Taking it Outside

"Light. Flexible. Secure. Pure Publishing."
(NucleusCMS)

Menu:

• Previous
• Home
• Archives
• Today
• Admin Area
• Next

Recent comments

• russell says if you have ever upgraded the...
• cleek says if it can be programmed...
• Ugh says CIA and the czar don't want...
• cleek says all back to normal now....
• sapient says I had read _A. Lincoln_, by...

Links:

- The Mothership
- The old Wordpress site
- Our RSS feed
- Recent comments RSS feed

Version: 1.0
(July 25, 2005)

an accounting

Sep 03, 2008 by libjpn

Comments

Sep 03, 2008, 23:43:02 libjpn wrote:

Turbulence points out other readings for the comments as well, and his point about the heavy sarcasm should be noted. Anger is often carried by heavy sarcasm. However, I tried to assume that most of the comments were as your perceptions of them were, and simply point out that they are not only a small fraction of the total comments, at least half of them were not made by people who could be considered regulars. And, if one would note, some of the newer regulars are posting within the past few months. It is anger that is driving this.

I also said that I would try and suggest what to do if the anger was internal. How do you avoid making some backhand remark about Palin that comes across as disrespectful to all women? My suggestion is not a completely satisfactory one, but it is to try and find something positive from the Obama/Biden campaign that you can point out. I'm not sure if that's the answer, but it is the only thing I can think to do.

Sep 04, 2008, 01:26:40 russell wrote:

[i]There are, today, millions of Americans who are saying to themselves, "I'm not sure I like McCain, but that Palin is one spunky little filly!". [/i]

lj's intuition is correct, this is a comment about how Palin will be received by the audience she is intended to be attractive to, rather than a comment about her.

I have no problem with women in responsible executive positions, I do not care how many kids she has, how many of them have medical problems, how many of them are pregnant, or when she had them. I don't care if she plans to have 10 more, including if she plans to have one per year while in office.

Not my business.

She is qualified on the merits or she is not. People juggle responsible positions with all kinds of family and other non-worklife commitments all the time. I do it, my wife does it, pretty much everyone I know does it.

I'm not impressed by Palin as a VP nominee, but it has nothing to do with her family life or her CV outside of her political career.

Thanks -

Sep 04, 2008, 02:43:58 nous wrote:

I think this is really about a combination of things and about balance. On the one hand I think these comments reflect public sentiment and point to legitimate concerns that should be addressed. On the other hand, they also display a lot of unreflexive sexism (whether from the person expressing them or just in the way that society frames the topics). I think a lot of Dems have supported feminist causes but have never managed to root out these deeply ingrained patterns in their own language and assumptions and that lack of reflection could come back to bite them.

The PUMAs were right about the sexism, despite the irrationality of their approach to confronting it.

I think the same argument could be made about race FWIW.

It's about time these topics were exhumed again. They patently have not gone away.

Sep 04, 2008, 03:16:20 Ugh wrote:

Well, I thought my comment was aimed more at McCain as a doddering old senile fool picking a Veep based on irrelevant criteria in the midst of more pressing things (like competence). Admittedly it doesn't work if Palin isn't a woman, but I'm not sure that makes it problematic.

Sep 04, 2008, 03:52:45 Turbulence wrote:

For reference, my comment about dm's list of sexist comments is here.

In general, I think the accusations of sexism are significantly overblown. The carelessness with which the accusation has been made strikes me as offensive, but it is what I've come to expect from some Clinton supporters.

I think some of the comments really are troubling, but most of those are made by drive by posters. The remaining ones seem to have no sexist comment at all if you understand sarcasm and read with the barest hint of charity.

Now, if someone wanted to call out bedtimeforbonzo or Redwood or whoever else for making genuinely sexist comments, that'd be fine with me, but don't overgeneralize and don't tar innocent people with the sexism brush just because you don't care to get the details right.

Sep 04, 2008, 03:52:59 Turbulence wrote:

When I said here, I meant http://obsidianwings.blogs....

Sep 04, 2008, 04:18:19 nous wrote:

For clarity I should point out that I'm not arguing that all of the comments are sexist. Some of them are, and the rest just reveal the deeply sexist context within which and assumptions from which the whole conversation unfolds.

Important distinction.

Sep 04, 2008, 04:48:18 OCSteve wrote:

I’ll just note how unusual it is to find myself on the other side of this issue.

Sep 04, 2008, 04:55:02 Turbulence wrote:

nous, I think specificity matters here. Some of those comments are not sexist at all and don't reveal any context. If you want to make claims about them, it would be good if you made specific claims based on specific comments. For example, you could say that Carleton's comment about Palin charming voters was sexist because X, Y, and Z or that it reveals a sexist context because of A, B, and C.

OCSteve, which side of the issue are you on?

Sep 04, 2008, 06:09:54 OCSteve wrote:

Turb: The third side I guess.

I don’t want to get into the DS thing again, so I’m only discussing children in general here…

I feel that comments that implicitly assume that the woman is the primary caregiver and thus would be neglecting her children if she took a demanding job are sexist. After all – Obama has two young children and I never heard even a whisper of an allegation that he would somehow be neglecting them if he lands the top job. I also feel its sexist to assume that having kids would somehow impair her judgment but not his.

I specified that I feel the comments are sexist – not necessarily the person making the comments. I think in many cases it is just pure politics. If Ms. Palin demonstrated the correct ideology and ran on the right ticket I don’t believe we would hear the same comments from the same people. Even if Palin just runs and loses, she’ll be neglecting her kids by campaigning for 60 days. Yet I never heard that about Michelle Obama, on the campaign trail for almost two years now. Apparently the number of children (>2 being the apparent dividing line) being neglected by their mother is more important than the number of months/years she is not at home taking care of them. I don’t find those individuals sexist, just transparently partisan and rather flexible on the issue.

This is a general observation BTW, not meant to apply to specific ObWi posters. But it’s been amazing to watch (all over) the defense of these remarks the past few days.

And it’s been amazing to watch pure slime go from an anonymous DKos diary (called “weird” by Markos, but he didn’t want to “suppress” it) to Sullivan to the NYT.

VRWC indeed.

Sep 04, 2008, 07:13:09 OCSteve wrote:

Sure has brought out some [i]interesting[/i] new folks though.

All these nuts can’t be coming from Instapundit – most are not his type of regular reader. The hard-core righties, I guess so. But some of these guys seem like overflow from DU. Who else linked?

Sep 04, 2008, 11:13:40 nous wrote:

Turb - from the list above I'd say that:

'bobby ewing' - sexist, probably trollish

andy k and PML - sexist and probably offensive in that they undermine feminist principles

tony p - sexist and probably offensively so to some

bedtimefor bonzo (1) - sexist, though not offensively so

prup's comment, while not sexist per se, does undermine a feminist position

francis, btfb (2), russell, cleek, and johnnybutter are working within a sexist context, though with heavy irony and sarcasm, so I don't think the comments reflect badly upon them

carleton and ugh - not sure why they made the list (except perhaps that with ugh DM missed the contextual cue for the princess bride).

redwood's comment - beats me.

Sep 04, 2008, 11:16:45 nous wrote:

And I'd yield to an actual XX feminist who disagrees with my assessment. I'm not as sensitive to the context because I don't get nailed with it all the time -- damned XY chromosomes and all.

Sep 04, 2008, 12:19:29 libjpn wrote:

I'd note that with nous' analysis, if you line it up with 'regularness', the more regular posters are the ones more aware of it. This plugs into my post about Murdoch, in that people will adopt the frame of the people they hang around with, which is why I reject DM's argument that these comments reflect sexism of the commentariat.

Sep 04, 2008, 12:36:15 lowlyadjunct wrote:

On balance, I read the comments like Nous does. I suppose Carlton's comment can be read sexist because it implies that a woman needs only charm to influence people, rather than logic--but in the context of the rest of his comment, that sexism is clearly ironic.

What's not cool, though, and is painfully common, is men telling women when they're allowed to be annoyed by sexism, and even telling us what, and is not, sexist. It's one thing to say, "Gosh, you know, I don't find that comment sexist," and another to say, flat out, "That's not sexism." One of those statements is subjective. The other is objective.

[i]It may reflect unthinking sexism, but asking people to deal with the sexism is not a solution. [/i]

Hm. No. Unthinking sexism gets a pass all too damned often. If we don't figure out how the hell to express ourselves without falling back on sexist tropes because they're simplest, easiest, we can do 'em without thinking!--nothing changes.

How many of those comments (and others) reduce Palin to her appearance or her role in reproduction? Why is that the one of the first lines of attack people choose when faced with a woman candidate? That's unthinking sexism, and it shouldn't get a pass because we're pissed off.

Sep 04, 2008, 12:51:36 russell wrote:

[i]francis, btfb (2), [b]russell[/b], cleek, and johnnybutter are working within a sexist context, though with heavy irony and sarcasm, so I don't think the comments reflect badly upon them[/i]

russell would be me.

Sorry, but "working within a sexist context" is not a hat I'm wearing.

Read the rest, or even any single other one, of my comments, on any thread concerning Palin, and then come back and tell me how sexist I am.

Consciously or unconsciously.

Thanks -

Sep 04, 2008, 14:10:08 justinslot wrote:

OCSteve: I believe Crazy Andy linked as well. The Obama campaign's most skilled advocate.

Sep 04, 2008, 14:17:55 libjpn wrote:

[i]It's one thing to say, "Gosh, you know, I don't find that comment sexist," and another to say, flat out, "That's not sexism." One of those statements is subjective. The other is objective.[/i]

Objective, too, is the comment 'that comment is sexist', which assigns a similar degree of certainty that seems to be unfounded. But if you don't say exactly which comments are problematic, you get a free pass to complain about sexism?

Sep 04, 2008, 14:19:25 nous wrote:

russell, ya big dork. Read my first comment again. It's about the social context in which those comments gain their power. Our social structures on balance are deeply sexist. Doesn't mean that you were being sexist. It just means that a lot of people say things like that all the time with no sense of irony at all.

Sep 04, 2008, 20:55:41 russell wrote:

[i]russell, ya big dork.[/i]

I'll own that.

Sorry nous.

Thanks -

Sep 04, 2008, 21:29:21 libjpn wrote:

[i]Even if Palin just runs and loses, she’ll be neglecting her kids by campaigning for 60 days. Yet I never heard that about Michelle Obama, on the campaign trail for almost two years now. Apparently the number of children (>2 being the apparent dividing line) being neglected by their mother is more important than the number of months/years she is not at home taking care of them. I don’t find those individuals sexist, just transparently partisan and rather flexible on the issue.[/i]

I've been thinking about this a bit and I think there are some other points to consider. Do you remember that Colin Powell's [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...]wife threatened to leave him[/url] if he ran for president?

What bothers me with your equation is this. I think that the Obamas are sacrificing more for this country than Sarah Palin is. Certainly, winning the presidency is a great reward, but, having heard Obama speak, he doesn't seem to be pursuing power for its own ends. Ambitious, certainly, but he is taking a lot more risks with him and his family than Palin is. In fact, Palin will, even if she loses, probably get in on a gravy train of speaking engagements. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see Palin going back to Snakenavel, Alaska for a return engagement as Mayor.

You might call this blind partisanship, but after that speech, do you really get the impression that Palin is in this for something beyond glorifying herself? I don't see it at all.

You suggest that number of children is involved, but I'm wondering what would have happened had the Obamas had 5 kids. Probably the same sort of point made by [url=http://yglesias.thinkprogre...]Byron York[/url] (as noted by Yglesias)

You are right to note the fact that partisianship drives a lot of the problematic comments you note, but I'll repeat what I have been saying, that this is seething anger. And when you get angry, you tend to not to carefully look for stones to throw, but grab the ones most readily at hand. And given the pervasive sexism that occurs in US society, those are the stones that are lying on the surface.

Sep 04, 2008, 22:09:16 OCSteve wrote:

[i]I think that the Obamas are sacrificing more for this country than Sarah Palin is. Certainly, winning the presidency is a great reward, but, having heard Obama speak, he doesn't seem to be pursuing power for its own ends. Ambitious, certainly, but he is taking a lot more risks with him and his family than Palin is. In fact, Palin will, even if she loses, probably get in on a gravy train of speaking engagements. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see Palin going back to Snakenavel, Alaska for a return engagement as Mayor.[/i]

Really? You think that Obama (if he loses) is going to pull an Edwards and just fade? I’m guessing he’ll keep his Senate seat, rise in seniority, and be back in 2012. I’m guessing his wife will continue to pull down 6 figures. No capacity to earn big bucks as a speaker? Comparative sacrifice? You can really measure that in this case? If Palin flops on the national stage I hardly see her future as rosy.

And I like Obama – but it seems to me that everything he has done in his life has been about acquiring power. I certainly don’t see him as some altruistic force, exposing his family to all this for the good of the country. And if he [i]does[/i] think that way it would scare the piss out of me.

[i]You might call this blind partisanship, but after that speech, do you really get the impression that Palin is in this for something beyond glorifying herself? I don't see it at all.[/i]

I responded to the speech on the latest ObWi thread. But to answer this question – not at all. But again, I understand perfectly why someone does this for power and glory. That is a “normal” reason to me. And if I thought that wasn’t Obama’s true reason, if I thought he actually was in it for some concept of “the greater good”, I would find him unacceptable as a candidate.

I concede your challenge from the earlier thread BTW.

Sep 04, 2008, 22:23:46 libjpn wrote:

[i]Comparative sacrifice? You can really measure that in this case?[/i]

Sorry, I meant the danger that he and his family will be under. I pray that I am wrong, but I see him as a target. I also see him under increased scrutiny for the rest of his days. And the danger becomes more acute the more successful the Democratic party is in isolating the radical right.

Again, this is from my point of view, but in the speech, when he said that it wasn't about him, it was about those who support him. I'll admit again to being ready for that, and part of my depression may be in feeling that I am so far away from doing anything, from things that are happening, which makes me wonder about life choices and such, but I see a chance for a true progressive spirit.

I'm confused about rejecting the greater good as a reason, do you reject anyone who is in it for the greater good, or just those seeking political power?

Hearing Palin's speech again, and the booing when mentions of Obama come, I really feel a chill up my spine.

[i]I concede your challenge from the earlier thread BTW.[/i]

And I already did my funky chicken dance in front of the computer. Thanks.

Sep 04, 2008, 23:02:32 JanieM wrote:

"The greater good" strand between OCSteve and libjpn reminds me of the graduation speech I heard given by Muhammad Yunus in June. [url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...]See here in case you're not familiar with his work.[/url]

He talked about his own work (founding the Grameen Bank and beyond) and challenged the grads to think not in terms of having to choose one or the other as between their own advancement and the greater good, but in terms of both/and. It was a low key, unassuming, and lovely speech, and it even inspired jaded old me to think about these matters in a more complex light.

Of course someone who's running for president has some kind of a taste for gathering, and ability to gather, "power." It seems to me it's an important question to ask: what does s/he intend to use the power [i]for[/i]? Halliburton.......?

I would love to weigh in on the sexism issue but I'm on my way to work, and anyhow, it's hard to know where to start. Maybe later. Anyhow, thanks lj, for collating the quotes from comments, and thanks to all for the interesting discussion.

P.S. I just started chiming in here ... who knows how my attempt to add a wikipedia link for Yunus will pan out! ;)

Sep 04, 2008, 23:03:04 JanieM wrote:

Ha. Not so great. Maybe I forgot to add the closing tag.

Sep 04, 2008, 23:14:12 OCSteve wrote:

LJ: [i] Sorry, I meant the danger that he and his family will be under.[/i]

Ah, OK. I misunderstood that. I’d probably agree with you on that point.

[i]which makes me wonder about life choices and such[/i]

I can certainly see how you might feel that way. This is certainly the most significant election in my lifetime. It would be tough to watch it from the other side of the world. I’d say though that you are getting a pretty good picture of things from ObWi (a pretty good picture from the progressive viewpoint anyway).

[i] I'm confused about rejecting the greater good as a reason, do you reject anyone who is in it for the greater good, or just those seeking political power?[/i]

The combination. It seems to me that some of the scariest leaders in history started out seeking power because they knew what was best for the greater good.

Sep 05, 2008, 02:02:46 tgott wrote:

nous: "francis, btfb (2), russell, cleek, and johnnybutter are working within a sexist context, though with heavy irony and sarcasm, so I don't think the comments reflect badly upon them"

I'm just honored to be grouped with francis, russell, cleek and johnnybutter.

I'm also glad this sexism conversation finally brought me over to TIO, as I respect the opinions here (although, Turb, I must say we seem to butt heads an awful lot).

BTW, I tried to address dutchmarbel's concerns at the end of "Sarah Palin's Children," an exhausting thread if there ever was one.

Bill Maher is vulgar and sexist. Weird, but my wife enjoys his show as much as I do. I wonder if anyone else here does.

With all of the irony and sarcasm that fills the blogosphere, ObWi included, I figure Palin has brought us a daily sexist minefield.

Sexist or not, I still wish Hillary Clinton were opposing McCain. But that's old news.

Anyway, thanks, guys.

Sep 05, 2008, 02:08:17 tgott wrote:

It looks like I may be tgott over here rather than bedtimeforbonzo (unless I can fix it). I'm not sure how that happened.

Sep 05, 2008, 04:50:15 tgott wrote:

Sexist or not: I forget who but one TV reporter last night noted that one of the most popluar buttons being worn by Republicans in Minnesota says something to the effect that Palin is the "hottest" governor from the "coolest" state.

I suppose you could construe that as sexist but, as Turbulence said, a lot of this seems "overblown."

Sep 05, 2008, 06:09:44 nous wrote:

And "overblown" sounds dismissive. Do you mean to be dismissive, because a dismissive attitude towards the Dem's feminist wing is going to boomerang at some point.

I think a lot of feminists are watching left-leaning men with a bit more suspicion and a lot less charity after the primaries, and I can't really blame them.

Sep 05, 2008, 06:31:40 Turbulence wrote:

nous, I think that cuts both ways. I know I'm looking with more suspicion than I used to at Democratic women who claim to be feminists. During the primaries, I saw some pretty shocking ignorance of the mechanics of the nomination process. I also saw a pretty strong refusal to engage on substantiative points of disagreement (like, Clinton's support for Iraq, not just the current war, but a whole line of failed policies that she'd supported since her husband was in office). That's not to say that these people conducted themselves poorly compared to what I expect for the average American, but the experience did open my eyes to how much I differ with them. The recent joy surrounding Emily's List along with NOW's support of Lieberman has done little to reassure me.

I'd also note that I positively love Democratic feminists compared to my wife. She's been studying the history of feminism of late and has rather negative feelings towards mainstream feminist institutions as a result. Especially when it comes to their treatment of, say, black people. Like Obama. I don't mean to disparage anyone, but I suspect that most people may not be aware that there is a whole school of thought that criticizes larger feminist institutions as being far more interested in advancing the interests of white, upper middle class, educated women to the exclusion of all else. I certainly was not aware of it.

Apologies for being sensitive, but my experience on this topic has been rather frustrating lately. I've gone out of my way to make a reasoned argument that is not in any way sexist but I've had to defend against attacks and distortions by people who claim to be feminists. Some of these people assume bad faith on my part. Others, like dm, simply refuse to read any criticism of mine, lest they be contaminated forever. This is not the best way to start a discussion.

Before we tar the entire OW commentariat as anti-feminist women-haters, perhaps could we engage in a discussion about how some feminists have consistently presented irrational pro-Clinton anti-Obama arguments even since the primaries? I mean, really, why do we need to look at dm's list when dm has already written elsewhere that OW is a highly sexist community because the press made sexist attacks against Clinton during the primaries?

Sep 05, 2008, 08:01:58 tgott wrote:

nous: "I think a lot of feminists are watching left-leaning men with a bit more suspicion and a lot less charity after the primaries, and I can't really blame them."

I wish I knew more left-leaning men who supported Hillary Clinton during the primary.

Working in a macho environment and with some outspoken Republicans, I took a lot of heat for the Hillary bumper sticker on the back of my truck and when I would wear my Hillary T-shirt when I'd stop by the office sometimes on my day off (I live really close to work) -- which, of course, made me wear it more.

When I saw the petty reaction to stuff like this, I knew Hillary faced an uphill battle -- so many men just seem to have a visceral negative (and irrational) reaction toward her.

FWIW, I hope Palin's candidacy -- coupled with Hillary's -- will make men less resistant to putting a woman in the White House the next time around (assuming McCain doesn't win this time).

Turbulence raises a good point "about how some feminists have consistently presented irrational pro-Clinton anti-Obama arguments."

I mean, I don't live in a cave but I was shocked to find out about PUMAs well after the term had reached the mainstream.

Sep 05, 2008, 08:25:56 Jeff wrote:

[i]there is a whole school of thought that criticizes larger feminist institutions as being far more interested in advancing the interests of white, upper middle class, educated women to the exclusion of all else.[/i]

Both [url=http://www.feministe.us/blog/]Feministe[/url] and [url=http://echidneofthesnakes.b...]Echidne of the Snakes{/url] post about this from time to time -- I believe Echidne had one on the idea that it was "a woman's turn" to be President, noting that women had always obtained rights before blacks did. There's a good dela of criticism of "Second Wave" feminism from blogs like these.

Sep 05, 2008, 08:26:59 Jeff wrote:

Trying the links again:

[url=http://www.feministe.us/blog/]Feministe[/url] and [url=http://echidneofthesnakes.b...]Echidne of the Snakes[/url]

Sep 05, 2008, 10:52:05 marbel wrote:

<i>And I'd yield to an actual XX feminist who disagrees with my assessment.</i>

Grin, I don't count?

LJ: I don't wat to start discussing who sacrifies more (my first automatic response would be Michelle Obama).
<i> but I'm wondering what would have happened had the Obamas had 5 kids. </i>
Michelle O. was allready called his 'baby mamma' - which is sexist too, if you wonder. Michelle Obama suffers from sexism too, but less so on leftleaning blogs.

Russel: I'd never say that you were sexist. But that doesn't mean that you cannot say something that is sexist. I don't think that I am racist. Yet when i started commenting on ObWi I sometimes used the wrong word for people of colour. People told me it was the wrong way to put it and ever since I stick to POC. Elsewhere I was told that I couldn't use 'tar baby' to describe a truelly sticky situation. I would call it that in the Netherlands, but in the USA appearantly it has taken on an insulting meaning. So I try to avoid it when I communicate in English. Not because I am racist, but because I said the wrong things.

@ Ugh: Me, not recognizing the princess bride? Inconceivable ;)

I'll try to stop by later again, but it is almost 4 in the morning here and I try to get at least 5 hours a night.

tgott: I still have the thread open en mean to respond. Or would you rather I answered here?

Sep 05, 2008, 11:16:05 tgott wrote:

marbel: Go ahead and respond here. I'll check it when I get to work Friday -- that "Sarah Palin's Children" thread has worn me out.

Thanks,

btfb

Sep 05, 2008, 11:18:55 nous wrote:

Me [i]And I'd yield to an actual XX feminist who disagrees with my assessment.[/i]

Marbel [i]Grin, I don't count?[/i]

Heh. Sure you count, I just don't necessarily understand [i]why[/i] you consider those comments sexist, and I'd like to know the reasoning (or impetus or whatever) behind it. I can see reason for the others.

Sep 05, 2008, 12:02:11 DonaldJ wrote:

I don't think you deserve to be taken seriously, dutchmarbel, when you criticize Turbulence and then say that you ignore him. He is beneath you then--someone you can criticize, but not someone you read when he replies. That's certainly a fine way to make your point.

I mostly avoided that trainwreck of a discussion. I think it is a bad mistake to get into Sarah Palin's family life, but one should be charitable about making charges of sexism directed at specific people unless they are clearly guilty. That doesn't mean one shouldn't criticize dubious-sounding remarks. But that thread and this one got so nasty it seemed like a waste of time and emotional energy to get involved. Oddly enough, I probably do agree with dutchmarbel on the general point--I don't think Turbulence was employing a double standard in criticizing Sarah Palin as a mother and believe him when he says he'd say the same about a man with a DS child, but in general, I think it's safe to say a male politician probably wouldn't be subjected to much criticism on such an issue.
The tension between white feminists and the black community goes back to the 19th Century. I read a biography of William Lloyd Garrison a few years ago and there were bad feelings about the struggle to win black men the vote when educated white women didn't have it. You can guess the sorts of ugly things that were said. I'd have to go back and look up exactly who said what.

Sep 05, 2008, 16:58:15 libjpn wrote:

If y'all want to reset the conversation, and someone wants to write a post laying out the parameters of what they want to discuss, I'd be happy to put it up, or just give someone the keys here.

Sep 05, 2008, 22:30:27 Ugh wrote:

[b]dutch:[/b][i]@ Ugh: Me, not recognizing the princess bride? Inconceivable ;)[/i]

Hey it wasn't me that said you were unfamiliar with that masterpiece. ;-)

Still not sure my comment contained an objectionable component. Although, now that I think about it some more, [url=http://www.dailykos.com/sto...]this[/url] Kos diary I wrote about Hillary, riffing off Wayne's World, is probably a little more sexist.

Sep 05, 2008, 23:25:06 tgott wrote:

DonaldJ: "one should be charitable about making charges of sexism directed at specific people unless they are clearly guilty."

I was thinking along those lines before I logged on -- the point being, as with slander, I think you'd have to prove intent and malice before marking someone guilty of being sexist.

Barack Obama took a lot of heat in one of the primary debates for saying something to the effect -- and I forget his exact words -- "you're likable enough, Hillary."

His tone was dismissive.

And while I think a presidential candidate must be more careful with his words than some anonymous blogger, I didn't find his comment sexist so much as it being a friendly jab.

I worry about Biden having to navigate a similar minefield in his upcoming debate with Palin.

Sep 06, 2008, 01:27:53 Turbulence wrote:

[i]I worry about Biden having to navigate a similar minefield in his upcoming debate with Palin.[/i]

There are two different issues here: (1) will Biden screw up in a way that is offensive to normal fair-minded people and (2) will Biden say something that the press will misconstrue as being a sexist attack against Palin. I'm pretty sure that (1) won't happen; Biden's a sharp guy and knows the stakes. I'd worry that option (2) is definitely going to happen though. As we've seen at the Dem convention with the PUMAs, the media is capable of completely inventing bizarre narratives and claiming they dominate events when they just don't. If they misinterpret something innocuous that Biden says and screech about what a sexist he is for days on end, then people watching the news and the talk shows are going to internalize that even if they didn't agree when they watched the debate.

Sep 06, 2008, 02:28:48 tgott wrote:

Turb: Agree with everything you said.

A big concern that I failed to mention: Biden -- being too wary not to step on that minefield -- may throttle back the very enthusiasm and passion that should make him such a good advocate for the Obama campaign.

Remember, this is the same guy who took a lot of heat for calling Obama "articulate," which seemed overblown at the time seeing how he was genuinely trying to give the man a compliment, perhaps reflected by Obama's tepid reaction.

Wish I had some work to do --

btfb

Sep 06, 2008, 02:41:43 nous wrote:

btfb -- [i]I was thinking along those lines before I logged on -- the point being, as with slander, I think you'd have to prove intent and malice before marking someone guilty of being sexist.[/i]

But it's not [i]about[/i] slander. It's about sexism. It's about rhetoric and frames and the way that people (or culture or society or whatever) connect their thought and put forth their ideas.

I understand the sense of frustration. I get it too. But I've also come to realize that my feminism comes with a lot of screwed up, chivalry-light baggage attached to it, like being called sexist can take away the merit badges I earned by voting for equal pay or whatever. Because seeing what assholes some guys are can easily lead to a sense of [i]noblesse oblige[/i] in left-leaning males. But, to quote a famous admiral, "It's a trap".

Really, it's not slander because it's not about you or me. It's about debugging patriarchal rhetoric and redefining categories in such a way that us men don't need to have our self-esteem stroked every time we give up a little of the privilege we've coded into our objects.

It's really not about us and whether or not we get to think of ourselves as Nice Guys.

And you can probably do a find on gender and replace it with race and get a whole 'nother can of worms that needs upsetting.

Sep 06, 2008, 03:13:18 tgott wrote:

This is quite powerful: "Really, it's not slander because it's not about you or me. It's about debugging patriarchal rhetoric and redefining categories in such a way that us men don't need to have our self-esteem stroked every time we give up a little of the privilege we've coded into our objects."

Thank you for giving me something to think about, nous.

Funny I thought of the slander correlation without thinking at the time that pinning someone as a sexist without just cause may fall under that very heading.

So these are complex issues.

As the father of a 9-year-old boy, I find it heartening that he and his group of friends don't view anything based on the color of one's skin or one's sex.

But then we were the same way at 9, which serves as your proof that these are societal concerns.

Thank you,

btfb

Sep 06, 2008, 07:28:57 nous wrote:

I was just paraphrasing what the feminist blogs say about the so-called "nice guy" argument. Glad it made you think, too. I think about it a lot.

Sep 06, 2008, 08:06:54 marbel wrote:

<i>I don't think you deserve to be taken seriously, dutchmarbel, when you criticize Turbulence and then say that you ignore him. He is beneath you then--someone you can criticize, but not someone you read when he replies. That's certainly a fine way to make your point.</i>

I didn't critisize Turbulence, I ignored him. Not because he is beneath me, but because I've had discussions with him before and didn't like it. He asked for cites but didn't read my links, he distorted what I said, he called me some quite appealing things and never apologized. A serious discussion takes up a lot of my time. I will not do that for someone who is not interested in a mutual respectfull discussion. And I am not inclined to have conversations with someone who regularly falls back to personal insults when he doesn't get his way. I quite explicitedly told him that at ObWi and asked him to not address me anymore since I would not respond.

tgott: I think it is abysmal that you guys work 80-90 hours between the two of you and that you still feel that more than one child would be too much of a financial burden. I'm not sure wether the time at work is the main denominator on how many kids you can (and want to) handle though. I see too many variations around me, from people who are frazzled by taking care of one kid to people who can easily care for <a Href="http://www.duggarfamily.com...">a bunch of kids</i> (I know, extreme example, but to good to leave unused ;) ) and achieve all sorts of other things too. It depends on personality, it depends on the kids, it depends on how easily resources to help are available.

I seem to still have a problem explaining the difference between saying something X-ist and being an X-ist. Nous seems to grok it, so I hope that helps.

Nous: I am not sure about the feminist/POC divide. Racism in the Netherlands is different, our dogwhistles are different and it is often more about ethnicy or religion than race (i.e.: American immigrants are good, but for us Americans can quite easily be black too. Polish caucassian immigrants have a harder time currently).

I do think that being disadvantaged because of who and what you are makes you more sensitive to others in that predicament. At the same time it sometimes becomes a fight for scarce resourses, the so-called oppression olympics. In the Netherlands (and I think in the US too) the schism is more between 'white middle class' feminists and WOC feminists, each battling different stereotypes and striving for different goals. Since I am white middle class I try to be aware of it, but I don't always catch my own privilege. If I don't, I hope someone points it out to me because that is the only way I can improve.

The question about which statements are sexist is often difficult to answer. I read feminist blogs & blogs with feminists and don't always agree with them either. But I think in general you can see that it is sexist when the women you refer too is not discussed in line with the function she has. It is also sexist when you reinforce stereotypes that paint women as less capable or if you judge their tasks and responsibilities different. Maybe <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watc...">this video</a> (a few months old, so mainly about hillary) helps.

LJ: Since both you and your wife are (half?) Japanese venting about their culture is not racist. And anger can be very useful, but you have to control it. I described my pov <A href="">elsewhere</a>.

tgott: I had a conversation about this with my 9 yo son today. He said he hated discrimination and told me that he had chased away a bunch of kids who teased a new boy ("from another country") with a brown skin. Since he gets teased ("but only teased mamma, not bullied") he says he wants to help 'fellow-oppressed'.

But Achmed the Dead Terrorist is a great hit with the youth here. I hear 'silence, I kill you' all the time. And I must admit that the clip made me laugh too. So I explained to him that you can find a joke like that funny, but that if you happen to be muslim you hear jokes like that all the time. No matter how funny the joke is, it eventually will create a weird image about muslims. Those things are not as easy to detect, they are less obvious - but (as I said to him) suppose we had been muslims? He would have had a few different habits and festivities but, as he can see with friends who are muslim, he would still be himself, the same character, the same boy. Suppose everybody would see him as dumb, of as a potential terrorist, would he still like Achmed as much?

You can explain the obvious quite easily. The sneaky promotion of stereotypes and thus of discrimination is much harder to notice and to address.

Its way past midnight and tomorrow is a busy day with lots of travel, so I hope I made things more clear. If not, I probabley wont be able to comment till Sunday.

Sep 06, 2008, 08:11:26 marbel wrote:

Darn, I miss preview. I'll list the links:
[url=http://www.duggarfamily.com...]Really big family[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watc...]Sexism video[/url]
[url=http://shakespearessister.b...]Comment about anger[/url]

Hope this works better.

Sep 06, 2008, 23:23:25 tgott wrote:

marbel,

With work occupying so much of our lives, the challenge in our family is finding quality time as it is (with just the one kid).

By that, I don't just mean time when we both happen to be off together. Because there are so many times where I'm home exhausted or it might be her day when she's the exhausted one -- like last night. She fell asleep in our easy chair just an hour or so after getting home, having, thankfully, been busy all day cutting hair (which means standing on your feet all day).

The other thing (and I'm not sure how many kids you have) but with the pressures of family, finances, work, time management, I find it's easy to develop intimacy issues (which, yes, involves sex) -- thank goodness, our marriage has a strong foundation.

Being from Russia, and having lived here for only four years, my wife couldn't believe the work hours Americans clock in -- and how little vacation time we have. The European model seems so much healthier.

Re: Our 9-year-old sons -- I find this is a wonderful age, they're constantly engaging you and enlightening you while being enlightened.

And they're so much smarter than we realize: We were watching some program last night where Usher was performing and I made a comment about how stupid it looked that his suspenders were hanging outside his pants. Then Danny mentioned something about "goths" and how they wear a lot of chains that dangle -- I had no idea he knew what a "goth" was.

Nice comparing notes,

btfb

Sep 06, 2008, 23:44:32 libjpn wrote:

[i]Since both you and your wife are (half?) Japanese venting about their culture is not racist[/i]

No, my wife is fully Japanese, I am Japanese-American, which doesn't give me a license to slam Japanese culture. But I can explain till I am blue in the face why certain things occur, but they remain unchanged. Hence the anger.

Ufortunately, I can't check the link you gave. However, if you screw up the syntax in the comment, you can go to the admin area and change it, I think.

I also recommend (if you are on mac and firefox) you try [url=https://addons.mozilla.org/...]bbcodeXtra[/url] or [url=https://addons.mozilla.org/...]bbcode[/url], which can also handle html syntax.

Sep 08, 2008, 21:30:12 marbel wrote:

LJ: You've seen that I had the links put in properly in the next comment? I am reading in Opera, and the list of allowed code is useable enough. It's just that this is the only place I visit where I have to use bbcode, so I automatically use html tags.

What I ment with my comment is that being fed up with the local culture does not equal racism. It can be really frustrating and might make you want to rant en vent though.

tgott: I have [url=http://www.noyce.nl/multime...]three sons[/url]. My oldest son will be 10 on September 11th, the other two are 8 and 6. Even if you have enough time it can be hard to find quality time. I am currently a SAHM and my spouse works 4 9 hour days because we gave enough free time a high priority (is easier in the Netherlands, 36hours is full time in the financial sector so my husband took a job as projectmanager with a bank). I also have friends who get more energy, who are happier, with working more hours. Though it is more rare with female friends, there are some - and I applaud them for making the choices that matter for them. Some have husbands who work less, some have other resources. I do know that especially the ones who have demanding children can really be happy to have demanding jobs, to define themselves as more that the 'mother of'. I had a friend with triplets who swears she'd gone crazy if she had to stay home with them all day, even though she loves them to bits and does a lot of things with them.

About Sarah Palin: I would HATE it if she became the next US VP. Please attack her on any possible occassion, there are busloads of points to attack her on. And of course Biden can come on to her full force - as long as it is about her policies. I'd much rather that he did it than a female surrogate to be honest, since they are both vp-candidates.

But please stick to the political issues. Not her looks (I cringed when Bidens first answer when askes how he and Palin differed was that she was better looking than he), nothing that promotes the classic female stereotypes, not how she has to combine children and carreer. As the last sentence in [url=http://www.chicagotribune.c...]this article[/url] says: [i]What if Palin proves to be a great vice president&#8212;but a lousy mother? It sounds like a reasonable question &#8212; until you realize that it would rarely, if ever, be asked about a man.[/i]

There are people who want to be convinced to vote for Obama and Biden. OMG SCOTUS doesn't cut it if they are not convinced he wouldn't appoint another Roberts. OMG ROE makes less of an impression if Obama hesitates about mental health exceptions and wants women to confer with their doctors and pastors, if he doesn't seem to care when right-wing politicians try to get the pill labelled as an abortion tool, when his VP comes out against state supported abortions. Complaining about the effectiveness of abstinence only makes less of an impression is the other parties don't hate it, if Obama talks about teaching children about 'the sacredness of sex', etc. My toes curl when I read that Obama states that Michelle will take care of the kids if he becomes president, when Michelle states the she will not be a 'hillary' kind of first lady because she will not be involved in politics, when I read that Michelle had to take Obama to job interviews to see if he approved of her boss.

I do not want more Repulicans in the White House. But women issues matter to me. I cannot vote in the US, but if I could I would only vote Obama if I lived in a swing state. If I lived in a solid blue or red state I would vote green (that is a colourful statement ;) ). Which in itself is not bad, but which meand that I would not be an enthousiastic voter. If it becomes too hard to vote (and in the US it seems to be normal if voting takes hours) I might decline. I sometimes feel that the Republican strategy is to get more potential democratic voters to stay home.

Sep 08, 2008, 21:59:33 libjpn wrote:

Thanks for finishing up Dutch, the plugin suggestion was just because it makes it easier all around.

Sep 09, 2008, 03:55:37 tgott wrote:

marbel: Your sons are adorable -- if they are anything like my 9-year-old they would no doubt prefer to be called handsome.

Not living in the States, you should know that Palin has become an even bigger phenom than you might imagine.

As her views are being unmasked regarding her time in Alaska, it's shocking how extremist she is. But right now none of that matters -- it's all about her being a "hockey mom" and "one of us."

Hard to believe this lovefest staying at this level much longer.

FWIW, the Republicans have embraced her "hot-to-trot" image. If Dems go there, they're sexist, of course.

BTW, if Michelle Obama wants to be a traditional mother as First Lady, I've got no problem with that.

Take care,

btfb

Sep 09, 2008, 05:51:00 tgott wrote:

dutch: I want to share some big news with you. My wife called me about an hour ago to tell me that the judge OK'd our son's name change. Two years ago we tried and faced all kinds of red-tape obstacles. So Danny has my last name: I am happy -- and proud!

---bedtimeforbonzo

Sep 09, 2008, 08:29:53 marbel wrote:

@Bonzo: very very happy for you. And for him. Great news for all.

Log in here

Username: Password: Shared Computer

Add Comment

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:
Allowed BBCode:[b] [i] [u] [s] [color=] [size=] [quote] [code] [email] [img] Remember Me

Powered by NucleusCMS | Ported by VinhBoy | Design by Andreas Viklund