XX Factor

Re: What young "feminists do get"

Independence — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:42:19 GMT

Don't listen 2 virtual people. We are basically dumbasses

So by your reasoning

degsme — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:39:00 GMT

So by your reasoning:

If you are a member of a community, and one of its leaders says something you disagree with, you are MORE liable for that speech

than

if you explictly seek the support of someone who is saying things you disagree with?

Sorry that's kind of like saying that all Iraqis are more guilty of attrocities in the desecration of the Blackwater employees in Faluja than those who joined the crowd explicitly to cheer.

That sort of illogic requires what engineers call "an out of band" explanation. And mysogyny and racism fit the symptoms we are seeing in the race.

Given the pervasiveness of both in our culture, the idea that they don't influence almost ALL that is perceived about these two candidates is at best naive. I would suggest that it is more insidious than that.

Believe it or not

the ghost of a-z — Wed, 07 May 2008 23:49:01 GMT

I'm still even grinding my teeth about this one. In a world without dual citizenship, you'd hope people would see the difference between the statements:

1) Differing nationalities does not divide a nation.

2) Differing nationalities does not divide nations.

Re: Disambiguating

kuruman — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:18:44 GMT

Deg:

As an atheist, I'm embarrassed by the extent to which religion plays a part in our national politics.

With regard to your specific point, I think the biggest difference is that Obama actually ATTENDED Wright's church for years, while McCain only received an endorsement from Hagee. Neither is great, but the difference in attention can, again, easily be explained by this difference. It is, as you say, non-trivial. Prejudice is the easy and sexy explanation, but it isn't necessarily the true answer.

Your last paragraph is just plain obnoxious. Many people, men and women alike, fault her enough for simply voting for the war that they would not vote for her. This mystical underpinning of all thought by entrenched sexism you write about is just Voodoo manipulation. "Vote for Hillary or you are a misogynist, even if you don't know it". It's ridiculous.

Are there people in America that wouldn't vote for Obama because of his color, or for Hillary because of her gender? Yes, but they are a tiny minority. A much smaller percentage, in fact, than of women who will vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman, regardless of politics. The same is true of blacks and Obama.

Disambiguating

degsme — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:08:52 GMT

Disambiguating merit from prejudice is non-trivial. Consider the difference between McCain and Obama on religion.

McCain sought and happily and publicly accepted the open support of a pastor who has a history of controversial sermons and speeches on par with Jeremiah Wright. BUT Hagee is white and railed against minority blacks. Wright is black and inveighed against majority whites.

To claim that there isn't a racial component in the differentiated perceptions of the two pastors is to deny reality.

So too with HRC. You theoretically can oppose HRC "on merit" but its increadibly hard to assess that "merit" absent your existing gender based prejudices.

Re: There is something else, though...

the ghost of a-z — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:56:28 GMT

General comment to anyone who thinks they're reading my posts: Assume I will regard attempts to repeat my positions, assertions, etc as illiterate.

Re: Or Alternatively

kuruman — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:08:44 GMT

Deg

It's okay not to like either of them. Is your problem with McCain that he is a man? No...it is that he has credibility issues for you. Nobody's first conclusion, if you don't like McCain, is that you are a misandrist.

It is perfectly reasonable to not support or vote for HRC on merit.

Hi, degs

Dawn Coyote — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:51:51 GMT

related discussion here: http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/1183612.aspx

Or Alternatively

degsme — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:47:53 GMT

Or alternatively it is the case - especially if sexism is as ingrained as I see it. If HRC were a woman, she would be seen as a tough competitor. Consider one of her opponents here: McCain. He has at least as many credibility issues as HRC. Recently he repeatedly (even after being corrected) asserted (contradicting the NIE) that Iran was funding Al Qaeda in Iraq. Sure this is something that is red meat for his base, but it is every bit as much a distortion as HRC's "mis-speaking" about sniper fire.

If HRC were a man, she would not be held to the standard she is being held to anymore than Limbaugh would have held up a picture of her child as the "new whitehouse dog" if that child were male.

Re: Running a Corporation

kuruman — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:54:51 GMT

degsme:

Running a corporation requires credibility.

If a woman's legitimate criticisms are ALWAYS discounted as "whining"

If hermale competitors legitimate criticisms are seen as attempts to improve the system

Then she will never get the credibilty to run a corporation. And this is precisely the way gender discrimination works. And it is precisely what is going on in the dislike of HRC.

The think is Degsme this just isn't the case, unless the idea of sexism is so ingrained in you that you see it in everything...like you appear to. If HRC was a man you would not be able to ascribe sexism as the reason people don't like her. Because she is a woman it is the FIRST conclusion you reach. It is THIS bias that is the problem...not rampant sexism.

The difference of Consequences

degsme — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:54:35 GMT

There is a difference of consequences. Since men have the power in the system, objectifying women results in women not getting an even shake based on merit (BTW I'm male).

The issue then becomes how that objectification translates into the workplace. Such as assuming that criticisms from women are "whining" where as from men they can be "legitimate critique".

It is the blindness that you exhibit in how these proceses extrapolate that are the problem

Running a Corporation

degsme — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:44:43 GMT

Running a corporation requires credibility.

If a woman's legitimate criticisms are ALWAYS discounted as "whining"

If hermale competitors legitimate criticisms are seen as attempts to improve the system

Then she will never get the credibilty to run a corporation. And this is precisely the way gender discrimination works. And it is precisely what is going on in the dislike of HRC.

The fuck you of youth

degsme — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:35:47 GMT

There is an element of the "fuck you don't tell me what to do with my body" in there. But while that may apply to that 17 year old on Daytona Beach with an underdeveloped OFC, she is indirectly taking her cue form the Courtney Martin's of the world who's ability to reason about the consequence of such hyper-sexualized behaviour SHOULD be a touch more sophisticated. And yet the Martin's of the world are acting as though the world has changed in ways it has not.

Firehouse aggression

degsme — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:16 GMT

I picked the firehouse example very consciously and carefully. Yes it was a recent experience, but more importantly, the firehouse is a place where Affirmative Action and very pro-active anti-discrimination policies have been put in place. Furthermore it is very much a "meritocracy" as far as "pulling your weight" goes. And recently a female firefighter either won or placed in the national championships, which highly rewards endurance as well as physical strength.

So if there was going to be a segment of our society where "traditional" male discrimination was going to show the kind of amelioration of bigotry that the "neo-feminists" who reject the assertions of Robin Morgan claim has taken place, the professional firehouse is one place where you would expect to see this change.

And yet the sexual double standard is rampant.

Re: What young "feminists don't get"

patron002 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:42:12 GMT

ARe you serious? Ever get a room full of women together, or on a chatroom of mostly women? They objectify men just as much as men objectify women. Women talk an awful lot about Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt, and it usually doesn't revolve around their acting ability. Women do the same thing, time to stop acting like its above the fray when your sex does it. I bet you do the same thing all the time, and don't even think about it. See, the "Young feminists" that I know, have chosen to let men talk about them that way, they simply talk about men the same way. Your post is thought provoking but ultimately misguided, women do the same thing, its human nature. I KNOW you and your girlfriends don't get together and talk about how sexy that guy/gals mind is. Sorry, it just doesn't happen (you might be a lesbian so I added gals.)