attempting to explain her views on Obamacare, and Trump walked right up and grabbed her by the pussy! What a creep! Of course, there was nothing she could do, he's a star.

Here check it out;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qWPmuZc7d8

n.n said...

Social progress directed by liberalism has culminated in the treatment of unPlanned men and women as if they were merely colorful, gendered clumps of taxable commodities. One baby step forward. One giant leap to a secular, amoral time.

Will Cate said...

I love that moment in the Bush/Gore debate so much. The way Bush dresses him down in a single moment: "what the fuck's your problem, buddy?"

Drago said...

Bush looked at Gore EXACTLY like Hitler would have.

Obviously.

Robert Catesby said...

The writer fails to notice that the debate was October 9th -- not 10th.

As BDYNC and others correctly state, Sec. Clinton's recollection of events is hopelessly flawed:
1. She claims that he was breathing down her neck. The closest President Trump gets to her is about 3 feet. It happens at the 26:00 mark, and it happens because she walked across the stage to his side (about 25:00), and he walks around her instead of a straight line.
2. She claims that she was intimidated, but she walked to his side again (40:10 and 51:00).
3. She claims that the moderators reigned him in, but they didn't mention his walking around or invading her space.

She's lying. She's been warned. She's been given an explanation. She's continuing to lie.

Rick Turley said...

Rob said...

"What about Dingell-Norwood?"

We did discover here that Gore indeed had Norwood in his Dingell.

Portlandmermaid said...

I still love Bush's nod. "I see you, son." Gore looks embarrassed, as he should.

MayBee said...

I'm younger than Hillary and older than Filipovic. I grew up in a moderately sized, conservative midwest city. I was never taught to believe I was inferior to a man in any way, or that I had to behave in any inferior way. I was never led to believe I couldn't respond to men who harassed or intimidated me.

Now, were there times I didn't really respond? Yeah, when partners at my company would flirt with me. It wasn't worth it to me to confront them because I knew it was in my power to make sure nothing would come of it. But if a worker was just an asshole, I felt free to respond. And I'm not particularly assertive.

In truth, all of us are intimated to tell someone with power over us that we don't appreciate what they are doing. But this thing with Hillary and Trump wasn't that. She didn't call him a creep because she thought she was killin' it in the debates. She thought he was such a buffoon she imagined everyone else saw him as buffoonish.

It's been 30-50 years now of active female empowerment. As ALP said, I'm waiting for all of the empowered women. What more do we think we need? If an individual woman feels like she isn't empowered to be equal to me, that's on her.

Jupiter said...

MayBee said...
"She didn't call him a creep because she thought she was killin' it in the debates. She thought he was such a buffoon she imagined everyone else saw him as buffoonish."

If she actually thought that Donald Trump was behaving badly, she was delusional. Of course, she had her back to him, having walked directly in front of him to address that side of the audience, so she couldn't see what he was doing. Maybe she was trying to provoke him, and assumed she had been successful. But if she has looked at the video, and still believes Trump was "stalking" her, she is even crazier than I thought.

MayBee said...

*intimidated

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Looks like Hillary as president would have preferred all female security ... She killed Gaddafi because he beat her to the idea.

LYNNDH said...

I watched the Bush/Gore debate and I told my wife that Bush just won the election when he cut Gore down with just a look and kept on talking. Hillary look would provoke a laugh.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Is it time to revisit ....

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flashback-ayn-rand-shocks-female-crowd-i-would-never-vote-woman-president

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Now if Hillary were to trans-ition ... Mmmhmmm

Bob Loblaw said...

Hillary seems incapable of just being herself in public

Heh. If the stories coming out of former Secret Service agents have even a grain of truth you wouldn't want her to be herself in public.

rcocean said...

"They would often rather discuss an interpersonal problem with a third party than confront the problematic person directly, whether the person is a male or a female."

When women do this at work to men, they are often labeled backstabbing shits.

By the men.

Mark said...

My response now, as it was back then, focuses on the one action that could prevent such behavior in political debates: a clear, definitive directive that . . .

. . . there's no crying in politics. No crying.

Mark Daniels said...

I immediately thought of the moment seen in the clip you've posted here, Ann, when I read of Clinton's characterization of Trump's behavior in the town hall debate. Trump has given every evidence of being a misogynist, I think. But his trailing of Clinton during the debate was really no different from what Al Gore did with George W. Bush.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

rcocean comments: When women do this at work to men, they are often labeled backstabbing shits.

By the men.


Women are equal opportunity backstabbers.

Laslo Spatula said...

"I agree with everything Jill Filipovic says about the barriers that society has created..."

Maybe, instead of thinking about them as barriers, women should think of them as diaphragms.

I am Laslo.

FullMoon said...

.

Leigh said...

@Ignorance is Bliss and @Robert Catesby -- EXACTLY right. But who needs facts when provocative lies are so much fun?

Here's a clip of Hillary trying to stalk Trump; he shows remarkable restraint and at times, he even yields his space to her after she's invaded it. As the body-language "expert" in the clip points out, Hillary was very aggressive on that stage as she constantly went over into Trump's area. "Breathing down my neck"? That is whining, friends. It reveals her total inability to serve as President.

https://youtu.be/flOY_y8L5ko

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"'Frankly I am a little tired of all the whining from women given the current balance of power between the sexes.'

You're whining."


LOL. You had to be joking. That's not whining. Whining, like harassment, needs to be repetitive or somehow annoying, not a single statement.

Hillary Clinton exemplefies the Democrat party in all its dysfunction. Me, me, me, identity politics, identity politics, identity politics. Jesus Falken Christ move the fuck on. A vast majority of a country let down by a Trump win, and all she can think about is how she was wronged by it. What kind of a fucking moron thinks that this is the way to advance anything politically in America? Man, is she stupid.

Bernie Sanders' reaction was the best. "She lost to the least popular candidate in American politics, and she's upset about it." Between HRC's narcissism and Trump's it's so impossible to see any difference that even I have to admit that fail to see how his win is any worse than hers would have been - especially given her obsessive blame game-mongering less than a year on out. How about thinking about the country for once? Or even the party you're losing?