Q: what does equating a candidate's campaign strategy with her emotional state have to do with gender wage inequity, sexual harassment or violent crime against women?

A: It's something in the air: universal contempt toward women.

Dawn,

You're a frenetic, single-issue poster. This post makes you a living example that monomania often travels with paranoia.

And, dare I say it, in sharing with us your porcupine-feminism you make ever more inviting the idea that women's rationality is perhaps sometimes too prone to leaving orbit.

Well, Steve, I believe you just proved Dawn's point...and you are not the first person who, in disagreeing with a female Hillary supporter, uses their last jab to get in that sexist remark...

The other evening I was out with friends at a bar and debating Hillary v. Obama (in my hometown of Chicago no less..). And literally a moment after finishing, my friend turned to our buddy next to him and said, "some one should punch her (Sen. Clinton) in the ovaries!."

And the two gentlement giggled...as if that was a harmless and totally appropriate little joke to tell.

I think referring to my "sexist jab" is a TELLING observation about the lunatic fringe: Even when they are wrong by ANY SOBER ASSESSMENT, as in this case, criticism of them (the lunatic fringe) is (must be!) SOCIALLY PATHOLOGICAL :)

This little game, mhaskins10, is nothing other than BULLYING. Surely you know this. You probably think bullying is OK as long as it's REACTIVE bullying....

Personally, I do in fact loathe HRC. Thus I'm DELIGHTED by the existence of such people as youself and Dawn: Everytime people like you use your mouths or keyboards on her behalf, HRC loses 10 votes.

.

Um, wow...so Steve, it is Dawn and myself who are part of the lunatic fringe?

Why? is it because we don't USE CAPITAL LETTERS with SUCH PASSION?

Slow your roll buddy...

It makes it easier to play bingo: http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=431

Steve is out to lunch.

Anyone who thinks Obama wasn't incredibly dismissive and sexist is out to lunch.

This is not the first time he has said somehting like this, either. Remember that he said when the "status quo" is attacked, the "claws come out."

But what about Melinda?

Then there was the boss who guessed my weight every time I walked by his office—with such accuracy that, had the whole newspaper thing not worked out, he could always have joined the circus.

As someone noted elsewhere:

"Now how does she know that was sexist? Maybe the nice boss-man was just trying to impress her with his awesome weight-guessing skills. For all we know, he guessed his male employees' weight too. Way to turn moderates off to feminism with your shrill hysteria, Melinda. Jeez!"

I can only hope that more replies, jvarkias, continue to roll in. One rarely comes across a litmus test for social insanity for which the subjects are eager to line up for testing.

.

jvarkias:

Steve is out to lunch.

Anyone who thinks Obama wasn't incredibly dismissive and sexist is out to lunch.

This is not the first time he has said somehting like this, either. Remember that he said when the "status quo" is attacked, the "claws come out."

What does that even mean? All species with "claws" feature them in both the male and female sexes, I assure you. The only thing I can think is that you're attempting to equate it with, what, cats or something? I can't even see where you are going, but I'm guessing the leaps of logic you had to take along your path so far would be sufficient to carry you across canyons. I don't know Steve from Adam, but I think he's completely right about the pathetic need of some people (and some groups) to find offense wherever possible. If that means I'm "out to lunch" (which is certainly possible, I do love to eat and there is a pretty good chance I would be doing so around noon on any given day), I can live with that--I'd rather be a diner than some eggshell-skinned professionally-aggrieved paranoiac, straining desperately every waking minute of my life in a supremely self-defeated quest to document and interpret the ways in which other people hurt my poor little feelings.

Oh, wait....I guess I did that already, I had just kind of erased junior high from my mind for a while. I suggest you do the same and go get a life.

If Obama had been referring to any male opponent, he would have said something more like, "I understand that when my opponent is down in the polls, he'll step up his game / go on the offensive / fight harder to win" That's how it's always been phrased in past elections. He might go with "launch an attack," but the male opponent's "periodical feelings" and "claws" (rowr!) would never have come into it. If they had, people would have found it weirdly personal and infantilizing.

I quoted you above, oh wise one.

wiggles:

....but the male opponent's "periodical feelings" and "claws" (rowr!) would never have come into it. If they had, people would have found it weirdly personal and infantilizing.

If you're interested in FACTS (which I doubt), you'll want to watch the video of Obama's statement and observe that no reference to "claws" was made.