Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Africa]

Yeah, yeah I do. Why do I not feel bad about it? See Aqizzar's comments on "hysterical."

I'm going to say that, given that the root of "bitching" is much more recent, obviously female-based, and much more applied to women, this is absurd.

The term "mansplaining" is employed in that woman's particular blog to:

Men who dodge women's questions in order to waste time "educating" the woman in question about something obvious.

Not men in general.  Just people acting in an oppressive way and abusing power they possess.

"Bitching," however, is a general term for that thing all women do.  Complaining.  Like a bitch.  A female dog.  An animal.

I really don't know what to say, other than that everybody I know who cusses uses the word "bitching" to mean complaining about something, and not one of them uses it exclusively or even predominantly to describe women, or has any sexist connotations in mind when they say it. If you insist that saying it makes you sexist, well, you're claiming powers of mind-reading at this point and saying you know better than someone else does if they're sexist or not. If not then, lots of words have unsavory origins which aren't even thought of when using the words. Do I need more examples?

And to say that the reason he started "educating" her was because she was a woman is totally absurd. It was to dodge a question. That's how questions are dodged; by jumping into a related issue in hopes of changing the subject. It has nothing to do with him belittling an entire gender.

Snide isn't necessarily bad. It was more her tone of complete contempt and enjoying railing on a guy for being a misogynist rather than examining the conversation as you would approach any conversation with a political spokesman. "War on women" is a loaded phrase regardless of its validity.

He treats women in general with contempt.  She treats his argument with contempt.

I don't see a double standard here at all.

The term "War on terror" is perfectly valid in standard parlance, but the term "war on women" isn't--given all the states where abortion is currently being banned, and women's rights slowly chiseled down?  Really?

I know you're determined to see sexism here, but he did not "treat women in general with contempt."

You might have missed where I said "regardless of its validity" "war on women" is a loaded phrase. He wants to avoid it for that reason, I assume.

That is what he should have said, but once again, he's trying to do his job without digging himself and people he's reporting to into a bigger hole, not to oppress women. There are entire news networks out there that exist to make his bosses look bad by taking things out of context, he's not trying to give them any extra ammunition.

The point is that there was a way to do it easily without engaging in the usual sexist argumentation style, which she deconstructed and you seem to find annoying because it actually addressed women's problems... rather than standard political analysis, which ignores misogyny in general in favor of considering "important" stuff.

Sexist argumentation style? What? It was standard political evasion. The fact that it was related to a women's issue doesn't make it sexist. See, one thing about women's equality is that, if the ideal is lived up to (people not being treated differently because of their gender), then every time a man evades a woman's question, or talks down to her, or ignores something she says, or whatever, it is not necessarily because she's a woman. Do you seriously think he would have said anything different if she'd been a man?

If you want to look at it that way, go ahead. Or you could look at it as what I said, which is, Democrats aren't worried about women doing a mass exodus to a MORE sexist party, and so yeah, they're going to be pursuing other issues with a lot more fervor. Like, for example, swing voters who may well go vote for the other party because they don't like the economy. Good or bad, that's politics, and politicians do it, be they male or female.

I thought politics was about passing bills, not collecting as many votes as possible and then saying "I won."

Well, if politicians could only run for one term, an idea I recently entertained...

I'm also not sure what was so despicable about the position the guy articulated. He said Obama is concerned about it and is going to work on it. OK, so maybe it's a line of bull? It's the same line of bull every politician feeds to any interest group they talk to. It's not a special attack against women. The guy was trying to avoid linking the administration with a loaded phrase, is all.

Sometimes it's more about the way it's said than the contents of the message in and of itself.

Again, that's why I linked to her analysis, rather than just the video.

I don't care what the explanation is.  He acted in a particular way.  End of story.

Well, I think it may be that you are seeing sexism where it's not there. Again, in all seriousness, do you think he would have answered differently if a man had answered the question? If so, how? Because I've seen politicians and spokespeople do exactly what he did, tons of times, to male or female questioners. What got me as annoying about her commentary was the same as what I'm picking a bone with you about - it seemed to be adding its own slant to make him seem like a misogynist, when in fact that's not what was going on.

[Truean]

Cool
____________________________________________

I think this is the gist of what Vector is saying, please feel free to correct me if needed:

Generally, society seems to decide that issues important to women are somehow, "less important" than other issues. These "less important" issues get the back burner, or no burner, consistently, which is problematic. "We'll get to you and whatever the hell you want (I wasn't listening; I'm still not. What? Where's my sandwich?) after we fix the important stuff, which is ... all the stuff you don't want and all the stuff I want. What women's issue? Don't worry about that; can't you see there are more important things and if we have to sacrifice your stuff for it, then screw you? You crazy Dame, don't bother yourself thinking about that stuff. There's more important things. Look at the shiney ball.... Get distracted. (Crap why isn't this working? Shit, Am I gonna have to actually answer her?)."

Specifically, the conversation is about a health care bill and widespread regulation in the U.S. with an unsettling trend of eroding women's rights. It's all the more unsettling because in addition to women's issues getting the back burner or no burner, screwing over women is now on the front burner despite all those "more important" issues like... O ... I dunno, the economy sucking, terrorism, etc, going completely unsolved.

"Did we say we'd fix the budget when we got elected? We meant try to ban abortion.... Easy mistake right?"

Summation: Women's rights get back burner. Taking away women's rights gets front burner. "Real issues" that are supposedly more important (economy, jobs, terrorism) aren't even on the stove because we're too busy taking away women's rights....

Am I in the ballpark Vector?

[SalmonGod]

That was interesting reading, especially the part about rapists believing that all men are rapists.  I am both surprised and not.  It's a thought that had never crossed my mind, even though I've always noticed that people often use "But everybody does it" sort of thinking to justify harmful behavior to themselves.

I can't say I 100% agree with the conclusions of the article (No connection between rape and humor ever, and never tolerate such in your presence).  I am less approving of such things than most people, and it was a compelling argument to be even less so.  I just don't favor such absolute styles of thinking.   It was thought-provoking.

[Vector]

Am I in the ballpark Vector?

Yes.

If you insist that saying it makes you sexist, well, you're claiming powers of mind-reading at this point and saying you know better than someone else does if they're sexist or not.

You seem to not understand that the person perpetuating misogyny does not get to declare whether or not they are being sexist.

Example:

A guy does something I don't like.  I'm also a dude in this, by the way, just for the hell of it.  I call him a cunt.  Of course, I just learned this from society, and this is between bros.  Some chick starts bitching about me equivocating bad behavior with part of her anatomy.  I call her a feminazi cunt who can't take a joke.  She storms off in a huff because she doesn't understand that I'm not sexist.  I'm just having fun.

If you insist that saying it makes you sexist, when in fact that's not what was going on.

It's your word against mine right now.

Why do you get to say "in fact, that's not what was going on?"

Ah-ha.  Clearly, I should stop playing softball, and instead I should take a hardline position that doesn't allow much flexibility for argument from either of us.

Fixed: In fact, he was putting women's issues on the backburner a-fucking-gain with stupid evasion tactics that many non-political men use on Chicks Who Just Can't Get It, and I am bloody pissed at our president.

That was interesting reading, especially the part about rapists believing that all men are rapists.  I am both surprised and not.  It's a thought that had never crossed my mind, even though I've always noticed that people often use "But everybody does it" sort of thinking to justify harmful behavior to themselves.

I can't say I 100% agree with the conclusions of the article (No connection between rape and humor ever, and never tolerate such in your presence).  I am less approving of such things than most people, and it was a compelling argument to be even less so.  I just don't favor such absolute styles of thinking.   It was thought-provoking.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.  She does go on in the rest of the Feminism 101 section to discuss instances in which connections between rape and humor might be warranted, and about cases where one can't stand up and fight.  If you liked that... well, I'd read the rest of the articles in that section, slowly, if you can find the time.  Most of them are a lot shorter than you'd think, and all are very interesting and enlightening.

So, I hope you'll take a look =)  At the very least, thanks for reading that one.  I appreciate it.

[Africa]

What is the Hyde Amendment anyway? I assume it's something pretty important. But, to say that politicians trying to get a health care bill through compromised on women's rights issues somehow in order to pass it, is the same as them trying to erode women's rights, or even put them on the "back burner," isn't really fair. Keep in mind, they're working on something that they know will benefit LOTS of people, including lots of women; they know compromises have to be made, etc.

Now again, if there is a trend of women's rights being attacked in legislature (this is the first time I'd heard of it, I haven't been following the news too much), then yes it would be right and morally good for the government to do something about it. But the fact that they're not doesn't lead to them being sexist, misogynistic or even "completely fucking clueless" any more than them not doing anything about environmental issues at a given time means they're out to destroy the environment and sell the planet to megacorporations. No matter how important an issue is, it is never the only issue, and odds are it's not going to be the big one that people are talking about. Everyone has some main issue that they feel is being ignored. Calling everybody in the government sexist (or what have you) isn't really a reasonable way to bring it up.

Also, my first reaction to the 6% admitting to rape thing was, well, nobody in MY group of friends has done that. I can think of plenty of other demographics that probably make up for our lack of any such person. Am I in denial? I dunno, probably. But I still think that. Nobody wants to start scanning their social groups for suspected rapists.

[SalmonGod]

They're attacking women's rights hard in Indiana right now.  They recently defunded Planned Parenthood here entirely.

Edit:  Also, let me just throw out some rape humor that I think is hilarious and see how much people think it's acceptable or not.

The linkin park rapist and musical remix.
The Grapist video by The Whitest Kids You Know

Or a personal one:  Years ago, we had a practice in our office for a couple weeks of going outside and walking two laps around the building once a day when the weather was nice.  Our senior manager found out about this and shot it down immediately.  She sent an e-mail to our manager forbidding it entirely, and she only supported her decision with two reasons

1.  Someone might walk into a parked car and injure themselves or damage the vehicle, which was ridiculous enough even if we hadn't been keeping to the sidewalk...
2.  Someone could be raped.  Seriously.  When we were out walking around in a solid group of 25 people, in broad daylight, on a section of airport property frequented by no one but our own employees and airport security....

We made fun of that relentlessly for months, including things like calling out "Don't get raped!" whenever someone who was in on the joke was walking out the door... until we were finally told to cut it out.

[Africa]

If you insist that saying it makes you sexist, well, you're claiming powers of mind-reading at this point and saying you know better than someone else does if they're sexist or not.

You seem to not understand that the person perpetuating misogyny does not get to declare whether or not they are being sexist.

Example:

A guy does something I don't like.  I'm also a dude in this, by the way, just for the hell of it.  I call him a cunt.  Of course, I just learned this from society, and this is between bros.  Some chick starts bitching about me equivocating bad behavior with part of her anatomy.  I call her a feminazi cunt who can't take a joke.  She storms off in a huff because she doesn't understand that I'm not sexist.  I'm just having fun.

I think most people would agree that "bitching" is not generally understood as entailing sexist sentiments, while "cunt" is. And it follows from that that, if nobody around finds "bitching" to be misogynistic, then using it is not "perpetuating misogyny." Again, the same exact argument applies as "hysterical." You may take it as sexist, but you have to understand that most people don't, and when you accuse a genuinely non-sexist person of "perpetuating misogyny" by using a word that it never occurred to them even had a sexist origin once upon a time, you're going to come off as as somebody just looking for things to fight about.

If you insist that saying it makes you sexist, when in fact that's not what was going on.

It's your word against mine right now.

Why do you get to say "in fact, that's not what was going on?"

Ah-ha.  Clearly, I should stop playing softball, and instead I should take a hardline position that doesn't allow much flexibility for argument from either of us.

Fixed: In fact, he was putting women's issues on the backburner a-fucking-gain with stupid evasion tactics that many non-political men use on Chicks Who Just Can't Get It, and I am bloody pissed at our president.

Well, all I can say is, go watch a bunch of politicians evading questions and see if you can find anything objectively different that this guy did that you can verify as being due to the fact that she was a woman and it was a women's issue.

[Africa]

They're attacking women's rights hard in Indiana right now.  They recently defunded Planned Parenthood here entirely.

Jesus Christ.

But at the same time, they're slashing Pennsylvania's education budgets (and lots of other important things that benefit poor people and minorities), and surely nobody would accuse me of being sexist for being more pissed about the fact that my city's school district is going further down the shitter than about that? That kind of sums this up for me. I feel like Vector, you're looking to bring sexism into things where it's not in play, and in doing so you're accusing anybody who's not on the same page as you of being sexist. Like me, being more pissed about already-desperate schools being defunded than about abortion rights. This does not make me a misogynist. Hell, even if I opposed abortion and saw that as a good thing, it wouldn't make me a misogynist, because I give enough credit to people who oppose abortion to assume that they don't just hold that position because they don't want women making decisions.

[Truean]

Am I in the ballpark Vector?

Yes.

  and also perhaps  . You know cause it's night where I am and shades.... meh.

What is the Hyde Amendment anyway? I assume it's something pretty important. But, to say that politicians trying to get a health care bill through compromised on women's rights issues somehow in order to pass it, is the same as them trying to erode women's rights, or even put them on the "back burner," isn't really fair. Keep in mind, they're working on something that they know will benefit LOTS of people, including lots of women; they know compromises have to be made, etc.

Point: If compromises must be made, then why is it women's issues that must seemingly always be compromised? She's saying this is a specific instance of it happening. Perhaps its happening unintentionally or without a lot of conscious thought, but it's still happening.

Now again, if there is a trend of women's rights being attacked in legislature (this is the first time I'd heard of it, I haven't been following the news too much), then yes it would be right and morally good for the government to do something about it. But the fact that they're not doesn't lead to them being sexist, misogynistic or even "completely fucking clueless" any more than them not doing anything about environmental issues at a given time means they're out to destroy the environment and sell the planet to megacorporations. No matter how important an issue is, it is never the only issue, and odds are it's not going to be the big one that people are talking about. Everyone has some main issue that they feel is being ignored. Calling everybody in the government sexist (or what have you) isn't really a reasonable way to bring it up.

Point: There is that trend in legislatures currently and this thread is littered with them. My favorite chocolate covered cherry flavored bullshit example is the dude who said women should plan for their rape just like he plans for a flat tire by having a spare.... Naturally he was talking about not giving women the health care they need after a rape and forcing them to buy separate insurance for that (and medically necessary abortions).

Point on Intent: "Clueless" refers to politicians not putting any value on women's issues or considering them really. Or if they do consider them, well then 'clearly' it's something to sacrifice in a political trade to get something, "more important." Ain't it funny how those political trades rarely if ever involve giving something else up to get something for women.... They don't have to have direct purpose or knowledge intent to be a little sexist here in the way they structure the law. It's enough that they just write off this stuff as something to be thrown away in exchange for something else.

It's kind of telling, the value judgment they place on this stuff....

[SalmonGod]

You don't think the two are related?  Attacking an organization that promotes birth control and responsible procreation, and illegalizing abortion... this only causes education budget needs to rise...

[Africa]

Point: If compromises must be made, then why is it women's issues that must seemingly always be compromised? She's saying this is a specific instance of it happening. Perhaps its happening unintentionally or without a lot of conscious thought, but it's still happening.

Well, I was referring to a specific hypothetical example, not to something where "always" applies.

Point: There is that trend in legislatures currently and this thread is littered with them. My favorite chocolate covered cherry flavored bullshit example is the dude who said women should plan for their rape just like he plans for a flat tire by having a spare.... Naturally he was talking about not giving women the health care they need after a rape and forcing them to buy separate insurance for that (and medically necessary abortions).

Clearly, that is wrong. But it's different from giving a higher priority to an issue that you feel is most important at the moment. The latter does not merit being accused of sexism if one of the non-prioritized issues is a women's rights issue, even a very important one.

@SalmonGod: Well, they're certainly related in that they both are fed by the knee-jerk conservative reflex to cut funding programs that help vulnerable people. In this case, I'd say the women (who can vote) are less vulnerable than the kids (who can't). Either way, I don't think they come from a twin impulse to screw over women and poor black city kids; I'll give them some credit and say they come from a shortsighted impulse to cut spending no matter what the effect, and I'll give them somewhat less credit and say they are way more likely to cut spending when the negative effects are on pregnant women and minority minors. But just as I won't go so far (without further evidence) as to accuse Republican lawmakers of being racist over that, I also won't accuse them of being sexist based on that.

[Vector]

What is the Hyde Amendment anyway? I assume it's something pretty important.

Here you go.

But, to say that politicians trying to get a health care bill through compromised on women's rights issues somehow in order to pass it, is the same as them trying to erode women's rights, or even put them on the "back burner," isn't really fair. Keep in mind, they're working on something that they know will benefit LOTS of people, including lots of women; they know compromises have to be made, etc.

Pass health care bill to promote health while allowing a rider attacking women's health.

Whoever added and supported the rider was directly attacking women.  Great "compromise."

Now again, if there is a trend of women's rights being attacked in legislature (this is the first time I'd heard of it, I haven't been following the news too much)

I believe there are links upthread in this very place about the illegal complete banning of abortion in Lousiana, in direct defiance of federal law.  I suggest reading up on the "Personhood movement" and everything it entails.

Also, rape is being redefined.

Etcetera.  Etcetera.  I'm not digging up the links for you.  You can go educate yourself.

No matter how important an issue is, it is never the only issue, and odds are it's not going to be the big one that people are talking about. Everyone has some main issue that they feel is being ignored.

Usually that one issue isn't "will society help to ensure that I am not raped, assaulted, or murdered."

After all, as I keep on droning into people's heads, 1/6 of all women in the United States have been raped.

Calling everybody in the government sexist (or what have you) isn't really a reasonable way to bring it up.

Please tell me, oh brilliant and wise man, how to get congressmen to listen to me and count me as a person who counts.

Because I need you to tell me what to do, and my intellect just isn't cutting it.

I need to know how to behave reasonably.

Nobody wants to start scanning their social groups for suspected rapists.

You seem to not understand that this is what women have to do all the fucking time.

It's part of what comes with the field, because as this society keeps on saying, it's our fault if we miss the signals and get raped.

It's an eventuality we need to be prepared for.  Like a flat tire.

You may take it as sexist, but you have to understand that most people don't, and when you accuse a genuinely non-sexist person of "perpetuating misogyny" by using a word that it never occurred to them even had a sexist origin once upon a time, you're going to come off as as somebody just looking for things to fight about.

Right, thanks for the reminder.  I'm glad that you can tell me how to be a feminist, and that intentional misogyny--and the mass opinion, which is written by men!--is the only misogyny that counts.

I feel like Vector, you're looking to bring sexism into things where it's not in play, and in doing so you're accusing anybody who's not on the same page as you of being sexist.

No.  You're wrong.

Hell, even if I opposed abortion and saw that as a good thing, it wouldn't make me a misogynist, because I give enough credit to people who oppose abortion to assume that they don't just hold that position because they don't want women making decisions.

You seem to not understand that there is more to institutionalized misogyny than "do women get to make decisions or not."

You seem to also not understand that you are not the one who gets to declare yourself a misogynist or not, and define that term.  You don't have to disagree with me.  But this is something where you don't get to have the power and the privilege.  Doesn't feel very good, does it?

Women, the people affected by misogyny, are the ones who are allowed to decide at the bottom line.

Period.

Well, I was referring to a specific hypothetical example, not to something where "always" applies.

We're talking about the real world.  Sorry.

Clearly, that is wrong. But it's different from giving a higher priority to an issue that you feel is most important at the moment. The latter does not merit being accused of sexism if one of the non-prioritized issues is a women's rights issue, even a very important one.

So, when's it going to be our turn?

We've had thousands and thousands of years of women's rights not being the big, hot-button issue.

Can it be our turn yet?

[SalmonGod]

Well in the case of Planned Parenthood in Indiana, I actually will.

The case for defunding that organization was completely built on two things.

1.  Budget
2.  Preventing federal funds from being used to fund abortions (not out of budget concerns in this case, but pure and explicitly acknowledged ideology)

Ok.  If these two things were actually true, then I could give the benefit of the doubt regarding mysogynistic motives... but

1.  It's been thoroughly proven that their actions are going to result in greater budget costs than savings.
2.  Planned Parenthood was already forbidden from allocating federal funds towards anything regarding abortion.  This was blatant lies.

Attempts to point these things out were pointedly ignored.  Not even contested.  Just ignored.  Lies were repeated.  Bill was passed.

[Africa]

@Vector - :shrug: I tried. I guess I'm just a woman-beating chauvinist like the rest of them. But it would be great if you could at least limit it to accuse me of sexism based on my actual statements, and not also accuse me of it based on what I guess other people's opinions might be.

@SalmonGod - Fair enough. These are dark fucking times.

[Truean]

Point: If compromises must be made, then why is it women's issues that must seemingly always be compromised? She's saying this is a specific instance of it happening. Perhaps its happening unintentionally or without a lot of conscious thought, but it's still happening.

Well, I was referring to a specific hypothetical example, not to something where "always" applies.

Point: There is that trend in legislatures currently and this thread is littered with them. My favorite chocolate covered cherry flavored bullshit example is the dude who said women should plan for their rape just like he plans for a flat tire by having a spare.... Naturally he was talking about not giving women the health care they need after a rape and forcing them to buy separate insurance for that (and medically necessary abortions).

Clearly, that is wrong. But it's different from giving a higher priority to an issue that you feel is most important at the moment. The latter does not merit being accused of sexism if one of the non-prioritized issues is a women's rights issue, even a very important one.

Granted, logically it is not necessarily the case that if one does not favor legislation funding women's issues over other legislation that one is necessarily motivated by sexist purpose. However, it does give some credence to the claim and greater credence when it is done consistently. There are other possible explanations, it's true. That said, the conclusion isn't there, but the greater credence from being repeatedly done is.

When considering this question it is simply impossible to know the mind of another person or if it was I'd be on my own private island and the hell away from here leaving the bank accounts of the people I don't like empty after mind reading away their pin number. That said, one can consider relevant factors when making an educated conclusion.

1.) What was the "other legislation" that got favored and why was it favored?
2.) What other options were available to get that legislation passed other than disfavoring women's issues?
3.) What is the actual cost of implementing or maintaining the women's issue?
4.) How effective was trading the women's issue in actually passing the bill that was more favored?
5.) How often does this happen?

Here, comparatively speaking Planned Parenthood costs peanuts compared to what it does. Furthermore, less than 3% of the services provided by planned parenthood are abortion related. That didn't stop a U.S. Senator from both claiming that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion related and that while "stating a fact" he "wasn't trying to be factual....  .

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/966085/-Jon-s-LIE-about-Planned-Parenthood

So, he didn't intend to be "factual." That is he lied but it's ok but screw it, he never intended to tell the truth about a silly little women's issue and why the hell would you expect him to? And it doesn't matter, because it was about a women's issue. If this bastard did this about "something that matters" like, the budget or anything else in the world, we'd all demand he get checked out himself. Didn't we try to impeach Clinton over lying? What happened to this guy? Nothing. He's still in Congress. Not so much as a wrist slap and frankly no one gives a shit....

Moreover, people in congress and republicans really did think you could get women's health services, like a breast exam or pap smear, at Wal Greens, so we don't need planned parenthood, those babykillers....

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-and-friends-breast-exams-pap-smears-walgreens-2011-4

Check out those embedded videos. My favorite is the girl on the show sitting between the two clueless morons just completely not sure what the crap to do, because she knows you can't get a pap smear at wal greens.... But asshole #1 and asshole #2 have gone way the hell out on a limb here and ... should she... say something or ... what the crap is she supposed to do at this point?

The people in power who recently "compromised" away a lot of things for women in this country, hadn't the foggiest about what they were doing. At all. They willy nilly cut anything out of the budget that wasn't "important," and they took all kinds of time to research what was "important" except of course for women's issues, as evidenced by the fact that they thought you could get a breast exam at fucking wal greens.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Actually you probably can get someone to touch your boobs at walgreens, but don't. Just don't. I've seen this horror flick; that woman is the victim. It doesn't end well....

How the crap could they not know this? Have these assholes BEEN to a walgreens?

The point is that lots of other things were researched and deemed "too important to cut funding to." Women's issues? Screw researching that or caring about how much cutting the services will hurt women vs how much (little) money we will actually save by cutting these services. They're women's services, screw 'em. I've got more important things to do. Tell her to go to wal greens....

It would've been immensely easy to keep planned parenthood funded. De funding it saves practically nothing and actually ends up costing us waaaaay more in the long run. It hurt women immensely and for no reason.

They didn't care about any of these factors for women's issues, but cared about all of them for other things, which didn't get cut.... You tell me what that means?

Is it conclusive? *shrugs* What is? Is someone unjustified in believing that there's some prejudice going on given this: absolutely not.

This smells; I'm not swallowing it....