2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Valmy]

What outraged me is Berkut's (and to a lesser extent, Valmy's) ridiculous attempt to defend it as "this is not she meant" and "you have to be a misygone to interpret it this way".

I was rather objecting to the idea that losing the men in their lives was how women suffered in war. But now I see that the quote was cropped and mangled in order to generate a meme.

The idea that women are the 'primary' victims of war is...well sure they suffer pretty severely. But it is not like children and men get off comparatively lightly. She probably should have phrased that differently.

[Berkut]

What outraged me is Berkut's (and to a lesser extent, Valmy's) ridiculous attempt to defend it as "this is not she meant" and "you have to be a misygone to interpret it this way".

I was rather objecting to the idea that losing the men in their lives was how women suffered in war. But now I see that the quote was cropped and mangled in order to generate a meme.

The idea that women are the 'primary' victims of war is...well sure they suffer pretty severely. But it is not like children and men get off comparatively lightly. She probably should have phrased that differently.

I imagine if someone had told her that those two sentences would be yanked out of her several page speech in 20 years by some insecure men she might have used a slightly different word than "primary". But the overall message she is trying to convey, for those who care about such things, is completely unremarkable.

Of course, derspeiss and Marty aren't interested in reading her speech on domestic violence and its impact on women, so they would not know (or care) about that.

If anyone else does, it is here:

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

[derspiess]

No, it doesn't necessarily imply that at all. It implies, if anything, that the suffering of women is often not acknowledged, and ought to be.

If women are the primary victims, what are men?  Men can't also be the primary victims of war if women already have that spot, can they?

Suggesting that someone who is killed is not suffering is just plain idiotic.

Nobody here is doing that.

I know that is the point, the desperate need to find a quote that can be taken out of context to make a powerful woman look idiotic, but it actually just makes you look like a misogynist.

I read the context, and am still left with her point that women suffer from war more than men do from war.  Do you agree that women suffer more than men from war?  If so, we can just agree to disagree.  If not, then take it up with Hillary, not me.

[garbon]

Well I think this has revealed that Hillary is ill-suited to be president. Perhaps we should skip all the remaining campaigns and the voting and just install Trump?

[derspiess]

I imagine if someone had told her that those two sentences would be yanked out of her several page speech in 20 years by some insecure men she might have used a slightly different word than "primary". But the overall message she is trying to convey, for those who care about such things, is completely unremarkable.

Words mean things.  This was a prepared speech and she knew what she was saying. 

Insecure?  I'd vote for a woman president in a heartbeat if I agreed with her politics and thought she'd be a good leader.  I grew up idolizing Margaret Thatcher.  Sling that shit in some other direction.

[Valmy]

Words mean things.  This was a prepared speech and she knew what she was saying. 

Sure. I guess I fail to see how saying that losing the men in your life is unrivaled suffering means she hates men. Or rather that it means anything worth caring about. 'Words mean things' it is funny to hear you echo  the battle cry of PC culture.

If women are the primary victims, what are men?  Men can't also be the primary victims of war if women already have that spot, can they?

The only distinction that would make sense in that context is that men are more often actors in the war and not almost entirely victims. But even if she thinks that men suffer less I fail to see what implications that brings up that I should be disturbed by. Is she more or less likely to start a war based on this information?

[Berkut]

I imagine if someone had told her that those two sentences would be yanked out of her several page speech in 20 years by some insecure men she might have used a slightly different word than "primary". But the overall message she is trying to convey, for those who care about such things, is completely unremarkable.

Words mean things.  This was a prepared speech and she knew what she was saying. 

Indeed - and the fact that you refuse to read said speech and understand the context and her overall message means something as well. It is a prepared speech, and you know what she was trying to communicate outside that single sentence. But don't let that stop you.

Insecure?  I'd vote for a woman president in a heartbeat if I agreed with her politics and thought she'd be a good leader.  I grew up idolizing Margaret Thatcher.  Sling that shit in some other direction.

Of course you would - so your misogyny is purely tactical? Good to know.

[Berkut]

I read the context, and am still left with her point that women suffer from war more than men do from war. 

Do you believe that if you and Hillary were chatting and you asked her "Do you believe that women suffer more from war than men?" She would answer "Yes"?

I don't. I think her position is rather considerably more nuanced than that, and it is obvious from the context of her speech.

[derspiess]

Do you believe that if you and Hillary were chatting and you asked her "Do you believe that women suffer more from war than men?" She would answer "Yes"?

She hates direct questions, so she'd beat around the bush in trying to answer it.  But I wouldn't doubt she truly believes women suffer more than men from war.

I don't. I think her position is rather considerably more nuanced than that, and it is obvious from the context of her speech.

There were a million other ways to state "women suffer terribly from war" and make the point you're desperately wishing she had made.  Yet she chose to say that women are the primary victims of war. 

If you women card holders just admitted that was a dumb thing for her to say, that everyone makes mistakes, etc. there would be nothing more to discuss. 

[Berkut]

As a general rule, if you object to someone's politics, attacking them on the basis of their race or gender is not a very useful way to convince others that your objection has nothing to with their race or gender.

[Berkut]

Do you believe that if you and Hillary were chatting and you asked her "Do you believe that women suffer more from war than men?" She would answer "Yes"?

She hates direct questions, so she'd beat around the bush in trying to answer it.  But I wouldn't doubt she truly believes women suffer more than men from war.

I don't. I think her position is rather considerably more nuanced than that, and it is obvious from the context of her speech.

There were a million other ways to state "women suffer terribly from war" and make the point you're desperately wishing she had made.  Yet she chose to say that women are the primary victims of war. 

If you women card holders just admitted that was a dumb thing for her to say, that everyone makes mistakes, etc. there would be nothing more to discuss. 

WTF is a women card holder? Why do you insist that your objection to her has nothing to do with her being a woman, then you keep bringing up her gender over and over again?

There are a million ways to say that, and she makes exactly that point in the context of her entire speech - you are the only one insisting that we ignore the entire message in favor of your hysterical anger over this singular sentence in a long speech.

[Berkut]

There were a million other ways to state "women suffer terribly from war" and make the point you're desperately wishing she had made.  Yet she chose to say that women are the primary victims of war. 

Indeed - and what she did NOT say is that women suffer more than men from war, despite you insisting that she did say just that.

She made her point rather clearly - you have to actually read her speech (or at least the paragraph around that sentence) to see that, which you refuse to do of course, but it is right there.

The point she never made is that men don't suffer, are not victims, or that either men or women have some kind of trump card of suffering over the other one.

[Valmy]

WTF is a women card holder?

The woman card thing is a reference to a reference to a reference. It is a tower of memes.

Somebody said Clinton was playing the woman card. So Clinton's campaign made ironic woman cards. So now all of us who support Clinton are woman card holders.

[Berkut]

WTF is a women card holder?

The woman card thing is a reference to a reference to a reference. It is a tower of memes.

Somebody said Clinton was playing the woman card. So Clinton's campaign made ironic woman cards. So now all of us who support Clinton are woman card holders.

Well, as long as it is clear their hysterical obsession with her gender is not about gender, it is all good.

[derspiess]

As a general rule, if you object to someone's politics, attacking them on the basis of their race or gender is not a very useful way to convince others that your objection has nothing to with their race or gender.

Agree. We should tell the guys doing that to knock it off.