Re Chris Matthews' comments: "it was that he was saying we could elect her only because we felt sorry for her. Which seems creepier and nastier to me. "

This is a familiar pattern between women and Hillary, going back to when she was First Lady. When she's the take-charge woman, women turn against her. When she's being treated badly, like when Bill's cheating or when the press is riding her, women feel sorry for her and lift her up again. Make up your mind! Seems to me that you all are playing a double standard with yourselves.

The fundamental reason for not riding your husband's coattails into power is that that charge will always follow you, no matter how talented you are. Which is what we're now seeing with Ms. Clinton. Note: this is mostly, to a large extent, an issue for white women - since most minority women in this country don't have this kind of "access to power".

Do women and/or feminists want it to be said that the first female president was elected because people felt sorry for her? That's a hell of a tag to live down. Wouldn't that create a lame duck perception from the start?

What is the difference between access to power from a husband vs access to power from a father? GWB would be a drunk on skid row with no education if his father were, say, a factory worker.

You take your opportunities where you find them. It would be stupid not to, and Hillary isn't stupid.

Women are not anymore fickle than the rest of the mob. Women don't like her, but the victim narrative of our Lifetime wound culture is a powerful thing. The optics of men ganging up on Hillary every night on the evening news makes women identify with and feel sorry for her. It's pretty visceral and pathetic. A Clinton presidency will hurt the next generation of female leaders more than it helps them.

hey, I'm female and I LIKE her. She's passionate, hard working and very smart. What is there not to like? I don't get what MEN have against her, (except that all men think any woman that they don't want to **** are a waste of air unless she is a mother or sister or daughter.)

Also, there is a clear difference in how strong powerful women are percieved according to gender. This is the same factor that keeps women down in the workplace. Aggressive men are seen as effective leaders while aggressive women are seen as bitches.

<link>

clinton presidency will only hurt women if she's a "bad" president, in which case the important point won't be how she got there but merely the fact that she was a woman and was bad.  if she's a good president it won't matter how she got there either it will show that a woman can do it.

Women in the workplace bitch about the amount of money they make versus their male counterparts, but on average take an additional twelve days off per year. Therefore, loading the additional work on their male counterparts. HMM, still bitching???

Thanks for the link

It probably would have been worth mentioning in your post that both men AND women prefer to work for men.

TheMeadowLoft:

I don't get what MEN have against her, (except that all men think any woman that they don't want to **** are a waste of air unless she is a mother or sister or daughter.)

You should find a better class of men to keep company with, or a better therapist, or have something more to offer. I suspect it's the second option.

This post just proves once again that sexism is alive and well. evensteven forgot to mention that women are taking off time to give birth (must be nice to not have to share in that burden) and kuruman feels it necessary to make broad sweeping statements that really only applies to his point of view. Thank you, but I'll speak for myself. As a woman, I have always preferred working for women. Quick question--are you the same boys yelling "iron my shirt" to Hillary at her speeches?

TheMeadowLoft:

hey, I'm female and I LIKE her. She's passionate, hard working and very smart. What is there not to like? I don't get what MEN have against her, (except that all men think any woman that they don't want to **** are a waste of air unless she is a mother or sister or daughter.)

Also, there is a clear difference in how strong powerful women are percieved according to gender. This is the same factor that keeps women down in the workplace. Aggressive men are seen as effective leaders while aggressive women are seen as bitches.

<link>

I am also a woman and I DON"T like her. I am so sick of the we have been oppressed and you can change that by voting for me for President and prove that women can achieve anything. She can use her gender to garner sympathy when it benefits her, but if anyone else uses it and it is detrimental to her they are sexist. How can anyone say that she isn't using her gender when she talks about how voting for her can break that glass ceiling that has been keeping women down for so long.

I am also one of those women that would rather work for a man. In my experience with female bosses they deserve to be considered bitches.

I was working in the customer service department of a Furniture chain, a female manager was hired, the male manager was demoted to my position and I was transferred to the position of another woman that they let go. I was not trained in the new position because they didn't want to let the other woman know that they were replacing her. A female supervisor for the main office was sent to train me and help the new female manager get acclimated to her position. I am a fairly intelligent person and I rarely have a problem picking new things up quickly. The woman that was sent to train me spent the first couple hours she was there socializing with the new manager. I decided to train myself instead of sitting there and doing nothing. After they finished socializing and decided to get acclimated with the people she was going to be managing, I already had the gist of what the job entailed so I didn't need her help. When they came over and saw that I was already well into my work, the new manager made a snide remark about how I took it upon myself to learn a job that I never did before and how I would probably mess it up. She never acknowledged the good things that anyone did and took credit for all the ideas anyone implemented to make their job more efficient. That is just one example but it is fairly typical of all except one of the woman managers that I have dealt with.

The men that I have worked under were much more fair, acknowledging me for the things I did to improve job efficiency, they were basically happy that I learned my new positions quickly and they didn't have to stand over me. They corrected me when I was wrong but also let me know when I was doing a good job.

They are not my broad sweeping statements. Did you go to the link that Meadow provided? Did you read it? Maybe you should do so before writing.

I'm my own boss now, but I've had lots of male and female bosses over the years and I personally don't have a preference. It is much more an individual thing than a gender thing. My point was that Meadow singled out men preferring to work for men to suggest sexism. The fact that women also prefer to work for men destroys that claim in my opinion.

Um, 54% of people did not have a preference of whether their boss was male or female. That's the overwhelming majority.

It seems you missed the bigger point of the article. We live in a SEXIST society. Women have to work harder and are judged far more critically than men. Your comment helped prove that point. The majority of people had no preference and then you write and say that "both men AND women prefer to work for men." Perhaps you should go back and read that article before you keep promoting falsehoods.

yes, when they have a preference. It is still an important distinction.

"Women have to work harder and are judged far more critically than men."

Talk about promoting falsehoods. What's your basis for this ridiculous claim?

From the very article that you took out of context: "...71 percent of female bosses saying they have to work harder and be smarter than men to achieve the same level of success."

Here's another quote (how you came to the conclusion that both women and men prefer to work w/ men from this, I still do not know), "Indeed, our survey found that about 33 percent of men and women would rather work for a man, while about 13 percent would prefer working for a woman. (The remaining 54 percent had no preference.)" This to me reads that the majority of the working public do not care who they work for.

Just shows we have a long way to go towards equality of the sexes.

Everything I have said is still correct.

Do you think that asking female bosses if they had to work harder and be smarter is an excellent exercise in science? Do you think the pool of participants might be a tad biased? Give me a break.

You are trying too hard to paint me as sexist. I already said I don't have a preference myself. My only point was that it was worth mentioning that OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAD A PREFERENCE the majority preferred male bosses. At least this portion of the survey is a little more objective than asking the bosses themselves if they think they worked harder. Truly, that is moronic.