The usual suspects in the SD blogosphere report this story about Hillary Clinton's recent trip to Africa, with the usual dose of sexism directed at our SOS (the comments in both posts are a cesspool of ridiculous, blatant, like-shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sexism). South DaCola commenter 'comoprozac' linked the fellas there to a Feministing post that includes actual analysis of Clinton's trip to the Congo and her husband's trip to North Korea, rather than juvenile carping about what a bitch Hillary Clinton is - and the link is, of course, totally dismissed.
But I think it's worth going back to again. What was Hillary Clinton doing in the Congo in the first place? Well, she pledged US funds and ongoing support to try to stem an epidemic of rape and sexual abuse going on in the war-torn country:
She announced that the American government would train doctors, supply rape victims with video cameras to document violence, send American military engineers to help build facilities and train Congolese police officers, especially female police officers, to crack down on rapists.
Hundreds of thousands of women and children have been raped in the Congo in the last several years. She pressed the Congolese government to discipline its military, and also to end the criminal trade in minerals that makes the nation a hotbed of violence. Clinton also pledged continued American attention to the crisis.
But, of course, all that folks like Pat and Scott take away from any of this is LOL WHAT A TESTY BITCH HILLARY CLINTON IS!!!!! Get with it, guys.
Someone from South DaCola will be here to call me a man-hater in 5...4...3...2...
20 comments:
Anna -
I agree that the treatment of women in places like Congo, Haiti, Thailand, etc is deplorable. The amount sex-trade / rape in those countries and many others, is horribly unthinkable, and it breaks my heart.
Civilized people all over the world, and especially in America should do all they can to wipe that blight off of the face of this Earth.
It is nothing less than pure evil; I applaud and support all efforts in this movement.
Anna -
Please feel free to point out the exact statement I made in my post at http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/9528 that you consider sexist.
Thanks for your totally predictable comment, Pat!
This is how you operate. You posted the video of Clinton with no context - and in fact, without bothering to learn the context - and allowed the hoards of anonymous knuckle draggers who read your blog to do the work for you.
I assume you weren't posting the video in order to point out the important work that Secretary Clinton was doing to help stop rape in Africa, right? If so, then what was the point of your posting that?
You must be on crutches from all those knee jerk reactions. Did you actually read the post? Such as the part under the video where I note...
Apparently, the language barrier can make things icy. Here’s what really happened…. (This was my statement)
And then I added a snippet from an article as support for my statement...
State Department officials said the student approached Clinton afterward and told her he had meant to ask what Obama, not Bill Clinton, thought about the Chinese loan. A senior Clinton aide said that Mrs. Clinton assured the student not to worry about it.
The student’s question, according to the State Department translation, went like this: “Thank you. Mrs. Clinton, we’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country. The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton and what does Mr. Mutombo think on this situation? Thank you very much.”
It was unclear whether the French-speaking student or translator had erred. Either way, she was not pleased at the mention of her husband’s name.
I'm thinking failing to actually read something fully is how you operate.
Uh, hey PP? First of all, "icy" is typically not a word used to refer to a man who responds assertively to a stupid question. I think her response to the question as posed to her was totally appropriate, and her apology when she learned there was a mistranslation was also appropriate.
But that's not the point of my post, and had you bothered to read it, you'd know that.
Why, when faced with the option of discussing the epidemic of rape in the Congo - which is what brought Clinton there in the first place - and WHO REALLY WEARS THE PANTS IN THE CLINTON MARRIAGE, did you choose to spend time on your blog talking about the second topic?
That's the point I'm trying to make - which you're totally ignoring, not that I'm surprised. What brought her to the Congo was infinitely more important than the idiotic (and yes, sexist) side-issue you chose to bring up on your blog.
Did you really think that posting that video would spark an intelligent discussion of, what, translation issues? What was the point of posting it?
Anna, does involvement in the bitch element help the cause? Would it be better to enlist the aid of a PP and others by stepping to a different tune? You alienate people that could be of great help with your approach. I would hope you are not a blogging adrenaline junkie who feeds more on the adrenaline of kicking ass than resolution of the real issues.
I wish there could be one serious discussion on this blog about any topic without people telling us we ought to be nicer. Am I frustrated that the purpose of Clinton's visit has been ignored because of this stupid brouhaha over her response to that question? Hell yes I am. But my/our tone is no different than anyone else's in the local blogosphere. All of the other bloggers out there get frustrated sometimes too, the difference being that they get to express that frustration without people telling them to be more polite.
This gets ridiculous. Sibby and PP operate from the same purpose, but Sibby blurts out his insane fixations while PP posts in negative contexts with his motive to accuse and denigrate clearly evident, and then claims he is just posting without commentary. The Youtube he posts uses the term "snap} in its title, so only a simple Sibby or a perpetually petulant PP would try to deny that the purpose was to call Hillary the b word.
You can't argue with idiots, which means there is not much point in paying attention to anything in blogs.
I am not telling you to be nice Anna. I don't give a rip how you act if you don't care how many people you alienate. This is the first time I have visited your blog and to get in the middle of the same sh*t that flows in the other blogs will not bring me back. Go to War College and see my posts there. I can't tell if I am in a middle school playground or with a group of concerned adults trying to make the world a better place. I too am concerned for the women of the world..not only women but young girls in the sex trafficing industries. Hillary does not need you or anyone else to defend her. Please do not think we are not bright enough to know when a PP or an Anna's predictable statements are trying to work an undertow. These actions may be fitting of other blogs. The ball is in your court as to whether or not you allow their cr*p in your blog. btw Anna a serious discussion is not what I see above!
Right...and condescending comments about my tone aren't advancing the discussion either.
It's your world Anna, Hasta la vista.
Wow. It's a rare day indeed where Travis agrees with us at DW...and yet, it seems there are a few who simply don't get it. Color me not surprised, I guess. Just disappointed.
Can someone please translate Les' comments into American English for me? I don't think I can fairly respond until I have some idea what he's saying.
I guess I'm also not sure where Les thinks the tone of this post went astray. I think this whole situation breaks down like this:
-The Usual Suspects blog about Hillary, with the vast majority of the resulting comments being of the "OMG, HILLARY IS A BITCH." variety.
-Anna points out that it's ridiculous for the conversation to center on Hillary supposedly being a bitch, when she was there trying to prevent women from being raped.
-Les gets butthurt that Anna wasn't nice enough, and "alienated" him.
I guess I don't see how a post that boils down to "Hillary is trying to prevent lots of women from being raped" is alienating. Then again, the blogosphere isn't known for being a bastion of logic.
Angie -
I am not anti-woman. I am anti-evil. I am completely on DW's side when it comes to violence against women.
Rape, Sex Trafficking, Forced Prostitution, Domestic Violence, Oppression, etc; should never be tolerated anywhere on this Earth.
I also believe these to be valid areas in which we need to invest our resources via man hours, research and development, financial support, education, etc…
It appears to me there is less concern for womens rights here than for women to be right? Now how do I sort those women from the mix of women that want help, want a hand up from the pit of alcohol, drugs, diabetes, sexual abuse? Easy, I doubt any with the attitude I see here are Native American. You want to find rape, incest and all of the above? Cheyenne River Sioux, Standing Rock, Pine Ridge to name a few, we don't need to go 5000 miles to the Congo. My point was that Anna runs off at the mouth about Hillary wearing the pants, being picked on etc and alienates a much larger crowd than she brings on board for an important issue. Not about being nice, it is about the politics of bringing people with diverse opinions into your court so you can do something about the big issue. Or is it?
*headdesk*
Another thing it's about, Les, is changing the culture - here and everywhere - so that women are taken seriously. So that women can speak in frustration when they're frustrated without fake "allies" telling us that they're concerned about who we're alienating by not being nice enough.
and p.s., Les, you don't know a thing about what any of us have done or not done for women's rights in this state - so don't even go there. Maybe I ought to caution you on your tone.
You know, our critics used to get mad at us because we weren't focused enough on international issues. Now, we're being criticized for not speaking about local issues (and, p.s., we've blogged about the situation on SD's reservations before, and I'm fairly certain at least a few of us have taken concrete action in our real lives as activists on an array of women's issues to try to help the situation).
It would help a lot, Les, if you checked yourself and understood that you're dealing with experienced, knowledgeable, seasoned activists and not with dumb little girls who need to be lectured about being nice, and told where to focus our efforts.
I mean honestly. You think I'm being nasty, but I'm taking a fair amount of time here to educate you. Others would have told you to take a flying leap a long time ago.
For the record, I would have been one to tell you to take a flying leap a long time ago, Les.
I mean honestly. You think I'm being nasty,
Not about being nice, it is about the politics of bringing people with diverse opinions into your court.
FYI, I thought your post was ok, I thought your reply took you to the cellar.
This was the mistake of my day to think you really cared about creating an army to deal with an issue..silly me. Lets just go back to defending Hillary. Doesn't she just look wonderful in the video? Nice suit! Now now Les, why don't you just go take a flying leap, or go get butthurt, or ....at least we are finally on to some good serious discussion.
oh my god.
Post a Comment