On the most superficial level, the democratic primary is about whether we'd rather have a female president or a black president. Either way, it will be a breakthrough. Of course, there's always the chance that we'll end up sticking with ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
This chick just needs to chill out...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Anon & Ralph: this topic won't go away because it is one of the defining issues of our times. We could use a better forum for this though. Sara, we can take our discussion offline if you prefer.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I think there is no contradiction, because not everyone reacts the same way, ie. there is not just one tendency of spouses/parents. I also think that more spouses than boyfriends are willing to take responsibility for bringing a child into the world. I wish you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the pressure women face regarding abortion, and the experience of countless Birthright volunteers and members of like organizations. I think the empirical evidence is there if you seek it out.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Ralph Wiggum, you're not kidding. Somehow, a large portion of the comments to Prince articles end up being discussions of abortion, usually in broad terms.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You know what might generate more comments? Writing an editorial on abortion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"But we claim that all citizens of this country are equal..." I thought it was "all people" not, "all citizens of this country"... Because, you know, people who aren't Americans are people too...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't really think there's an essential connection between a pro-lifer's view about notification laws and her/his interpretation of the evidence about coercion of women to abort. The question of notification laws is a prudential and a legal one, and is not tied directly to the heart of either the abortion debate or the question of coercion. Obviously, pro-life and pro-choice people might have different goals in mind when considering the question of notification. On the one hand, pro-lifers might be expected to approach the question of notification by determining whether or not it yielded a "pro-life outcome." But they need not. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers might both evaluate the question pragmatically, appealing to the possible outcome of notification laws. A pro-lifer might oppose notification laws based on a jurisprudential principle, just as a pro-choicer might promote notification laws because he/she believes in some kind of "right to know" of a spouse or a parent. The point is, notification laws are negotiable. They're not essentially tied to one point of view or another about abortion, so there's no worry about "committing" oneself to a view or another just by entertaining the reasons for and against notification laws.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dan, my point is essentially that pro-lifers seem to have two ideas in mind about how spouses and/or parents react to the idea of a woman having abortion. On the one hand, the advocacy for notification laws seems to imply that pro-lifers think that spouses and/or parents will tell women *not* to have an abortion. On the other hand, you (another pro-lifer) think that spouses and/or parents will tell women to go forward with the abortion against her wishes. All I am saying is that these are inconsistent ideas about the tendencies of spouses and/or parents, and I don't think the abusive or coercive pressure to go forward with an abortion occurs as much as you seem to think it does. But again, there's very little empirical evidence on this. By the way, thank you for speaking up about the other remarks on this thread. I agree this might not be an ideal forum. But, why other people are getting ticked off by our conversation is beyond me.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, regarding the notification issue, I don't think it would affect those who are being pressured into having an abortion, since the notification issue would only come up once you go seek an abortion... or am I missing something? So, I think notification is a separate issue from the one we were just discussing. I guess the rationale for notification must be that it increases the likelihood that the woman will choose to have the child, at least for those who have a spouse or parents who support this outcome. This makes perfect sense from a pro-life perspective, which I share. As you know, I believe another right is at stake here, namely the unborn child's right to life.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"I'm pretty sure that calling someone, anyone, an n-word is worse than calling anyone a bitch..." True, but I think what Alexis was getting at is if we're going to criticize pundits for making race-based attacks on Obama, we should also criticize those who make gender-based attacks on Hillary in equal measure.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, the way it plays out in practice, it has also turned into a man's right to pressure his significant other into having an abortion to release him from his responsibilities.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The personal attacks against Sara are really not helping here. This is obviously an important topic, and it is good to have a place where we can discuss it. Perhaps this is not the best place, but it's what we have at the moment, so let's just go with it. I do find the anonymity a bit weird, in the sense that we are on our honor not to impersonate anyone else (which would be straighforward to do, as far as I can tell).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Ugh: I have absolutely no problem with people posting anonymously. In fact I might begin to do so myself given the backlash I've received here just for posting comments on a topic I'm interested in. If you read below, you'll see what I'm talking about. That's what my previous comment was directed at.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara: Well, for what it's worth, I'm not the same poster as "Dan" or as "Give it a break," and I don't necessarily agree with everything they've said. But I'm really not sure what your complaint here has to do with anything - if I were to tell you my name, it wouldn't add anything to the discussion, just as the fact you put your name here doesn't give your comments a sense of authority that anyone else doesn't have. (after all, you could just be someone using the name "Sara" for all I know).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Give it a rest: Although I'm not one of the anti-anonymity crazies out there, you'll notice that at least I've had the courage to identify myself in a very controversial conversation. What's to say that all of my opponents in every one of these comments isn't just one person?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara Viola, please keep in mind that all the issues you and the others are discussing are very, very subsidiary to the question of whether abortion is ethically acceptable. Personally, I don't see how anyone (save perhaps the odd atheist or consequentialist) can justify abortion on rational grounds, without irrational appeals to sentimentality, pure intuition, or an unwillingness to grapple with all the facts about what abortion is.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Give it a rest, you're absolutely right...why is it that every single confounded article in the Daily Prince has Sara Viola's tiresome, repetitive comments all over it?! We need more than one point of view here.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
You're an idiot. If you don't like the comments, stop reading them.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Dan: Good first attempt at number crunching. But as you admit, those are very rough estimates. I think the crucial consideration here, whether it's as high as you predict or not, is how best to address this issue. Not to be glib, but I don't think that restricting women's rights is going to help women's rights. I'm also still interested in your opinion on my earlier question: Do you or do you not support pro-life advocates' push for legal requirements for spousal and parental notification, given your insistence that women are being unduly pressured by spouses and parents to have an abortion against their own wishes?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Give it a rest: I'm sorry if you're tired of this discussion, but you're not being forced to read. You'll notice that an earlier comment (before I posted) first brought up the issue of abortion. I felt compelled to respond as I am currently an officer of Princeton Pro-Choice, and I am concerned about misinformation and misunderstandings on campus related to reproductive rights. Also, I enjoy a good debate and am procrastinating on other work. I'm not quite sure why you think it's not ok for us to use this comments thread to discuss a matter that we feel is important and interesting.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara Viola, as much as we appreciate your clearly thought out and well defended pro-choice views (in fact, I agree with most of them), THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE! Or many of the others that you for some reason feel compelled to turn into abortion debates. At least save some of your words for when the issue is actually relevant -- this is an article about the Democratic primary, not abortion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I am not necessarily disputing that the majority of women seeking abortions do so of their own volition. I am saying that many are being coerced, and although they may not be in the majority, their numbers are nevertheless significant. I don't have national and international statistics from BR handy. I could try to get these, but I am sure this thread will be dead by the time I do. My sense of the numbers involved comes from my wife's experience as a volunteer in a BR office, where they had 50 cases in a recent year. To figure out how significant this is, I can try to estimate how many abortions take place in a year for the population that is served by this office. I estimate that population to be 150,000 and available statistics for the region imply that abortions take place at a rate of 0.27% per capita per annum. This means I expect roughly 400 abortions in one year in the population that is served by this office. Well, 50/400 is 12%. I don't think we can dismiss this as insignificant. I also think this is an underestimate, because there are other organizations besides Birthright that offer "abortion alternative" services, and I haven't counted their numbers, nor have I counted the calls to the BR international hotline, nor am I counting those who cave in to pressure without seeking assistance.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
they claim it's meant as a satire. at best it's in very poor taste. at worst there are some crazy racist a$$holes on facsbook.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
In case anyone was curious, though much less popular there is a group called Obama--Stop Running for President and Get Back to the Corn Fields
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Awesome, a screed about racism and sexism. How original.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dan: But, just how many women seek help from a birthright volunteer? I never claimed that 100% of women seeking abortion are free from pressure or abusive threats to do so. My claim is that the vast majority of women who seek abortion do so of their own volition.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I have to agree with "?" on this one. Try talking to a Birthright volunteer and hear what they have to say. Virtually 100% of the women who seek help from Birthright are being coerced to have an abortion by someone, usually a boyfriend, but often this pressure comes from her parents. Sara is to be commended for broaching the topic of sex and responsibility, something that few people have the guts to do. It's the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone tries to pretend isn't there whenever abortion is being discussed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
?: There's so much to say here. But I would just point out that you, "?" are making some gross assumptions about women when you say they are being coerced into having abortions by others: "But it is simply a reality that many women who procure abortions do so under pressure from employers, boyfriends, parents, and spouses." Where's *your* evidence for that? "How on earth can you presume a fact about 'many women' seeking abortion by using only an opinion, and not a shred of evidence?" (Just demonstrating that there's a pot-calling-the-kettle-black issue going on here.) Anyway, I believe the burden of proof here is on your claim, primarily because common sense flies in the face of that claim. I'll just give a few common sense reasons why I believe women are by-and-large willfully choosing abortions without undue pressure from others: (1) Women (like men) have medical privacy rights that cannot be compromised by anyone, including their husbands. (2) "Pro-life" advocates are pushing legislation for spousal and parental notification. Why might this be? Could it be that pro-life advocates believe that others will pressure women NOT to have abortions rather than pressuring them TO have abortions as you claim? I'll venture to say, yes. (3) Though there still may be some unfair obstacles that should be worked out, women have legally protected maternity rights: paid maternity leaves, the bosses obligation to hold their positions and not discriminate against them for becoming mothers, etc. Finally, if you still disagree with me on the reality of women's freedom of choice in this matter, would you commit to disagreeing with the traditionally pro-life position of requiring parental and spousal notification, since that would seem to work against your desired outcome based on your idea of how decisions are made?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Um guys, the article wasn't even about abortion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Sara: @?: My characterization is by no means offensive, and don't appreciate your useless insinuation that I'm antagonistic towards women. Of course it's true that women can make rational decisions about things. When I say that abortion is by its nature offensive to women, I am not making any commentary about women. Rather, I'm saying that abortion has become a means of irresponsible met getting away with and sometimes hiding sexual misbehavior. Sure, there might be some women out there that choose to procure an abortion completely of their own choosing. But it is simply a reality that many women who procure abortions do so under pressure from employers, boyfriends, parents, and spouses. That's not choice...in those cases, women go to abortion because they feel they have no choice at all. The reason why groups like Feminists for Life are so beneficial is that they recognize that abortion is an insulting "answer" to the "problems" women encounter in their lives, and is a sign of disrespect towards them. If I might draw attention to something you said......"To presume that they they are not willfully choosing abortion in the vast majority of cases is to presume women to be weak-minded and weak-willed people." ......Is this really the standard of reason and evidence you adhere to? How on earth can you presume a fact about the "vast majority" of women seeking abortion by using only an opinion, and not a shred of evidence? I'm not obliged to "presume" something about an empirical question based solely on my beliefs about the ways women act. You're obviously letting your personal beliefs about women and abortion blind you from the fact of the matter: it's not your opinion about women and abortion that dictates what actually is the case. What actually is the case is that women are often coerced into abortion, and do not choose it under the idyllic circumstances you would like to believe.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"On the most superficial level, the democratic primary is about whether we'd rather have a female president or a black president. Either way, it will be a breakthrough. Of course, there's always the chance that we'll end up sticking with the status quo and elect Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), but for now, it's nice to dream that we've come a long way from our former chauvinism and racism." This seems to imply that my vote for John McCain is a vote for chauvinism and racism. If this is what is indeed implied, not only do I wholeheartedly disagree with you, but I think this is an awfully poisonous thing to say. I hope I am misunderstanding...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Interestingly, though Hillary can confront those who make sexist comments about her, Barack cannot call out those who make racist insinuations about him -- including Hillary herself. Why? Because to acknowledge racism against him tags him as a candidate of a race other than white. Hillary doesn't have to avoid being known and seen as a woman, but Barack has to avoid being known and seen as a "black man." I feel like t his suggests that racism is still a less acknowledged but as or more important issue in this race.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara...while there are many things I wish to respond to, I feel like we'd be arguing all day. I just want to point out that when you talked about how a man should avoid getting his wife pregnant if he doesn't want a child, it sounded eerily similiar to Pro-Lifers who use that as an argument against females getting abortions except in cases of rape or incest. I appreciate your response though - it did raise some very good points.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@?: Your characterization of the social dynamics of decision-making regarding abortion is really offensive. Do you honestly believe that women are not choosing abortion for their own sake? Women are free-thinking, intelligent, independent agents who are protected by law from pressure by men or doctors to have any procedure, including abortion. To presume that they they are not willfully choosing abortion in the vast majority of cases is to presume women to be weak-minded and weak-willed people. And, actually there has been no study in the last decade to show that abortion increases one's risk of cancer and some have actually shown that abortion may reduce the risk of certain cancers. Please provide any citation of any article from a peer-reviewed medical journal published in the last ten years to support your claim. I would love to see it. My claim that abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term is based on the uncontroversial statistic that women are more likely to die from carrying a pregnancy to term than from abortion.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Thanks for the response, Rick. You've identified one of the chief reasons why abortion should remain a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Legal protections for women's privacy do not prevent women from discussing their choice with their significant others but give them the freedom to choose to keep their decisions private if they wish. This is especially important if they fear any sort of abuse (physical, psychological, or otherwise). It's important to recognize that the woman will be accepting an enormous physical burden that she cannot possibly share with her partner if she chooses to keep the pregnancy. This burden includes the possibility of mood changes, psychological harm, limitations on athletic and other physical activities, limitations on foods and beverages, and even death. So I think it's fair to say that even in the context of a loving and respectful relationship, the woman should have the final say. As for child support responsibilities, I agree that it's a difficult situation, and I don't have a clear-cut answer for you. Men who wish to avoid child support responsibilities should be taking every precaution to avoid pregnancy in the first place, using condoms and encouraging their partners to use hormonal birth control. Soon, men will be able to use hormonal birth control as well. But of course these methods are not 100% effective and men need to carefully consider whether they are willing to accept this level of risk in order to have sexual intercourse. Men should also open up the lines of communication with their partners about their beliefs and whether they would consider an abortion if they became pregnant unintentionally. This is a conversation that every sexually active couple should have. It may be difficult for some, but talking about it in advance can allow each person to make an informed decision about the risks they are willing to accept and whether or not to have sexual intercourse with this particular partner.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
ok...by its very nature, legalized, institutionalized abortion puts pressure on women to abort. Susan B. Anthony and Stanton saw it as a means of oppression for the exact same reason it remains a means of oppression today. It's a tool irresponsible men can rely on as a way of getting away with bad behavior. And @sara, the claim that abortion is healthier than childbirth is ridiculous. Giving birth is as natural a process as any, and though it does carry with it many risks, it also holds health benefits (i.e. hormonal protection from certain cancers, etc.) which no other process does.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, I didn't cite FFL just because you did. I was actually in the middle of composing my post when you submitted yours, so I didn't see yours until after I submitted mine. I cited FFL because they describe how abortion is often essentially forced on women by a society that won't accept any other choice. BTW, is anyone (including yourself) really "disinterested" on this matter?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara...you got it at least partly right when you claim that conservatives want spousal notifications because sometimes husbands will discourage their wives from having an abortion. In a normal, loving marriage don't you think that the husband should at least be aware that his wife is pregnant and choosing to terminate the pregnancy? I understand concerns over an abusive relationship and would want exceptions to the law in those cases. As it works right now, if a wife wants an abortion but the husband wants to keep and raise the baby, the abortion will occur. That's fine, but in an alternative scenario in which the husband wants the abortion but the wife wants to keep the baby, the baby will be born and the husband will have to financially support the child. The way I see it is this - either let husbands (in a typical, non-abusive marriage) have some sort of say in regards to abortion, or allow him to be free from any sort of financial responsibility if he does not want the baby to be born.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Dan, Feminists for Life is not a neutral or disinterested source of information on the matter. The only reason I cited their website was to point out that even pro-life advocates indicate that Stanton and Anthony were "pro-life" for obsolete reasons. The fact that many conservatives push for spousal notification is just one indication that they are not concerned with women being pressured into having an abortion by their significant others. In contrast, they hope that spouses will discourage women from having abortions.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Maybe the fight for women's rights is not as historically violent as that for civil rights; however, by excusing sexism as a belief that "women's lifestyle choices should be prescribed", aka that women better serve society by staying out of public life, can't we excuse racism as nothing more than a belief that blacks better serve society by serving whites? or homophobia by saying that it is simply an ideological belief that society is better off with only heterosexual couples? You're missing the point, which is that both sexism and racism are rooted in the fundamental oppression of a defined group of people, and in order to truly exist in a post-racist, post-sexist world, both forms of historic subjugation should be treated with the same amount of respect, and thus, the same degree of political correctness.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/120049 "Consider the guys who yelled "Iron my shirts!" at a Clinton event in New Hampshire. The point wasn't the yahoos with the Neanderthal mantra; it was that their jeers got little coverage. If someone at an Obama rally had called out a similar remark based on racial bigotry—"Shine my shoes," perhaps—not only would it have been a story, it would have run on page one."
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Alexis is right to admit that looking solely at gender and race is 'superficial' in a campaign that is being dominated by issues like the war in Iraq, health care and energy. However, race and gender definitely deserve intense discussion given that a broad segment of the American public will vote on singular issues that are independent of a candidate's qualifications. After spending over a week walking door-to-door in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania for Hillary, I have come across an unsettling amount of sexism. The most surprising thing for me has been the backlash from women who consider her to be masculine, an 'ice queen' or power hungry. The first two critiques are simply unfair and made by people who haven't listened to her speak for more than 5 minutes. On the power-hungry front, it's called politics people. If you don't want any power, (including power to inspire hope and do the right thing for the country and the world), then get out of the game. I believe that many women at Princeton (and in my generation) take for granted the fact that we are attending the top university in the U.S., that we will face fewer glass ceilings in the working world, and that we can even run for president. I voted for Hillary because of her policies and experience, but I certainly have not forgotten that she represents a leader and role model for women around the world.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Great article- thanks, Alexis, for saying what the rest of us were thinking- if people want to enforce such a stringent level of political correctness (which I don't necessarily is a bad thing, given the history of violence and oppression towards blacks in American society), then it must also apply to women.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, abortion is essentially still forced on women in many cases: http://www.feministsforlife.org/FFL_topics/after/pricchoc.htm The situation on university and college campuses is discussed here: http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/perception.htm
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@09: If you read my comment carefully, you'll notice that I specifically said that I cannot know for sure what Stanton and Anthony would think today. That would be a ridiculous claim. I think you might want to check your own certainty at the door as well. As activists, Stanton and Anthony were on a mission to convince others of their own positions. In an era where women's rights were a distant dream rather than the norm, they had to appeal to men in power somehow, which I suspect is one important reason to frame their argument in terms of protecting "children." If you check out quotes listed on the website of Feminists for Life (not exactly an organization supporting my political beliefs) they reveal Stanton's and Anthony's concerns about abortion as a tool used by men to suppress women. This is (for the vast majority of cases) no longer a problem. Furthermore, women's health is no longer jeopardized by abortion. Carrying a pregnancy to term remains much more dangerous than having an abortion. This is why I suspect that Stanton and Anthony would support a woman's right to choose if they were alive today. But of course, this is only speculation, and I don't claim otherwise.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'm pretty sure that calling someone, anyone, an n-word is worse than calling anyone a bitch...
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
YAWN....TROLL 1. Ingredients2 cups flour 2 cups sugar, divided 1 cup butter or margarine, softened 1/4 teaspoon salt 1 1/2 cups corn syrup 6 (1 ounce) squares BAKER'S Semi-Sweet Baking Chocolate 4 eggs, lightly beaten 1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla 2 1/2 cups PLANTERS Chopped Pecans 2. Cooking Directions Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Grease 15x10x1-inch baking pan. Beat flour, 1/2 cup of the sugar, the butter and salt in large bowl with electric mixer on medium speed until mixture resembles coarse crumbs. Press firmly onto bottom of prepared pan. Bake 20 min. or until lightly browned. Microwave corn syrup and chocolate in large microwavable bowl on HIGH 2-1/2 min. or until chocolate is almost melted, stirring after 1-1/2 min. Stir until chocolate is completely melted. Add remaining 1-1/2 cups sugar, the eggs and vanilla; mix well. Stir in pecans. Pour over hot crust; spread to evenly cover crust. Bake an additional 35 min. or until filling is firm around the edges and slightly soft in center. Cool completely in pan on wire rack. Cut into 48 bars to serve. Yield: 48 servings 3. Still Hungry? A buttery crust is topped with a chocolate, corn syrup, egg and pecan mixture then baked into rich, gooey bar cookies that taste like pecan pie. Notes: Use Your Stove Prepare and bake crust as directed. Place corn syrup and chocolate in heavy 3-quart saucepan; cook on very low heat until chocolate is just melted, stirring constantly. Remove from heat. Continue as directed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Sara Viola, your claim is not in line with the historical evidence. Even if there were evidence to support your claim, I don't see how you can possibly know what Anthony or Stanton would believe if they were alive today. There are simply too many variables to take into consideration to make an accurate judgment about that. Anyways, Both Anthony and Stanton are on record as calling abortion "child-murder" and equal to "infanticide." That certainly doesn't sound like the picture you're giving. Let's face it - abortion as a "right" is an invention of contemporary feminism, and has no root in the original feminist thinking.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I agree in that I am always astounded about how many sexist comments I hear around campus, sexist humor ... and how no one seems to notice. I'd like to point out that many people who call Hilary a "bi..." aren't doing so just because she's a woman but because they perceive her as extremely deceitful, dishonest and mean - nothing particular to do with her being a woman and many have called Bill a jerk, prick or whatever the male equivalent would be. I also strongly disagree that this race is about whether we want to have a black president or a woman president - I hope (and polls have shown) that most people are NOT voting based on gender or race. Same thing for John McCain: most people who support him aren't doing so because he happens to be a white man.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
a clarification @ "09": Stanton and Anthony were "pro-life" (in quotes because the term was not used back then) because the procedure was extraordinarily dangerous for *women* and it was often forced upon them by men. This was also the rationale for making abortion illegal back then. But with modern medicine and the recognition of the equal civil and social rights of women, those concerns are obsolete. Though I have no way of knowing for sure, I believe that if Stanton and Anthony were alive today they would support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy with the assistance and counsel of a medical professional.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I'm hoping the 7:55 comment gets removed. As for the article, I had no CLUE what it was about until the last paragraph. Putting that first would have helped, but I still would have been confused.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Amon-Ra, that is the most bizarre post I've seen in a while. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I think your analogy between sexism against Hilary and racism against Obama is inaccurate. Race and sex are entirely different things, and while I wouldn't defend sexism, I don't think it's fair to say that the same people who said "make me a sandwich" would also necessarily be willing to make a racial slur for the same reason. It's the difference between slavery (a mass human rights abuse) versus a view that women's lifestyle choices should be prescribed (just an opinion, one that doesn't necessarily force anyone to do anything, and certainly can't be equated with slavery).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
For what it's worth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would want nothing to do with Hilary. In fact, I think they'd be properly horrified by her, inasmuch as she represents the face of (well, one segment of) modern feminism. Both Stanton and Anthony were strongly pro-life, contrasting with Hilary, and the differences go even deeper.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!