Hillary Clinton and Precarious Manhood Theory

Post Reply New Topic

Would it be considered dignified, for a man to be seen in public, with his mother? Maybe, there is a family function, or he is protecting her.

But, what if she was berating him. You can't tell whether this is emasculating?

Sometimes, men are hypergamous, and women date down.

Dominant men see it as childish, when she is authoritative, and he isn't. It makes you along the lines of the mother.

It doesn't mean we want to beat you (the mother). It's just that we don't need to be mothered (nagged, mollycoddled.)

Your perception doesn't match reality, period. That's what makes it a delusion.




Um...about what am I ignorant, and against whom am I bigoted? This statement looks like you just threw a random combination of words at me.

some disorganized thoughts here - if she makes it into the white house, I can see her as our "Maggie Thatcher" browbeating us into line like a mother cat does her kittens. I don't mind a strong person lording it over me as long as they see me as something more than a dumb animal to be exploited then discarded. alternately, I don't really mind a bit of a tyrant in office so long as they have the best interests of the citizenry at heart and are not just on a power trip. IMHO, America [and Americans] has become so truculent that I believe it really needs a bit of a brutal parent at the top to bang our heads together and make us unruly children behave. I cannot believe that the rump gives a damn about anybody outside of his own circle, i believe he is a malignantly dissocial narcissist AFAIC. sure, Hillary is mercenary and ambitious and cuts ethical corners with the best of them, but she is plainly not EVIL to the extent of the other guy who is not above brutalizing the weaker among us for his own satisfaction.

You believe yourself privy to my perception yet consider me to be the deluded one? Fascinating.



Sadly I fear you lack the wit to appreciate the irony of this hilarious pairing of questions.



It might look that way to an ignorant bigot.

Your perception and reality are two different things. For example, you may perceive yourself to be Spock, and yet objectively you are not.




I fear you don't understand "irony" and "hilarious".



Name calling is not allowed, sweetie.

So if I am hearing you correctly, an authoritarian woman is seen in the role of mother. This is interesting because I don't see men in an authoritarian role as fatherly. (This is probably down to my own experience of not having a father figure in childhood.)
I think it's possible that society has not provided enough authoritarian roles for women other than mother. What about the "wise old woman," this used to be respected in previous cultures?

Relevance?



Do you need me to explain it to you, or are you content to remain blissfully ignorant?



Irony upon irony squared.

You two are making an already unsubstantial topic into something more petty.

If she wins, I think it will have relevance as a lot of people will have her as their boss.

And did anyone notice that the FBI has cleared her ... last night.

Yes. Though that is only for the emails investigation in regards to the ones on her server. Bear in mind there are other ongoing investigations including the Clinton Foundation and her team. I'd also like to state that being cleared of something isn't necessarily an indication that a person is necessarily innocent.

On topic:
There are people who believe she has an excellent record and the right temperament for international trade and foreign policy. I am not one of them and believe the opposite is true, but so be it.

Is there a more appropriate response to insubstantiality?

Adifferentname, your posts are increasingly becoming word salad. Give reliable examples of women being found faultless "because vagina" (your words). Otherwise, I remain of the opinion that it's a paranoid delusion. Ranting at me is only reinforcing that opinion, btw.

This^^^

Hillary is not perfect by any means(I greatly prefer Bernie), but to deny sexism double standards as a factor in this race is perhaps the most delusional political position anyone can take.

Her resume alone makes her eminently qualified for the job. Nevertheless, she's running against Trump (undisputably, the least qualified major candidate in US history and at least as corrupt as she is) but he has a penis (allegedly) so it's still close. He can rant like a lunatic and demonstrate his utter stupidity everyday and not lose voters, yet she has to be perfectly poised or else a single slipup and her support drops. If she were a man (with her exact record), she'd have wrapped this up months ago. There's no way she'd even have the possibility of losing.

Now I'm "ranting"?

When you prove yourself capable of responding with something other than bigotry, I'll consider whether to discuss this matter with you. As your default is "you must be mentally ill if your perspective differs from mine" I'm not going to hold my breath.

All you've provided evidence of is your own lack of understanding of his supporters' motivations for supporting him. (hint: it's not because he's got a penis - though in an extreme minority of cases that may actually be the case)

Fedora-wearing, virtue signalling nonsense.
People both sides of the fence can make informed decisions.
If there's anyone talking about gender it is her supporters, not the opposition.
Do you know what blaming others for doing something you are openly doing is called? Gas lighting.

I'm tired of this gender and ethnicity stuff.

EDIT: Edited for grammar.