this started out as a comment — but i am still fuming. so i’m taking the comment and turning it into a diary…
in TomP’s diary about the comment directed at Hillary Clinton by a Greenpeace activist, she was annoyed — no, she was flat out angry! i watched that comment and was still listening to all positions UNTIL i heard a sanders campaign spokesperson on cnn — sorry, i didn’t catch his name, i was too busy raging and coming “unhinged”. i posted this, but it hasn’t been seen or responded to, so i am posting it as a diary to see if other women feel as i do. this isn’t about bernie sanders’ positions or hillary clinton’s positions on issues — this is about the dismissal of women by men who feel “entitled” by virtue of their gonads to label any reaction by a woman that isn’t “ladylike” or “proper” (according to amy vanderbilt) as “unhinged”.
this is my comment from earlier today that is the basis for this diary...
today a sanders campaign spokesperson made up my mind for me — i am livid! i’ve been open to voting for either candidate and have been listening closely to both sides.
yesterday, clinton got angry — candidates do that. her response was measured and forceful, yet calmly angry — she stated that she was “sick” of the sanders campaign telling lies about her.
i’ve watched sanders get angry — be animated and forceful about issues he cares about. candidates do that.
what has finally crossed a line for me was the sanders’ campaign spokesman on cnn describe clinton as “unhinged”— how is that?
oh.
i forgot.
women are not allowed to be angry — it is hysteria — it is unhinged — because we all know women are emotional and unable to express emotion without being “unhinged”.
this, for me, has taken me back to the era when women weren’t allowed to do a “man’s” work because … uh… she bleeds and that makes her hysterics counterproductive. women are not allowed to express anger.
well, this woman is NOW “unhinged” and “angry” and, while not hysterical, i am flaming mad!
to hear a male spokesperson for sanders campaign express this bulleffincrap again has finally made me realize i cannot vote for a candidate built on such misogyny — nope. cannot do it.
“unhinged”…… riiiight!
WATCH women become “unhinged” and then get the eff out of the way when we do!
frankly, i’ve had it.
i’ve been fired for speaking like a “person”, objecting to being objectified, for not having sex with my employer (that cost the company plenty!) and more. i’ve been treated as though my only value was how i could make coffee to the exact specification of the prick with a dick when that wasn’t my job, i’ve been chastised for having an opinion…
i’m 70. i am a betty freidan feminist. i am a person first, a woman second. and i have opinions. strong ones. and i have EVERY right to express anger without men feeling threatened and labeling that justified anger as “unhinged”.
that comment by a campaign spokesperson — a representative of sanders — finally put into words for me what has bothered me about bernie sanders from the getgo.
he “dismisses” those whose opinions he considers unworthy — those opinions that differ from his own. he is, in my humble opinion, a softer version of ralph nadar with his call for a “revolution” that is as unrealistic as the masses rising up carrying pitchforks and marching on washington!
it sounds glorious. it sounds righteous, but it is not do-able. not practical. not possible. given that this nation is made up of multiple facets, all of which are needed to move the ship of state even a millimeter, factionalizing any part of that process only serves to block progress. we cannot bully our way to what we want without overrunning a vast majority of people who don’t agree with our views. and we can’t continually label those we disagree with — we cannot succeed by disparaging the “others”.
my gut reaction to the comment that clinton was “unhinged” when ignoring that bernie is “righteous” in his “anger” really illumintated the division for me between these two candidates.
the two choices are clear: one whose idealogy is pure and clear (and unrealistic in its ability to accomplishment those goals and choices, imho) OR the “pragmatist” who understands the political reality of our current system of government.
i went down the pure ideology road once — i worked like a demon to get mcgovern elected… instead, we were taken to the woodshed by those whose opinions differed and were afraid of the passionate loyalty to goals that could not be accomplished.
i see that again coming into focus with this primary. the polarization within our own party, the extreme views that diminish those who disagree in any part (supporters who attack those who offer a differing view) and the attempts to diminish the opponent rather than debating the validity of the ideas and the ability to accomplish those goals — that is happening yet again.
i vaguely remember hearing or reading once that if you live long enough, all ideas come around again. for me, this is 1972 with different faces — only this time, i pray for a more successful outcome.
in the meantime, i plan to go become “unhinged” every where i can get a set of ears to listen to what i have to say — and i plan to get out and campaign to get clinton elected.