Guys? You're not helping (Palin sexism watch)

No it doesn't. My argument all along is the definition of sexism (and by association, the defintiion of racism). If anything, YOU tried to change the premise of the argument. For Palin supporters or anybody else to point out sexism when it is used says absolutely nothing about Palin's ability to take whatever they throw at her. Nor does pointing out the utter hateful, dishonest, and double standard slime that is being thrown at her. She isn't whining or complaining about it and isn't defensive about it. Obama sometimes is, but that is a different issue too.

Foxy, how does one whine while under a gag order?

Kurious in Kansas...

Bull ****, Fox. Every one of her fund-raising emails mentions the smears and attacks used against her. And she does bring it up in her speeches. And every McCain surrogate uses this talking point constantly. So don't feed me that crap.

The point is, the media isn't 'sliming' her these days. They just want to ask her the same questions that they would ask ANY candidate for prez. But she and McCain won't let them. Why? I say it's sexism on their part, that they don't think a woman can take the heat.

Obama has answered PLENTY of questions about his past, his problems, and his future. He has directly addressed people's concerns on a variety of issues. Palin has done none of that. Your argument was a non-sequitur, and did not directly relate to what I was saying at all.

Cycloptichorn

Well I don't know. Just about every time I turn on the television these days, I see interviews with Palin or clips of interviews with Palin, and 'how she is handling the criticism' seems to be a biggie in those interviews--introduced by the interviewer, not Palin. And so far she has been neither whiny nor defensive. And certainly she has given no speeches or held no town hall meetings with content even remotely comparable to Obama's repeated "They try to scare you......I don't look like those other presidents on dollar bills.....I have a funny name" schtick.

wtf, Fox? She's only done two interviews, one with Charlie Gibson and one with Hannity (barf) which can't even be called a real interview, it was more like a prolonged ass-kissing. Exaggerate much?

Racism is a worse problem in America then Sexism. There's no question of it.

Cycloptichorn

She is a pawn, and not a very good one at that.

Gun nuts and God's Republican Right are her only real market.

(if this were theater, it would be boooed off the stage...)

She hasn't been so sequestered as her opposition wishes people to think she has been. The latest Democratic talking point is to say over and over that they're afraid to let her be exposed to the press. Why is she hiding? Yadda Yadda. I suspect the press is quite happy for her not to have much exposure these days because she does accomplish herself quite well as the rookie on the campaign.

You forgot, for instance, an extremely instructive interview on CNBC (how brave was that?) which reassured anybody with any objective bone left in their body that she has a lot on the ball. It was so instructive in fact that it has received almost no comment from the leftwing driveby media.
http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/sarah-palin-interview-energy-drilling-joe-biden-and-how-it-relates-national-security-video

And now gentlemen. This is being discussed ad nauseum on many other threads along with all kinds of partisan Palin bashing. Can we return to the thesis of this thread which is sexism? Or are you out of ammunition on that? (Not that many of you had much to start with. )

There's just no getting around it. You are truly delusional, Foxy. A real basket case.

Sexism. It's her best defense, who is to begrudge her if she beats it to death...

JTT, You probably haven't noticed yet, but Fox has been delusional before now. Her perception of reality goes beyond normal, and her ability to rationalize the things McCain-Palin does during this campaign are full of red flags that she's unable to see.

You do realize that the interview was done prior to her being selected as McCain's running mate, right?

That would be why there was no comment; it is not relevant.

I'll bet she hasn't been insulted once like I have many times.

It is perfectly legitimate to draw attention to her femininity and those characteristics, with which literature abounds, which are known to be associated with that state. In fact, she looks exceptionally feminine and it can be reasonably assumed that the lady possesses those attributes, charming as they are, in attenuated forms.

Whether those characteristics, and why would one even wish to apply them to a man, are suitable for high office is what concerns some people.

It is as if your plea is a device to draw attention away from that aspect of the matter. Of course you think women are just as fit for high office as men. You have probably never read the historical record which contradicts that notion pretty comprehensively. It was probably kept from you by your educators.

Some say that the whole middle-east shitbag can be traced back to Mrs Thatcher just in case you don't know what some people think one woman can set going. Pit bulls had nothing on her. Fortunately for us we had a civilised mechanism for dragging her out of No 10.

So it isn't as if there is no case to make on the femininity score.

And if the continuous accusation of sexism is sufficient to stifle that debate it constitutes a form of "shouting down." And I'm deaf to shouting women. It is a survival mechanism.

Well, I definitely can declare victory in this debate since the opposition has dissolved into personal insults directed at me. That's a dead giveaway.

But actually Spendi, I think discussing the track record of women in high office as consideration of whether a woman is suitable to serve in high office is not really within a sexist context. It is no different than discussions of the viability of women serving in combat or as fire fighters. In some cases, I have argued that women are not suitable for some jobs WHEN the same standards are applied to women as are applied to men. The average woman is not as physically strong as the average man, for instance. I disapprove of lowering standards where physical strengths is a significant asset just to allow women to compete. Since I adore Maggie Thatcher, though I haven't studied her track record closely, I will reserve judgment re her competence in high office until I have time (and inclination) to do such study. Was Golda Mier a disaster for Israel? Will the probable new leader be?

BUT.......that also is not within the context of this discussion.

When DIFFERENT standards are applied to a woman than what is applied to a man, and she is denied opportunity or is criticized on those different standards, THAT is sexist.

Before you claim victory, you need to make a big banner and stand on an aircraft carrier...

T
K

What different standards is Palin being held to?

What opportunities has she been denied?

I bet you can provide very little evidence of either.

Cycloptichorn

Don't have to TKO. I only have to look at the desperation of numbnuts who can't come up with any viable argument, so they start slinging insults.

Beware your bedfellows Foxfyre...

T
K
O

Do you mean we men ought to be able to go into a lingerie shop and try a few things on and then say we can't find anything suitable without getting arrested.

Do you think universal hermaphroditism would improve our society? If not what have you got? Proper sexism is "vive la differance" isn't it? Recognising the charm of the difference. It is not a criticism to call a feminine attribute by its proper name. And it is not a prejudice. Where a prejudice exists why not call it a prejudice?

My bedfellows aren't slinging personal insults, non sequitors, or changing the subject because they are out of ammunition. Yours appear to be doing that though.

Actually, you are doing that right this moment, Fox, by accusing others of doing it. Your last 4 posts have not been germane to the topic in any way; are you looking to avoid discussing the topic?

Cycloptichorn