Today’s Lady News: Hillary Clinton Has No Sense Of Humor

Raugiel
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 04:28 pm: [report]

Although it has since been reported that either the questioner mis-spoke or the translator mis-translated, I thought Hillary’s response to the question as it was presented to her was totally appropriate.

shellerbee
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 05:11 pm: [report]

I agree. Hillary was the one at the meeting/ conference, not her husband. She is the one in the position, not Bill.

Justine
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 06:44 pm: [report]

When I first heard her reaction or whatever to the question, I was asleep in bed and when she started (not yelling) but being so forceful with her words, it woke me right up. She scared me.

lawyrgrl
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 08:05 pm: [report]

I thought her reaction was completely appropriate and on point.  The question, as it was put to her at the time, was wildly insulting.  Basically,“thanks for being here and all that but what does your daddy think, little girl?”  To put it in a context that we all can relate to, wouldn’t you want to be that concise the next time the guy at the car dealership told you to come back with your husband when you were ready to buy?  Or when the guy fixing the fridge explained to your boyfriend what the problem was, even though you were the one writing the check?  Go Hillary!

Laurel
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 09:56 pm: [report]

I completely plan to take my spouse’s name when I get married, for the simple fact that I will be choosing to spend my life with that person, so I will want to take on their name. I have my father’s last name, and for number of reason’s, I have no pride or reason in having his name. I look forward to being able to change my name when I get married.

diablita
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 10:09 pm: [report]

I would be so ashamed to find out that I was hired for a job simply because I am female or a certain race instead of on my qualifications and abilities. I would never accept school scholarships based on race or gender either. I am the best of the best because I am determined and I push myself to succeed in life. I certainly don’t expect a free ride because of how God has made me.

If it was shown that a company was purposefully keeping qualified people from certain positions I believe action should be taken, but I don’t think people should be shoved into a position because it is not something they would normally be expected to do.

That said, I think it is ridiculous that Norway is giving this requirement. If a woman is not as qualified as a man, then why should she have to be hired just to fill a quota? I find it hard to believe that every company is going to be able to fill that quota while still ensuring they are hiring the most talented candidates in their field. And if I am wrong, and there are just as many women in EVERY field as there are men, then why are they requiring 40% and not making it equal? Foolish.

Part of the reason that racism and sexism are alive and well today is because we continue to nurture the idea that people are “different” based on their race or gender, and that some people need more encouragement and assistance than others to succeed.

Personal reasons why I see this is wrong:

1) As a white woman living in Miami, I am officially a “minority” and receive no such recognition as such because people who live hundreds and thousands of miles from me make me a “national majority”. How does this personally affect me today? Not one bit. I still feel out of place every where I go and no matter what I do.

2) With a 3.6 GPA while working a full time and part time job (and going to school full time) I have been denied financial aid due to certain residency requirements, yet other people in my same situation are having hundreds of dollars thrown at them simply because they are darker than me, or have lesbian parents, or got pregnant at 16, or have a father who is part of the “National Banker’s Association”. I don’t see why any of these reasons make a person more valuable than me or why their education should take priority over mine, especially if I have the better grades.

3) I am also the only female in my department at work, and as such I do not expect special treatment or special recognition. I choose to do the job because I like my work and am capable of doing what is expected of me. People annoy me at work whenever they act shocked that I am able to do things as well as, if not better, than the men I work around.

Where is the line drawn? I believe affirmative action had it’s purpose in history, and I am not completely sure how Norway normally deals with these situations, but I believe it is time to stop pretending that certain groups of people have it harder than others as a whole and deserve to be pampered through life. If we want discrimination to end, we can’t continue actions such as these.

We punish landlords and associations for choosing tenants based on ethnicity, gender, and religion, and then force companies and schools to do the exact opposite.

Sorry for the rant. Getting off the soap box. It just ticks me off to no end when I see stories like these.

Riley
wrote on August 13 2009 @ 07:39 am: [report]

Yeah, Hillary’s response was totally appropriate.  Some student in a culture completely different from ours asks a seemingly inappropriate question, instead of tactfully answering him as to what she would do, she blows up on him.  Completely mature and appropriate. 

If you listen to the translator you can hear where she stumbles, considering English is one of the hardest languages to learn - that isn’t uncommon.  Sounds like he was trying to say; what does Mrs. Clinton think, in her own words?  Maybe that is just me being reasonable though.

It isn’t a humor issue so much as a diplomatic ability issue, but I’m sure there is sexism or some anti-feministic sentiment going on.  There always is, right?

brandyalexander
wrote on August 13 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

Good morning (rubbing eyes)... soooo much to say on this.  I’ll start where people obviously agree with me…
1.  Hillary.  Yes.  Your response was restrained in comparison to what I would have said.  How on earth would that question be considered appropriate under any circumstance?
2.  Names.  I don’t know.  I think there is something great about a couple sharing a name.  Hyphenations can get too long.  It could be the wife’s name OR the husband’s name, but even if they keep their names, if they have children, they will need to decide on a name for the children.  So, its more complicated than people suggest.  However, I am appalled that 50% of people thought the name change should be mandated.
3.  Quotas.  Affirmative Action.  I am a white girl, ok?  However, I understand that as a white person, though I make efforts not to be racist, I necessarily benefit from a racist system.  The same is true of males, no matter how feminist they are: they are going to benefit from a sexist system.  Case in point: Hilary’s questioning in Africa.  Now, Bill is pretty rad, and obviously wouldn’t approve of the question that was asked, BUT he automatically received the role of the more important member of the couple because of a prevalent sexist system.  I think a 40% quota is more than reasonable, especially considering that women make up more than 50% of the world population.  If the required quota was more than the percentage of the total population, then I would say that it was giving women an unfair advantage.  Otherwise, I say it is simply leveling the playing field, and because we know that women are the equals of men (this is the very definition of feminism), then any effort that seeks to give them EQUAL (but not unfair) opportunity is a feminist cause.  Go Norwegians.

Lynn
wrote on August 13 2009 @ 10:31 am: [report]

I couldn’t care less if you want to change your name when you get married - I plan to, after all. But I think it is absolutely appalling that so many people believe it should be REQUIRED. Way to nit-pick your opinions into everyone else’s life, people.