Making History

by Doctor Science

The night Barack Obama was elected President I was super-tired (I'd been poll-working all day on the busiest day I've ever seen), but when he got up to speak I cried for joy. And I kept crying at random times for the next week, because I was so happy. I thought that the Civil War was finally over, you see, that a great weight had at last rolled off America's shoulders.

I felt that we had *made* history, created it, built it with our own hands. That it had taken a solid year of work by thousands and then millions of people, plus a billion dollars or so, but we had, all together, pushed this monumental change up the hill and into reality. Barack Obama didn't win the election, we all did -- because the change was too great, the inertia of American history too heavy, for one person to change it himself.

Thinking things over that week, the benefits of democracy hit me hard. I could even seem some benefit to the messy, exhausting, hideously expensive American campaign season -- because I don't know if Obama could have won without all those months to change tens of millions of minds.

And now, once more, we're making history. That's why the Hillary Campaign made this video:

This has been, if anything, a longer road. To the point where I can imagine, at last, that the question, "Can a woman be President of the United States?" -- is no longer a question.

We made this, this history. We built it, together.

Comments

[McKinneyTexas]

I don't get this fixation with plumbing. Sorry.

[cleek]

i'm pretty sure there's more to it than "plumbing".

[wj]

Well, it's pretty clear that, for some people plumbing is the issue. And it's not a trivial portion of the electorate.

Just as, for some people (from what I can tell, often the same people), Obama's permanent suntan was, and is, an issue.

I agree that it makes little sense to me, just as it does to McKinney. But that doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist.

[Doctor Science]

The "fixation with plumbing" is in history and our experiences, McK.

I grew up hearing people laugh at the idea that a girl could grow up to be President. Hell, I grew up hearing people laugh at the idea that a girl could be good at math.

A "fixation with plumbing" meant that women had to fight to be legally recognized as fully human. Because of "plumbing".

Mr Dr talked to a black man yesterday who said he was for Trump, because "women aren't as good as men." In so many words.

Whose fixation are you talking about?

[hairshirthedonist]

History has a fixation with plumbing and perpetual suntans.

[hairshirthedonist]

My last comment wasn't in response to Doc Sci's, since I hadn't seen her comment when I posted, but it kind of works, both as a restatement of what she wrote and an answer to her final question.

[cleek]

Well, it's pretty clear that, for some people plumbing is the issue.

an issue, sure. one that cuts both ways, too.

Just the thought of earning less than their wives is enough to make some men in the US switch their vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, a study suggests.

Pollsters found that reminding men about gender issues, specifically whether they earned more or less than their partner, led to a huge 24-point swing away from the female presidential candidate to the male alternative.

The matter did not seem to be divided along party lines – there was no such shift among participants asked to choose between Mr Trump and Democrat runner Bernie Sanders.

Instead, the survey suggests large numbers of men who perceive a threat to their masculinity will lurch away from the idea of a female president.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-2016-idea-of-earning-less-than-wives-makes-men-change-vote-from-hillary-clinton-to-a6992396.html

[Girl from the North Country]

Wholeheartedly what Doc Science said at 10.55 above.

McKinney, you were awfully keen to protect women and girls in public restrooms. Was your urge to protect because of their "plumbing"? Why do you think women and girls need extra protection, McKinney? Could it be because of the way men view people with different plumbing? Could it be that these views need to be changed, and having women in positions of power is a start?

When Margaret Thatcher fell from power, a woman wrote into the lefty Guardian, saying that she had never supported Thatcher, or thought that her leadership helped women. However, she said that she was having to re-evaluate, because the day after the fall, her 7 year-old son asked her "Mummy, what are they going to call Mr Major?", and when she asked him what he meant he replied "Well, they can't call him Prime Minister, that's a girl's name".

[bobbyp]

sigh....truly distressing, cleek.

[Doctor Science]

The article cleek linked also said that being reminded of the pay gap made women (always likely to support Clinton) even more likely to back her, with a 10-point shift.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

GFTNC: kids are just precious, aren't they?

I recall hearing a story, from lo many years ago, of a kid being asked if they'd like to be President one day, and they replied "But..but..but...then I'd have to change my name to Kennedy!"

[Tony P.]

McKinney,

Forty-four dicks in a row is NOT a "fixation with plumbing"?

--TP

[Girl from the North Country]

Snarki, I can't tell if you're mocking me - "precious" seems far outside your normal style! My point, like I guess his mother's, is that that little boy, and presumably thousands like him, may have grown up with a subtly different attitude towards women, and what they're capable of.

p.s. Partly on your continued recommendation, I have just ordered Redshirts, so may report in due course.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Hell, I grew up hearing people laugh at the idea that a girl could be good at math.

Sadly, you still hear this one.

And yeah, I saw the article cleek linked a while back, and it's truly and utterly depressing. Unsurprising, but depressing.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

GFTNC: not mocking. You'd KNOW if I was mocking. And yes, you have a great point about expectations and attitudes.

[McKinneyTexas]

Whose fixation are you talking about?

History has a fixation with plumbing and perpetual suntans.

The fixation among some on the left that plumbing--or pigmentation--matters when doing a job that has nothing to do with plumbing or pigmentation. Voting for an African American or a woman or "your favorite identity goes here" *to make history* is the flip side of deciding against someone based on pigmentation or plumbing.

I get that it was bad in the bad old days. And if I didn't, I'd have the progressive left around to remind me on a regular basis. I don't need that because I lived back in those days, in the South, and saw it. Go back and watch an I Love Lucy episode and see what life was like for women back then, the assumptions about the sexes that permeated life back then.

But, we're past that when it comes to national politics. We have an African American president. If Colin Powell had run 20 or so years ago, having a black president would have been old hat.

Today isn't 8 or 16 or 40 years ago. We need to quit acting like things haven't changed. Very few dispute that a woman can carry the ball. Conservatives like me loved M Thatcher back in the day. Conservatives like me can't stand HRC for a broad range of reasons completely independent of her sex. For the record, we are equally or more aghast at the prospects of a Trump presidency.

Treating plumbing, pigmentation or some other identity marker as having some kind of intrinsic value separate from a person's character, skills, intelligence, etc validates making invidious decisions for the same reason. You can't have it both ways: women, as one example, can't have 'special positives' as a result of plumbing and escape being saddled with 'special negatives'. In other words, it makes no sense to maintain that non-white, straight male, identity connotes only positive attributes. Put differently, the business of imputing characteristics based on identity is racist/sexist.

McKinney, you were awfully keen to protect women and girls in public restrooms. Was your urge to protect because of their "plumbing"? Why do you think women and girls need extra protection, McKinney?

Any protection against sexual assault of women is, by definition, because of their plumbing. As well as privacy issues. Women and young girls need protection because they are, by a huge margin, disproportionately victims of unwanted male attention ranging from ogling/whistling to rape.

Forty-four dicks in a row is NOT a "fixation with plumbing"?

No, not when every option was a male.

But, if the best you can do is head counting, and if that is how we are going to pick our next president--because it's a girl's turn this time--then just say so.

I understand the argument that HRC is a better candidate than Trump because of experience, temperament, etc, that have nothing to do with being a woman.

What I don't get is why it is ok to say "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" but not ok to say "prefer Y over X because Y is a man?"

[PaulB]

Can a woman be president of America without being married to a male president first?

[Girl from the North Country]

Women and young girls need protection because they are, by a huge margin, disproportionately victims of unwanted male attention ranging from ogling/whistling to rape.

The point is why are they? If it is partly because of men's attitudes to women, it will help if men (not enlightened ones like you, but all sorts of neanderthals of the male gender) start seeing women differently. And that will happen (OK is already happening to some extent) by slow incremental stages. Having a woman head of state will help, like Thatcher helped, irrespective of her politics.

[Nigel]

Forty-four dicks in a row is NOT a "fixation with plumbing"?
No, not when every option was a male.

And why was that ?

What I don't get is why it is ok to say "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" but not ok to say "prefer Y over X because Y is a man?"

Because up until now it'd never happened.
I'm pretty sure that most everyone here agrees that colour and gender blind choice is an ideal we'll welcome. But to pretend that's where we are now, and express surprise that the prospect of a woman president isn't at the very least emblematic of change seems pretty perverse to me.

And I get that you're not particularly fond of Clinton (not am I, particularly). It does seem curiously similar to the left's disdain for Thatcher, though.

[wj]

What I don't get is why it is ok to say "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" but not ok to say "prefer Y over X because Y is a man?"

Because up until now it'd never happened.

Never? Perhaps not at the Presidential level. But it has definitely happened (in politics as well as other areas), and continues to happen, at other levels in the US. Less often, and change is not uniform geographically, but it still happens.

Did you really see none of that in Britain over Thatcher? (I don't really have a handle on how relatively backward the US is in such matters.)

[hairshirthedonist]

Voting for an African American or a woman or "your favorite identity goes here" *to make history* is the flip side of deciding against someone based on pigmentation or plumbing.

What if you voted for other reasons, but noted that history was still made?

[hairshirthedonist]

Or, to put it another way, is celebrating the fact that the United States can no longer be said to be a country where a woman is categorically excluded from becoming a major-party presidential candidate the same thing as saying the woman who broke through that historical exclusion is a good candidate simply because she's a woman?

I don't know why this is so hard. It's a first. And it's something that was, for practical purposes, impossible in the past.

No, it's not that past anymore. Progress has been made, even if things aren't perfect. That's the whole point, though. Saying things aren't as bad as they were X years ago is an odd way to criticize a post celebrating the fact that things aren't as bad as they were X years ago.

[cleek]

What I don't get is why it is ok to say "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" but not ok to say "prefer Y over X because Y is a man?"

who is saying "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" ?

[bobbyp]

who is saying "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" ?

That straw fellow over in the corner.

[McKinneyTexas]

The point is why are they?

The reasons run from rudeness/poor upbringing and ignorance at the ogling end of the spectrum to disordered personalities at the assaultive end. And a lot of stuff in between and having a woman president isn't going to fix any of those issues.

But to pretend that's where we are now, and express surprise that the prospect of a woman president isn't at the very least emblematic of change seems pretty perverse to me.

I think we are there now and have been for probably 10 years give or take. I'm not expressing any kind of surprise about anything and I agree that HRC's election--which I fully expect--is emblematic of the change in attitude toward female leaders.

What if you voted for other reasons, but noted that history was still made?

The history has already been made. That's the point. I think I'm pretty clear--and you know this is my position--that I have no issues with any decision made on the merits.

who is saying "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" ?

That straw fellow over in the corner.

I was thinking real people, actually: Madelaine Albright and Justice Sonia Sotomayor are two of many, many women who've made precisely this argument since stating a preference for a women implicitly rejects a male. It's practically an article of faith among the social justice crowd and no one turns any heads here at ObWi by dismissing opinions of 'angry old white men' based on the identity of the opinion holder. Identity politics is a big part of the left's program. IIRC, Doc S made a pretty clear statement not too far back that HRC would never pick a white male as a running mate.

Straw men? Not even close.

[Nigel]

Hey, wj.
By never, I meant never at the US presidential level; blame my clumsy phraseology (posting at work, with mind on other stuff - and before anyone gets on my case, I'm self employed, and not charging by the hour, so it's my time...).

Thatcher's case is interesting; she never got any kind of credit from the left, but half the Tory party (at the time) were uneasy about her too,because she was a woman. Which is a very different scenario.

[jeff]

I think Digby put it well

" ... Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination. And it seemed to dawn on them that it was an important moment worth noting. After all, it had never happened before. Ever.

For those of us of the female persuasion especially, this carries some emotional freight. Walking around in the world as a member of half the population with only 20% of the representation in government and 5% in the top jobs in business and a thousand other statistics that prove just how unequal you are in your own society feels ... strange. Indeed, it's mind-boggling. So it means something to a lot of women that a democratic process can produce a woman president. It's bigger than just getting a job. It's getting a job by a vote of a majority of the people --- that's the kind of validation that has teeth."

[jeff]

digby says much more that is worth the read.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-different-kind-of-politics.html

[cleek]

Identity politics is a big part of the left's program.

next time you come across a TV ad for a Republican politician, watch to see if he mentions that he's "A Strong Conservative". he probably will; it's almost boilerplate. what do you think it tells viewers? does it tell them "i identify as a conservative. my values and perspective are those of a conservative. fellow conservatives can count on me to uphold our shared values" ?

also, look to see if the ad shows him hunting / fondling a gun. any chance he's trying get gun owners and hunters to identify with him? that he's telling them "i'm a member of your group. i have the same concerns. we will work together to preserve our common identity against all threats" ?

ask your party's nominee if he has any issues with the identity of the judge who's hearing his Trump U case. maybe check to see if he's mentioned the identity of that judge in any recent statements. and maybe see if "conservatives" are backing him up.

[novakant]

Congratulations! I just wish she wasn't a neoliberal, imperialist warmonger.

[McKinneyTexas]

Just the fact of having them there seems to inspire other women and perhaps more importantly, normalize the idea of it for everyone. Apparently takes people actually seeing a woman perform a job traditionally held by men to prove they can do it.

Not being a woman, but being married to a successful woman, having a successful daughter, an even more successful daughter-in-law and having 3 out of 8 (it was 4 out of 9) of my law partners here in Houston be women, along the the top 5 associates in our office being female, reporting and working for far more women than men as clients, appearing before as many female judges as male judges and using far more female arbitrators and mediators than males, I don't find any of this surprising. My surprise comes in seeing others being surprised.

It also happens that the more successful they are at getting their agenda passed, the more they are able to get men on board as well. Given the chance women are actually pretty good at politics.

And pretty good at pretty much anything they undertake given the requisite skill set, temperament, time commitment and opportunity. This isn't new. I'm 62. I've worked with female peers since 1980. Thirty six years. I'm not unique by a long shot.

Cleek, let's keep the goal posts stationary and stay on topic. You and BP raised the straw man argument. I shot that down. Now you are changing the definition of Identity Politics. *Identity politics* is all about race, gender and culture (oddly defined), not about philosophy. Black conservatives are conservatives who are black. Black tells me nothing about someone other than pigmentation. I know HRC is a woman and my initial preferred candidate was Carly Fiorina. They are different people because they see the world differently. I have no issue with anyone self describing as conservative, moderate, liberal, whatever. That's what most of us want to know. And it has nothing to do with identity.

[Girl from the North Country]

McKinney, if you think that rapists are pretty much all disordered personalities at the assaultive end, and that their willingness to rape has nothing to do with their general view of women, it's hard to know what to say. I doubt there would be many women, of whatever political persuasion, who would agree with you, and I think it adds to the degradation of the intellectual fabric to dismiss concerns such as these, and the people who profess them as Social Justice Warriors obsessed about so-called Identity Politics without considering the possibility that there may be some (even partial) merit in what they say.

Regarding willingness to vote for a woman just because she's a woman, I can never forget my Republican friend in 2008 who informed me that since Hillary had lost the primary, many women would transfer their allegiance to Palin. I almost fell down laughing.

[Marty]

Walking around in the world as a member of half the population with only 20% of the representation in government and 5% in the top jobs in business and a thousand other statistics that prove just how unequal you are in your own society feels ... strange

I am relatively certain that some study will look back someday and recognize that these statistics don't actually talk to equality.

The changes in what various people want to do come quicker than the acceptance of those changes. I can tell you my grandmother did not feel less equal, she felt that the dozens of things that she did with an incredibly full life were every bit equal to those things my grandfather did. Culturally they divided up the things that needed to be done differently than we divide them up now. Not that there weren't women always that chafed against the cultural norms, as there were men who would have liked to pursue things culturally unacceptable.

In the middle there were a few generations where the roles and expectations changed faster than humans can cope well with change. Different than the Civil Rights movement, the feminist movement was as much about convincing women as it was about convincing men.

So, this is a milestone event, recognizing at the highest level that there are always fewer exclusionary attributes. In my lifetime we have had the first Catholic President, the first female VP candidate, the first Mormon Presidential candidate, and probably some more. And now the first woman Presidential candidate. All things to celebrate.

Now we just need a competent one.

[wj]

I don't find any of this surprising. My surprise comes in seeing others being surprised.

McK, I have similar experience (the CEO and Founder of the start-up where I work is a woman; and an immigrant from India as a child). As are half the technical staff -- it's an IT company. Plus my mother having been a manager at AT&T (in the 1940s, when such things just didn't happen) and my grandmother an RN.

But let's face it, our experience is not typical. Moreover, it's not typical of a lot of self-described cultural conservatives. It doesn't really matter what kind of jobs the men have, even technical or managerial ones; they just don't see women at work, except in clerical positions.

I think it really is an identity issue for them, because just as we have trouble imagining a workplace where women are not peers, they have trouble imagining their workplace being like that. In their world, women "just don't do things like that."

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Just speaking for myself, you can absolutely disagree with and deplore just about everything Thatcher did and stood for, yet admire her for being "one tough broad".

[hairshirthedonist]

The history has already been made.

What do you mean? Since Hillary Clinton became, more or less officially, the first major-party candidate for President of the United States - you know, like, last night?

I don't really know what your point is here. Was Doc Sci somehow in the wrong for writing this post when she did? If so, is that because you can conceive an alternate universe in which Hillary won in 2008, just as you suggested Colin Powell could have become the first black president years before Obama did, making the actual historical events in this universe not historic because they conceivably could have happened sooner?

I mean, you don't have to be excited about it, but does that make people who are excited about it wrong somehow?

[McKinneyTexas]

if you think that rapists are pretty much all disordered personalities at the assaultive end, and that their willingness to rape has nothing to do with their general view of women, it's hard to know what to say. I doubt there would be many women, of whatever political persuasion, who would agree with you, and I think it adds to the degradation of the intellectual fabric to dismiss concerns such as these, and the people who profess them as Social Justice Warriors obsessed about so-called Identity Politics without considering the possibility that there may be some (even partial) merit in what they say.

First, you are putting words in my mouth. I gave a range of behaviors and a range of causes. As for rape, however, a lot turns on how rape is defined. The definitional gray area ends (for me) at a variety of points depending on context. As a general statement, rape/sexual assault is an intentional act in which non-consensual sex is the expected outcome from the male's perspective. Whether the act is accomplished by force, threat, blackmail, drug, alcohol, whatever, the pivotal element is that a man takes it upon himself to have sex with a woman fully expecting that she will not consent. Parenthetically, this is a non-exclusive example of rape.

A man who takes it upon himself to have sex with a woman against her will is, in my opinion, very likely to be disordered (See DSM IV), or to have pronounced features of various relevant disorders, or in some instances, to be so mentally limited as to not really comprehend the need for consent. I do not think men--in the liberal west, in these times--rape women in this context because of the general attitude toward women except when their general attitude toward women is shaped by their various disorders or features of disorders.

I'm guilty of a lot of things, but being indifferent to crimes against women, the elderly, the infirm, the exposed, the challenged? Not me. Just the opposite. If I disagree with you as to why men in the west commit horrible crimes against women: some degree of disordered thinking etc vs a generalized low opinion of women having nothing to do with some degree of disordered (or disassociative)thinking, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be offended by that.

Historically and in many cultures, taking women against their was and is fair game. I assumed the context of your question was 'current times, current location.'

[McKinneyTexas]

But let's face it, our experience is not typical. Moreover, it's not typical of a lot of self-described cultural conservatives. It doesn't really matter what kind of jobs the men have, even technical or managerial ones; they just don't see women at work, except in clerical positions.

I do not agree at all. Not even a little bit. I'm in the courtroom, or at another law office, or at a client's office everyday if not several times a day. Women have been peers, bosses, clients and partners of mine for decades. Women in law and business are ubiquitous.

What do you mean?

I mean, you don't have to be excited about it, but does that make people who are excited about it wrong somehow?

I mean I don't get the fixation with plumbing or pigmentation. I wasn't amazed when Colin Powell was Secretary of State and Condoleeza Rice was National Security Advisor. I don't get people who think being female, black, what have you is a qualification or reason for supporting someone.

If Carly Fiorina was the Republican nominee and if she got elected, I'd be happy, but it wouldn't have anything to do with her being a woman.

And I think the Doc's post has a lot to do with identity politics. I'm not a fan of that outlook.

[cleek]

I shot that down.

well, i know you think you did.

and, let me point out that you erected that "identity politics goalpost".

*Identity politics* is all about race, gender and culture (oddly defined), not about philosophy.

no, it's about identity, however the group in question defines it.

i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics noun noun: identity politics

a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.

I have no issue with anyone self describing as conservative, moderate, liberal, whatever. That's what most of us want to know. And it has nothing to do with identity.

it has everything to do with identity. because how you "self describe" is how you identify yourself. and when you make your identity the basis for your politics you are engaging in...

[McKinneyTexas]

Cleek, we are splitting hairs. I think your take on identity politics is closer to what I've always thought of coalition politics. Regardless, if we can't agree on a definition, it's hard to move beyond that.

[Girl from the North Country]

Well McKinney, some slight degree of misunderstanding. I thought your "all disordered personalities at the assaultive end" meant that you thought that all rapists/assaulters had disordered personalities. Actually, that doesn't seem all that far from what you think, as explained in 04.52 above.

I very much do not think you are indifferent to crimes against women, the elderly, the infirm, the exposed, the challenged. It is crystal clear that you are not. But I think what your definition of rape leaves out is the fact that many men, rather than "fully expecting that she will not consent", don't care whether she consents or not, because they do not see her as a person with agency, or equal capacity: their attitude is that women exist for the convenience of men, and can be assaulted, insulted and threatened with impunity. Powerful women, by definition, are a threat to this kind of thinking, which is why, for example, almost any prominent woman on twitter is regularly threatened with rape and injury, in these "current times, current locations".

I wish only disordered men thought this way, but I don't believe it is so. Attitudes to these matters have slowly improved, but in your country and mine we have high-profile cases currently in the news where rapists who raped unconscious women still claim that it wasn't rape, and plenty of people agree with them.

I don't think having a woman President will get rid of these attitudes overnight. My Thatcher example was to show that boy-children born under the regime of a female Prime Minister or President may grow up with a different and less contemptuous attitude towards women.

[cleek]

fine. but since it sounds like you want basically define IP to mean "the stuff liberals do", then saying "identity politics is a big part of the left's program" is a tautology.

[Marty]

" But I think what your definition of rape leaves out is the fact that many men, rather than "fully expecting that she will not consent", don't care whether she consents or not, because they do not see her as a person with agency, or equal capacity: their attitude is that women exist for the convenience of men, and can be assaulted, insulted and threatened with impunity."

I would be inclined to agree with this statement if I understood a definition of "many men" in context. What proportion of men would be included in many.

[McKinneyTexas]

the fact that many men, rather than "fully expecting that she will not consent", don't care whether she consents or not, because they do not see her as a person with agency, or equal capacity: their attitude is that women exist for the convenience of men, and can be assaulted, insulted and threatened with impunity. Powerful women, by definition, are a threat to this kind of thinking, which is why, for example, almost any prominent woman on twitter is regularly threatened with rape and injury, in these "current times, current locations".

Ok, we may not be on the same page when I talk about "features of a disorder". Having deposed and interviewed a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists, my take on conventional psychiatric thinking is that everyone exhibits behaviors that, unchecked and unmitigated by compensatory offsets, would be a "feature" of a disorder. Usually, to diagnose a disorder, a stated number of features have to be diagnosed under circumstances within parameters spelled out by the DSM IV.

If someone has a particular feature of a sociopathic disorder, for example, that inhibits his/her ability to see members of the opposite sex as human, or fully human, that feature can look to an observer like part of an attitude.

A man who sees women as "a person with[out] agency, or equal capacity" and who can be "assaulted, insulted and threatened with impunity" isn't just a boor; he is ill to some degree. The thought process, if you can call it that, by which someone plans and executed on any kind of assaultive behavior is not that of a rationale, adjusted personality. I'm not saying people who do that are excused or that they lack agency. They know what they are doing and they know they are not supposed to do what they are doing. Yet, they do it anyway and don't--are not capable of caring--how it injures their victim.

I am talking about the discrete topic of rape/sexual assault carried out regardless of consent and despite lack of consent. This is one subset of many behaviors.

Let's take a lesser but plainly offensive and out of bounds act: casually slapping a woman's buttocks. That scene is played over and over again in movies, and it suggests that some circumstances allow this kind of liberty. I've seen this happen only once and that was more than forty years ago. But, it strikes me as the product of a lesser form of the attitude you imply above. I have no idea how prevalent that attitude is. I suspect there is a high socioeconomic correlation.

As for prominent women being threatened anonymously with rape, I am very comfortable projecting that the vast majority of assholes who do that have, at a minimum, features of one or more psychological conditions.

A lot of what I used to think was people just being assholes is actually documented by the DSM IV as being something more than that. Does that excuse them or make them any less of asocial douche bags? Not in my book. They are fair game for all manner of ass-whippings if you can ever get them to come out in the open.

[Girl from the North Country]

Oh Marty, I don't have a definition, and I knew that when I wrote it. But more than enough, that's for sure. What are the US rape statistics?

You don't have this attitude, probably partly because of what you saw when you were young and the effect it had on you, and McKinney doesn't have it either because he too is a decent guy, and moreover sees many smart, capable women in positions of authority during his working life, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of them out there, maybe fewer than there used to be but still a damn sight too many.

And while discussing rapists, we are forgetting the many, many men who insult, despise and threaten women, but don't do anything about it. I stick by my point: having a female President will affect the attitudes of boys growing up, and make it harder for them to think of women as lesser.

[wj]

the pivotal element is that a man takes it upon himself to have sex with a woman fully expecting that she will not consent.

I don't think that this is correct in a significant portion of the cases. There was a recent case in this area of a student athlete at Stanford named Brock Turner who raped a fellow student. (It is all over the news because he got a slap-on-the-wrist sentence of 6 months.) I came across a column, by someone who lives in the Dayton, Ohio suburb where he grew up, noting that a lot of kids there never get told "No."

I think that, if you have that kind of life experience, the possibility that someone could say No to you and mean it (assuming that they are even conscious) is simply inconcievable. It isn't a matter of, as you put it, expecting to be told no and not caring. It is a matter of being unable to expect anything but yes.

Does that constitute a mental disorder? I am having trouble believing that a psychologist would make such a diagnosis (absent being hired as a witness for the defense, of course).

[McKinneyTexas]

I stick by my point: having a female President will affect the attitudes of boys growing up, and make it harder for them to think of women as lesser.

Particularly if she is a competent and successful president.

[hairshirthedonist]

I mean I don't get the fixation with plumbing or pigmentation. I wasn't amazed when Colin Powell was Secretary of State and Condoleeza Rice was National Security Advisor. I don't get people who think being female, black, what have you is a qualification or reason for supporting someone.

If Carly Fiorina was the Republican nominee and if she got elected, I'd be happy, but it wouldn't have anything to do with her being a woman.

And I think the Doc's post has a lot to do with identity politics. I'm not a fan of that outlook.

Then you don't think there's anything historic about the first black president in a country that once allowed the legal enslavement exclusively of black people? You don't think there's anything historic about the first woman major-party presidential candidate in a country where women once weren't allowed to vote or own land?

Then you don't see that what you call "identity politics" is the recognition of the historical exclusion of particular groups of people and that said exclusion is what created that which you call "identity politics." Essentially, anyone who advocates for or rejoices in the increased rights and opportunities of people who have been discriminated against is the real discriminator.

Perhaps that's not where you're coming from, but it's hard for me not to see it that way. You appear to be hostile to someone being happy about these firsts in our history, rather than simply not being particularly happy about them, yourself. It's not that you're not openly celebratory, but that you go at least a little out of your way to poo-poo the idea.

[Marty]

And while discussing rapists, we are forgetting the many, many men who insult, despise and threaten women, but don't do anything about it. I stick by my point: having a female President will affect the attitudes of boys growing up, and make it harder for them to think of women as lesser.

My head exploded with trying to process these two points that evoke a completely different reaction.

First, lets not forget the many women who insult, despise and threaten men, they are incredibly good at doing emotional damage while "not doing anything".

Second, I think that having a view of successful women does impact the view boys, and girls, have of women. I think that encouraging boys and girls to have a diverse set of people they look up to is instrumental in shaping a world view that allows them to see themselves being successful, and happy and cared for and worthy of all those things.

[McKinneyTexas]

[Does that constitute a mental disorder?

Reread the part about 'features'.

I don't think that this is correct in a significant portion of the cases.

I don't think the rape in question is representative of the class of assaultive behavior I was addressing, which as I made clear, is on a range of behaviors.

To illustrate, many of us have difficulty, to one degree or another, with impulse control and that difficulty can be mitigated or aggravated by environmental and other factors. I didn't research the details of the specific offense your linked to, so I don't know whether the rapist was impaired when he assaulted his victim. I don't know if he played a role in bringing about her intoxication. And, I'm not a qualified mental health care professional. It looks to me--hip shooting--like an opportunistic and to some degree impulsive act that may have been in part due to some degree of impairment. In other words, it was volitional but not a premeditated act of the type I tried to describe upthread. What kind of kid the rapist is ordinarily is hard to say. What he did merits a hell of a lot more than 6 months probated.

[McKinneyTexas]

Then you don't think there's anything historic about the first black president in a country that once allowed the legal enslavement exclusively of black people? You don't think there's anything historic about the first woman major-party presidential candidate in a country where women once weren't allowed to vote or own land?

No, not really. Because the history that allowed that to happen had already been made. By the mid-90's, both a black and a female president were simply a matter of time. The relatively modern history I think of as "historic" began in 1954 and ended in the mid to late 90's.

Essentially, anyone who advocates for or rejoices in the increased rights and opportunities of people who have been discriminated against is the real discriminator.

No, not at all.

You appear to be hostile to someone being happy about these firsts in our history, rather than simply not being particularly happy about them, yourself.

Not 'getting something' is not the same as being hostile to something, although I am hostile to the notion that sex, gender, culture or skin color carry with it some inherent or intrinsic value. I don't think I've said anything different on the topic.

[Tony P.]

McTX: But, if the best you can do is head counting, and if that is how we are going to pick our next president--because it's a girl's turn this time--then just say so.

McKinney,

I will not insult you by assuming you were sober when you wrote that.

Now, about this "identity" versus "coalition" business:
Is "Christian" an identity, in your view? Or is it a coalition?

You can dismiss the question if you like, but whenever people start to argue about definitions, my first impulse is to examine specific examples. If you and I (or cleek and I) point to the same flower and disagree about whether it fits the dictionary definition of "rose", we are giving each other a hint about our own definition of "rose". That can only help, if our goal is to communicate with each other.

--TP

[hairshirthedonist]

Yeah, well, my wife and I had already conceived our kids and she had already gestated them, but we were still excited when they were born.

So because we didn't go straight from slavery to a black president in an instant, just "feh?"

[Countme-In]

Let's ask a professional:

"Joe the Plumber,” the Ohio workingman who came to symbolize U.S. taxpayer frustration in the 2008 presidential election, is still angry. And like many angry voters, he likes insurgent Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump — in part because the New York billionaire dated attractive women."

'What did Joe (the Plumber) say? According to the upper-middle class business owner, “Wanting a white Republican President doesn’t make you racist,’ it just ‘makes you American.”'

[ckc (not kc)]

I stick by my point: having a female President will affect the attitudes of boys growing up, and make it harder for them to think of women as lesser.

Particularly if she is a competent and successful president.

Congress will surely help her with that.

[hairshirthedonist]

... I am hostile to the notion that sex, gender, culture or skin color carry with it some inherent or intrinsic value.

I'm hostile to the notion that people should pour gasoline on me and light me on fire. Since no one has suggested such a thing, I've kept that to myself.

[Countme-In]

"No, not when every option was a male."

Every option could have been an electrician or a blacksmith too, and it would still have been about the plumbing.

As Abigail Adams said to John Adams, with some heat:

"When I read your Constitution, I want to call a plumber."

"I am hostile to the notion that sex, gender, culture or skin color carry with it some inherent or intrinsic value."

I'm sure this is true, as it is with Marty, which is only proof that we need some conservative Republicans to argue with around here.

;)

[Countme-In]

Much of the Republican primary debates involved
laying pipe:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/a-new-low-for-the-republican-debate-the-size-of-trumps-penis-20160304-gnawji.html

I'd counsel Hillary Clinton to show up at the Fall debates with an adjustable pipe wrench.

[Countme-In]

Even some of the dickless are dicks:

https://fearofignorance.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/ann-coulter-on-womens-suffrage/

Ann Coulter should be obscene and not heard.

[Countme-In]

In that last link, Coulter even fantasizes about pipes and plumbing:

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine ..."

One of personal fantasies is Ann Coulter drinking Draino.

[Davebo]

McKinney

appearing before as many female judges as male judges and using far more female arbitrators and mediators than males

Just curious, did you ever appear before Ruby Sondock either as a judge or arbitrator? At 90 she's still at it and she doesn't look a day over 75!

[wj]

by the mid-90's, both a black and a female President were simply a matter of time.

That may be true in some sense. But I submit that, to rather a lot of our fellow citizens, such a future was (and is) no cause for anything but regret. Or horror. Assuming that they could wrap their heads around the idea at all -- until reality, in the form of an election (with Obama) or nomination (with Clinton; and I'm not sure but that some will not accept reality until after the election) forced them to do so.

McKinney, we may not share their view. But it cannot be denied that it, and they, exist. And their numbers are not trivially small - - as the Trump campaign (and Trump's past birther campaign) demonstrate.

[cleek]

"identity politics" are what non-default types engage in.

and what's the deal with Jackie Robinson? nobody remembers the name of the first white guy to win Rookie Of The Year. skin color, shmin color, i say.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Is "heterosexual" an "identity" or a "coalition", also, too?

I, for one, look forward to the 2024 election, when the Demonrats nominate a transgender Native American, and the Trupublicans nominate a small lump of green putty they found in their armpit.

[russell]

I don't get this fixation with plumbing. Sorry.

LOL.

Anyway, I just thought I'd take a moment to offer a shout out to Margaret Chase Smith, who ran a credible campaign for POTUS as a (R) in 1964, and Shirley Chisholm (a woman AND black) who did the same as a (D) in 1972 IIRC.

Neither received the nomination, but they ran, and both were placed in nomination at their conventions.

Chase Smith's "Declaration Of Conscience" is good reading, to this day. I recommend it to you all.

God, I miss those sensible, decent (R)'s of yore. Whippersnappers of today like to yap about "Burkean conservatism", those folks walked the walk. They salted their privilege with a true sense of responsibility. They grasped the "oblige" part of noblesse oblige.

But I digress. In any case, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, whatever it is we do.

As far as fixations with "identity", all politics is identity politics.

All politics is identity politics.

Political life, and the political process, is the negotiation between different groups of people to secure their various interests. And what defines the boundary of the "group" is some common sense of identity.

Preferably by peaceful means, but not everyone is as lucky as we are in their political heritage and institutions.

Black, white, male, female, urban, rural, young, old, rich, poor, educated, not so educated, professional, blue collar, married, single.

Soccer mom, Joe six-pack, urban elite, heartland American.

All identities.

All politics is identity politics.

Less than 100 years ago, women couldn't even vote. Because of their "plumbing".

Yes, it's a big f**king deal that Clinton is the (D) candidate for POTUS, and I can only believe the McK is being deliberately contrary in disputing that.

[russell]

I think that encouraging boys and girls to have a diverse set of people they look up to is instrumental in shaping a world view that allows them to see themselves being successful, and happy and cared for and worthy of all those things.

What Marty said.

[Countme-In]

He didn't call in The Plumbers for nothing:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/Funny-Presidential-Quotes/a/Richard-Nixon-Quotes.htm

Regarding differences in plumbing anatomy: Vive la Difference!

Notwithstanding that, (or maybe withstanding it) you know, here's another difference between men and women, typified by the invocation of plumbing on this thread.

Human anatomy was the farthest thing from Doc Science's mind when she wrote this post.

Because she's a woman.

I mean, there's a side of me that wishes women (That side of me recedes as time passes, like my hairline) thought about human plumbing in everyday conversation as much as it is on the tip of men's tongues (oh, stop!) at all times, but that's not how most women roll.

A cigar is just a cigar no matter how many times Groucho waggled his at Margaret Dumont.

Only a guy could read Doc's post and fear that he is about to be roto-rootered ... again.

Only a guy -- and here I am --- could read
"We made this, this history. We built it, together", and think, well, there they go again, kicking me in the junk.

The double entendre was NOT supplied by Doctor Science.

True, we've experienced a bit of a vagina monologue these last couple of decades, and hooray for that, but what do we think that the preceding eons of human history was -- some kind of penis "dialogue"!

Also, vagina and penis are metaphors in that context, ya know?

That said, all ye who seek hope, enter here. I give you "Hon":

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=photo+of+hon+by+niki+de+saint+phalle&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maedchen-bremerhaven.de%2Fniki_phalle-Dateien%2Fslide0005_image010.jpg#id=5&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maedchen-bremerhaven.de%2Fniki_phalle-Dateien%2Fslide0005_image010.jpg&action=click

I just happen to be reading a couple of books about the artist Niki de Saint Phalle.

There was a bar therein, along with an aquarium, a a planetarium, and a 12-seat cinema showing films starring Greta Garbo.

The installation no longer exists, but if it did, McKT and I would be sitting at the bar.

So would Marty and the rest of us.

Donald Trump and his ragtag bunch of Republican identity hate political followers wouldn't be.

They'd be rousting Jews and Mexicans out of the museum bathrooms.

[McKinneyTexas]

Now, about this "identity" versus "coalition" business:
Is "Christian" an identity, in your view? Or is it a coalition?

Fair question. When used in the political context, "I am a strong Christian and will vote my values", it's an identity. Not a recognized identity for the purpose of Diversity, but an identity nonetheless.

I'm hostile to the notion that people should pour gasoline on me and light me on fire. Since no one has suggested such a thing, I've kept that to myself.

Then you probably think that the slice of the Left that fixates on Diversity is way off base.

Just curious, did you ever appear before Ruby Sondock either as a judge or arbitrator? At 90 she's still at it and she doesn't look a day over 75!

Judge Sondock swore me into the bar in November, 1980. I appeared in her court often back in the 80's and have since mediated with her a dozen times or so. Was not aware she is still active. Good to know.

But I submit that, to rather a lot of our fellow citizens, such a future was (and is) no cause for anything but regret. Or horror.

No offense, but this is thinking in cliche. Sarah Palin is the darling of the very people to whom you impute this thinking. If McCain had won--he was never in the running--the troglodytes would have beat the Progressives to the punch.

and what's the deal with Jackie Robinson? nobody remembers the name of the first white guy to win Rookie Of The Year. skin color, shmin color, i say.

Yes, that is a good example of ground-breaking history. Then and now, two very different times.

All politics is identity politics.

Political life, and the political process, is the negotiation between different groups of people to secure their various interests. And what defines the boundary of the "group" is some common sense of identity.

Preferably by peaceful means, but not everyone is as lucky as we are in their political heritage and institutions.

Black, white, male, female, urban, rural, young, old, rich, poor, educated, not so educated, professional, blue collar, married, single.

Soccer mom, Joe six-pack, urban elite, heartland American.

All identities.

All politics is identity politics.

This is a not-so-subtle form of tuo quoque. It inferentially concedes that the Left, or a good portion of it, practices a very definite form of Identity Politics known as Diversity, and then seeks to excuse that practice by saying 'everyone does it'. I don't buy it.

Diversity on the Left consists of three basic elements: sex/gender, race and Culture (as defined by the Diversity specialists). Diversity permeates politics on the Left and much of academia, both as a spoils system and as areas of purported academic inquiry (black studies, women's studies, etc).

Diversity on the Left is an arbitrary, limited category of selectively defined, historical victim-hood with the ostensible goal of remediation. These are the "Identities" that make up left wing Identity Politics. Diversity is the opposite of inclusive because its goal is to secure participation based the Left's self-selected factors regardless of any other factors. When a Leftie decries the lack of Diversity, he/she means the lack of color or sex/gender. Nothing else is ever meant.

Yes, it's a big f**king deal that Clinton is the (D) candidate for POTUS, and I can only believe the McK is being deliberately contrary in disputing that.

Really? This is a big surprise? No one saw this coming? I did. A female president has been only a matter of time for some time. That HRC has now secured what has been a foregone conclusion since 2008 is barely noteworthy. She was supposed to have won back in 2008. That was the plan. This whole Kabuki play is silly. This act of historical drama has been in the works for at least a dozen years. A bunch of lefties running around, congratulating themselves for doing what they set out to do with no real dissent until Bernie came along is just silly. But for Bernie, HRC would have run unopposed. That's not swimming against the tide of history and overcoming structural obstacles, that's a preordained outcome. And, in this case, preordained by conscious, single-minded planning and execution by HRC and the DNC for years.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I, for one applaud the GOP's steady progression in going from nominating "once divorced" old straight white men (Reagan, McCain), to "twice divorced" old straight white men (Trump).

Baby steps.

[McKinneyTexas]

I, for one applaud the GOP's steady progression in going from nominating "once divorced" old straight white men (Reagan, McCain), to "twice divorced" old straight white men (Trump)

So, you want to match Bill and Hillary's marriage against Trump and McCain? Go for it.

[hairshirthedonist]

Really? This is a big surprise? No one saw this coming?

Who said anything about a big surprise (or anything about being a good candidate only because of plumbing, while we're at it)?

Were you surprised on your wedding day, or had you planned it for some time? Did the fact that you knew it was coming make you roll your eyes with boredom?

There comes a moment where the thing you've been working for (not necessarily you, McKinney) actually happens - not just becomes possible or likely, but happens. Call it culmination or fruition or whatever.

Hillary didn't win the nomination in 2008. She won it in the last few days.

No one is shocked by it. Some people are just excited because it's not just a possibility but a reality.

I can't help but think you're being particularly dense about this for some reason. Sorry.

[cleek]

That HRC has now secured what has been a foregone conclusion since 2008 is barely noteworthy. She was supposed to have won back in 2008.

foregone conclusions don't usually take two attempts and several years of hard-fought battles.

[john (not mccain)]

"So, you want to match Bill and Hillary's marriage against Trump and McCain? Go for it."

I'm all for matching success against failure, the living against the dead.

[hairshirthedonist]

foregone conclusions don't usually take two attempts and several years of hard-fought battles.

Right. And from the OP:

This has been, if anything, a longer road.

[hairshirthedonist]

If someone were to say, "Even though this is historically significant, I can't get too excited about it because I really dislike Hillary Clinton" I could at least understand it. This sooner-or-later inevitability and historical-vacuum plumbing-obsession stuff, not so much.

[McKinneyTexas]

If someone were to say, "Even though this is historically significant, I can't get too excited about it because I really dislike Hillary Clinton" I could at least understand it. This sooner-or-later inevitability and historical-vacuum plumbing-obsession stuff, not so much.

That's just diversity for you. Not everyone sees things the same way. I don't remember a post here at ObWi back when Palin got the nod saying, "I really don't like her, but history is being made".

I'm not criticizing. I didn't think her plumbing mattered then and I don't think it matters now.

History was made in 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro ran as Veep candidate with Mondale. That was a pretty big deal.

But, since 1984, a female has had the potential to assume the presidency. HRC's deal is a coronation, from the viewpoint of someone not in the lefty fold. Not a hard fought battle until Bernie came along and even then it was a foregone conclusion. On the historical scale, I give it a 3. A 'first' but a 'first' that everyone saw coming 8 years ago.

[Tony P.]

McTX: Diversity on the Left consists of three basic elements: sex/gender, race and Culture (as defined by the Diversity specialists).

Okay, McKinney: now I have to assume that you're writing this stuff sober.

Your contempt for "Diversity on the Left" must have a flip side. What is it? Approval of "Uniformity on the Right", or what?

Or do you merely object to the 3 particular "elements" as you reasonably accurately define them?

Would you contempt for "The Left" go down if us lefties included "Christian studies" in our demands, or made a big deal about plumbers being under-represented in a Congress full of lawyers?

Aside from acquiescence in the status quo ante, wherein every important institution in society was almost entirely composed of hetero Anglo men, what can "The Left" do to get out from under your "Diversity" bashing?

--TP

[hairshirthedonist]

I don't remember a post here at ObWi back when Palin got the nod saying, "I really don't like her, but history is being made".

Because?

History was made in 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro ran as Veep candidate with Mondale. That was a pretty big deal.

---------------------

HRC's deal is a coronation, from the viewpoint of someone not in the lefty fold.

You'll get no argument from me that she was the establishment/DNC pick in both 2016 and 2008. But, even then, the fact that a major party would choose to "coronate" a woman is evidence of real progress, and that voters would ultimately support is as well.

And it finally happened, recently enough that the time that has passed since can still reasonably be measured in hours.

[McKinneyTexas]

Aside from acquiescence in the status quo ante, wherein every important institution in society was almost entirely composed of hetero Anglo men, what can "The Left" do to get out from under your "Diversity" bashing?

Time permitting, I would do a guest Post on this topic.

But, even then, the fact that a major party would choose to "coronate" a woman is evidence of real progress, and that voters would ultimately support is as well.

And it finally happened, recently enough that the time that has passed since can still reasonably be measured in hours.

I get that y'all are glowing about this. To me, a done deal isn't progress. It is the result of progress that was made years ago. But, I'm repeating myself.

The 'big boys' quit excluding women back in the 80's. Picking someone to make history whose leading qualification is marriage to a former president as an entree into the senate and then a presidential appt as SecState really doesn't seem all that much of a much. Not to me, a 'small c' conservative outsider. But, hey, Party On!

History is TX Repub's electing and reelecting African American and Hispanic Supreme Court justices in state wide races. And sending a female to the US Senate. As a Republican.

What's historical about that is that no one noticed or commented on it.

[cleek]

I don't get this fixation with melanin content. Sorry.

[jeff]

I suppose it is too late to play a tune for Bernie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCBgBXZeORc&list=RDcCBgBXZeORc&index=1

[bobbyp]

If, as has been asserted, the 'coronation' of ms. Clinton is 'no big deal', then it is easier to segue to "women's rights is also a done deal" and "there is no need to discuss feminism any more" and "if you do, you are just engaging in identity politics".

Naughty us.

[Girl from the North Country]

Essentially, anyone who advocates for or rejoices in the increased rights and opportunities of people who have been discriminated against is the real discriminator. Can't remember who said this, trying to restate McKT's viewpoint. HSH?

McKinney No, not at all.

And yet:

McKT: What I don't get is why it is ok to say "prefer X over Y because X is a woman" but not ok to say "prefer Y over X because Y is a man?"

McKT: Treating plumbing, pigmentation or some other identity marker as having some kind of intrinsic value separate from a person's character, skills, intelligence, etc validates making invidious decisions for the same reason. You can't have it both ways: women, as one example, can't have 'special positives' as a result of plumbing and escape being saddled with 'special negatives'. In other words, it makes no sense to maintain that non-white, straight male, identity connotes only positive attributes. Put differently, the business of imputing characteristics based on identity is racist/sexist.

McKinney, at the risk of flogging this dead horse to Dodge and back: we are rejoicing in the milestone of a member of a previously discriminated against group achieving something hitherto never achieved by a member of that group. It is not to do with HRC's "characteristics", as you put it, it is because she belongs to the group "women". You have appeared to be saying at various stages that this makes us sexist, because we are implicitly discriminating against the group "men".

[Girl from the North Country]

History is TX Repub's electing and reelecting African American and Hispanic Supreme Court justices in state wide races. And sending a female to the US Senate. As a Republican.

Hip hip hooray! (meant completely sincerely)

[cleek]

speaking of historic women, it's a bit of a tradition in Rochester NY for women to take their little "I Voted" stickers and stick them on the gravestone of Susan B Anthony.

if Clinton wins in November, i imagine that stone is going to be absolutely covered.

[McKinneyTexas]

I don't get this fixation with melanin content. Sorry.

You are right. I'll dial it back.

Naughty us.

So, the parade of horribles. Work place discrimination exists in a variety of forms. We need anti-discrimination laws and they need to be enforced. Conceding this does not concede that we need Social Justice Hall Monitors and surprise on-the-job visits from the Diversity Corp to keep everyone in line. You, and others (except TP), attempt to soft pedal the fixation on the Big Three. It's there. And it's way over done. Way over done. And very divisive.

You have appeared to be saying at various stages that this makes us sexist, because we are implicitly discriminating against the group "men".

I don't think I've been unclear at all. I've identified a number of aspects of the Diversity fixation that are discriminatory and racist. I've done so in aid of questioning the hoo-rah surrounding this entirely predictable event. And, if my point isn't as clear as I thought it was, even if the celebration is, itself, benign, a lot of the intellectual baggage underlying the celebration is anything but benign.

Let me put it a different way. If my candidate, C Fiorina, got the nomination on the Repub side, the last think I'd think about was that she was a woman *other* than to take some comfort that the righties had stolen a little of the lefties' thunder. In terms of history or 'one small step for woman, blah, blah, blah', not, not a big deal. Not today. Back then, yes, but not today. Still, that's just me. Party on.

[Marty]

For no real reason other than it's lunchtime.

I can understand a more specific objection to the excitement over HRC's nomination simply because she started her campaign shaming women who were not for her. There was a lot of "vote for me because I am a woman" and if you're a woman you should want me to win. Both broadly implied and specifically stated.

In fact, it takes a little of the luster off of the historical event that her negatives are so high and she ran essentially unopposed and still managed to make a race out of it. Bernie created a lot of noise, but the race was called based on super delegate count after NY.

Hillary is the heir apparent in the Clinton dynasty. I am not sure she cracks it open for another woman.

I feel a lot the same way about Obama, I am not sure either one of them blew a very big hole in the glass ceiling. He was the black candidate that was only blackish, and groomed in the Chicago machine to be the black candidate that the white people could get behind. And he really only had to beat Hillary.

So I believe that history is yet to be made. It needs a woman/person of color to go through a 6 or 7 person primary season and win the debates and beat strong challengers, then take it to the other parties candidate in the general to solidify that gain.

[wj]

HRC's deal is a coronation, from the viewpoint of someone not in the lefty fold. Not a hard fought battle until Bernie came along and even then it was a foregone conclusion.

Yes, and it was expected to be a coronation in 2008. And not at all expected to be hard fought . . . until Obama came along.

Foregone conclusions are not always what they seem in retrospect.

[McKinneyTexas]

Hillary is the heir apparent in the Clinton dynasty. I am not sure she cracks it open for another woman.

I wish I had said this and everything else in this comment with one exception:

So I believe that history is yet to be made. It needs a woman/person of color to go through a 6 or 7 person primary season and win the debates and beat strong challengers, then take it to the other parties candidate in the general to solidify that gain.

I would run this up my historical scale from HRC's 3 to a 7. We may be a decade or so from having a large enough base of sufficiently experienced females for female candidates to be the norm and not the exception.

The foregoing was not meant to be perjorative. Men are currently over-represented at the upper echelons of business and politics. That is changing and will continue to change and with that change, there will be more highly visible female heavy hitters in all manner of public life and commerce, setting the stage for more and more women to compete for the presidency.

[wj]

If my candidate, C Fiorina, got the nomination on the Repub side, the last think I'd think about was that she was a woman *other* than to take some comfort that the righties had stolen a little of the lefties' thunder.

I'm seriously curious about this. What did you see in Fiorina that made you prefer her? I not only watched her Senate campaign in California, I was close by when she was nearly destroying Hewlett-Packard. And I'm trying to figure out what the attraction might have been. What had she accomplished, or what had she advocated that others did not?

Can you help me out here?

[hairshirthedonist]

I get that y'all are glowing about this.

Honestly, I'm not all that excited about it, myself. Despite the historic nature of a woman becoming a major-party presidential candidate, Hillary is, policy-wise, in line with the general status quo of the last several decades - a status quo I'm not thrilled with. I'll be voting for her come November, in no small part because Trump's candidacy is an utter absurdity, but I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the choice.

All that said, I understand that her presumptive nomination is a big deal historically and why people might be excited about, so I see no need to begrudge them that. I'd probably be joining in the hoopla were, say, Elizabeth Warren the nominee. (I'm sure you'd love that, McKinney!)

[Countme-In]

"And, in this case, preordained by conscious, single-minded planning and execution by HRC and the DNC for years."

It's about time the Democratic Party became an organized political party.

"He was the black candidate that was only blackish ..."

Mano-manischevitz

Willie Horton was the authentic black Democratic candidate preferred by Republicans.

I full expect Hillary Clinton to be referred as "mannish" by some fake Republican CIA operative between now and November because she is alleged to have worn a strap-on during State Department briefings.

[McKinneyTexas]

(I'm sure you'd love that, McKinney!)

It would give us something to talk about. First Native American President!!! History in the making!!!!

It's about time the Democratic Party became an organized political party.

If the Repubs had the Dem's discipline and organization, either Trump would have never gotten the nomination or he'd be the next president.

I full expect Hillary Clinton to be referred as "mannish" by some fake Republican CIA operative between now and November because she is alleged to have worn a strap-on during State Department briefings.

I'd be hoping, if I were an HRC fan, that Repub operatives and everyone else won't someday be referring to HRC as 'Defendant.'

[cleek]

I'd be hoping, if I were an HRC fan, that Repub operatives and everyone else won't someday be referring to HRC as 'Defendant.'

i believe Mr Trump has already claimed that title.

[McKinneyTexas]

i believe Mr Trump has already claimed that title.

He's been under indictment? Did not know that.

Are you talking about a civil lawsuit? Meh. Bill beat him to that decades ago.

[bobbyp]

The foregoing was not meant to be perjorative. Men are currently over-represented at the upper echelons of business and politics.

Understood...and...YES. That's why extremists like me will continue to keep the heat on.

[McKinneyTexas]

Understood...and...YES. That's why extremists like me will continue to keep the heat on.

No need. It's a self correcting problem if the adults among us will remind the youngsters now matriculating to shut up about safe places and 'get your ass to work'.

[bobbyp]

Well, that's the problem. It's not necessarily "self-correcting", and/or many see the self correcting process as not proceeding fast enough....after all, it's a problem, no?

How would you like to be told, "Yes, we know your wages are 80% of your male fellow workers, but we're working on it. Trust us."

You'd probably run screaming to some shyster lawyer.

And yelling at people to "get to work" is simply over the line. :)

[bobbyp]

Are conservatives secret Stakhanovites?

Perhaps we could have a guest post on that!

[wj]

It seems like, if the problem(s) was "self-correcting," it would have corrected itself already. Which, manifestly, it has not.

Yes, there have been significant strides made. But the problem is nowhere near fixed. Plus, I'm far from convinced that this sort of problem is really self-correcting. Where is change inherent in the problem or its obvious impacts?