Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney Cabinet: All Women and Latinos (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Um (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TX Unmuzzled, FloraLine

    Exactly 0 white men have been replaced by anything other than a white man, so far, and I'm not optimistic any will be. And our current attorney general is awful, regardless of his race. So I'm not all that enamoured with Barack's 2nd term cabinet, but whatever. I guess we'll see what he does with it.

    matthewborgard.com ~ @MatthewBorgard

    by zegota on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:32:09 AM PST

    •  You think Paul Krugman could get confirmed? n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  Holder is awful? Examples please? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TX Unmuzzled, SilentBrook, Pinto Pony

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:53:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. We should be going forward. (0+ / 0-)

      And I hate this "but pick the best person for the job!" kneejerk reactionary double standard when somebody dares to complain about the incredibly atrocious thing called the glass ceiling, when there are a majority of lousy men in very high positions. A woman doesn't stand a chance against a mediocre man even if she works four times as hard and is twice as intelligent. Does that seem fucking progressive to you?

      But okay, us womenfolk and/or non-wites should be so incredibly grateful that only one woman was replaced by a man (seriously?), that - GASP - there are women on the Supreme Court and that there's a fierce black man in the role of Attorney General (did you seriously just use that descriptor?).

      I'm sorry, but that's just BS. It's not even about passing up on qualified women (or people who are not lily white) solely because of their gender/race. Nominating misogynists like Hagel who have personally been responsible for female soldiers being prevented from having the right to obtain an abortion in any military clinic PAYING WITH THEIR OWN MONEY (even if she's stationed in a country where abortion isn't a possibility outside of those facilities) and thus having caused numerous soldiers being fired because they either a) needed to go back to the US for a few days to obtain said abortion or b) were forced to carry to term and thus became single moms who can't serve - that's more than just offensive. He's also stated that he thinks allowing abortion for rape victims in general is outrageous because the number of women getting pregnant from sexual assault is so small the consideration of an exception is "irrelevant" (!) - while as any idiot knows, being a woman in the military makes you almost twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American and that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies in the military are due to sexual assault. This a slap in the face to each and every woman, not to mention the ones who make up nearly 25% of the whole US military. I don't call that progress nor do I even call it retaining the status quo.

      Women have enough things what with having society stacked against them 24/7 and all without having to be admonished by supposedly progressive men telling them they're "overreacting" when all they want is to be able to do the thing they're good at and break that damn glass ceiling - a common gaslighting tactic. This is not just about picking people in the name of "diversity" (talk about being blinded by white male privilege), as you seem to think it is, it's about passing up on extremely qualified people simply because they're not a white man. It's an endemic problem, and choosing a dangerous misogynist as Sec. of Defense? I do NOT call that progress.

      Some seem to be think misogyny and/or racism is a purely right-wing trait without realizing they are probably a part of the problem as well.

      •  So your solution is to just nominate all women (3+ / 0-)

        just because they're women and that makes their nomination progressive? Are you really saying John Kerry is mediocre?

      •  I'm atheist & gay. You do not get to preach to me. (0+ / 0-)

        And as a gay man, it is my divine right to use the word "fierce" whenever and however I see fit.

        And the world as you describe it feels very two-dimensional to me.

        •  Uh, I'm an atheist woman? Does that make my (0+ / 0-)

          criticism invalid? Your diary contained sanctimonious preaching and paternalizing finger-wagging, I just posted my reaction. I could say you do not get to preach to me about women needing to shut up because it's "not that bad" - and that's exactly what I did. Funny thing, that!

          Sorry, but the word fierce in relation to a black person... Yeah, not the best descriptor, historically, but you could've called him an angry black man so props to you I guess. Yes, I'm aware of gay vernacular surrounding "fierce" but that doesn't mean everyone's going to suddenly forget all of its cultural connotations or its actual meaning and take it as nothing but a compliment. And that was a minor part of my comment - ignore the rest of that paragraph and the 4 that follow by ALL means.

          (And WTF has atheism got to do with it? You expect brownie points for not being Christian or something?)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site