<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who&#8217;s playing the gender card now?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/</link>
	<description>In defense of the sanctimonious women&#039;s studies set.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:27:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Politics and Intersectionality at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-147283</link>
		<dc:creator>Politics and Intersectionality at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-147283</guid>
		<description>[...] seen accusations of playing the gender card, both founded and unfounded We&#8217;ve seen how other prominent women have cheerfully played upon stereotypes that women in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] seen accusations of playing the gender card, both founded and unfounded We&#8217;ve seen how other prominent women have cheerfully played upon stereotypes that women in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Clinton Rules of Engagement &#171;</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135611</link>
		<dc:creator>The Clinton Rules of Engagement &#171;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135611</guid>
		<description>[...] there, the nonsensical pile-on continued. From Jill at Feministe: According to the Chicago Tribune, &#8220;In Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic debate, Clinton [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] there, the nonsensical pile-on continued. From Jill at Feministe: According to the Chicago Tribune, &#8220;In Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic debate, Clinton [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Clinton Rules of Engagement &#171;</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135592</link>
		<dc:creator>The Clinton Rules of Engagement &#171;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:24:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135592</guid>
		<description>[...] there, the nonsensical pile-on continued.  From Jill at Feministe: According to the Chicago Tribune, &#8220;In Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic debate, Clinton [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] there, the nonsensical pile-on continued.  From Jill at Feministe: According to the Chicago Tribune, &#8220;In Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic debate, Clinton [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gretchen</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135552</link>
		<dc:creator>Gretchen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135552</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Her campaign responded with a video showing each of her male candidates zeroing in on her.”

What should they have released? A video of the female candidates zeroing in on her?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Why isn&#039;t this obvious to the media? SERIOUSLY.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Her campaign responded with a video showing each of her male candidates zeroing in on her.”</p>
<p>What should they have released? A video of the female candidates zeroing in on her?</p></blockquote>
<p>Why isn&#8217;t this obvious to the media? SERIOUSLY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shinybear</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135507</link>
		<dc:creator>shinybear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135507</guid>
		<description>What exactly IS &quot;the gender card&quot;? I find the expression repressive, sexist and manipulative. The Dems are just giving the Republicans fodder with this one. Sure they have the right to question the front runner but is it strategic to knee-cap each other? If this campaign gets any uglier, the Dems are going to have a serious problem with party unity come next fall.

Clinton isn&#039;t the one playing the gender card- her opponants are.They want to put it into people&#039;s minds that voting for her because she&#039;s a woman is wrong. They know that it&#039;s important to many of us to get a woman in the White House and they are trying to destroy that passion.

I have no problem with people voting for a candidate specifically because they are a woman. I thought this was a free country. For Chist&#039;s sake people voted for Reagan just because they thought he was nice! 

Maybe they should pass a law- women can&#039;t mention they are women or bring up women&#039;s issues and you can&#039;t vote for a woman if she mentions she&#039;s a woman. Then the men might win!

No more feminist whining women! THAT&#039;S called &quot;playing the gender card&quot; now!

Wow- all this talk about gender cards has really convinced me to switch to Obama and or Edwards- wait a minute, I guess it didn&#039;t.

In the unlikely event either Edwards or Obama gets the nomination, I will have a hard time voting for them. Obama threw LGBTs under the bus with the ex-gay business and a dance party on Ellen was not enough to endear him back to me. Edwards doesn&#039;t &quot;feel comfortable&quot; around LGBTs- too bad his wife isn&#039;t running instead. Oh dear- am I playing &quot;the LGBT card&quot;? 

They and their supporters hostility are making the Clinton supporters dislike them. They are alienating us when they should be attracting us to their candidate. WE are the people they need to convince to switch to their side if they want to win and their supporters express nothing but contempt to us for supporting Clinton.

They are really short sighted because if they keep this up, none of them will get the Vice Presidency which is frankly the most they are qualified for right now and it would put them on track for the presidency later.

They are trying to do what they did to Howard Dean last go round. They all attacked Dean and a few months later John Kerry got the nom. They are pointing to this as an example as to why we shouldn&#039;t assume Clinton will get the nom despite her huge lead- but Clinton is not Dean! While I loved Howard Dean very much (campaigned for him), he simply was not ready for the media assault against him. This is a man who lost the nomination because he screamed &quot;Yeeeeehaw!&quot; into a microphone. Clinton is the most savvy pol running- love her or loathe her. Dean was not yet ready for prime time.

Can&#039;t wait to see them all endorse Clinton with fake smiles next summer at the convention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What exactly IS &#8220;the gender card&#8221;? I find the expression repressive, sexist and manipulative. The Dems are just giving the Republicans fodder with this one. Sure they have the right to question the front runner but is it strategic to knee-cap each other? If this campaign gets any uglier, the Dems are going to have a serious problem with party unity come next fall.</p>
<p>Clinton isn&#8217;t the one playing the gender card- her opponants are.They want to put it into people&#8217;s minds that voting for her because she&#8217;s a woman is wrong. They know that it&#8217;s important to many of us to get a woman in the White House and they are trying to destroy that passion.</p>
<p>I have no problem with people voting for a candidate specifically because they are a woman. I thought this was a free country. For Chist&#8217;s sake people voted for Reagan just because they thought he was nice! </p>
<p>Maybe they should pass a law- women can&#8217;t mention they are women or bring up women&#8217;s issues and you can&#8217;t vote for a woman if she mentions she&#8217;s a woman. Then the men might win!</p>
<p>No more feminist whining women! THAT&#8217;S called &#8220;playing the gender card&#8221; now!</p>
<p>Wow- all this talk about gender cards has really convinced me to switch to Obama and or Edwards- wait a minute, I guess it didn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>In the unlikely event either Edwards or Obama gets the nomination, I will have a hard time voting for them. Obama threw LGBTs under the bus with the ex-gay business and a dance party on Ellen was not enough to endear him back to me. Edwards doesn&#8217;t &#8220;feel comfortable&#8221; around LGBTs- too bad his wife isn&#8217;t running instead. Oh dear- am I playing &#8220;the LGBT card&#8221;? </p>
<p>They and their supporters hostility are making the Clinton supporters dislike them. They are alienating us when they should be attracting us to their candidate. WE are the people they need to convince to switch to their side if they want to win and their supporters express nothing but contempt to us for supporting Clinton.</p>
<p>They are really short sighted because if they keep this up, none of them will get the Vice Presidency which is frankly the most they are qualified for right now and it would put them on track for the presidency later.</p>
<p>They are trying to do what they did to Howard Dean last go round. They all attacked Dean and a few months later John Kerry got the nom. They are pointing to this as an example as to why we shouldn&#8217;t assume Clinton will get the nom despite her huge lead- but Clinton is not Dean! While I loved Howard Dean very much (campaigned for him), he simply was not ready for the media assault against him. This is a man who lost the nomination because he screamed &#8220;Yeeeeehaw!&#8221; into a microphone. Clinton is the most savvy pol running- love her or loathe her. Dean was not yet ready for prime time.</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t wait to see them all endorse Clinton with fake smiles next summer at the convention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maithri</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135500</link>
		<dc:creator>Maithri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135500</guid>
		<description>As an Indian reader who just went through a slightly different version of this in the Presidential elections here (very different from the US elections - you had a guest blogger blogging about it at the time), I wonder why Hilary should &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; use the gender card - or why, if she does, that&#039;s seen as a bad thing. We all know how true it is that women have to work twice as hard to get as much reward as men - doesn&#039;t that say something about her merit as a candidate?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As an Indian reader who just went through a slightly different version of this in the Presidential elections here (very different from the US elections &#8211; you had a guest blogger blogging about it at the time), I wonder why Hilary should <strong>not</strong> use the gender card &#8211; or why, if she does, that&#8217;s seen as a bad thing. We all know how true it is that women have to work twice as hard to get as much reward as men &#8211; doesn&#8217;t that say something about her merit as a candidate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whatsername</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135498</link>
		<dc:creator>whatsername</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135498</guid>
		<description>Even her &quot;bobbled&quot; question wasn&#039;t really bobbled because the plan she was commenting on has changed drastically since the last time she commented on it.  So omg she can change her mind as facts change?  What a waffler...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even her &#8220;bobbled&#8221; question wasn&#8217;t really bobbled because the plan she was commenting on has changed drastically since the last time she commented on it.  So omg she can change her mind as facts change?  What a waffler&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Apple</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135488</link>
		<dc:creator>Apple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135488</guid>
		<description>Go Girl Hillary!! 

That is all I have to say about it.

Timm Russert is an asshole, and has never made a secret of his dislike for all things Clinton.. MSNBC revs these debates up like a superbowl match, when they begin the moderaters incite this sh*t and they have a &quot;story&quot; that never really happened the way they say it did and hence begins the framing and the non stop repeating bullshit... Iraq ring a bell? 


GO HILLARY GIRL!!!!  Smash that marble ceiling and when your done, kick ass and take names!! 

Timmie Boy, You suck!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go Girl Hillary!! </p>
<p>That is all I have to say about it.</p>
<p>Timm Russert is an asshole, and has never made a secret of his dislike for all things Clinton.. MSNBC revs these debates up like a superbowl match, when they begin the moderaters incite this sh*t and they have a &#8220;story&#8221; that never really happened the way they say it did and hence begins the framing and the non stop repeating bullshit&#8230; Iraq ring a bell? </p>
<p>GO HILLARY GIRL!!!!  Smash that marble ceiling and when your done, kick ass and take names!! </p>
<p>Timmie Boy, You suck!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Problem of &#8220;Hillary&#8221; &#171; Fineness &#38; Accuracy</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135486</link>
		<dc:creator>The Problem of &#8220;Hillary&#8221; &#171; Fineness &#38; Accuracy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135486</guid>
		<description>[...] reading related to the topic: McEwan, McEwan again; Amato; Filipovic. They link to still others, of course, but those four posts, I think, will provide a useful amount [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reading related to the topic: McEwan, McEwan again; Amato; Filipovic. They link to still others, of course, but those four posts, I think, will provide a useful amount [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kate</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135484</link>
		<dc:creator>kate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/04/whos-playing-the-gender-card-now/#comment-135484</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;And are we all supposed to pretend like gender doesn’t matter and doesn’t exist at all? &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Yes of course, because when women start stepping into Man&#039;s Land, they&#039;d better shut up and not let anyone notice they&#039;re not in the kitchen or prostrate and waiting in the bedroom.

Because to acknowledge that women exist in these Men Only spaces is to acknowledge that women, as women can actually achieve the same ends and therefore, no specialness exists among the male of the species, aside for testicles and a penis and since no one is demanding testifying in the literal sense, what&#039;s a man to do?

The debaters were indeed doing their job attacking the front runner.  That H. Clinton is continuously splattered with male sputter has less to do with her or the candidates than with the reporter(s) projecting their own confused shock and awe at an actual boob wearer demanding command and control of their universe.

And they put in print that the see the candidates &#039;gang up&#039; on her. Good god almighty, why don&#039;t they just say, &quot;I see gang rape fantasies.&quot; out loud and get it over with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And are we all supposed to pretend like gender doesn’t matter and doesn’t exist at all? </p></blockquote>
<p>Yes of course, because when women start stepping into Man&#8217;s Land, they&#8217;d better shut up and not let anyone notice they&#8217;re not in the kitchen or prostrate and waiting in the bedroom.</p>
<p>Because to acknowledge that women exist in these Men Only spaces is to acknowledge that women, as women can actually achieve the same ends and therefore, no specialness exists among the male of the species, aside for testicles and a penis and since no one is demanding testifying in the literal sense, what&#8217;s a man to do?</p>
<p>The debaters were indeed doing their job attacking the front runner.  That H. Clinton is continuously splattered with male sputter has less to do with her or the candidates than with the reporter(s) projecting their own confused shock and awe at an actual boob wearer demanding command and control of their universe.</p>
<p>And they put in print that the see the candidates &#8216;gang up&#8217; on her. Good god almighty, why don&#8217;t they just say, &#8220;I see gang rape fantasies.&#8221; out loud and get it over with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 16/21 queries in 0.029 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: www.feministe.us @ 2012-02-10 06:32:12 -->
