!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Emerging Women .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Devil Wears Prada and Runs for Presidency
Emerging Women Anyone catch Falwell's comments on Hillary's potentially running for presidency? I just heard something in passing on the Today show, so I won't misquote him. Supposedly, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment about Hillary's run for the presidency in comparison to the devil running. Hope it wasn't because she is a woman...probably not...I hope not...I don't think he was supportive of Bill either. If it was because she is a woman...I don't know about anyone else, but I'm kind of tired of being the butt of someone's joke because I have a vagina (can we say that?).

Labels: ,

posted by sylvia skinner at 9:37 AM ¤ Permalink ¤


  • At 9/25/2006 07:09:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    Here's the quote: "I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."

    Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

    At that moment in the recording, Falwell's voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.

  • At 9/25/2006 07:29:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    On one hand, one might want to know what would make Hilary running for presidency "worse" than Satan ... on the other hand, naw ... I don't want to know! I don't think there's anything that could be offered as an answer that would not tempt me to sin beyond me ability to resist.

    Yup ... tired of the jokes, jesting, and, and, and.

  • At 9/25/2006 08:04:00 PM, Blogger sylvia skinner

    I only clicked the button once--I don't know my post went on three times...Julie...help...

    Sorry guys.


  • At 9/25/2006 08:14:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    S: hahaha... maybe it was divine that it appeared 3 times! hahaha... just that alone gave me a fun laugh!

  • At 9/25/2006 09:37:00 PM, Blogger Michele L

    I didn't hear it, but honestly Falwell annoys the crap out of me, so I probably would have turned it anyway!

  • At 9/25/2006 09:41:00 PM, Blogger wilsford

    surely not even Jerry Falwell is clueless enough to publicly decry Mrs. Clinton's run for the presidency on grounds of her gender.

    that would be more unacceptable, even in conservative crowds, than being anti-Hilary based on who she is.

    never did buy into the idea that God tells preachers who to stump for, and now, having voted with my feet, don't have to put up with it any more. YES!

  • At 9/25/2006 09:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous

    Sadly, as many of you probably know, women have been "demonized" for centuries...this is just one more sad attempt to diminish our authority.

    Who cares if he said it because she was a woman or someone who advocates for social justice broadly speaking...I am so tired of religious folks who think they have the fast track to God and use that to demonize anyony...(read Elaine Pagels "The Origin of Satan"...

    Obviously he knows just potent she just might be as a candidate and as the president...he just has a different take on what that potency might be...

    As women all we can do is continue to uphold our integrity, speak clearly (and loudly), and believe in our selves and one another.

    Usually when women move into leadership positions everything changes (and often for the better: no more status quo; more emphasis on working together...)at least that has been my experience

  • At 9/25/2006 10:25:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    Well said, mompr.

    Wilsford ... I wish I could believe with you that even in conservative circles being biased based on gender would be unacceptable. I wish.

    Gender heirarchy is tied to abortion is tied to homosexuality. In evangelical fundamentalist-right wing circles, these are inseparable! Talking about only one of these issues at a time is literally impossible. It's just goofy.

  • At 9/25/2006 10:50:00 PM, Blogger Julie

    Sylvia - got the posts cleared up. That's been happening to me a lot recently. And for the recored use whatever language you want...

  • At 9/25/2006 10:54:00 PM, Blogger Cary

    Sherri, it's funny that you mention that. My husband was just talking to me last night about how that certain high-level conservatives (okay, he named names, but I won't since this is the www and not a private conversation) will never come to the point where they support women in "high" (for lack of a better word) ministry positions because of their "can of worms" mentality. They're so concerned that if they budge on that issue, they'd have to change their stance on homosexuality somewhere not too far down the line. It's just ludicrous to base your theology in one area on how you believe about a completely random topic!

  • At 9/26/2006 06:44:00 AM, Blogger wilsford

    somewhere along the line remains the point that restricting your vote to female candidates on the assumption that because they are female the difference they'll make is desirable is the same as refusing to vote for female candidates on the assumption that their gender will make a difference.

    the argument is not over whether women are different than men. it's about determining that they are "better suited" for office by virtue of gender.

  • At 9/26/2006 08:20:00 AM, Anonymous soldiermom

    I think Falwell's comment was directly related to the fact that Hillary is a woman, a woman with a brain and the potential to bring an end to what some consider to be the "woman's place". Right-wingers are so threatened by her that they can't even hear her voice without smoke coming from their collective ears. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

    And yes, it is because of her ideology, however, she is just one democrat. They don’t hiss and shout when other vocal dems speak their minds. They hate her more than they hated her husband!! Just last week I heard Bill O’Reilly say he thought that Bill Clinton was a good president!! WHAT??? He had nothing good to say about Bill when he was in office, yet in the light of time Bill gives the other Bill props? Ask him about Hillary though? I wonder what O’Reilly would say? It is the conservative, evangelical, right-winger’s squinty-eyed view that everyone needs to follow their rules. “Women are not to lead men, period – end of discussion.”

    I would add to that last rant ;0) that what Falwell is saying is that Hillary will cause more of a stir in his camp than if Satan himself ran. In the past many pundits have compared Hillary to Satan. The only difference in their eyes, is the fact that Satan is depicted in their lore as a man. This is all about gender and the conservatives would fight against her on that position alone. (been there, been one, understand the motivation…praising God that I can see differently now!)

    Thanks for letting me fume.

  • At 9/26/2006 09:24:00 AM, Blogger lydia

    the argument is not over whether women are different than men. it's about determining that they are "better suited" for office by virtue of gender

    You beat me to it, Wilsford. I was just about to say that. :)

  • At 9/26/2006 03:10:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    Cary. Yup, the issue of women being suited equally capable for any and all leadership/ministry positions is loudly fought, not based on it's own merit, but as a packaged deal with other 'hot button' items. (At least, hot button in today's context of politicized religion.)

    Women are not just up against a gender battle for equality in these camps but a much larger monster looms behind the door of conversation, ready to pounce, when the topic comes to the floor. When women are unaware of the linkage to the 'slippery slope' mentality, it is quickly becomes impossible for even a civil dialogue to take place and frustration reaches an all time high.

    HOW ABOUT? C. Rice vs. H. Clinton! Oh ... wouldn't that be a hoot! Just makes me giggle ... all the 'underwear tied in a bundle' over that matchup! (Oops ... I think you have to be over 50 to know that phrase, sorry!)

  • At 9/27/2006 10:34:00 AM, Anonymous soldiermom

    "Women are not just up against a gender battle for equality in these camps but a much larger monster looms behind the door of conversation, ready to pounce, when the topic comes to the floor. When women are unaware of the linkage to the 'slippery slope' mentality, it is quickly becomes impossible for even a civil dialogue to take place and frustration reaches an all time high."

    Sheri can you (or anyone else) expound on some of these linkages? I think that might be enlightening for me. Thanks

  • At 9/29/2006 05:14:00 PM, Blogger From the Margins

    SM: I'll try. The linking goes something like this:

    "If one takes the N.T. scriptures regarding women as contextually/culturally specific, than one is venturing into relativism and if the scriptures regarding women are 'deemed' relative, then so will all the scriptures related to homosexuality and once that happens, then none of the scripture is safe from such private interpretation and then abortion will be 'okay' too depending on cultural circumstances and so then we might just as well all approve of killing unborn babies whenever it's culturually convenient."

    Whew! That's how it goes in almost one continuous sentence (with a continous string of 'ands and thens.') Caught unaware of this 'slippery slope into relativism' argument, I've seen women totally silenced and humiliated with this line/linkage, hearing themselves now pro-baby killers for even daring to bring up the 'women question.'

    Whew! Just imagine trying to sort that one out in a room filled with 'people' all shaking their heads unanimously to such a proclamation!

    Did I say, Whew! :-)

  • At 9/30/2006 09:19:00 PM, Blogger Julie

    Sherri - you're right with the slippery slope thing. It goes that way all the time. Even with people who are generally open to women being people and all that. It always jumps to the homosexuality and abortion cards. Now I have my own opinions on homosexuality and am generally pissed that the feminist movement has been hijacked by the abortion debate, but its all apples and oranges. The people who go down the slippery slope assume that homosexuality and abortion are sins and hence are equating being a women with a call from God with sin. I usually shut them up by saying "are you saying its a sin to be a woman". I know it doesn't logically follow, but it makes them consider their words...


Links to this post:

Create a Link