hubrisnxs wrote:If you apply Ms. Ferraro's (JESUS CHRIST DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? MS?) misbehavior to the movement she's defending, and then spread it further to include all women, that might be a bit sexist.
Sexist, maybe. Human nature, absolutely. This isn't me, mind you. I'm saying that it adds to overall perception. Besides, Ferraro speaks as if she's speaking for all women.
But think of it in the arena of race. If one black person misuses the race card, then that decreases the impact for all black people.
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
Have either "reverse literary sexism" or "Paradox Sexism" become recognized -isms in the culture yet?
When I heard that a "group of women" was forming up to "write" and "perform" the "Dick Monologues," it was kinda hard not to feel a bit indignant. Ultimately I just shrugged it off because I'm too lazy to really care about it, but it did ding me for a few seconds.
As far as the paradox part goes, I'm beating an old mere here, but if I date ONE more woman that gets all warm-and-fuzzy talking about "feminine virtues" while at the same time attacking male gender roles, I'll.... probably deal with it. Seriously, net positive on most of the important fronts.
York99 wrote:
This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility)
No it doesn't. And I didn't even read her article.
York99 wrote:
This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility)
No it doesn't. And I didn't even read her article.
What do you mean "no it doesn't"?
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
York99 wrote:
This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility)
No it doesn't. And I didn't even read her article.
What do you mean "no it doesn't"?
Hurt ALL women's credibility. Considering that most people didn't even read the article, or care about sexism issues.
Oh.. and to add on that. Her article may have been "crying wolf" in your opinion, but most of the feminists I talk to agreed that there have been multiple occasions of overt sexism in the campaign. And I don't think that's crying wolf. Unless we dismiss the entire feminist camp as "crying wolf", which is rather patronizing.
It seems like the conversation we've been having have been on a pretty casual level.. but the topic refuses to die. So maybe it requires more thinking, research and sleeping on. Wiser women seem to be avoiding The Stump area of the forums. But I never claimed to be wise.
nadine wrote: ...but most of the feminists I talk to...
Exactly.
It doesn't hurt their credibility in the eyes of feminists. It hurts their credibility in everyone else's eyes.
We both have the same end game ideal here: equality between the sexes. So, believe it or don't, I'm on your side as far as that is concerned.
We just seem to have differing ideas of how to best achieve that. I think that crying "outrageous overwhelming sexism" when any sexism is small and used by relatively very few isolated douchebags like Rush Limbaugh does not help the cause. I also think that any sexism in that primary did not affect the outcome, so that hurts the cause by making Clinton's followers look like sore losers.
[Also, I've been referring mostly to Ferraro all over the news, not so much Steinem's article, except in one reference.]
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
York99 wrote:
We just seem to have differing ideas of how to best achieve that. I think that crying "outrageous overwhelming sexism" when any sexism is small and used by relatively very few isolated douchebags like Rush Limbaugh does not help the cause. I also think that any sexism in that primary did not affect the outcome, so that hurts the cause by making Clinton's followers look like sore losers.
I don't think I've been crying, not to mention I'm not even a Hillary Clinton supporter. However, yes, in my opinion there have been overt sexism. Me and my friends disagreeing with you does not make my statement outrageous or crying wolf. It means from our perspective, backgrounds, and the news we read, we have differing opinions.
And feminism always had a bad reputation. It's going to take years for that to change, and old generations and attitudes to die off.
Oh and "small sexism" is always far more tolerated then small racism.
nadine wrote:I don't think I've been crying... However, yes, in my opinion there have been overt sexism. Me and my friends disagreeing with you does not make my statement outrageous or crying wolf. It means from our perspective, backgrounds, and the news we read, we have differing opinions.
I wasn't saying that YOU were crying*, I was saying that Ferraro was. You were participating in a discussion. But if you honestly think the sexism was as overt as the reaction merited, then it's not the definition of "sexism" that we disagree on, but the definition of "overt." Well, maybe not the definition, but the application.
*Crying not in the tears definition, but in the shouting sense like a town cryer... in case that wasn't clear
"Every cat dies 9 times, but every cat does not truly live 9 lives."
-Bravecat
All the newscasters in that video are complete assholes. Maybe I'm more enlightened then most, but when I see someone making comments like that in a "news" program, red flags go off and they lose a serious amount of credibility. It's not good journalism, but I suppose most of these people are just rumor-mongers masquerading as journalists.
I think the ones who are describing her as "a nagging wife" are using very poor language to describe what I heard a very technical analysis of on NPR: Hillary's voice, when she's trying to stress a point, becomes very strained and her vocal chords sound like they are constricting, which people (not just men) find unsettling.
I still can't stand hearing the sound bytes of women saying "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman and we need a woman." That is just as sexist and ill-informed as not voting for her because she's a woman.
I wonder what the statistics are. How many people did *not* vote for Hillary because of her gender, versus the number that voted for her primarily *because* of her gender.
Also, as a final point and the last post I will make in this thread, it's interesting to note that Hillary Rodham Clinton made the conscious decision to run as "Hillary". I don't think that was just a move to separate herself from her husband, because she used him heavily on her campaign. She put gender in the forefront of her campaign. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it seems like she did try to play the gender card in her favor.
(as a side note, now consider how our current president basically campaigned as "Dubya". Christ, it pains the heart and brain)
Last edited by kbadr on June 11th, 2008, 10:56 am, edited 5 times in total.
You work your life away and what do they give?
You're only killing yourself to live
