Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

'How To Talk To Scared, Condescending, Misinformed, Old White Dudes' With Your Host, Hillary Clinton

Posted by   + Show Post

'How To Talk To Scared, Condescending, Misinformed, Old White Dudes' With Your Host, Hillary Clinton

At the Senate hearings looking into the Benghazi attack, Secretary of State Clinton was given the unique opportunity to be yelled at by some vitriolic old white dudes with a loose grasp on the facts, and a firm goal of making her look bad, regardless of what really happened. They did it in a very special way, a way we like to call "mansplaining."

So our friend Zerlina Maxwell, over at Feministing, wrote up a delightful explainer on how to handle mansplainers, reprinted here with her permission.


Ladies and gentlemen, “How to deal with a mansplainer" starring Hillary Clinton.

Step 1: Raise your hands up like, “Whoa, you guys you can’t be serious.”

Step 2: Make sure to emphasize your points by counting with your hands so that simple Tea Party senator mansplainer understands.  Mansplainers like visuals.

Step 3: No, seriously. F*** this guy.

Step 4: Raise your hands up like, “What’s your point?” and clown the mansplainer for not having an actual relevant point.

Step 5: When Sen. John McCain calls you combative and proceeds to rant endlessly, nod with a sly smile.

Step 6: Take the time McCain spends ranting to reorganize the pages in your binder.

Step 7: Rearrange all of the random crap on your desk.  You can never be too organized when getting grilled by angry white dudes.

Step 8: When the rant continues on and on look at the mansplainer with a *blank stare* and put your hand on your chin like, “Are you still talking?”

Step 9: Go home and do this:

by on Jan. 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Replies (21-30):
Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM

 


Quoting romalove:


Quoting Billiejeens:

 

 

Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

Fantasitc deflection - that's a given. What else did she do a good job with?
Quoting rccmom:

Lol! I thought she did a very good job with the hearing.


 

 She very subtly put McCain in his place. When he got all fired up about it, she said she realized the Ambassdor was his friend, meaning that McCain was too emotionally involved to be rational about the entire thing. That was smooth, not saying it was right, but smooth. Rand looked like a petulant child questioning an adult. Hillary never did answer most of his questions, but did give the impression of an adult speaking to a child. Then there were the references to reading the ARBs, insinutating that the Senators had not done their homework, and therefore their questions were not pertinent.      

 

 She does know how to play to the dumb masses, she should send you a home game.

You do know it is possible to debate and make points without being rude, correct?  

If you didn't know before, you do now.



 I do know, but you guys have to give me something to work with, not simple SWOONING!

Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

 Hello?  Dumb masses.

There was an arms running operation going on, that's the cover up.

Poor Hilliary, another man takes a crap on her, and she takes the fall, what is this 1953?


Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:

I still don't like that she wanted to know what difference it made if it was preplanned or if there was a sudden desire to kill the people at the embassy.  It may not make a difference to the dead people but it makes a difference to the living.

 

 I thought that was strange also. I wonder though if she meant it in the context of the time. At that moment in time, she was more worried about getting the others to safety, taking care of the wounded, and dealing with threats in other Embassies around the ME. So, they were not worried right away about pinning down whether or not it was preplanned nearly so much as worried about how to keep all those other embassies safe.    

Maybe.

But I think in context she was getting frustrated because there is an accusation, the elephant in the room, that they could have and should have known trouble was brewing, there had been requests for additional security which were not seen/ignored, it was 9/11, and if they didn't follow up on credible threats then they would be responsible.

 

 She was frustrated. I am still not sure about it. This was a failure of the Admin, and State Department, no doubt about it. But I also am pretty sure that the threats did not get to the correct level to be addressed directly by the Secretary ot State, so their process was flawed. However, she said that, that the process was flawed, and that is what the ARB found, and they are working to correct it. IF she is to run for President though in 2016, she needs to avoid as much direct responsibility as she can. 

I have a feeling she will not run.

I don't think she has the heart for it, and there would definitely be a party fight, because Biden wants it.

She already took responsibility.  They all of them are trying to mush it around enough so that the responsibility seems more muted, and comes with the caveats of what they didn't know or couldn't know or couldn't help.

We're moms, we have all seen this behavior before.

I think I blame Hillary less than Hillary blames herself.  I blame the entire system.  9/11 is a"no brainer" date for trouble, and they had been asked for more security.

 

I don't know. At first I thought she would not run, but who knows in 3 yrs how she will feel. I do think even though it wash 9/11, it was 9/11 everywhere, and there were probably 100s of threats that we are not aware of. We don't know how many were thwarted. So this got lost in the shuffle. Shouldn't have, but it did.

I agree about mushing around the responsibility. Ultimately the leader owns the failure of their organization.


 

rccmom
by Gold Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM


Really? She takes the fall? If that is your analysis of the situation, there is nothing further to discuss. I prefer to talk with someone with a more intelligent perspective than turning it into some 1950s stereotype.

Quoting Billiejeens:

 Hello?  Dumb masses.

There was an arms running operation going on, that's the cover up.

Poor Hilliary, another man takes a crap on her, and she takes the fall, what is this 1953?


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:

I still don't like that she wanted to know what difference it made if it was preplanned or if there was a sudden desire to kill the people at the embassy.  It may not make a difference to the dead people but it makes a difference to the living.


 I thought that was strange also. I wonder though if she meant it in the context of the time. At that moment in time, she was more worried about getting the others to safety, taking care of the wounded, and dealing with threats in other Embassies around the ME. So, they were not worried right away about pinning down whether or not it was preplanned nearly so much as worried about how to keep all those other embassies safe.    

Maybe.

But I think in context she was getting frustrated because there is an accusation, the elephant in the room, that they could have and should have known trouble was brewing, there had been requests for additional security which were not seen/ignored, it was 9/11, and if they didn't follow up on credible threats then they would be responsible.


 She was frustrated. I am still not sure about it. This was a failure of the Admin, and State Department, no doubt about it. But I also am pretty sure that the threats did not get to the correct level to be addressed directly by the Secretary ot State, so their process was flawed. However, she said that, that the process was flawed, and that is what the ARB found, and they are working to correct it. IF she is to run for President though in 2016, she needs to avoid as much direct responsibility as she can. 

I have a feeling she will not run.

I don't think she has the heart for it, and there would definitely be a party fight, because Biden wants it.

She already took responsibility.  They all of them are trying to mush it around enough so that the responsibility seems more muted, and comes with the caveats of what they didn't know or couldn't know or couldn't help.

We're moms, we have all seen this behavior before.

I think I blame Hillary less than Hillary blames herself.  I blame the entire system.  9/11 is a"no brainer" date for trouble, and they had been asked for more security.


I don't know. At first I thought she would not run, but who knows in 3 yrs how she will feel. I do think even though it wash 9/11, it was 9/11 everywhere, and there were probably 100s of threats that we are not aware of. We don't know how many were thwarted. So this got lost in the shuffle. Shouldn't have, but it did.

I agree about mushing around the responsibility. Ultimately the leader owns the failure of their organization.





Pema_Jampa
Report
Yesterday at 7:01 PM
DAFT PUNK MEDLEY - Jason Yang x John Schroeder

Daft Punk Medley - Get Lucky, Give Life Back to Music, Aerodynamic, Digital Love Jason Yang and John Schroeder feat. Cam Tyler SUBSCRIBE! http://full.sc/1cSy...

by 2HotTacoTini on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM
1 mom liked this

But that isn't what she said now is it?

Quoting The-Raven:



Quoting romalove:

I still don't like that she wanted to know what difference it made if it was preplanned or if there was a sudden desire to kill the people at the embassy.  It may not make a difference to the dead people but it makes a difference to the living.


 It came off as if she were saying "What difference does it make that we lied about what happened in Benghazi?". 


rccmom
by Gold Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM



Quoting The-Raven:



Quoting rccmom:

Lol! I thought she did a very good job with the hearing.


She did a great job if her goal was to provide every future politcal opponent with rock-solid video clips for "knock-out" ads against her. 


Keep dreaming.


Billiejeens
by Ruby Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM

 

Jesus Christ, she said it was her fault, you been in a coma?

Quoting rccmom:

 

Really? She takes the fall? If that is your analysis of the situation, there is nothing further to discuss. I prefer to talk with someone with a more intelligent perspective than turning it into some 1950s stereotype.

Quoting Billiejeens:

 Hello?  Dumb masses.

There was an arms running operation going on, that's the cover up.

Poor Hilliary, another man takes a crap on her, and she takes the fall, what is this 1953?

 

Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:

 

 

Quoting romalove:

I still don't like that she wanted to know what difference it made if it was preplanned or if there was a sudden desire to kill the people at the embassy.  It may not make a difference to the dead people but it makes a difference to the living.

 

 I thought that was strange also. I wonder though if she meant it in the context of the time. At that moment in time, she was more worried about getting the others to safety, taking care of the wounded, and dealing with threats in other Embassies around the ME. So, they were not worried right away about pinning down whether or not it was preplanned nearly so much as worried about how to keep all those other embassies safe.    

Maybe.

But I think in context she was getting frustrated because there is an accusation, the elephant in the room, that they could have and should have known trouble was brewing, there had been requests for additional security which were not seen/ignored, it was 9/11, and if they didn't follow up on credible threats then they would be responsible.

 

 She was frustrated. I am still not sure about it. This was a failure of the Admin, and State Department, no doubt about it. But I also am pretty sure that the threats did not get to the correct level to be addressed directly by the Secretary ot State, so their process was flawed. However, she said that, that the process was flawed, and that is what the ARB found, and they are working to correct it. IF she is to run for President though in 2016, she needs to avoid as much direct responsibility as she can. 

I have a feeling she will not run.

I don't think she has the heart for it, and there would definitely be a party fight, because Biden wants it.

She already took responsibility.  They all of them are trying to mush it around enough so that the responsibility seems more muted, and comes with the caveats of what they didn't know or couldn't know or couldn't help.

We're moms, we have all seen this behavior before.

I think I blame Hillary less than Hillary blames herself.  I blame the entire system.  9/11 is a"no brainer" date for trouble, and they had been asked for more security.

 

I don't know. At first I thought she would not run, but who knows in 3 yrs how she will feel. I do think even though it wash 9/11, it was 9/11 everywhere, and there were probably 100s of threats that we are not aware of. We don't know how many were thwarted. So this got lost in the shuffle. Shouldn't have, but it did.

I agree about mushing around the responsibility. Ultimately the leader owns the failure of their organization.

 

 

 

 


 

rccmom
by Gold Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:54 PM


Again, you are demonstrating your inability to look beyond simply words into how it was said and done. She did a very good job at coming  out of this as clean as she possibly could have. She admitted responsibility not because she was taking the fall for anyone. She took the blame as the Sec of State, head of the organization. Subtle diff, but I don't think you can understand it, or you are simply being deliberately obtuse.

Quoting Billiejeens:


Jesus Christ, she said it was her fault, you been in a coma?

Quoting rccmom:


Really? She takes the fall? If that is your analysis of the situation, there is nothing further to discuss. I prefer to talk with someone with a more intelligent perspective than turning it into some 1950s stereotype.

Quoting Billiejeens:

 Hello?  Dumb masses.

There was an arms running operation going on, that's the cover up.

Poor Hilliary, another man takes a crap on her, and she takes the fall, what is this 1953?


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting romalove:

I still don't like that she wanted to know what difference it made if it was preplanned or if there was a sudden desire to kill the people at the embassy.  It may not make a difference to the dead people but it makes a difference to the living.


 I thought that was strange also. I wonder though if she meant it in the context of the time. At that moment in time, she was more worried about getting the others to safety, taking care of the wounded, and dealing with threats in other Embassies around the ME. So, they were not worried right away about pinning down whether or not it was preplanned nearly so much as worried about how to keep all those other embassies safe.    

Maybe.

But I think in context she was getting frustrated because there is an accusation, the elephant in the room, that they could have and should have known trouble was brewing, there had been requests for additional security which were not seen/ignored, it was 9/11, and if they didn't follow up on credible threats then they would be responsible.


 She was frustrated. I am still not sure about it. This was a failure of the Admin, and State Department, no doubt about it. But I also am pretty sure that the threats did not get to the correct level to be addressed directly by the Secretary ot State, so their process was flawed. However, she said that, that the process was flawed, and that is what the ARB found, and they are working to correct it. IF she is to run for President though in 2016, she needs to avoid as much direct responsibility as she can. 

I have a feeling she will not run.

I don't think she has the heart for it, and there would definitely be a party fight, because Biden wants it.

She already took responsibility.  They all of them are trying to mush it around enough so that the responsibility seems more muted, and comes with the caveats of what they didn't know or couldn't know or couldn't help.

We're moms, we have all seen this behavior before.

I think I blame Hillary less than Hillary blames herself.  I blame the entire system.  9/11 is a"no brainer" date for trouble, and they had been asked for more security.


I don't know. At first I thought she would not run, but who knows in 3 yrs how she will feel. I do think even though it wash 9/11, it was 9/11 everywhere, and there were probably 100s of threats that we are not aware of. We don't know how many were thwarted. So this got lost in the shuffle. Shouldn't have, but it did.

I agree about mushing around the responsibility. Ultimately the leader owns the failure of their organization.









romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Jan. 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM
I am swooning? Lol

Quoting Billiejeens:

 




Quoting romalove:




Quoting Billiejeens:


 


 


Quoting rccmom:


 


 


Quoting Billiejeens:

Fantasitc deflection - that's a given. What else did she do a good job with?

Quoting rccmom:


Lol! I thought she did a very good job with the hearing.



 


 She very subtly put McCain in his place. When he got all fired up about it, she said she realized the Ambassdor was his friend, meaning that McCain was too emotionally involved to be rational about the entire thing. That was smooth, not saying it was right, but smooth. Rand looked like a petulant child questioning an adult. Hillary never did answer most of his questions, but did give the impression of an adult speaking to a child. Then there were the references to reading the ARBs, insinutating that the Senators had not done their homework, and therefore their questions were not pertinent.      


 


 She does know how to play to the dumb masses, she should send you a home game.


You do know it is possible to debate and make points without being rude, correct?  


If you didn't know before, you do now.






 I do know, but you guys have to give me something to work with, not simple SWOONING!

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
SweetChild63
by Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM
4 moms liked this

Oh bullshit. There was no coverup in Benghazi. No derelection of duty.  I saw the hearing circus. The republicans looked like idiots resorting to quoting rumors from conspiracy theorists. The purpose of the so-called investigation was nothing more than political grandstanding. And they got schooled.

Further, I doubt seriously you or any other right wing teabagger even knew there were 12 embassy attacks during bush's reign since it did little to further bush's warmongering agenda.


"Blah, blah, blah" - one of the most articulate arguments I have ever heard to date.  :)

Who said no one, including me, was outraged that terrorists killed and injured people during embassy assaults during Pres. Bush's term?

It was not the same thing at all. Thorough investigations were done immediately. No dereliction of duty in providing US military protection. No cover-up (in the middle of an election season). Congress did not seem to think a Congressional investigation was necessary. 

So they don't sound identical to me at all. One points to US government complicity and "screw-ups" (to quote Pres. Obama). One does not. So... what is your point actually? 

Quoting SweetChild63:

Blah Blah Blah... Where's the outrage over the 53 yes FIFTY THREE deaths and 90 injuries in embassy assaults during Bush II's reign of terror? Guess those lives weren't precious.  If you weren't outraged then, you have no right to be outraged now. 

Quoting SallyMJ:

The techniques demonstrated here seem to be pretty much accurate. Only the questioners were US Senators in the Senate Investigation into the actions leading to the murders of four American citizens serving at the US Consulate.

For some reason, arrogance, flippancy, failure to adequately investigate this atrocity, and dancing on the graves of these precious fellow Americans, by Hillary and Democrats, does not seem to be appropriate here. Just saying.







Stephanie329
by Bronze Member on Jan. 28, 2013 at 5:20 PM
I saw a commercial for depends that look like panties. You could try those. I would if I had that issue. Sex-ay!

Quoting Billiejeens:

 


omg - I just pee'd myself a little.


Quoting blues_pagan:


She handled it with class and ease which only she can pull off :)




 bouncing

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)