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

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Your bedfellows are the only ones that think they need to bring literal ammunition to a debate.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes they have.

In answer to your last question, several of us have listed the sexist criticism and attacks directed at Palin ad nauseum. As example I'll use one of yours (paraphrased): "Palin has young children. She demonstrates poor family values by accepting the Vice Presidential nomination."

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Your bedfellows are the only ones that think they need to bring literal ammunition to a debate.

T
K
O

That is so true. Why is that do you think? Because we think a debate should be based on literal issues and facts instead of killing the messenger? When your side has literal ammunition, I suspect they'll use it. Pretty hard to use it when you don't have any though.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes they have.

In answer to your last question, several of us have listed the sexist criticism and attacks directed at Palin ad nauseum. As example I'll use one of yours (paraphrased): "Palin has young children. She demonstrates poor family values by accepting the Vice Presidential nomination."

I stand by that. I would say the same of anyone, man or woman, with five children. She has a responsibility to them which ought to be at least equal to the p0litical ambition she has.

I understand that you Conservatives take a more 'hands-off' approach to child-rearing, but it's not an opinion that I share. I don't think it's sexist at all to wonder how a mother or father, with several young children, is going to balance raising them with being responsible for the largest super-power on the earth; one of the two is going to lose out, and it's not at all clear which one it will be.

Nice try, not sexism, you lose. Again. This is sort of embarrassing for you.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Nope, because you don't apply the same standard to Barack Obama who also has young children. Two of Palin's children are grown and the middle kid is the about the same age as Chelsea Clinton was when she went to the White House. Where is the criticism for Obama putting personal ambitions ahead of his duties as parent? If he can do both, why can't she? She isn't even signing on for the heavy responsibilities he wants. THAT's what makes it sexist.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope, because you don't apply the same standard to Barack Obama who also has young children. Where is the criticism for him putting personal ambitions ahead of his duties? If he can do both, why can't she? She isn't even signing on for the responsibilities he wants. THAT's what makes it sexist.

Sure I do. I wonder how Obama will handle it. I wonder if it will be healthy for his girls. He at least has a little breathing room - he has less kids and they are somewhat older. Palin has a little more of a problem, with one kid at less than a year, and even more so with developmental difficulties. It will take a ton of time and attention on her part. It makes no difference that she is female, a man would have the same issues. Not sexism, you lose, again.

Even so, this is the least reason to be worried about Palin; and not one that I truly care about. I'm more worried about the fact that she seems to be unable to answer questions about domestic or foreign policy in any detail whatsoever, and when asked her qualifications, cannot present ANY specifics.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Alas, the irony is lost on you. I overestimated your ability to catch a pun.

As for real issues, it's not something you've got a lot of real estate in.

Obama is doing so well, he can release a 2 minute ad that doesn't even mention Bush or McCain. McCain continues to pander, and Palin continues to stay hidden away. Despite what you may think, Palin actually does owe the American people press time and more opportunity to see how she handles pressure.

With that said, McCain does have one thing going for him: He works better as the underdog. He flounders when he's on top. He'd be better to stay under until by 2 points until the final week then make a push. It's the only chance he has.

T
K
Obama is winning on the issues

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Your opinion noted. How does that apply to a discussion on sexism?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

This discussion is not about issues. This discussion is about sexism. If Sarah Palin demonstrates poor family values by running for Vice President then Obama demonstrates poor family values by running for President. Do you want a candidate with poor family values? If the candidate doesn't care about his/her family, how can you trust him or her to care about you or anything important to you? If that doesn't apply to Obama then it doesn't apply to Palin.

Of course Liberals will blast Palin for her conservative values as Conservatives will blast Obama for his liberal values. That's part and parcel of politics and what elections should be all about.

But you didn't do that in your criticism of Palin. You attacked her on family values as if that was important to her credentials to be Vice President. You have not attacked Obama on his family values. And THAT is sexist.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox, By your cocamaymee assessment, nobody should be running for office who has a child, man or woman.

The discussion is about Palin being cacooned by the McCain campaign, a woman who is running as veep of this country. "That's" the issue, not that she has children. The only people making it an issue of sexism are the conservatives.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And chalk up another point that went flying right over CIs head.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It looks to me like you've lived in the cuckoo's nest for too long.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

This discussion is not about issues. This discussion is about sexism. If Sarah Palin demonstrates poor family values by running for Vice President then Obama demonstrates poor family values by running for President. Do you want a candidate with poor family values? If the candidate doesn't care about his/her family, how can you trust him or her to care about you or anything important to you? If that doesn't apply to Obama then it doesn't apply to Palin.

Of course Liberals will blast Palin for her conservative values as Conservatives will blast Obama for his liberal values. That's part and parcel of politics and what elections should be all about.

But you didn't do that in your criticism of Palin. You attacked her on family values as if that was important to her credentials to be Vice President. You have not attacked Obama on his family values. And THAT is sexist.

Sorry, but it's not sexist. I didn't attack Obama on this issue, b/c he's my preferred candidate and yaknow what? I don't spend much time attacking him. Just like you never spend any time at all attacking McCain or Palin on anything. This doesn't mean that you have no concerns, though, that would be silly to say.

I think that you seem to be of the belief that you can just yell 'that's SEXISM!' and people will agree with you. Hasn't this thread made it clear, that you need to do a little better than that?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your opinion noted. How does that apply to a discussion on sexism?

I'll bite.

How about this for a notion. It seems to me that McCain's campaign puts a leash on Palin. They parade her around like a show dog. They tell her what to say, what not to say. Her presence in this election is purely political theater and it's meant to pander to women. What's perhaps worst is that McCain's campaign is the thought that women weren't intelligent enough to see the difference between her and Clinton in terms of what they wanted. McCain's pick of Palin was cynical and worse: Exploitative.

It's objectification to the next level.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Actually to the lowest level for women, but the conservatives are blind to all that.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

What I made clear is that you were sexist in your criticism of Palin IF you don't hold Obama to the same standard. You stated Palin demonstrates poor family values because she is running for Veep. Are you now stating that Obama demonstrates poor family values running for President? To the same degree as Palin? If not, why not?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

It has been noted that the Obama campaign has been doing the same with Obama. They will no longer allow him to speak without a teleprompter and I think he probably wears a listening device at all times so they can feed him information to help him look smarter. Same kind of deal do you think? Is that racist?

Obama has been at this a hell of a lot longer than Palin who they are still bringing up to speed on the campaign. That they want Palin to get her message out before the media is let loose to prevent her from doing that so effectively seems more prudent re strategy than sexist.

5 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

"Palin has young children. She demonstrates poor family values by accepting the Vice Presidential nomination."

What's up with that? It's a fact. She does demonstrate poor family values by accepting the Vice Presidential nomination. Every woman with young children accepting any job, unless she has to from economic necessity, is demonstrating poor family values in the Christian tradition. Good ceiling-busting values though. We need to be even handed. Do ceiling-busting values triumph over family values. The trend is that way. The sentimental mush is a smokescreen. It's a lot harder to love your children than it is to declare, however passionately, how much you love them. By a large amount.

And the kids know too.

Your sensitivity to the matter Foxy implies you agree yourself deep down.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Where did sexism go, I got lost again...

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It has been noted that the Obama campaign has been doing the same with Obama. They will no longer allow him to speak without a teleprompter and I think he probably wears a listening device at all times so they can feed him information to help him look smarter. Same kind of deal do you think?

The difference is
K
Obama is in charge of his campaign

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know