Finn dAbuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:Butrflynet wrote:paull wrote:Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.
Oh grow up already.
Paull provides a neat example of the sexist attack on Hilary that is so obvious....however, I do wonder if it is just the right wing nuts who espouse it, and do so noisily here and on things like Fox, so I am aware of it, and that they would be equally gross re any male candidate?
There is a reaction to Hillary that reminds me of the kind of evil "possession" is the best word I can think of really (though I know that is daft in reality) that gripped the crasser Australians re Lindy Chamberlain...though Bill attracts the same insane hatred....
I have no idea whether sexism has had any real effect on Hillary's chances......but it sure is there.
Certainly paull can be accused of crass sexisim, but one has to wonder if you have ever watched FOX if you you believe it regularly features such points of view. Sure a nut may turn up on FOX from time to time, but the same occurs on MSNBC and CNBC. I don't think I've ever seen you lump them together with FOX.
Obviously there are people who really do not like Mrs Clinton, and who are vile nuts, but the same can be said for some people who do not like George Bush.
The majority of people who do not want Hillary to be president do not hate women. Do the people who insult Laura Bush or Condy Rice hate women? I'm sure some do, but certainly not all.
People can dislike Hillary Clinton without being sexist, or Barrack Obama without being racist, or Mitt Romney without being intolerant of Mormens, or Barney Frank without being homophobes, or Joe Liebermann without being anti-semites etc etc etc.
There are valid reasons not to like the woman. She is not a likeable person. Some may respect her, admire her, and even like her, but there are plenty of rational explanations for not liking her which do not involve sexism.
Never said there weren't some possible valid reasons...but your post is a walking illustration of some non-rational ones. Eg "She is not a likeable person".....what nonsense....there are many people who like her, and hence she is (as you admit in a subsequent sentence) obviously likeable to some.
Nor did I suggest that all the people who do not wish her to be president have that wish because they are sexist.
I was speaking of the likes of paull, and wondering, in fact, if there was a special hatred of Hillary harboured by many vile nuts, or if said vile nuts would spew similarly vile stuff regardless of gender. I pointed out the filth heaped on Bill Clinton as a possible argument for the vileness being the same for all.
That their vileness takes a very sexist turn at times cannot be doubted...similarly so re the vileness spewed at Rice, when she is attacked not for her policies, but for being ugly or some such nonsense.
I don't think sexism is confined to only one side.
I wopuldn't be surprised if many from both sides would not vote for a woman.
That there are perfectly good reasons not to support Hillary, or indeed Rice, does not preclude there being people whose reasons for not supporting them include sexism.
Ditto re Obama and racism...ie there may be many who oppose him for perfectly good reasons, this does not mean that some will not oppose him from racism.
And Paull's post was a particularly good example of very sexist expression, wherther that was his prime motivation or not.
dlowan wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:Butrflynet wrote:paull wrote:Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.
Oh grow up already.
Paull provides a neat example of the sexist attack on Hilary that is so obvious....however, I do wonder if it is just the right wing nuts who espouse it, and do so noisily here and on things like Fox, so I am aware of it, and that they would be equally gross re any male candidate?
There is a reaction to Hillary that reminds me of the kind of evil "possession" is the best word I can think of really (though I know that is daft in reality) that gripped the crasser Australians re Lindy Chamberlain...though Bill attracts the same insane hatred....
I have no idea whether sexism has had any real effect on Hillary's chances......but it sure is there.
Certainly paull can be accused of crass sexism, but one has to wonder if you have ever watched FOX if you you believe it regularly features such points of view. Sure a nut may turn up on FOX from time to time, but the same occurs on MSNBC and CNBC. I don't think I've ever seen you lump them together with FOX.
Obviously there are people who really do not like Mrs Clinton, and who are vile nuts, but the same can be said for some people who do not like George Bush.
The majority of people who do not want Hillary to be president do not hate women. Do the people who insult Laura Bush or Condy Rice hate women? I'm sure some do, but certainly not all.
People can dislike Hillary Clinton without being sexist, or Barrack Obama without being racist, or Mitt Romney without being intolerant of Mormons, or Barney Frank without being homophobes, or Joe Liebermann without being anti-semites etc etc etc.
There are valid reasons not to like the woman. She is not a likeable person. Some may respect her, admire her, and even like her, but there are plenty of rational explanations for not liking her which do not involve sexism.
Never said there weren't some possible valid reasons...but your post is a walking illustration of some non-rational ones. Eg "She is not a likeable person".....what nonsense....there are many people who like her, and hence she is (as you admit in a subsequent sentence) obviously likeable to some.
Nor did I suggest that all the people who do not wish her to be president have that wish because they are sexist.
I was speaking of the likes of paull, and wondering, in fact, if there was a special hatred of Hillary harboured by many vile nuts, or if said vile nuts would spew similarly vile stuff regardless of gender. I pointed out the filth heaped on Bill Clinton as a possible argument for the vileness being the same for all.
That their vileness takes a very sexist turn at times cannot be doubted...similarly so re the vileness spewed at Rice, when she is attacked not for her policies, but for being ugly or some such nonsense.
I don't think sexism is confined to only one side.
I wopuldn't be surprised if many from both sides would not vote for a woman.
That there are perfectly good reasons not to support Hillary, or indeed Rice, does not preclude there being people whose reasons for not supporting them include sexism.
Ditto re Obama and racism...ie there may be many who oppose him for perfectly good reasons, this does not mean that some will not oppose him from racism.
And Paull's post was a particularly good example of very sexist expression, wherther that was his prime motivation or not.
Rather than respond individually to several different posts, I sometimes combine my responses in one. This tends to generate the sort of "I never said..." disclaimers found in your reply. Fair enough
This is directed specifically to you:
That someone likes you doesn't make you
likeable in the common usage of the word. Being
likeable implies that you are consistently generate positive feelings in the people who experience you.
Ralph Nader is probably liked by a reasonable number of friends and acquaintances, but he is not a
likeable figure.
Nixon was not likeable and neither was Kruschev. Reagan was and so was Gorbachov.
Huckabee is and McCain is not. Obama is and Hillary is not.
It is akin to but not the same as charisma, and it is a term used commonly enough not to be subject to the facile argument that if one is at all liked one is
likeable.
OCCOM BILL wrote:snood wrote:I'd like to believe O"Bill that you are not just the know-it-all jackass you seem to be, and that you can actually give me credit for having an honest to god viewpoint that opposes yours without attributing it to a "'tude" or some emotional blip. I've got to rein in my audacious idealism.
Perhaps if you produce something that doesn't remind me of a hungry crybaby, whose already late for his nap; I will. In the mean time; I'll just laugh at the ass you're making of yourself all over the board... while regretting I didn't take more pleasure in watching Lash ride you around the board like a Donkey.
Who's the big ass is definitely a matter of opinion, as are all things here. I think you're a deluded SOB, you think I'm being a baby. So be it. Lash and I have sort of moved on from our squabbles, and your reference to those times now just add disingenuousness to the list of shyt that makes you look so tiny to me.
bill says:
Quote:Blatham: For a year now I've been reading how:
America isn't ready for a black president.
Oh, the evil trickery of it all.
Obama wins Iowa. Do we stop and say, "wow, maybe we are ready for a black president!", or do we immediately shift to:
America isn't ready for a female president.
Since my glass if half full; I'm excited to see the first signs of the former being demonstrated nonsense and don't believe one candidate's early rejection constitutes any proof of the latter.
For a final time, the portion in red re-states what you've said in the last three or four posts. It is a mis-statement of my argument (which, I'll inform you of again, you are late in coming to). I am NOT saying (please get this) that the outcome in Iowa provides the proof of or the evidence for my thesis. The evidence for the thesis is far broader and deeper and more consistent than any single event could demonstrate. It is an instance only, but it is an instance where gender bias is clearly part of the story. And that's a big phucking drag regardless of the coincident (and extremely satisfying) fact that, finally, an African American actually might well become president. I'm glad your glass is half full. You and all other males with half full glasses can have a celebratory drink.
As I was catching up, I was planning to write this once I'd read through all the new stuff, but dlowan got it first:
dlowan wrote:That there are perfectly good reasons not to support Hillary, or indeed Rice, does not preclude there being people whose reasons for not supporting them include sexism.
Ditto re Obama and racism...ie there may be many who oppose him for perfectly good reasons, this does not mean that some will not oppose him from racism.
First, Bill, yes, blatham and I (among others) have been going over this territory for quite a while. I've seen an evolution with blatham, before Iowa.
Second, I wanted to separate two things, as dlowan did above. That long-term argument that blatham and I (among others) have been having has a lot to do about whether MY problems with Hillary are due to being influenced by the sexist media. I've been steadfastedly arguing that what problems I have with her are my own, and not about sexism or having been manipulated by the media.
This is separate from whether sexism exists in America today. Of course it does. So does racism.
finn said to dlowan in an earlier post
Quote:Certainly paull can be accused of crass sexisim, but one has to wonder if you have ever watched FOX if you you believe it regularly features such points of view. Sure a nut may turn up on FOX from time to time, but the same occurs on MSNBC and CNBC. I don't think I've ever seen you lump them together with FOX.
I watch Fox every day where I have access to tv (along with cnn, msnbc, PBS, and at least one other cable news channel). They are all sexist but none so much as Fox, the jiggling tits channel. All, even PBS, repeat quite mindless derogations of Hillary which are replete with sexist terms and metaphors. Chris Matthews at MSNBC is one of the worst in this. But again, Fox scrapes the barrel bottom. Do an exercise for yourself and follow one single week of Hannity. The number of sexist derogations of Hillary will count more than a dozen instances in every show. That's
every show. O'Reilly won't have so high a count because of the proportion of that show's near daily concentration on girls with jiggling tits.
finn said to dlowan in a subsequent post
Quote:That someone likes you doesn't make you likeable in the common usage of the word. Being likeable implies that you are consistently generate positive feelings in the people who experience you.
Ralph Nader is probably liked by a reasonable number of friends and acquaintances, but he is not a likeable figure.
Nixon was not likeable and neither was Kruschev. Reagan was and so was Gorbachov.
Huckabee is and McCain is not. Obama is and Hillary is not.
It is akin to but not the same as charisma, and it is a term used commonly enough not to be subject to the facile argument that if one is at all liked one is likeable.
Are you aware that many people on this board find you personally unlikeable? I get on with you, mostly, but there's a lot of empty seats around me. People here see you from a distance, their views mediated by this medium just as our views of candidates are mediated by a different set of media. Your statement (black and white yet) that Kruschev "was unlikeable" is almost totally devoid of substance. How could you know? So what's your 'measure' worth?
And to follow up on soz's post...I've tried to clarify that the claim or thesis I make is a broad sociological theis...that sexism is undeniable in this culture and that it is deep and pervasive. And, obviously, that Hillary is a recipient of this great blessing.
But...big and important but... that does not mean that any particular individual who expresses negative opinions about Hillary (or some other woman or some other man) is therefore guilty of an instance of sexism.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:dlowan wrote:Butrflynet wrote:paull wrote:Nice Iowa turnout. Hillary is finally going to have to learn to cook, drive, and suck SOMETHING.
Oh grow up already.
Paull provides a neat example of the sexist attack on Hilary that is so obvious....however, I do wonder if it is just the right wing nuts who espouse it, and do so noisily here and on things like Fox, so I am aware of it, and that they would be equally gross re any male candidate?
There is a reaction to Hillary that reminds me of the kind of evil "possession" is the best word I can think of really (though I know that is daft in reality) that gripped the crasser Australians re Lindy Chamberlain...though Bill attracts the same insane hatred....
I have no idea whether sexism has had any real effect on Hillary's chances......but it sure is there.
Certainly paull can be accused of crass sexism, but one has to wonder if you have ever watched FOX if you you believe it regularly features such points of view. Sure a nut may turn up on FOX from time to time, but the same occurs on MSNBC and CNBC. I don't think I've ever seen you lump them together with FOX.
Obviously there are people who really do not like Mrs Clinton, and who are vile nuts, but the same can be said for some people who do not like George Bush.
The majority of people who do not want Hillary to be president do not hate women. Do the people who insult Laura Bush or Condy Rice hate women? I'm sure some do, but certainly not all.
People can dislike Hillary Clinton without being sexist, or Barrack Obama without being racist, or Mitt Romney without being intolerant of Mormons, or Barney Frank without being homophobes, or Joe Liebermann without being anti-semites etc etc etc.
There are valid reasons not to like the woman. She is not a likeable person. Some may respect her, admire her, and even like her, but there are plenty of rational explanations for not liking her which do not involve sexism.
Never said there weren't some possible valid reasons...but your post is a walking illustration of some non-rational ones. Eg "She is not a likeable person".....what nonsense....there are many people who like her, and hence she is (as you admit in a subsequent sentence) obviously likeable to some.
Nor did I suggest that all the people who do not wish her to be president have that wish because they are sexist.
I was speaking of the likes of paull, and wondering, in fact, if there was a special hatred of Hillary harboured by many vile nuts, or if said vile nuts would spew similarly vile stuff regardless of gender. I pointed out the filth heaped on Bill Clinton as a possible argument for the vileness being the same for all.
That their vileness takes a very sexist turn at times cannot be doubted...similarly so re the vileness spewed at Rice, when she is attacked not for her policies, but for being ugly or some such nonsense.
I don't think sexism is confined to only one side.
I wopuldn't be surprised if many from both sides would not vote for a woman.
That there are perfectly good reasons not to support Hillary, or indeed Rice, does not preclude there being people whose reasons for not supporting them include sexism.
Ditto re Obama and racism...ie there may be many who oppose him for perfectly good reasons, this does not mean that some will not oppose him from racism.
And Paull's post was a particularly good example of very sexist expression, wherther that was his prime motivation or not.
Rather than respond individually to several different posts, I sometimes combine my responses in one. This tends to generate the sort of "I never said..." disclaimers found in your reply. Fair enough
This is directed specifically to you:
That someone likes you doesn't make you
likeable in the common usage of the word. Being
likeable implies that you are consistently generate positive feelings in the people who experience you.
Ralph Nader is probably liked by a reasonable number of friends and acquaintances, but he is not a
likeable figure.
Nixon was not likeable and neither was Kruschev. Reagan was and so was Gorbachov.
Huckabee is and McCain is not. Obama is and Hillary is not.
It is akin to but not the same as charisma, and it is a term used commonly enough not to be subject to the facile argument that if one is at all liked one is
likeable.
In the eye of the beholder.
Some even find Bush likeable, therefore I would not be so stupid as to say he is not.
I can say x, y, z are not likeable to me, or even not generally likeable, but your absolutist claim re Hillary is stupid.
Much as I hate to admit it, it's prolly true that just because I find some people likable doesn't make them generally perceived so.
F'rinstance, I see Bush as a great grating goon but know that many find him quite appealing.
I believe both racism and sexism to be at play in every facet of American life including politics and people will have different views and opinions regarding it... but in reference to blatham's (who I like and respect quite a bit) post.... can we at least all agree that jiggling tits are awesome?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I believe both racism and sexism to be at play in every facet of American life including politics and people will have different views and opinions regarding it... but in reference to blatham's (who I like and respect quite a bit) post.... can we at least all agree that jiggling tits are awesome?
That depends on whose they are.
My high school history teacher had tits down to her knees.
I definitely DO NOT want to see them jiggle.
well for once I can't argue with you
sozobe wrote:First, Bill, yes, blatham and I (among others) have been going over this territory for quite a while. I've seen an evolution with blatham, before Iowa.
Second, I wanted to separate two things, as dlowan did above. That long-term argument that blatham and I (among others) have been having has a lot to do about whether MY problems with Hillary are due to being influenced by the sexist media. I've been steadfastedly arguing that what problems I have with her are my own, and not about sexism or having been manipulated by the media.
This is separate from whether sexism exists in America today. Of course it does. So does racism.
I've been in on many of those discussions and am well aware of Blatham's keen ability to see even the most covert of racist and sexist tricks being employed (save the blinders when Hillary appears responsible)... and I frequently nod along with him.
There was no reference to any of past conversation on this thread, before stating his congratulation for Obama, then: "But two elements
in all of this discourage me. First, I have come to conclude that cultural resistance to a female president is deeper and
more tenacious than even I feared. " This statement, his first on this thread, pretty clearly means that Obama's winning Iowa means the prejudice against women is
even worse than he previously thought.
Nice of you to encircle him with your wagon, but it doesn't erase his words. He's been caught, and rather than admit it, he's getting indignant, which is a pretty cheap rhetorical trick for someone who's usually sharp as a tack.
(Not that it's any cheaper than school-yard-cliquing against Finn to pretend any use of the word likeable beyond the extreme definition is stupid.)
Forgive me Bernie. I'm just invoking my inalienable right to not buy BS.
bill said
Quote:Forgive me Bernie. I'm just invoking my inalienable right to not buy BS.
No problem. Next Tuesday, when I need a better grasp on what I'm thinking, I'll turn to you for illumination.
Scribble me a few sentences, and I'll do my best. :wink:
snood wrote:
Though you speak as someone who resides in the deep end of an abyssmal denial that has been filled from an endless reservoir of WASP insulation and privilege, even you should be able to acknowledge that the doubts about the realtime status of race and gender equality in the US are at least not unreasonable. But then I'm just a cockeyed optimist.
I think he was instead noting that the logic that leads to the conclusion that Hillary's 3rd place showing is a necessary result of gender bias, must also lead us to conclude that Obama's victory in Iowa necessarily means the end of racial bias. You evidently claim that both still exist - a point I won't argue - and that we are necessarily motivated by "... abyssmal denial that has been filled from an endless reservoir of WASP insulation and privilege". This, of course established you as the equal - in terms of the categorical prejudgement of others - of those whom you criticize.
It was a pretty good phrase though - despite the fact that 'insulated and priviledged WASPS' are but a small minority of the white population. Besides, I'm not a WASP, and have always regarded them with a mixture of bemusement and mild contempt.
georgeob1 wrote:It was a pretty good phrase though - despite the fact that 'insulated and priviledged WASPS' are but a small minority of the white population.
That and the probability that in all likelihood I grew up as poor or poorer than my accuser
and most recently spent my summer doing "the work Americans won't do."
Though various Strawmen can be erected from what I do post, for the record: I have not, ever, denied that both racism and sexism are alive and well. For that matter; I had Snood's back just yesterday; before he inexplicably began attacking me on multiple threads. [/shrug]
My source is
"Human Values and Beliefs", Inglehart, Basañez & Moreno, University of Michigan Press
The axis were:
Secular-rational authority (authority is legitimated by rational legal norms)vs. Traditional authority (emphasis to obedience, religion, familiar and communal obbligations)
Survival (emphasizes hard work and self-denial) vs. Well-being (emphasizes quality of life, tollerance and self-expression)
Secular-rational values rank:
China, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Estonia, Czech, Netherlands, Latvia, Finland, Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, South Korea, Slovenia, Switzelard, Lithuania, England, Belgium, Hungary, France, Austria, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, USA, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Ireland, Poland, Norhern Ireland, India, Chile, South Africa, Brazil, Kenya, Nigeria.
Survival values rank:
Russia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kenya, Romania, India, Poland, Hungary, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Turkey, South Korea, Portugal, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, France, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Northern Ireland, Ireland, USA, Germany, England, Switzerland, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden.
An example of what it's about:
"In Africa, South Asia, East Asia and Eastern Europe, pluralities of the public feel that men have more right to a job than women. In Catholic Europe and Latin America, by contrast, solid pluralities of the public feel that men do not have more right to a job than women; in the US and Canada the public favors gender equality by a 3:1 margin and in Northern Europe support for gender equality is overwheming".
It is fairly easy to develop a statistical framework with polar extremes of something and to use sample data to rank entities (countries in this case) based on the scores. It is much more difficult to assign a precise meaning to the result, or to estimate the applicaple level of significance in measured differences.
At some level the result you describe is entirely plausible. However, to that same level the result was generally knowable even without the abstract construct and statistical structure involved. Certainly the adjacent ranking of (say) Slovenia and Switzerland on the "secular rational' scale begs some scientific explanation of the significance of measured differences, something which in the absence of a comprehensive theory defies specification. Is there any rational or scienticific basis for such a ranking? I doubt it seriously.
