Yes, but it’s typical. It’s team politics at work again. Better to distort to score a point than try to engage.
Explain it then, because I’ve read it 10 times and that’s the only thing I’m getting from it.
“But then… .along cam Hillary.”
Like before that happened no women ever broke any ceilings or had any power or got to act smart.
Also there’s a black dude on there. They totally had easy street in the 50’s.
Maybe if you read both pages: “Girls weren’t supposed to act smart, tough, or ambitious”
It’s specifically talking about cultural stereotypes and the pressure for women to be homemakers and men to be providers. It’s talking about how Clinton is a role model for women to achieve. I don’t see how you can read past that.
On top of it, it’s an f’ing kids book. My house has a wonderful copy of “Bo, Commander in Leash” which is a terrible book that we got free. There’s a section in it about how Bo the dog is better at bowling than Obama. Obama rolls gutters while Bo is all about strikes. I will have to tweet about how it is a book about how Obama is below dogs.
Well no shit, that’s where the criticism comes from.
“Girls weren’t supposed to be these things… (then) along came Hillary.”
Like she magically changed things and no one else before her did anything.
Jeannette Rankin and Hattie Caraway were suckers. If only they’d… married a dude who became President?
I don’t see how one woman defying the stereotypes somehow means that no other woman has ever done that or was a submissive little flower or something. Get a grip, people.
Because of Hillary, who is a Mover and a Maker, young girls can actually envision themselves as one day being President of the USA, for reals. That’s major, and no, there hasn’t really been someone before her that close to almost take a position that was assumed a man only position.
Of course there were other important women before her too. Someone invented/discovered fire once, that doesn’t mean every scientist since is some sort of poser.
Exactly. Anyone who looks at that like it negates every woman of importance before Hillary is missing the point, either willfully or through not thinking about it.
Gah, it’s just dumb. It’s a kid’s book. It’s saying that Hillary Clinton as a possible President is an example to young girls of what they might achieve. It’s saying this door is open when in past generations it was closed.
That would be a good point if only politicians were shown. Or you know, men scientists and then an example of a groundbreaking woman, and men CEOs and an example of the first woman Fortune 500 CEO, etc. and then major party presidential candidates with Hillary. It looks to me like the “simplification” is showing her as the first woman to break a glass ceiling in any field.
The text puts it in context. It doesn’t say she’s the first, but it says in the 1950’s… It’s implying that back then the options for women were very limited.
I think it’s a misreading to think it means that before Hillary women never did anything. I don’t think that was the intent of those pages.
Is the stupidity of this thread the fact that people on the Twitter are getting bent out of shape over their blind spot interpretation of a niche children’s book instead of actually caring about the textbooks that millions of American kids are given that minimize slavery, the Civil War, internment camps, and on and on?
Do go on, whataboutism is so much better when you do it.
Did you see the part where this is a child’s book and not some sort college thesis paper? I mean seriously. Powerful, tough talking, not backing down… that shit’s still hard for women to pull off today, for women who at least, typically, get a more positive message than women in the 1950’s did. I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count how many times the word likable and Hillary came up… as if even half of Congress is filled with likable men.
Liberals, Stop Applauding George W. Bush
One half-decent speech doesn’t atone for paving the way for Donald Trump.
It’s OK to applaud him for the speech too many republicans are afraid to give while still believing he was a poor president.
Telling people to continue to hate is not the way to proceed.
I was angry at G-Dub ,almost all the time, but I never thought he was an actual traitor, nor did I think he personally desired to profit massively from the office.
I could accept G-Dub being president as not an insult to national honor and integrity. Trump is the first time I’ve ever felt ashamed to be an American just from the president’s existence.
You are kidding right? It is saying there was no women of import before Hillary. It literally says “along came Hillary”, as though no women existed before her. No athlete, no musician, no scientist, no chef, no newsman, no author…until “along came Hillary”.
This might be the stupidest, least important thing we’ve talked about in this thread, and that’s saying a lot. Sure, it comes across as tone deaf and aggrandizing, but it’s pretty clear the intent is to be be inspirational to young girls, so whatever. It looks like a pretty standard celebrity/vanity press children’s book affair. It’s not like it’s any worse than Madonna’s or Danielle Steele’s contributions.
The artist for that book is LeUyen Pham, an illustrator who’s done a number of projects, including the surprisingly fun Princess In Black series.
I too get upset when my children’s books gloss over complicated gender politics in favor of telling a single story with a single point.
Hillary is always THE BEST at humility.
C’mon, it doesn’t say that. Just rework the page to be “Along came Marie Curie” or “Along came Amelia Earhart” and it works. It’s a point about patriarchy, not the absence of noteworthy women. You can interpret this correctly, I know you can.
