J. Soltys's Weblog

June 12, 2008

Answering My Critics

After I wrote my two part article on why sexism was not a reason Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for president, it was picked up by Fox News. This sent my average daily blog numbers skyrocketing. In its wake, I was left with many negative comments, most of them coming in the e-mail form rather than being posted in the comment section at the end of the article. I guess people do not like to see their darker side displayed in a public forum. It seems it is so much easier to write, “J. Soltys, Fuck You!” in a private e-mail instead of displaying it in a public forum in order to protect one’s “good girl” image.

But I promise not to let myself get sidetracked to often on differences of opinion like this. What I mean is that I have a personal rule I follow when posting an article. And that is to let comments that are posted in response to my articles go without debate by me.
The main reason I do this is out of respect for fairness and true equality. I reason that if I have the opportunity to write my thoughts, feelings, and opinions in this forum, then I must honor those that either agree or disagree, and allow their thoughts and opinions to be expressed without interference. I have the power to block or remove any comment, but I choose not to do so unless it is filled with vulgarity, or links to what I feel are disturbing websites.
The exception to my interference would be if an individual placed misleading or inaccurate information about a topic that I felt needed a rebuttal. Then I would challenge something that is posted in the comments section.
E-mails sent to me I assume are meant to be private conversation between me and that person. However, anything that comes into my mailbox is essentially my property and I have a right to use it if I feel it is worth sharing. In most cases however, I will not.

Another reason I do not respond to countering opinions on my blog is because I’ve seen on other bloggers get easily trapped into a “pissing contest” with some people. It consumes most of the bloggers time, and in the end, the blog suffers because of it. I’ve never seen a good outcome for either the instigator or the blogger. Therefore I take a casual approach, and let others have their say, and leave it to the reader make up his or her opinion.

This is one of those times when I am going to break my own rule. Some of the criticism I received was way out of line, and I feel it needs serious rebuttal. In fact, I’m wondering if some actually read what I wrote because it appears their criticism contradicts what I wrote.

Most of the harshest criticism of me and my article came in the e-mail form. And most of it can be summed up this way:
You are:
sexist, misogynist, hypocrite, women hater, caveman, idiot, jerk, stupid, asshole, just like all the rest, no better, etc., etc., etc.
In response to those people, yes. At times I have been accused of all those things, but the charges never seem to stick.

Now that the easy part is out of the way, let’s get to those that actually put some serious thought into their responses and tried to argue that I was somehow missing the bigger picture.

This response was from Dee in the comments section:

I am no hillary, fan, but I am a black american and it really pains me to read the hate trash that people like you write. As a woman I would think that you do not owe hillary anything but as a woman you do owe the gender a little respect when someone is doing their best. No hillary is not perfect, but I have never read or heard her speak so negatatively and hateful against another woman as you and the media and other bloggers trying to make a name for him or herself regardless of whom is hurt.

Thanks for your opinion Dee, but I’m sure you realize I will have to disagree.
To sum up your response: I wrote something really offensive, not just about Hillary but about the female gender in general. And in doing so, I disrespected women. You also say Hillary is not perfect, just human, and that I’m just trying to make a name for myself.

First, let me talk about my ego and trying to make a name for myself. I started writing about gender issues from the male perspective about one year ago. At that time I had my own website, but chose this platform for convenience. After a year of doing this, I can tell you that it is not a path to fame and fortune. If I wanted fame and fortune, I would have tried out for the television show American Idol or Apprentice, or have stayed up late one night and had my choice of choosing what program I was going to use to “make a million dollars in one month with no money down” from the many late night infomercials. I can assure you those paths seem an easier road to fame and fortune rather than writing about gender issues on a blog.
I do this because I believe I have an opinion to offer. Not always the right opinion, but not always the wrong one either. I offer an opinion from the male perspective on gender issues because feminism has generated many unjustified and unqualified negative perceptions of men and masculinity. The negative image of men and fathers has been entrenched in society for some time now; some of it is understandable, but a good portion is also just irresponsible. If the genders were reversed, these irresponsible images and portrayals would cause outrage from coast to coast. But since the negative images are of men and fathers, nobody really cares. However, a small band of brothers like myself have taken to writing about these negative stereotypes, the contradictions, and the hypocrisies displayed by feminism and society, and offer a countering opinion to the general public.

I had no intention of writing about Hillary’s loss. As I mentioned in the article, I wrote about her last year, but what I didn’t mention was that I promised not to write about her anymore. The reason being; I didn’t want to seem like I was piling on her as she began stumbling more and more in the presidential race. I chose to let Hillary and her actions stand alone, for better or for worse, so she could have the decency to be judge the same as anybody else.
And I want to note that during my podcasts at the beginnings of the primary race, both my partner Jim (a staunch conservative) and me, pointed out how we felt Hillary was the strongest candidate and deserved the nomination. We also acknowledged the few times when we thought Hillary was facing criticism that WAS related to her gender.

With that being said, the only reason I wrote about Hillary’s loss NOW, is because SHE and her supporters chose to blame sexism and a misogynist society for her loss. It is at this point that Hillary and her supporters brought the criticism upon themselves. As I mentioned before, I do not have to go out looking for a battle, but it sure seems to me, as a writer of gender issues from a male perspective, that I do not have to wait long before somebody wants to blame men or fathers for events that may well be caused their own irresponsibility. When this happens, and I find it irresponsible, I will challenge it. And this is one of those cases.

You say I owe the female gender a little respect. I never attacked women as a gender anywhere in the articles. But if you want to make a case that I did, then the argument is thrown back at you: Where is the respect for men as a gender when Hillary and her supporters choose to blame men for all her failures? In the name of equality, don’t women need to offer men the same respect in return? As a man, are you saying I owe women unconditional respect, but women do not have to offer men the same in return? Women can place blame, hate, and scorn upon men without any criticism, and men should just stay silent and not speak up? Are you asking me to do what numerous women were subjected to under historical patriarchy? Are you asking me to do what you and millions of other women would never do – stay silent? I thought the women’s movement made it clear this behavior is extremely sexists?
If these are the rules, then I’ll be breaking them quite often, because I refuse to remain silent.

Another point: I personally did treat Hillary as an individual. As I mentioned earlier, when she began stumbling in the race, I backed off my criticism and let her stand on her own. But here’s my thought: If treating people as individuals is important, then why can’t you and her supporters do the same for men? If there were individual men who treated her with disrespect, then why lump them together with all men and use blanket statements such as “misogynist” and “sexism” that generalize men and society as inherently evil? Will this behavior help break down negative stereotypes and breed the individualism you seek? Of course not. It only makes it worse.

And I’m still not sure where I wrote hateful trash. Asking a presidential candidate to take responsibility for his/her contradiction, lies, or other failures is hateful? What male presidential candidate – or seated president – hasn’t been challenged the same way? President Bush deals with it every day.
And why is my challenging Hillary’s perceptions, and those of her supporters, that sexism and misogyny are probably not the main reasons she lost – using accurate and credible information – hateful trash? Are you saying because I’m a man, and her being a woman, I do not get to challenge what I felt were female sexist comments? Have we just encountered an evolving “female privilege” in society?

And finally, how have I deployed hatred by writing that in spite of Hillary’s missteps, she still secured the popular vote, showing how this country is actually not as sexist as some people have vocalized (Note: This fact itself greatly diminishes the validity of their sexism argument.), but more importantly, Hillary’s bid left an unequivocal positive mark by showing how far women and our nation have come by concluding this country is ready for a female president. This was hateful? Why, because I felt Hillary will not be the one?
Thanks for writing Dee, but as I said previously, I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Then there was Bob. He agreed with me about Hillary’s screw ups, but he became angry at my linking her irresponsibility to feminism. He wrote:

You’re very clear on the things Clinton has done wrong. But what do you mean by feminism? How are you possibly linking Clinton’s actions with actions of any feminist? Are you referring to French feminism and it’s concentration on how language promotes sexism? Or maybe you’re referring to Post Colonial feminism? Or maybe you really don’t know anything about feminism and instead are creating a definition based on popular ideas you were too lazy to research? Maybe you should start with Wikipedia and find out what feminism is really about.

He then goes on to say I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about (Re:Full of shit).
Well Bob got part of it right. I knew when I wrote the article I was writing it from a perspective that would have needed another page to explain why I feel her blaming others is typical of feminism. But since I write to a particular audience that is familiar with my work, I chose to ignore an in-depth analysis. So when Fox News highlighted my article, it became a problem, since all these new readers were not familiar with my opinions.

But, since you asked Bob, let me explain.
First, yes I have read Wikipedia’s definition for “feminism”. As a matter of fact, I’ve read many articles on feminism, women, men, and genders over the last 10 years.
I was actually at one time a supporter of women’s rights and feminism. I even had a long term relationship with a woman who was a member of NOW. But over the years I came to find the writings, research, and opinions of feminist to be contradictory, hateful, blaming, distorted, and heavily biased.
And sadly, these distorted perceptions became very influential. I wish I had a dollar for every woman who has said she is not a feminist but then rattled off an opinion that came straight from feminist ideology.
So you are right that I may not know in explicit detail what feminism is, but it is dangerous to say that I cannot express my personal experiences concerning how I feel feminism has affected myself and others. If you really believe that one cannot express their thoughts without explicit and unequivocal objectivity, then feminism itself would not exist, for women would have been banned from expressing how the patriarchy subjugated them without first having an intense academic study in the understanding of men and masculinity. That would be nearly impossible for the average woman to achieve. And the civil rights movement would not have progressed to where it has today because African-Americans would not have been able to speak out about white privileged unless they possessed a PhD in the study of “Caucasians”.
Neither group needed such an intense pedagogy, nor winded exegesis of the masses, to personally express and instigate a correction to what they felt was the devaluing of their humanity. My blog is nothing more than my expression of my experiences with men, women, and gender, and the ability to share theses thoughts with a larger community. I’m sorry you came to my blog expecting to find a documentary of intense and unequivocal verity. I usually read blogs for what they are meant to be – opinions.

As for why I feel feminism is contradictory, and blaming of others? It is a belief I’ve developed after reading numerous feminists writings and research. If you spent some time reading this literature, it becomes apparent that when given similar circumstances, men have nobody to blame but themselves, while women have the freedom to blame anyone else, most often men and the patriarchy. Hillary’s allegation was a prime example.
Here are some quick examples of what I’m talking about:

  • Feminist abhor male violence, particularly men’s obsession with war. They vehemently detest the killing of so many innocent lives, and label it as probably one of the most irresponsible acts of masculinity. However, under the guidance of femininity, abortion and the killing of over 3000 innocent children a day is protected and held in adulation as one of the defining moments and an important fundamental of a woman’s right. However, in feminist writings, I have found numerous references that women would not need abortion if “men could keep it in their pants”. In other words, it’s not really a woman’s fault she became pregnant and needed and abortion; it’s really the man’s fault. Or another argument is that if men didn’t run from their responsibilities and leave women to raise children alone, then abortion would not be needed. And it is this argument that carries more weight than others, and addresses a serious problem of some men who abandon their parental responsibilities. But there is an ugly flaw in this argument. It implies that when men refuse to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, it usually involves abandoning their children, but leaves evidence to the fact that at least the child is given a chance at life. Consequently, research shows that the majority of women who choose abortion, do so to escape the responsibility of parenthood, deciding that killing the child to avoid this responsibility is the best option.
    My point is not to debate whether abortion should remain legal or not, but instead, I bring it up to show the different perceptions concerning the responsibility towards male and female killing of innocent lives, and the responsibility towards pregnancy and parental responsibility through the eyes of feminist. When men and women are found in similar situations, men are easily blamed without discourse, while immediate discourse emerges to explain why women should not be blamed. As one writer put it, “Women are diagnosed, men are demonized.”
  • Feminist have contended that when ever a woman is charged with domestic violence, it is only because she was defending herself from her abuser.
    More and more research is now showing women instigate violence in a relationship as much as men, so it disturbs me to find feminist still rushing in to blame the man when a woman is charged with domestic violence, in spite of this evidence. And more importantly, feminists have assiduously demanded that blaming the victim is an abhorrent practice and should be stopped. So why are they so comfortable engaging in this practice themselves? Are they saying to blame the victim is wrong when the victim is a woman, but acceptable when the victim is a man? Again we see blame and responsibility disseminated by feminist in a discriminating manner.
  • Back in the 1990’s, feminist reported that females were struggling in our schools due to sexist and discriminatory practices. It was reported that girls suffered terribly from self-esteem problems due to these practices, and this effected how they performed in school. In other words, old man patriarchy (men) was to blame.
    Later it was discovered their research was extremely flawed, and it was actually males performing worse than the girls except in the areas of math and science. And it was discovered self-esteem does not have a powerful effect on scholastic performance as believed. Black males report the highest ratings of self-esteem, yet are some of the nation’s weakest scholastic performers.
    So how have some feminist reacted to these findings? First, they have offered no apologies for their lack of honesty, and second, quite a few have shrugged off poor male performance as not a serious issue needing to be addressed, citing inherent male laziness as the problem.
    So the situation started with feminist blaming males, and then upon further inspection, it was found they lied, and they responded to their indiscretions not by apologizing, but by blaming males again!

I could go on, there is plenty more, but I hope you get the point Bob. If not, stick around. I’ll be doing this for a while, in spite of the fact you think I’m full of shit.

As I said before, I may not always be right, but I’m not always wrong either. As humans we are naturally flawed. This means that what ever we construct, it will be embedded with these flaws. Men are flawed, just as much as women are. The patriarchy has been proven to be flawed by feminist and others, so I’m not sure why feminist have demanded the belief that their movement is free from mistakes and injustices. To believe otherwise is not just illogical, but it also implies superiority over men. That in itself is sexist, along with the idea that men cannot challenge the thoughts and opinions of feminism and find its flaws.

Since I’ve been accused of not having a true understanding of feminism, let me offer an opinion by somebody who does.
Rebecca Walker is the founder of the Third Wave Foundation, a feminist group that works nationally to support young women and transgender activists. She had this to say in her article at CNN:

Obama has gracefully accepted the victory banner, and a lot of Hillary supporters, especially women, are walking off the field as if they’ve lost a war. I understand their frustration, but the truth is they didn’t lose, not by a long shot. Their candidate is stronger than ever, with 17 million votes under her belt, and the public discussion about the role of gender is more nuanced and compelling than it has been in decades.
It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility. It’s time to empower the feminisms embodied by millions of women and men who care about everyone, including, but not limited to, women.

Not much difference between my thoughts and hers. And as I have done often, I highlight feminist thoughts and opinions I think are fair and balanced.

I stand by what I wrote. I’m done with this debate.

Advertisements

June 4, 2008

Hillary Doing What Feminist Do Best – Blame Others

    (Part 2)

Previously I wrote how Hillary Clinton is blaming sexism and misogyny within the media and society for her decline from top presidential candidate hopeful to presidential candidate in despair.

I found her excuse typical of a person who has proselytized the feminist ideology which Hillary has confidently vocalized. Therefore, her beliefs and actions within any given situation will be filled with contradictions, hypocrisy, and blaming others for her own failures. While these behaviors may be found in any politician, one that claims adherence to feminist ideology will procure them with greater intensity than that of a non-feminist politician.
As a writer of gender issues from a male perspective, it was expected – yet still disturbing – to hear Clinton blame others for her failures when the evidenced clearly shows Hillary can only blame herself. She has shown repeatedly she cannot refrain from distorting the truth, creating a perception that misleading the public is a comfortable way of life for her.

So on the day after Barack Ombama has layed claimed to the Democratic presidential nomination, let me continue with more events that took place during the Clinton campaign which led to her downfall:

— Back in November of last year, Clinton’s staff was caught planting questions within the crowds that showed up at her speeches. It seems her staff would immerse themselves in the crowd before hand looking for individuals who would ask questions that Hillary and her staff had already prepared eloquent answers for. Those individuals would then be singled out when audience question and answer segments would take place, thus making Hillary look like a solid, informative, and unwavering candidate.

— While Hillary wants to blame the media for her failures, the evidence proves otherwise. Hillary recently stated in a Washington Post interview,
“[The] intensity of my support” was rarely reported, adding, “I think that is a disservice because we have broad coalitions of voters who have voted for me who make up the base of a winning campaign in November that I think want to see this end up with my being nominated.”

This claim is filled with half-truths and contradictions. Let’s take a look:

— Until Hillary lost the first primary election in Iowa, she and her staff treated the press as a nuisance, rarely giving them time for questions and interviews. Howard Kurtz wrote in the Washington Post:

Her campaign can still be inconsiderate toward reporters, sometimes not sending out the next day’s  schedule until 2 a.m., making it impossible even to plan what time to get up.”

“On her campaign plane, Clinton started coming back to the press section for off-the-record chats, usually harmless but sometimes including comments that contradicted what she was saying publicly, according to participants. Two weeks ago part of the media contingent revolted, saying the conversations did them no good if they couldn’t use the information.”

Only after her loss in Iowa did she open up to the press.
This decision for a presidential candidate and her staff to implement a strategy to ostracize the press for a long period of time and then complain later that the press was limited in the coverage of her campaign borders on childish behavior.

— Saying that the press has not acknowledged her broad coalition of voters is somewhat valid. But Clinton’s campaign strategy has been widely known to be overwhelmingly committed to harnessing women voters – historically the larger voting block between men and women. So why scold and blame the press for not reporting the diversity of Clinton’s voting bloc? The media is only reporting the results of the behavior, actions, and strategy put forth by Hillary and her staff.

— In killing two birds with one stone: First, Hillary claims the media did not report her broad coalition of support; second, this was the result of sexism in the media and society.
Let’s look deeper at these two accusations.
First, the media did report frequently on male support for Hillary Clinton. Fox News reported that in a Gallup poll completed at the being of the race, almost 49% of men were favoring Clinton and that male support fell very little, to just under 40% during March and April.
It was widely reported that Clinton easily had the vote of white male union workers in strong union states, and those predictions turned out to be true.
Second, while it was reported her support from the working-class white males has been weak, it should be noted that Obama has suffered the same dilemma. And it should be noted history shows John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy Carter -all white male Democratic politicians – also struggled to capture the votes of the white working class male in their bids for the presidency.
With this information, where is the sexism in society she talks about? The rejection of Clinton as a white Democrat by the white working-class male is business as usual in American politics.
Third, Clinton has been trying to stay alive in her nomination by pointing out that she exceeds Obama in popular vote. This time she is telling the truth. However, it’s contradictory to say “The majority of the population wants me as their candidate”, while at the same time complaining that sexism within that same population has diminished her chance for a presidential nomination.
So under scrutiny, her argument that her campaign was hurt by a biased media and a sexist society turns out to be completely false.

Further charges of sexism addressed by Clinton and her supporters can also be challenged as fatuous, and more importantly, show Hillary and her supporters are actually sexist themselves. For instance:

— One story that is used by Clinton and her supporters to validate the charges of sexism in the race is the repeated telling of an incident where a couple of men yelled out to Hillary “Iron my shirt!”
First, her supporters never mention that this was a stunt staged by a shock jock at a local radio station to gather publicity and ratings for his show.
Second, it is hard to imagine the “women’s work” statement is so offensive and sexist when Hillary has used the same image of women’s work around the house as a platform in a majority of her campaign speeches. She has repeatedly told female dominated audiences that it is time to “clean up” the White House. She uses the analogy that women must get out their brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, and brushes because only a woman/women can clean up the mess in the White House that the men have created.
Not only is it sexist to imply that a women’s greatest asset is her homemaking skills, but it is also sexist to men, implying the ugly gender stereotype that all men are lazy and irresponsible.
Mysteriously, her supporters had no qualm about Hillary using humiliating, negative stereotypes about women on the campaign trail -they have only become upset when men have used them.

— When her husband Bill started causing controversy on the campaign trail for Hillary, she was asked by ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden during ABC News’ Nightline, “Can you control him?”
“Oh of course,” she replied with confidence.
Now change the genders. A male presidential candidate is asked if he can control his wife. He responds, “Oh of course.”
It would be the end of his career, an image from which he could never recover. But for a female candidate, saying you can “control” your husband brings no condemnation from feminist, women rights, and gender equality advocates – it brings empowerment.

— When asked by talk show host Ellen Degeneres whether Bill helped out around the house, Hillary said he does, usually by rearranging bookshelves and cleaning the kitchen. Then in a condescending manner she said, “He’s pretty handy to have around, actually.”
Imagine a male candidate speaking with such apathy about his wife, only seeing her contributions in their marriage as some low priority afterthought. Do think it would go unnoticed? Of course not.

— Another alleged example of the sexism Hillary faced on the campaign trail, which has been repeated by her supporters, involves a comment made to Republican candidate John McCain during a campaign stop. Someone asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?”
Also, CNN commentator Alex Castellanos said during a CNN telecast that Clinton deserves to be called a “bitch.”
I would find these comments offensive and sexist myself, however, I can’t. The fact is, Hillary’s supporters used the same term themselves during her campaign.
When Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live showed her support for Hillary by exclaiming “bitches get stuff done” during the shows Weekend Update segment, Hillary’s own husband called Tina to say THANK YOU! And Hillary’s supporters loved the comment so much they began making T-shirts that mocked Fey’s comments.
And when Elton John offered to perform a concert to raise funds for Hillary’s campaign, the printed invites mailed out to supporters ended with the saying “The bitch is back!”

I could go on and on – sadly there is still more – but I think I’ve made my point: Hillary Clinton did not lose the race for presidential nomination because of a sexist media or sexist society. The blame for her failed nomination rest squarely on the shoulders of herself, her advisors, her staff, and her supporters. And by blaming others for her failures, in my opinion, she has essentially ruined any chance of being president of this country. Nobody wants a “victim” as president. If one cannot triumph over personal adversity – real or perceived – how will one lead a nation through never ending and ever changing adversity?

Judging by how effective Hillary’s run for president was inspite of shooting herself in the foot over and over, gives validity that sexism will not play a role in the future of electing a woman as president. A more valid argument is that Hillary’s success has proven that the time is actually ripe for our nation to elect its first woman president.
Unfortunately, Hillary is just not that woman.

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com
https://jsoltys.wordpress.com

May 28, 2008

Hillary Doing What Feminist Do Best – Blaming Others

    (Part 1)

As Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign appears to be taking its last breath, my prescient abilities concerning her behavior with respect to her feminist leanings has not let me down.

Back in October of 2007, I wrote how I would not vote for Hillary because she had declared herself a feminist earlier in the year while speaking at a National Organization for Women event. I wrote at that time that by declaring herself a feminist, she also declared her expected behavior, which meant her campaign would most likely include traditional feminist characteristics such as hypocrisy, distortions of the truth, or one of the core fundamentals of feminism: the ability to blame someone or something else for your own indiscretions.
It is hard enough to try and determine which candidate is the most trustworthy and honest, but if a candidate declares herself/himself a feminist, in my opinion that all but assures the voters that truth, honesty, and personal responsibility will be capriciously applied by the candidate. I wrote because of this she would not receive my vote.

Hillary made me look like a genius.

Last Tuesday Hillary Clinton blasted the media – and indirectly society – for the failures of her campaign. Hillary and her supporters are blaming the rampant “vitriol” of sexism that pervades most media, pundits, and others for her fall from grace in the race for the Democratic nomination.
In an article published in the Washington Post, Hillary scolded the media by saying,

“The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.”

In another call to supporters she stated,

“I deeply regret the vitriol and the mean-spiritedness and the terrible insults and rhetoric that has been thrown around at you for supporting me, at women in general, at many of those who support my campaign because of who they are and their stand based on principle. I don’t have time for their insults, I’m impervious to them.”

What?
Hillary, her staff, and supporters have been claiming throughout this campaign that sexist aspersions and actions have been plaguing her bid for nomination since last year, so these new charges are just another notch on her “gender bias” platform. However, after reiterating her position – again – that sexism has played an important role in the outcome of this presidential nomination, she then states she has no time for this ugliness and she is “impervious” to it.
Impervious? If this is true, then why the hell does she keep bringing it up and bitching about it?

Obviously I’m not the only one who has noticed Hillary’s lack of continuity in what she says from one day to the next.
Robert Parry, a former investigative reporter for the Associated Press and Newsweek wrote back in March for Consortiumnews.com that,

[I] observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clinton’s campaign – her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.

He wrote how media articles exposing her contradictions, or challenging her honesty during the campaign led to,

“… furious reactions from Clinton’s supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of “sexism,” “Hillary bashing” or membership in some “Barack Obama cult.”

So is it surprising that as her nomination turns moribund, Hillary and her supporters – using traditional feminist ideology – will place blame on others for her failures rather than accept the fact that she is ultimately responsible?

To set the record straight, and prove her loss had nothing to do with sexism or misogyny, but more with Hillary herself, let me highlight the many damaging issues that occurred within the Clinton campaign:

— During a national presidential debate, Hillary stumbled and flip-flopped on the issue of whether she agreed with the state of New York and their proposal to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrates.
At first she seemed to agree with the proposal, but after another candidate, Senator Chris Dodd, spoke confidently against it, Clinton backpedaled and said she never agreed with it, but rather meant to express an understanding of why it may be needed. She then scolded moderator Tim Russert for “picking” on her after he drew attention to the contradiction. The other candidates took great pleasure in exploiting her gaffe.
The next day her staff sent a press release stating what she really meant to say was that she supported the New York bill. But the Clinton camp also began circulating the propaganda that Hillary was the victim of sexism. In a letter to supporters and donators, her staff wrote,

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary.”It should be noted Hillary was the most powerful candidate at that time, and any kink in her armor would naturally be exploited by her competitors as historical politics would reveal. But she and her supporters twisted the traditional flow of politics, arguing it as a form of sexism, with Hillary portrayed as a victim of traditional patriarchal behavior – the boys picking on the girls.
As columnist Kathleen Parker wrote, 

“Yet the spin coming out of the Clinton campaign is that the men were ganging up on Hillary. Sorry, but when girls insist on playing hardball with the boys, they don’t get to cry foul – or change the game to dodge ball – when they get bruised.”

The same campaign staff that had successfully created the perception that Hillary was as tough as nails and could stand as tall as any male leader, crumbled under a minor crisis, portraying Hillary as a victim, unable to escape a sexist paradigm, and in desperate need of help, both emotional and financial.

— When dealing with sexist attitudes, Hillary portrayed herself as somebody who was more than prepared to handle the bigotry that was lining her path to the White House and beyond.
On the talk show The View, Hillary stated,

“You know, I have been to 82 countries, and I have met with the leaders of a lot of countries that are not exactly in the forefront of giving women their rights. And I’ve never found that to be a problem.”

Again, if this is true, then why is she focusing again on the sexist and “misogynist” attitudes found here within the media and society during her campaign?
Considering the sexism in this country is pretty benign compared to some countries in the world, it would be no stretch to say she is misleading herself and others in believing she would have no problem with sexism on a more serious level. If she can’t handle it here without getting flustered, how can she confidently state she can handle it on a more malevolent level somewhere else?

— Hillary told the now famous story of coming under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia in 1996 with daughter Chelsea. Claiming she made the trip herself to the war-torn country because the trip was too dangerous for her husband, this story was an attempt by her and her staff to validate her foreign policy experience. But soon after, many began questioning its legitimacy with such questions as:
**  If security for the president of the United States – which is the best in the world – found the trip extremely dangerous for him, why would they decide to send his wife and child into this hostile environment?
**  If the president’s wife and child came under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia, how come nobody in the media could recall such a powerful and dominating headline?
The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs was the first to report the story as a bold face lie. Immediately, Clinton and her staff demanded a retraction, claiming there was evidence of a real threat that day. Dobbs and the Post refused. Only after CBS ran video of Hillary and Chelsea being warmly and openly greeted on the tarmac at the airport did Clinton and her staff back off the sniper story.
Clinton’s excuse? It wasn’t a nefarious lie; she claimed she had just “misspoken”.

— Her second act of “misspeaking” came shortly after the first when she began using a “true” and tragic story concerning our country’s failing healthcare system while on the campaign trail.
The story, told to her by one of her supporters, consisted of an uninsured pregnant woman who was denied health care at two local hospitals for herself and her unborn child because she lacked insurance. Eventually, both the baby and the woman died.
While the death of the mother and child is true, lack of health insurance was not related to the cause of death for either. As Clinton began repeating the story again and again on the campaign trail, the media began checking further into the story.
It was discovered that the woman actually was employed and insured – contrary to what Clinton was saying – and that neither the child nor the mother was ever denied access to either hospital for treatment. It appears she had gone to the first hospital for a routine exam when the doctors discovered her child had died and would have to be delivered stillborn. She suffered serious complications after the birth and was transferred to another hospital that doctors felt could manage her deteriorating condition by offering her BETTER care. However, the woman was besieged by setbacks and eventually died from complications.
Clinton and her staff claimed they tried to verify the story, but found it difficult. The media however, found no problem finding the woman’s family and the hospitals involved when trying to verify the story. Both family and the hospitals said they were never contacted by Clinton’s staff.

In part two, I’ll continue with more mistakes made by Clinton and her staff which, when summed up, shows numerous contradictions and distortions of the truth, rather than overt sexism, played a key role in her downfall from undisputed leader, to hoping for a miracle in the next few weeks.

(Note: Thank you, to those that sent well wishes to my wife and I. It was greatly appreciated.) 

 

 

Contact:           

soltys.joe@gmail.com
https://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.