Sexism big part of primary season

I would be terrified to work for you.

Is calling people who tell Hillary jokes “deranged sexist morons” any different? Does “repressing women nationally” actually occur in this country? Is this repression of women an American problem? Or a world problem? What if your opinions were the “baseless” ones, and not opinions differing from yours? If you were an extremely attractive female, would you still hold these angry views? Have you ever met a physically attractive feminist? What are your solutions to all your complaining? Do you realize you sound irritating and almost evil? Please, just don’t be angry anymore – it’s frightening to me. Think of the children.

No, that joke IS funny in a politically incorrect har-har kind of way. It is just people like you and others who rather than just joking back, you take stuff all seriously. Maybe you can joke back about Obama being a coke head, or McCain wearing adult diapers, perhaps? That aside, I don’t like how manipulative, conniving, and ruthless she is. Do these things make her a bitch?

How is that joke not funny in a politically incorrect way?

Anyway, this article makes me want to bang a girl in the kitchen. Not sure why. Just thought I’d share that.

To “duh”: dude, or i mean, according to this article, i should probably say “person,” you stole my thunder, i was totally going to say that! But then again, you did post…... “before the dark times, before the Empire…”

You’re a racist because you don’t support the black candidate! Two can play this game honey.

If you support a democratic candidate then your a pinko socialist rat!

I wouldn’t take everything Justin Lippi says to heart, Catherine. He hates strong women and anyone willing to stand up for feminist ideals.

Great column, I have also observed the same exact thing from Obama supporters. It’s funny most like him because he’s likable, fresh-faced, and inexperienced. These are some of the reasons why so many liked George W. Bush and look where that got us.
Personally, I’d rather have someone in office who isn’t a hypocrite and willing to sell out segments of their supporters to earn more votes somewhere else…He’s pulling the same bullshit that we’ve seen for ages, but since he’s eloquent he deserves to be commander in chief. Yep, makes sense. Obama change I can’t believe in, because it’s not there.

Bob,

John McCain has a well documented history of having a very short temper. He is notorious for blowing up at staffers for minor incidents. That is “prick“ish behavior. You want a guy with anger management issues with his finger on the button?

Man hater,
You’re right. Clinton definitely didn’t sacrifice the black electorate, which had been very important to Bill’s nomination, to court the Latino one.

This opinion is so chock full of ranting generalizations that it’s difficult to know where to start.

“Also unlike past presidential primaries, the election boils down to two core issues: race and gender. This fact infuriates the electorate beyond visible comprehension specifically because neither issue has any weight whatsoever on a candidate’s qualifications.”

This is a fact, eh? Says who? For me, it’s about security, the economy, and putting American first. If you can’t see past race and gender, perhaps it is YOU who have the problem.

“Determining whom you’re voting for based on uncontrollable and inconsequential factors in the candidates’ genetic makeup is not only ignorant; it’s wholly demonstrative of the social decay of modern American society.”

Why is this ignorant? Wouldn’t women feel that a woman would know more about the alleged persecution you claim is crippling them? Wouldn’t a black man feel that a black man would have more experience with the hardships faced by his race every day? I would counter that it’s not ignorant – it’s simply based on personal experience. Not everyone has a computer; not everyone can do the kind of research you suggest needs to be done on a candidate. In these cases, voting for someone who you feel has more in common with you is a perfectly acceptable choice.

“For every woman fighting for an equal role in society is a female playing up and capitalizing on her objectification. Jessica Alba has seen as many spreads in men’s magazines as there are characters in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. These women primarily use their bodies to make money and consequently perpetuate the myth that it’s OK to treat all women as commodities.”

Or maybe they’ve seen past the pathetic dogma that our bodies are evil and should be covered at all times. They’ve realized that their bodies give them power and they’re using them to exploit the masses. I think you’ve got this backwards. Also, note that Alba in particular has refused offers to do nude shoots. She is clearly in control – not the “good ol’ boys” you claim hold her captive.

“Sexism is so institutionalized that it resides as the softer form of discrimination and is thus more widely accepted. I can’t decide what’s more frustrating: that repressing women is still nationally embraced, or that it’s OK to form baseless opinions ultimately shaping the legal, economic and social makeup of the country.”

Rant much? Care to quote any studies that show that women are more repressed than minorities? Here’s a quick fact for you: number of female governors: 8. Number of black governors: 2. Discuss.

“A quick Google search and you’re back to “World of Warcraft” in no time.”

Are you attempting to claim that all morons who don’t research a candidate are WoW gamers? That is quite insulting to the WoW community.

And to the poster above, good show. Hillary is a bitch. McCain is a prick. Unfortunately, Obama is a sissy-pants. I’m disappointed that Richard Pryor can’t run on a “None of the Above” platform again. Someone have 30 million to spot him?

These feminists with their witchcraft!

“If you were an extremely attractive female, would you still hold these angry views? Have you ever met a physically attractive feminist?”

Yes, and yes. I am one, actually…or so I’d like to think. ;)

“People are making offensive jokes about a presidential candidate. That candidate is a woman. This is, of course, a representation of our country’s ongoing repression of women.”

Yes, of course, people make jokes about politicians all the time. However, you don’t see entire E! specials dedicated to McCain’s suits, hair, and the like. You wouldn’t see anyone laughing if a jokester got up and yelled “Pick My Cotton!” at an Obama rally (in comparison to the “hilarity” of someone yelling “Iron My Shirt!” at a Clinton gathering). And where do I even start with the fact that women are severely underrepresented in politics—as representatives, Congresspersons, and most notably, the presidency? But hey, even though half the population is female, that doesn’t mean women are underrepresented in this field…right?

and to Is She Serious, let’s clear up your confusion, shall we?

“A woman has made it to the top of the political world and is in an almost dead heat with male politician for the most powerful role in the world. This is, of course, a representation of our country’s ongoing repression of women.”

While Hillary’s success is admirable, let’s think about it for just a sec…if women are completely equal to men, then why haven’t we elected a woman president yet? Why has EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT we’ve ever had been rich, white, male, and Protestant (besides Kennedy, who was a Catholic)? Why, as Texas Spartan points out, are only 8 governors female, and a vast majority of our Congresspersons and representatives male (and white, I might add)? Why are other countries able to successfully elect female presidents and prime ministers, yet we’re lagging so far behind? Hmm…I’m sure inequality has NOTHING to do with it, right?

Little Laura- I think Is She Serious was pointing out that using Hillary as an example of inequality is a bad choice. Not to mention that Hillary carries the two most important traits of our past Presidents, namely being rich and white.
There is also an assumption here that it is only men that don’t want to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. I’ve spoken with a handful of conservative women who won’t vote for Hillary because she is a bitch and are generally uneasy about having a female President.

Tim—

I understand how this could be interpreted. However, the idea that women are not oppressed based on the fact that we have the first female candidate who actually has a shot at the Oval Office doesn’t add up. Yeah, Hillary IS part of the rich, white Clinton dynasty…which is one of the many reasons why I’m still undecided at the moment. ;) But not voting for Clinton just because she’s a “bitch” or because the idea of a woman running the country makes you squirm doesn’t make you any less sexist if you’re a woman rather than a man.

LittleLaura- I agree with you on both of your points. I have also found that most people who are afraid of Hillary because she is a woman aren’t familliar with Margret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or other women who have successfully led countries without nuking the whole world.

Laura,

The idea that Clinton’s bitchiness is not a good reason to not vote for her doesn’t add up.

As voters, we are basically hiring a person to fill a pretty important job. Certainly her personality and bitchiness IS a perfectly appropriate criteria to measure. Why wouldn’t it be? We’ve had 8 years of a president whose personality traits (stubborness, unwillingness to work across the aisle, a willingness to make decisions based on incomplete evidence, an unquestioning attitude, an us-V-them mentality, a devil may care attitude, etc…)have done tremendous damage to this country.

I ‘d like to see some statistics on how many people are unwilling to vote for Hillar-ity simply because she has a baby maker. I’d be willing to bet that number is pretty low. If, however, you ask how many people won’t vote for her because of her personality (including her bitchiness) that number would climb sharply.

I mean, look at the joke the columnist refers to. It makes jokes about her body/appearance (as other candidates are expposed to, too. Bill was fat, George has big ears, McCain is wrinkly, etc…) and her political ideaology. So is it a sexist joke because it is about a woman’s body? Were the fat jokes made about her hubby during his terms anti-male because they were made about a male body?

It is the PC police like you and the column’s author who make it almost impossible to have an honest discussion around almost any topic in this country.

LittleLauraShell wrote:

“Female celebrities aren’t being strapped down and forced to pose in their underwear, but surely there’s a social connotation of acceptance behind this behavior on top of the massive amounts of money they’re offered that might motivate such a decision?”

Let’s see – women use the power granted to them by society to trade a little bare skin for wealth and fame. They hold the pathetic populace who feeds on the mags and rags in the palm of their hands. Who has the power here? There’s a reason you don’t see more nude men on the covers of magazines – women know they don’t have to pay for what many men will give them for free. They’ve beaten the system. Who really has the power here?

“I don’t think she’s trying to argue that women are MORE oppressed than minorities, but rather that it’s more socially embedded in our culture and more acceptable to be sexist than to be racist.”

But she is. She is claiming that it’s more common to be sexist than racist. If that’s true, then why have so many people voted in women governors? Why is the number of women in Congress increasing rapidly while the number of minorities stagnates? The author’s claim is a bogus, unbased, an unsubstantiated claim about the general mindset of the American populace.

“As far as your statistic about governors, how about we have a little discussion about oppression in the context of these 10 minorities in comparison to the rest of governors who undoubtedly fit the rich, white male bill?”

Because many people would like you to believe that human nature will allow 1900 years of oppression to be overcome in a mere 100. Women and minorities have been persecuted and oppressed since the dawn of time (and you can thank your good religions for that). It is futile and naive to assume that we can bounce to 50/50 representation in only a hundred years of civil rights work. The important fact is that women and minorities are gaining ground – THAT is what’s important. Those who scream for equality now are deluding themselves, and hindering the visibility into real progress being made.

“Why has EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT we’ve ever had been rich, white, male, and Protestant (besides Kennedy, who was a Catholic)?”

See above on all four points. Why haven’t we had a middle-class president? The answer is that the presidency is about power and money – two things women and minorities have not had historically but are catching up on quickly.

Oops, guess my link didn’t go through. Just google “CBS Poll: Gender Matters More Than Race”.

Either way, we’ll have Hil-Dawg to blame for McCain being president and causing WWIII.

This whole thread shows what the fundamental problem with Democrats is. This thread is basically a bunch of moderate male Democrats arguing with ultra left-wing, feminist, PC Democrats about our “phallocentric” society.

How about everyone takes a page from the Republicans and band together no matter what the ideological differences!

“Did you know your last name means Fish?”

You crack me up bro. I just spit coke all over my keyboard AGAIN

Laura,

The article and poll you refer to really doesn’t prove your point. IThe summation of the article:

“Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll”

Also, the racism comparison DOES fit the bill. Feminists advocate not for equality, but for preferential treatment of women because of their status as a historically oppressed group. Feminists have no interest in men and women treated equally.

And to answer your question, “When has personality alone been an adequate reason to not vote for someone?” Pretty much forever. Just like people vote FOR candidates because of their personality. It is as valid a decision making criteria as any.

I don’t know who’s statement is more dangerous, Laura’s feminist shennanigans or Fact-Based’s lock step attitude.

Fact based:

The reason democrats have these discussions is because they prefer to think things through and make their own decisions rather than simply blindly and unquestioningly follow the first (or loudest) person to express an idea.

“I’m not saying these women don’t make the choice independently, but power is gained in other ways than taking your clothes off. And when we’re seeing that “power” for women lies in this avenue and yet women don’t seem to have much representation in the realm of politics, science, law, etc…who’s really got the power here?”

Does it matter how power is obtained? Consider a young woman who works as a stripper to get through college or to put her kid through school. The compare someone like my father, who worked 18-hour shifts for 20 years on the line at GM to put a roof over my head. At the end of the day, are either of these two people worse than the other? My friend’s single mom danced on tables to put him through school. Now he has a law degree. Power and opportunity must always be earned.

Why must the be an equal number of women in science, law, etc? Are you implying that my stay-at-home wife (by her choice, BTW) who is amazing at raising our children is somehow less of a woman? She, like the poor models and strippers, has THE CHOICE to do what she wants. THAT, my friend, is the power. How you use it is entirely up to you.

“I personally think it’s more socially acceptable to be sexist than to be racist—the author points this out in stating that much of it goes undetected.”

I personally think that Hillary is a useless tool of the corporatte machine. See? I can make unsubstantiated claims as well. Show some proof or move on.

“Sexism is apparently alive and well in this thread, judging by many of the posts so far.”

Surely you don’t mean 1) the obvious trolling jokes or 2) dissenting opinion. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate?

“But if people don’t rally for equality now, or call the Clinton and Obama camps on racist and sexist remarks made and turn a blind eye instead in the name of “eventual progression”, exactly how does this force our politicians and our citizens to move forward, too?”

No one is suggesting to stop rallying for equality. The author’s original post claimed that “the election boils down to two core issues: race and gender.” You’ve apparently fallen for it. Instead of questioning them on details of their policies, stance on homeland security, or how they’re going to fix our miserable economy, they’d rather point fingers at the other camp and fan the flame of racism/sexism. Such tactics blind the populace of the real issues because they’re easy trigger points. The candidates are smart and know that although the people making the remarks are hair-brained, the eager masses will focus on the moronic remarks and NOT on their campaign.

“My point was that we’re lagging behind other countries as far as representation of women in politics, not about other forces that have and still do exclude various marginalized groups.”

Really? How? Certainly you don’t mean just at one position, do you? Do you have data suggesting that a higher percentage of female legislators and executives exists in other countries? Sure, you can drum up Maggie Thatcher, but what about the fact that almost her entire legislature was male? Again, provide data or move on.

Regardless, thank you, LittleLauraShell, for the civilized debate. Although we don’t agree here, it’s nice that we don’t need to resort to insults, which, I agree, appear to often on these posts.

Fact based or Laura:

I’m being practical here. Party in-fighting will cost the Dems this election. I saw that this thread was a perfect example of Democrat party in-fighting and commented as such.

So, if this show teach you anything, it should teach you how to respect everyone: animals, children, bitches, spazmos, mingers, lezzers, fatty boombahs, and even gaylords.

If you go back, there has technically been a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1980, when HW was VP.

You know what? Most of the people who go for Obama before Clinton have good reasons. Mine are simple: it’s not because she’s a woman, and it’s not because she is “socialist”... in my opinion, she is the most corporate of ALL the original candidates. She serves far more special interests than anyone I can think of. She showed EXTREMELY poor judgment with her war voting record. And ever since she declared her candidacy, she has displayed some giant sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination because of who her husband is and all that she’s “accomplished” as a female, and as a senator for an election that she only won because her original challenger was caught up in scandal.

And now, she’s helping to tear the party apart. It’s pissing me off. She’s resorting to tactics that shouldn’t be used. That isn’t what I think Obama represents. He may not have every single answer, but I certainly don’t think he’s pretending to, and I am MUCH more confident that he will unify, reach out, and surround himself with people who will get work done.

Is that good enough for you? I don’t think Hillary deserves the nomination for all those reasons. And the longer she drags this out, the less likely her party is to win the white house back.

“Why must the be an equal number of women in science, law, etc? Are you implying that my stay-at-home wife (by her choice, BTW) who is amazing at raising our children is somehow less of a woman? She, like the poor models and strippers, has THE CHOICE to do what she wants. THAT, my friend, is the power. How you use it is entirely up to you.”

Never once did anyone say that it makes anyone less of a person because they choose to be a housewife. It IS all about choice. You said yourself:

“Let’s see – women use the power granted to them by society to trade a little bare skin for wealth and fame. They hold the pathetic populace who feeds on the mags and rags in the palm of their hands. Who has the power here? There’s a reason you don’t see more nude men on the covers of magazines – women know they don’t have to pay for what many men will give them for free. They’ve beaten the system. Who really has the power here?”

Let’s look at the telling line that you said “women use the power granted to them by society to trade a little bare skin for wealth and fame”. If you really feel that is the only way for women to gain power than you are just further perpetuating the gender stereotypes, and also to assume that all women would feel comfortable with trading skin for cash than you are wrong. There are other ways for all people to gain power, and if that CHOICE is limited to stripping and exploiting your body or becoming a housewife we have a problem. The fact that you even pose female exploitation as a way to achieve status and power also shows that you know little of the industry. Who makes all the money off of these forms of “female empowerment” whether it be stripping, or taking provocative photos, etc… any of the things you suggested would “give women power”? Not the models, who get paid per shoot, but the companies that use these pictures in their magazines to make money, these women are turned into commodities that the people who own and run these companies exploit for personal profit.

“Does it matter how power is obtained? Consider a young woman who works as a stripper to get through college or to put her kid through school. The compare someone like my father, who worked 18-hour shifts for 20 years on the line at GM to put a roof over my head. At the end of the day, are either of these two people worse than the other? My friend’s single mom danced on tables to put him through school. Now he has a law degree. Power and opportunity must always be earned.

Why must the be an equal number of women in science, law, etc? Are you implying that my stay-at-home wife (by her choice, BTW) who is amazing at raising our children is somehow less of a woman? She, like the poor models and strippers, has THE CHOICE to do what she wants. THAT, my friend, is the power. How you use it is entirely up to you.”

Um, wow. OK, I’m not even going to dive into this one. Just because you know someone’s mom who danced on tables through college doesn’t mean that all strippers are secretly young coeds tryin’ to pull themselves up by the ol’ bootstraps. Many strippers may also be lower-class, involved in drug culture, or at a last option because a waitressing job doesn’t pay the bills as well. This is not “power”, for many women this can be a last resort. I’m not saying this is true in all cases, but I’d be very careful about making blanket statements about ideas of “power”, especially in comparison to working a factory line job and serving as nothing more than a dancing object around a pole. Yes, it does matter how power is obtained, especially when women’s apparently lies in a realm of objectification and a profession that relies on an entire class of workers dependent upon it for their very living.

Second of all, are you aware of the inequality in those fields? About how women weren’t even admitted into law schools like Harvard until the 1960s? About how many times women in these professions are guided in different career paths than men, resulting in less prestige and less pay? If you want to think this is a mere generalization, read up:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/march13/womenlaw-313.html

It’s startling when the president of such a school makes a remark not too long ago about how women just aren’t cut out for these professions. Instances like these, my friend, shows that we still have a long way to go.

And I really love the straw man “housewife” argument, this is one of my favorites. Nowhere did I say that your wife is any “less” of a woman…perhaps you are simply perpetuating a common perception of feminists, yes? And on that matter, your wife flat out wouldn’t HAVE a choice to be a housewife or not had it not been for…guess who? Feminists! She wouldn’t have the right to choose whether or not a profession or children or OMG, BOTH AT THE SAME TIME?! should be the utmost priority in her life had it not been for women’s movements. Seriously, the first and second waves of feminist movements were groundshaking as far as women and their options in the public sphere go. Perhaps instead of upholding common misconceptions about feminists, you should study up on them and the work they’ve done that gave your wife the option to stay home of her own free will.

“You’ve apparently fallen for it. Instead of questioning them on details of their policies, stance on homeland security, or how they’re going to fix our miserable economy, they’d rather point fingers at the other camp and fan the flame of racism/sexism. Such tactics blind the populace of the real issues because they’re easy trigger points. The candidates are smart and know that although the people making the remarks are hair-brained, the eager masses will focus on the moronic remarks and NOT on their campaign.”

Apparently you hadn’t read my previous posts carefully—I am undecided about the candidate I will be voting for. If I’d “fallen” for the race or gender card, I’d apparently have to automatically vote for the white woman by way of “personal experience”...right?

“Really? How? Certainly you don’t mean just at one position, do you? Do you have data suggesting that a higher percentage of female legislators and executives exists in other countries?”

Yes, actually. Have a look: http://www.ipu.org/press-e/gen298.htm While you’re right that America is indeed improving its situation, the Nordic countries are far ahead of us in electing women to their parliaments.

Feminism is retarded, and so is black nationalism, white nationalism, and every other stupid, identity politcs.

The only division that matters is class. I care two shits if my bosses are either white, black, yellow, female, gay, trans—I would hate them anyway.

Why must you hate on me?

You either don’t see enough of me (most likely), or you prefer my friend, the penis.

VAG VAG VAG VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA.

“The feminist thinks that every female in the world, whether worker, peasant, buisnessman, professional, etc, are in the same situation and share similar socio-economic interests.”

Is this so? Alright, well if you know so much about feminists apparently by making blanket assumptions about what they ALL believe or think; than what might I ask is the “interests” that feminists think all women should have?

Feminists feel that all women everywhere should have the equal opportunity that men do. It’s not that they should all have the same interests, or that it’s not acceptable for a woman to want to be a housewife, or a stripper or whatever else she wants to do. It’s that they should have the same chance to succeed and be looked at on the exact same playing field as men.

Fact be told you know nothing about feminism. You are spouting off rhetoric you heard on television or something some bigot said about feminists. Not all feminists are bra burning man haters, hell some of them can even be MEN!!! I suggest you educate yourself on some feminist texts so you can get a more accurate idea of what one is. The control of women has been going on for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

It sure is easy to mudsling. There are lots of Americans out there who think Hillary’s a bitch. It is easy to throw that out there and just to have someone agree with you. Thinking, on the other hand, is a lot harder than namecalling. And to call Hillary a bitch doesn’t take any thinking at all – she’s just a bitch, and people will agree. It is easy to say that about any strong woman. Just label them that way due to insecurity and you don’t have to like them, and you will have multiple people agree with you.

My argument (and interestingly enough, so is Tina Fey’s) is that we need a woman to be a bitch to lead our country. We don’t want a weak woman to run our country. We want someone with a backbone, who speaks their mind, who says what needs to be said – all qualities that get woman landed on the “bitch” list. No thinking, just labeling. Meanwhile, a guy says or does any of those things, and he is tough – strong on security, etc. Hell, you have McCain and Hillary say the exact same words, and Hillary is a bitch, and McCain is a maverick and we want to vote for him. There couldn’t be a bigger double standard.

The President should be someone who utterly believes in themselves and their country. This first step is where Bush has it right. However, he sorely misses the second part – the ability to have humility, or be questioned, and know you aren’t always right. Hillary has done that as well. Hell, her husband had one of the most public affairs ever, and she lived through it. I would have run and hid – and I’m a guy. Instead she came through, held her head high, and moved on with her life, continued to serve her country as a Senator. But yeah, she’s a bitch – we don’t like her. That’s easy to say. No thought has to go into that. But again, the saddest part is her “bitchy” traits are all traits that are extremely valued in men.

Secondly, when it comes to her and Obama, what has Obama offered to date? Change is the only thing he trumpets. Change how? What is one thing he is running on? The war. He didn’t vote for it. That is all you have ever heard of from this guy. He will change Washington and he didn’t vote for the war.

Fact: The “war vote” passed in the Senate with a vote of 77-23. What the “war vote” did was to giver President Bush approval to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein didn’t hand over the WMDs as required by UN sanctions. Hillary was one of the 77. Here is another example of a no win situation. Hillary didn’t vote for the war? Then she is soft on security issues. Instead she gave the President permission to attack if UN sanctions weren’t followed. As did 76 other people. I ask any of you from that time – who wasn’t against that? Again, easy to say you weren’t – now at least. The debacle of the war is what I am against. The lack of a plan and an exit strategy, and that all comes from this administration, not from a Senator. So having eliminated that, what else does Obama offer? Nothing… He is a good public speaker. Great. What does that do? Nothing.

I just don’t get it at all… its easy to label… its easy to name call… why not just say “I’ve already decided – don’t confuse me with the facts”....

Hillary is worthless. If you are going to select a womyn to stand behind she is NOT the one.

Obama is the light.

BTW – by voting for Hillary over Obama make one sexist?

Trevor Barnes stole my flag!

No one can ever accuse me of being sexist in regard to Hillary, mostly because I’ve never accused her of being a woman.

Hillary’s a heinous bitch

Well, I know a lot more about Hillary than Barack. It is evident that Obama has deep contact in the Chicago ghetto sub-culture(of course his base of support),and is being “spiritually advised” by racists and homophobes. Sorry, we do not need more of the “same ‘O’”. Time for a change? To what? We need to change ourselves. One’s reality is only what one is thinking right now. It takes courage to be oneself.

The comments on this article are disgusting and embarrassing. I think they prove the author’s point.