26
   

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

 
 
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 02:04 pm
I do declare, this raffish humor makes me swoon.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/25/science/hys4.600.jpg
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 02:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
obscene humor at the expense of celebs) is always part of the discourse, and it needs to be
projecting a person as celebs is below the rational people's view and making fun of those Celebs should not be the subject for discussion in A2K
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 02:32 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interestingly; the sweetest, and probably least sexist person I know, raised the question of 'what does a mother do when the country and her baby need her at the same time?' She wasn't being mean, or sexist, or partisan; she just rationalized that she herself would choose her baby every time. I watched a feminist (Congress woman maybe?) protest an essentially similar question as if the question was a naked sexist attack on women in general and a question of this nature should be considered completely irrelevant. But is it?

How about a father of a baby? Does the same question get asked about him, if one runs for political office? Cause one would hope that he would choose his child every time too.

And why stop at babies? If your the mother or father of a 12-year old, doesnt the same dilemma apply? And yet nobody asked the question of Bill Clinton, in 1992.
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:00 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interestingly; the sweetest, and probably least sexist person I know, raised the question of 'what does a mother do when the country and her baby need her at the same time?' She wasn't being mean, or sexist, or partisan; she just rationalized that she herself would choose her baby every time. I watched a feminist (Congress woman maybe?) protest an essentially similar question as if the question was a naked sexist attack on women in general and a question of this nature should be considered completely irrelevant. But is it?

How about a father of a baby? Does the same question get asked about him, if one runs for political office? Cause one would hope that he would choose his child every time too.
Speaking for myself as a potential father; I wouldn't take any job I couldn't comfortably walk away from if my baby needed me. I am sure there are plenty of mothers and fathers who feel the exact same way. I am equally sure there are many mothers and fathers who would prioritize differently, but I hardly think the answer to the question is irrelevant when considering the potential leader of the free world.

nimh wrote:
And why stop at babies? If your the mother or father of a 12-year old, doesnt the same dilemma apply? And yet nobody asked the question of Bill Clinton, in 1992.
You stop at babies because they are helpless creatures that when ill would sap any sane person's attention (IMO) to an extent that a 12 year old would not. Further, you have a 12 year history that indicates a low probability that Chelsea was going to be an excessive attention drain. Palin's baby (bless both their souls) is a special needs child (on top of being a baby), and it is entirely more likely the little angel will require plenty of attention. I fail to see the virtue in pretending this isn't so.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:01 pm
this stuff (and all of the other jivey food fight stuff) is covered by the first amendment. sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not. mostly not.

in the scheme of things though, it's kinda analogous to a couple of 13 year olds bursting into a room full of adults having a serious discussion of, oh say.., energy independence; and hopping up and down yelling "boobies!" and giggling beyond all control.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:11 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
and the smart adults see the humor, acknowledge the humor, and move on. A humorless and finger wagging response shows that the adults don't get it.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:22 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Interestingly; the sweetest, and probably least sexist person I know, raised the question of 'what does a mother do when the country and her baby need her at the same time?' She wasn't being mean, or sexist, or partisan; she just rationalized that she herself would choose her baby every time. I watched a feminist (Congress woman maybe?) protest an essentially similar question as if the question was a naked sexist attack on women in general and a question of this nature should be considered completely irrelevant. But is it?

How about a father of a baby? Does the same question get asked about him, if one runs for political office? Cause one would hope that he would choose his child every time too.

And why stop at babies? If your the mother or father of a 12-year old, doesnt the same dilemma apply? And yet nobody asked the question of Bill Clinton, in 1992.


Nobody is asking the question of Michelle Obama (working mom) or Barack Obama either even though their girls are young enough to require a great deal of attention. Nobody asked it of Nancy Pelosi, mother of five, or any other female or male members of Congress and the Senate whether they could handle the responsibilities of Congress as well as their responsibilies as parents.. Nobody asked it of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter when they brought 9-year-old Amy to the White House.

The militant feminists, in fact, have long championed the right of women to lead full lives with all the perks and privileges enjoyed by men and the issue of parental responsibilities didn't factor into it. . . .until. . . .

A popular, attractive, intelligent, capable, and CONSERVATIVE woman got all uppity and presumed to vie for a piece of the pie.

You would think the leftwing feminists are now advocating that a woman must be childless and undergo sterlization before she will be allowed shoes and permission to leave the kitchen.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:33 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Speaking for myself as a potential father; I wouldn't take any job I couldn't comfortably walk away from if my baby needed me... but I hardly think the answer to the question is irrelevant when considering the potential leader of the free world.

right on.

it's up to parents to be responsible about how their decision is reached. if you believe, as i did when i was younger, that there was no way that i could be a responsible father and pursue a career in music (or any other that demanded absurd hours and travel), i opted to put off parenthood. in my case, ms. dtom didn't feel as strong about being a mother as a lot of women do; so there wasn't any friction. other guys i know have made the opposite decision and chose parenthood over career. that's cool by me.

the key and operative word is "responsibility". at least it is for me.



nimh wrote:
And why stop at babies? If your the mother or father of a 12-year old, doesnt the same dilemma apply? And yet nobody asked the question of Bill Clinton, in 1992.
You stop at babies because they are helpless creatures that when ill would sap any sane person's attention (IMO) to an extent that a 12 year old would not. ...Palin's baby (bless both their souls) is a special needs child (on top of being a baby), and it is entirely more likely the little angel will require plenty of attention. I fail to see the virtue in pretending this isn't so.

i agree with you again here. i'm one of those people who believes that in the first 8-9 years, the mother is the one that children most often turn to in any given situation. it's possible that i'm influenced by my age; i was born in the fifties and my mom quit working until i was 8, when she began teaching high school marketing and sales (co-op) programs. up till then, she had been around all the time; important because my dad traveled monday through friday for his work. one of the side benefits was that mom taught me to be self sufficient, and didn't hover over me 24 hours a day, but pretty much always knew where i was and what i was up to. just those few first few years really helped to show me things like being responsible for myself. so, when i had to go home and get my lunch unsupervised and get myself back to school in the 3rd grade (indianapolis had a very strange attitude about kids who lived less than a mile from school eating in the lunchroom. luckily, we were only there for a year...), it wasn't that big of a deal to me. kinda liked it, really.

but as you point out, bill; i'm positive that the situation would have been entirely different if i had been born with a serious defect. in that case, the extra income would not have been at parity with parental responsibility.

we've had friends who, unfortunately have had to make that decision. but they seem to have come to it in a responsible way.

it's just not realistic to be all things to all people all of the time.

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

and the smart adults see the humor, acknowledge the humor, and move on. A humorless and finger wagging response shows that the adults don't get it.


it is amusing; the first couple of times. then it becomes an annoyance. as far as getting it, believe it or not (and it's ever harder for me to do so), i was a 13 year old boy and i thought that kinda stuff was hilarious. so i do acknowledge the humor. my wife accuses me of still doing the same things. Very Happy oh, well. young at heart i guess.

but like most adults, i've also learned the concept of "time and place".

and if political swipes and hackery push the serious stuff aside for the sole purpose of getting or staying in power by hook or by crook, here and now is neither.

but i guess that's just me kinda having a problem with selling the u.s. to china a billion dollars at a time, or continuing to base our policies & economy on some black goop that we have to go through unnecessary contortions for when there are viable transitional and alternative fuels that we can be implementing. to me, it seems pretty simple. the middle easterners only have three things; oil, camels and camel poop. make the oil worthless and what do they have left?

drill, baby, drill? yeah, there's drillin' goin' on around here, alright.

and if ya really want to know what's getting drilled, take a look over your shoulder.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

dog poop on the bottom of somebody's shoe


one of the best descriptions of a politician i've read in a long time
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 03:54 pm
@nimh,
just a spontaneious barbaric retort sir.
A guy who was a cigar smoker had put his cigar elsewhere before he lit it.
For which he wept .
A guy who had tortured, maimed, humiliated and made his country a laughingstock is still a honoured person in that village.

Sex is a subject that only christian compassionate consumers are interested.
mix not sex to vex the participants please.
A humble request but not curtailing your FREEDOM of speech.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  5  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The militant feminists, in fact, have long championed the right of women to lead full lives with all the perks and privileges enjoyed by men and the issue of parental responsibilities didn't factor into it. . . .until. . . .

A popular, attractive, intelligent, capable, and CONSERVATIVE woman got all uppity and presumed to vie for a piece of the pie.

You would think the leftwing feminists are now advocating that a woman must be childless and undergo sterlization before she will be allowed shoes and permission to leave the kitchen.

Um - this would be the moment to point out that this very thread features a prominent link to a website run by those militant, leftwing feminists, where they are defending Sarah Palin against sexism.

And that the examples of sexist portrayals of Palin that have been shown in this thread - and those are the worst ones I've seen - hardly come from the militant lefist feminist camp, but rather from the "out to make a buck from it" camp.

I mean, I share your distaste at the sexist things said about Palin, thats why I started this thread. But I think that when it comes to fingering the guilty parties, you're going more on ideological dispositions than on ID-ing the actual perpetrators.

There was that woman, who was it, from the DNC, who said something really sexist. But otherwise the sexist stuff about Palin I've come across hasnt been from "leftist feminists," or politicians much for that matter. Instead, here's who I imagine would possibly want to buy those sexist anti-Palin t-shirts: I'd call 'em South Park Democrats. Young guys who have little truck with ideology, dont know much about policy details, but hate the Republicans and love to provoke.

Now I dunno - I might be wrong. And maybe my bar of what's sexist is different from yours -- like I said, I do think that the McCain campaign has also thrown the charge around in cases where it's just a way to duck critical questions, or smear critics who are too harsh. But I did see lots of real sexism too - especially on blogs and forums. Just the posters it came from did not seem to be "militant leftist feminists". That's not where it's coming from. It seems to be more the cockstrutting youngsters who support Obama, dont seem to have much of a clue about liberal history or ideology, but hate them some Republicans, and love to pick fights with their conservative counterparts.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:31 pm
@nimh,
Kudos to Shakesville for showing some integrity of conviction instead of being slaves to ideology--I know a few 'progressive types' myself who demonstrate such integrity as do you, yourself. But unfortunately, Shakesville is a very tiny representation of the feminist community, they aren't being quoted in the newspapers or getting any face time on television, and I doubt they are consulted for sound bites that can be turned into headlines.

But the big guns such as NOW, American Assoc of University Woman, Feminist Majority Foundation, et al and their surrogates such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU and Democrats in Congress and the media would have been all over anybody treating a Democrat as Sarah Palin is being treated and they would be championing her right to reach for the brass ring. So where are they now? Either stunningly silent or feeding the gossip and innuendo that it isn't seemly or proper that a mother of young children should aspire to high office.

Moral of story: they are all for women's rights, opportunities, and breaking through the glass ceiling so long as it is a liberal woman. But there seems to be little such conviction defending a Republican or conservative and no outrage whatsoever no matter how shrill, or vulgar, or cruel, or stupid it gets.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:36 pm
@nimh,
Yeah. Had a similar thought this morning:

sozobe wrote:
I guess this is as good of a time as any to say, yes, I think that Palin was a bad choice and not someone I'd want as vice president -- but some of the criticisms are OTT and I think counterproductive. There is plenty of legitimate stuff to criticize.


http://able2know.org/topic/121594-69#post-3408230

Didn't know about those t-shirts and stuff. Yuck.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody is asking the question of Michelle Obama (working mom) or Barack Obama either even though their girls are young enough to require a great deal of attention. Nobody asked it of Nancy Pelosi, mother of five, or any other female or male members of Congress and the Senate whether they could handle the responsibilities of Congress as well as their responsibilies as parents.. Nobody asked it of Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter when they brought 9-year-old Amy to the White House.

I've certainly had discussions with my wife about the Obamas. I've heard it discussed at kids' birthday parties, too.

0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:54 pm
@nimh,
America is dying. Capitalism has bought their soul. - RexRed ...
No sir
America had made a misadventure to uphold capitalism.
Capitalism face the slow death.
But America will retrace the mistakes and survive until my death
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Moral of story: they are all for women's rights, opportunities, and breaking through the glass ceiling so long as it is a liberal woman. But there seems to be little such conviction defending a Republican or conservative and no outrage whatsoever no matter how shrill, or vulgar, or cruel, or stupid it gets.

Oh, please. Can you say "Fundamental attributional bias"?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:57 pm
@DrewDad,
Can you show me where anybody from any of those organizations has defended Sarah Palin's right to aspire to high office in any significant way?

The only one I know of that has even attempted to be fair is Women Count, a pro-Hillary group who don't support Palin, but do criticize those who put her down on the basis of being a mother.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 05:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Why does anyone need to defend her right to aspire to high office?

Few people in a position of power have attacked her on the basis of her gender, which is what those organizations are designed to protect against.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 05:07 pm
@DrewDad,
Right. I have no problem with those who come after her on her record or her agenda. But this thread isn't about that. It IS about those who are attacking her re her gender, her status as a mom, etc. etc. And most organizations that would be defending a liberal Democrat on that basis are not defending her and, in some cases, are feeding the garbage.
 

Related Topics

Lipstick vs. Uppity - Discussion by A Lone Voice
Where is the outrage? - Discussion by Gelisgesti
Sarah Palin lies - Discussion by nimh
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Sarah Palin, too weird. - Discussion by dyslexia
Troopergate report: Palin abused power - Discussion by blueflame1
"I fear for my country" - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 07:18:17