Ok this post occurred before I was a frayster so am deconstructing as well as I can, and responding to most of it.
1) Baldtony lobotomizes himself with a butter knife and then gives permission to fraysters to post.
Baldtony I think the butter knife obotomized you instead. Gotta work on it.
2) Although all three women were passive, the one on the right was the most whiney, in her tone of voice and ingratiating, she also had the most stabs in the back on Hillary without anyone being able to say anything about it because she was just so darn ingratiating.
The woman in the middle is less ingratiating than the one on the right, but she still had a "be nice to me" "don't hurt me" tone of voice, I can imagine the throngs of males outside her apartment begging for dates. She also appeared to be the moderater.
The woman on the right had the strongest personality, the least annoying voice, and I can't imagine how absolutely annoyed she had to be to be sitting at a little girls tea party tossing digs at Hillary while the two little girls on the left giggled, and talked about how they are so OOOOBBBviously feminists. (Oh please go buy merkins and get a cunt).
3.) The slam on Hillary for saying that Obama was not a muslim as far as she knows.
Did someone drop an IQ bomb that flattened their ability to reason? Who the hell isn't saying that. Where does fray hide these women the back alley of an FDLS compound?
4) The women all agreed on one thing that both Hillary and Obama cast him/himself in the role of woman.
Agree totally he's a priss, he's a miss, he's a convuluting wommin, he can't remember a thing, thats because he's got no ding ding....
Ok I think this is really the crux of it, more women identify with Obama because he is more like them than HIllary is. Hillary is a tough bitch. I would be surprised if the woman on the right did not vote Hillary she seems more like Hillary but the ones on the left, holy batcave, they are koolaid drinkers waiting for it to be spiked.
5) The comment that he is a "lover not a fighter." and giggles all around, that was just an icky poo poo moment.
6) LaurieannM, I love your commentary
7) NoHablo teenagers gossiping comment, acknowledged.
all shut up when a strong woman enters the room and they do what they can to make sure that a strong woman can not get ahead, the one on the right can handle a stronger personality but left and Emily probably not.
8) Jack flatchested airheads.---classic Jack, I did think the woman on the right wanted to bail. I mean she must have analyzed the situation and known that trying to apply any type of valid analysis would be pretty mute point.
Also Jack now you know what women like me bitch about. Imagine having this to deal with in the workforce constantly. There should be legislation to give strong females barf bags as part of the hiring package of any job.
9) Dubina
Women are half the damn population Dubina, so yes it is pertinent. And women's issues include children which are BOTH sexes, women's need for affordable health care, women's need for equity in the workplace. Women's need to not have to be like the commentators on that slate video. Imagine being coerced into acting like a fluttering butterfly yet still trying to give off the aura of intelligence, while maintaining a non-threatening demeanor and discourse in order to keep your job.
women's issues influence justice (abortion, rape, stalking, murder, incest, child abuse), privacy (stalking, hajibs and national security), national security (dirka /sp/ pat downs, toiletries for business trips, business trip cases that need more beauty products then mens), economy etc. 1/2 the populace, workplace legislation will impact the economy. If women were suddenly allowed to go to work without makeup or extreme hairstyles, it would directly impact the economy, the environment and bugs bunny.
gun control only male issue. huh? Let me introduce you to husky here, and remington.
9) Kerry ran aground because he was weak.
10) I think Bertrand could be catnapping
11) Urquhart Men can be petty and peevish get a clue
12) the line that the female crew thought was so insanely brilliant was the catching honey feminist. Well guess what you weirdo's honeybees are dying. Which I suppose leaves you only with vinegar. But if their commentary is what catching with honey is, NO THANKS,
now a moment to cackle
cackle cackle cackle cackle
13) Jeff Greenwood Bugs Bunny, RR, Bush/Gore
What kind of stupid ass analogy is this? How does Hillary in any way act like Daffy duck, just a paragraph of words before they were saying she was the man of the two candidates, and that she was a bitch. I would say if we are going to use Looney tunes. HIllary is the roadrunner and Obama is Wiley coyote. He at least has the bone structure for it.
The mad scream you heard was me.
13) FieldingBandolier
My next is, the entire conversation seems scripted. That much callow, moon-eyed vapidity seems forced. It strikes me that they are striking an intentionally inflammatory pose ("Hillary's the boy - well, some say she's already been that", etc.). It's enough to make me believe that Slate's now under editorial mandate to be provocative ala The National Enquirer (remembering Saletan's well-publicized series exploiting exploring racial prejudice differences to maximize exposure in intelligence and hit counts.)
I'm not familiar with that series. But yeah they are pretty annoying, the whiney, "I think she's turning into a Republican" is pretty non-analyzed by these women, and I find it very obamakin (unsubstantive)
The other thing they're doing is creating a dialogue to undermine the kinds of reasons someone might choose to vote for Hillary [they're from an "inferior class", they find her unpleasantness to be comforting, they're old (school angry feminists)]. The participants don't even get the facts quite right [like, looking at the demographic stats in Texas, it's not just poor people breaking for Hillary, it's people in the middle class (74-99,000); people over 200,000 were breaking for Obama]. Clinton's ruining the Democratic party. She's too emotional, too cold, using gender to manipulate people by displaying a full range of human emotion being a human being.
I agree with the class comment. They also said the rich are going with Obama, and the middle class are going with HIllary, then they go on to patronize the middle class, without analyzing (annoying especially because they brought up Republican and HIllary) the records of Obama and HIllary or the reasons why wealthy are going for Obama and legitimate reasons why the working class are going for Hillary.
I understand why people like Obama. I kind've like Obama. But it's revolting to see people I'm convinced are intelligent enough to know better engaging in this type of petty, divisive politicking by decrying petty, divisive politicking.
I don't, I never hit the Obama bus, I ignored him for the most part, as I pretty much ignored Kerry, and Dukakis, but went in and did my dutiful democratic straight ticket punch. Which has helped Dingell, Conyers and Levin but did not help so much Kerry, Dukakis or Gore.
I do think that the women chiding HIllary for doing what political candidates do, was lame. Even for beringed teatparties.
The whole thing was ghastly - it was difficult to watch it. It also made me question why I spend so much time in this place, providing indirect support for this kind of enterprise. The entire script could've been written by a wannabe social psychologist with a very dim view of women. [If I wanted to be sexist and petty, I'd make some quip about drenched panties, but I don't really want to stoop to that same level. Well ok, maybe I do.]
It was hard to listen to as well, I am listening to it again now, when they talk about Hillary being tough, the voice lifting in a sing song chinese style concubine voice, was indicative of how passive the women on the left in the video are.
Good use of the word visceral anyhow.
Maybe that's what your shame is about - watching middle-school style cattiness employed to undermine female voter support for the first viable female presidential candidate in history. It also seems as though old-school feminists (which you might or might not be) are supposed to feel ashamed for falling victim to "these new identity politics."
Yeah, I think that the old school feminists were about women being normal. Acting normally, not needing to force themselves into stereotypical roles to placate the primal fears of elitist society.
I thought that was sort of funny. We've always had "identity politics." Up to now, they've just been "rich white guy" identity politics, for the most part.
agreed, the quote I love the most is an interview with a guy who whines "neither of them look like me, I don't even want to vote" Welcome to reality for more than 1/2 the population dude.
For myself, I'm also wondering (genuinely - not being snarky) why the editorial board at Slate and many other publications, and people making over two hundred grand a year, find the thought of an Obama presidency so comforting. What are they responding to? Are there code words he's using I'm not hip to? Something about taxes or entitlements or something? Is Rupert Murdoch feeling comforted by the thought of an Obama presidency? If so, I'd very much like to know why.
I think that the idea that a man who is 13 years younger than Hillary is somehow a "hip" choice, financially I can see the idea that maybe Obama would bring more viewership, and AA's do spend money so they might be a leader economically for the position. But women in general shop a lot so it seems that Hillary support would garner higher end products among their advertisers.
I'm sure some accountant in the basement was doing the numbers and came up with a candidate anyhow. But I tend towards cynicism.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering - yeah, I see bad behavior by Clinton boosters too.
When you are around that much koolaid dust eventually you do get a bit snarky.
I find it ironic that a thread initiated to talk about your vicarious shame (which I think is related in part to the degree these discussants are employing shame manipulatively) ended up being so rife with examples of people trying to shame each other. [But by mentioning it, am I employing passive aggression shame against the thread discussants myself? I guess everybody just has to reach their own conclusions.]
Women are shamable, White women moreso, it is ingrained in our culture. We do it to our kids, we do it hardest to our little girls (don't touch, don't wear that, don't act like that, you can't go if you can't behave) This is not until recently in the black culture, but it will be there in 10 years, as we see AA women doing the same cutesy teaparties with the same unanalysed Klitzy phrases.
If I were Obama, though, I'd be more embarrassed watching that video clip than you were. I'm sure he's too much the gentleman to mention it, though.
I doubt it, Obama is old school, women at the back of the bus kind of a guy. Notice how he interacts with women, he does not know how to handle himself.
If I were Weisberg, I'd be appalled. Somehow, though, I doubt he's reacting that way at all. Somehow I suspect that this is what he had in mind for the XX-factor blog from its inception.
I don't think men notice, I think they believe this is how women naturally are, and enjoy it because it flatters them.
So I don't blame you for feeling vicariously ashamed. I feel vicariously ashamed. Somebody ought to be feeling ashamed, and this set of Slate writers (and editors) is apparently too preoccupied to be doing that particular job for themselves.
Look if it doesn't come with a spanking and a ....well then shame is a bit wasted is all I'm saying.
14) Dawn Coyote
on the feminism front, what we see is a schism between those feminists who unintentionally perpetuate gender disparity and those feminists who are engaging in or are attempting to engage in individualistic evaluation.
I think of them as radical feminists and post-feminists, and what you refer to as the perpetuation of gender disparity is more complicated than that. In a culture where gender disparity is fundamental, how does one sufficiently distance oneself from the cultural context to engage in what you call “individualistic evaluation”? On what basis can one do it? If one can only do it for oneself, what about all those other women left at a disadvantage for reasons that have nothing to do with their relative merit?
kudos to that response Dawn, even though we called it radical, I personally do not believe that women went through a radical movement, I think it was a movement, that gained concessions (pro-choice, orgasms, life outside of the home, ability to swear, sexual freedom, some financial freedom away from men, self-awareness). But I think that we are a long way from allowing women to be themselves. It is the role of massah and slave where women act like good little house slaves and they can eat some of the massah's food. so to speak.
in a way, the question is whether hillary is a bitch. but just as asshole ≠ strong man, though often (conf-/mis-)used, so too bitch ≠ strong woman.
Okay—but does bitch = asshole? If Hillary is a bitch, is Hillary an asshole?
Not sure, that is a good question lol, she probably can be, I bet all those dudes in the Senate worth a damn are assholes. This is one reason that I like McCain, I like mavericks. Obama is not a maverick, he is a theme, Hillary is more of a visionary (Health care, Eleanor Roosevelt style 1st Ladyship). I think when you are making decisions, someone is going to be pissed, the difference between men and catty women are that men can let it go, but catty women keep harping on it. Now a woman who is strong and is unlike the women in that video would let it go also. The hiring of women like the video to me is where the glass ceiling begins and cannot be overcome.
what complicates matters is the cynical counter, however, that pervasive context limits, if not wholly prevents, anyone from perceiving a strong woman as anything other than a "bitch". that's great in theory, but...
then lets embrace the damn word. Bitch is the new black. I'm up with that.
I don’t think strong women are necessarily perceived as bitches. I think that women who refuse to apply the soft feminine touches to their business interactions are perceived as bitches. Certainly, some bitches are assholes, but men are granted a range of behaviour that is not extended to women. What, she wasn’t friendly, wasn’t smiling, wasn’t solicitous of your well-being? She must be a bitch.
Imagine if men had to apply soft touches in all their business dealings or else men would go away and try to work around her, or work through the dynamics of another woman to get that women out of a job. Yeah men do that. It reinforces the personalities like the video.
When the woman on the right in the video is perceived more like the passive element in the female society then women in the US would have made true inroads.
for feminists, the question needs to be whether 1. the aim of the movement ought to be achieving class power parity via old-school awareness advocacy (whether that alone will fix matters, whether it will even accomplish its mission, etc.) or 2. there are other (better) ways to equalize individual treatment.
Great entreaty.
Feminism is not an orthodoxy. It will never be uniform (or united) in its goals, and it needs the (1.) revolutionary, radical extreme as much as it needs the (2.) evolutionary centre. In fact, the radical approach is responsible for the genesis of every advance the more moderate approach achieves.
I agree, I don't think we will move ahead without 1)....2) doesn't seem to be working very well (Exhibit A--video)
it occurred to me that, in large part, what one concludes about feminism depends (abstractly) on whether one believes that being an asshole really is a virtue in "manworld".
I encourage you to elaborate, because this sounds like a gross oversimplification of a feminist response to the social hierarchy that favors men over women—a hierarchy which is predicated on men’s ability to be many things, “asshole” being the crudest of them. Men are allowed to be assholes, but when women are abrasive they are chided for it and told to be nice. Men are trained to be social actors in ways that women are not.
I agree with this totally, men are trained to be social actors as well, when women are vocal men will shun her by interrupting, leaving, or not talking. It is something that I have noticed Obama do with Hillary, and with Condeleeza, not really a dude I want to have as a foreward moving president. To me he is old school, HIllary is much more progressive.
first, there's a fundamental flaw to awareness advocacy--and it stems from the notion of emergent properties. in complexity theory, emergent properties are essentially patterns that we see (i.e., that appear to "emerge") even though the mechanical genesis of the pattern is itself not directed towards creating the pattern (i.e., the goal isn't to create the pattern). that said, awareness advocacy as a tactic tends to take on the emergent pattern head-on. this doesn't work because it fails to incentivize the way agents interact within the rules of the system.
It seems that what you’re getting at with “emergent properties” is something about the way culture is more of a contagion than a pedagogy, and therefore it cannot be unlearned through a conscious application of will. Well, I struggle with this, and certainly the re-engineering of natural law makes radical feminism seem insane to some people, and yet if the culture is spread through unconscious conditioning, so are the strategies for maintaining status quo. In fact, the fact that the status quo requires the maintenance that it does would seem to indicate that it’s vulnerable to pressure to change.
women's studies has done a decent job of recognizing this, and feminists thinkers have pressed to a change of "the rules" of the system--refocusing on language, etc. but this may also be flawed, not in the idea of pressing beyond advocacy, but in misidentifying "the rules"--i.e., focusing on rules that don't matter. the route disesa took to reach the pinnacle of her industry is actually unsexy (read: not earthshatteringly cataclysmic--i.e., unappealing to those who strive to revolutionize the world). but her success came from an understanding of what "rules" were really at play--and an understanding that these "rules" weren't handed down by fiat, but rather these were "natural laws"--and thus inviolable.
I don’t buy that they’re inviolable, and as for DiSesa’s strategy—well, sure—it works. But it will only take you so far. Too often, women’s professional power and recognition is conferred through the patronage of the men in the group, and thus it’s highly conditional, easily withdrawn, and predicated on many things besides competence and merit—things which usually include specific feminine wiles, the judicious application of which will only serve to reinforce the “patronage” structure of the relationships.
patronage is a good word for this. nailed.
the takeaway is maybe, institutional change for institutional barriers. but for whatever other change you want, think about your method and ask, "how's it really working for you?" my half-assed tie-in to bring the topics together: is hillary really not a bitch? because women like disesa seem to have managed success without acquiring the title.
Well, I haven’t stopped wearing makeup and shaving my legs. I still even wear heels sometimes. However, I understand that batting my eyelashes in order to weaken my opponents’ resolve in a negotiation may deliver up what I’m seeking in the short term, but it also reinforces the gender roles that keep me at a disadvantage in the long run.
I've done that and it was much more acceptable 25 years ago than it is today. I have gone very light with makeup though. I find makeup to be macabre.
15) Dubina and prostitution. Prostitution has been a traditional way for women to gain power. I am totally for legalizing it in specific areas, and tax it.
