Sexism practiced by male-dominated third-world immigrant communities beat Hillary, not Obama...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Democratic women are feeling metaphorically battered by the Obama campaign.

...

If it's any consolation to Sen. Clinton, she's not the only female to find that social progress is strangely accommodating of old-time sexism. There was a front-page story in London last week about a British Indian couple in Birmingham – she's 59, he's 72 – who'd had twins through in vitro fertilization and then abandoned the babies at the hospital when they turned out to be daughters, announcing their plans to fly back to India for another round of IVF in hopes of getting a boy.

...

Sex-selective abortion is a fact of life in India, where the gender ratio has declined to 1,000 boys to 900 girls nationally, and as low as 1,000 boys to 300 girls in some Punjabi cities. In China, the state-enforced "one child" policy has brought about the most gender-distorted demographic cohort in global history, the so-called guang gun– "bare branches." If you can only have one kid, parents choose to abort girls and wait for a boy, to the point where in the first generation to grow to adulthood under this policy there are 119 boys for every 100 girls.

...

And what of the Western world?

From 2000-05, Indian women in England and Wales gave birth to 114 boys for every 100 girls.

A similar pattern seems to be emerging among Chinese, Korean and Indian communities in America. "The sex of a firstborn child in these families conformed to the natural pattern of 1.05 boys to every girl, a pattern that continued for other children when the firstborn was a boy," wrote Colleen Carroll Campbell, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former Bush speechwriter, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the other day. "But if the firstborn child was a girl, the likelihood of a boy coming next was considerably higher than normal at 1.17-to-1. After two girls, the probability of a boy's birth rose to a decidedly unnatural 1.51-to-1."

...

Canada and Europe are in steep demographic decline and dependent on immigration to sustain their populations. And – as those Anglo-Welsh statistics suggest – many of the available immigrants are already from male-dominated cultures and will eventually be male-dominated numbers-wise, too.

...

Smaller families may mean just a boy or a girl for liberal Democrats, but in other societies it means just a boy.

...

Enlightened progressives take it for granted that social progress is like technological progress – that women's rights are like the internal combustion engine or the jet airplane: once invented they can't be uninvented.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/boy-boy...513-women-obama

[nana_356 0]

And if Obama lost, people would have said that its a race thing. Hillary lost against an interacial man, he is different himself.

So, is the us more racist than sexist or more sexist than racist??

Edited June 2, 2008 by nana_356

[PlatyPius 5]

Neither. They're just more anti-stupid biotch.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[nana_356 0]

Neither. They're just more anti-stupid biotch.

oh by the way, cartmen is better

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Troll - I think you have won the award for the most incomprehensible post/argument of the year.

Calling Hillary a stupid bioatch? Not exactly proving the point about not being sexist.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Troll - I think you have won the award for the most incomprehensible post/argument of the year....

Eh, troll's posts became incomprehensible when he found out others could start a flame-war without his help.

[HAL 9000 96]

Troll - I think you have won the award for the most incomprehensible post/argument of the year....

Eh, troll's posts became incomprehensible when he found out others could start a flame-war without his help.

How dare thee challenge Trollie's Sh!tstorm supremacy!!!!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Troll - I think you have won the award for the most incomprehensible post/argument of the year....

Eh, troll's posts became incomprehensible when he found out others could start a flame-war without his help.

Post of the day!

[nana_356 0]

Troll - I think you have won the award for the most incomprehensible post/argument of the year.

Calling Hillary a stupid bioatch? Not exactly proving the point about not being sexist.

I dont think hillary is a B-word

To be honest I feel many people are getting angry with Hillary. There is a fine line between not being a quiter, and being in denial.

[morocco4ever 63]

Neither. They're just more anti-stupid biotch.

This explains the general consensus about many (unamed) posters here on VJ.

I know someone that won't vote for Hillary because she won't vote for someone that's husband had an affair with Monica. Does this even make sense? Is that the best argument they could come up with? I am not saying I am voting for Hillary, Obama, McCain or whoever, but I certainly hope my decision will be based more off of their political stance rather than their sex, skin color, or shoe size.

[Dan J 277]

At the same time, is voting for Hillary, simply on the basis that she is a woman, any better?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

At the same time, is voting for Hillary, simply on the basis that she is a woman, any better?

Or for that matter, voting for Obama because he is black?

We'd be a lot better if this election was actually about healthcare, the economy, Iraq, etc instead of identity politics.

[PlatyPius 5]

Neither. They're just more anti-stupid biotch.

This explains the general consensus about many (unamed) posters here on VJ.

I know someone that won't vote for Hillary because she won't vote for someone that's husband had an affair with Monica. Does this even make sense? Is that the best argument they could come up with? I am not saying I am voting for Hillary, Obama, McCain or whoever, but I certainly hope my decision will be based more off of their political stance rather than their sex, skin color, or shoe size.

My reason for not voting for her has nothing to do with her gender or who Cigar Bill diddled in the White House. I would never vote for her because she's controlling, vindictive, scheming, disconnected, and feels "entitled". All of those things, by the way, make up the definition of "biotch". I disagree with her stance on health care, I detest her because she supported the Farce in Iraq, and I think she would ultimately be an even worse president than Georgie.

[almaty 19]

Neither. They're just more anti-stupid biotch.

This explains the general consensus about many (unamed) posters here on VJ.

I know someone that won't vote for Hillary because she won't vote for someone that's husband had an affair with Monica. Does this even make sense? Is that the best argument they could come up with? I am not saying I am voting for Hillary, Obama, McCain or whoever, but I certainly hope my decision will be based more off of their political stance rather than their sex, skin color, or shoe size.

My reason for not voting for her has nothing to do with her gender or who Cigar Bill diddled in the White House. I would never vote for her because she's controlling, vindictive, scheming, disconnected, and feels "entitled". All of those things, by the way, make up the definition of "biotch". I disagree with her stance on health care, I detest her because she supported the Farce in Iraq, and I think she would ultimately be an even worse president than Georgie.

platy for mod and president