Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anyone here care to discuss this story...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU
 
bliss_eternal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 03:59 AM
Original message
Anyone here care to discuss this story...
Edited on Mon Jul-09-07 04:01 AM by bliss_eternal
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. My opinion
some on DU seem to have a problem w/ anything Cindy Sheehan does simply because she's a woman who asserts herself. I personally can't find much to criticize her for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'll agree with you on this.
There have been a number of times recently I've thought people were gratuitously attacking someone only because she was a woman. And because they were attacking a women they thought they could get away with it.

Cindy Sheehan is one of the current recipients, and it's very sad that we still have to see this shit among progressives. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bliss_eternal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Agree
with both of you. I'm actually kind of surprised there weren't more comments about the "woman vs. woman" aspect of it. That usually brings out some very nasty comments.

Color me relieved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yep, double standards for sure
I haven't heard anyone call Gore an "attention whore." Surely he's had a longer 15 minutes than Cindy. ;)

And nobody - not even Coulter(!) - has claimed that the reason Edwards is staying in the spotlight is because he's mentally disturbed and needs therapy after the loss of his son. Likewise, I haven't seen similar speculation about the mental health of RFK, Jr., despite the loss of his father, and his continued "attention whoring." Guess we won't be seeing those threads.

All of that follows the tired old sexist stereotype that women are incapable of rational intellectual thoughts, and are ruled by their often hysterical emotions. On a good feminist blog, all those comments would be considered not worth moderating in for public consumption, just as racist stereotypes would not be moderated in.

Also, I see the continued meme that she is being "used" by, well, I forget by whom, but obviously a group of men who are able to tell the "poor female" what to do and how to act since, as a female, she is obviously not much more than a child who obeys orders from others rather than setting her own agenda. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. at the risk of alienating
you all -

I'm a "Cindy not-liker" person.

You guys should know me well enough by now to know that it's not because she's a woman.

It's because I think she's completely ineffective and gives the appearance of being a tad - uh - well - let's just say half a bubble off plumb. Maybe she's NOT - but she sure has a bad habit of sticking her foot in her mouth and going off half-cocked and wind up looking like she's rather - out of the loop.

OK - I'm tiptoeing here. I don't want to get flamed. I don't want to make anyone mad. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I don't want any of you to not like me anymore because I'm in a position different from you alls. But I think I'm entitled to MY opinion, too, and I shouldn't be villified because I personally think she should step off the stage - PERMANENTLY. For her own - and yes, our party's - good.

She may very well be a nice lady and all but the public arena just isn't her forte, imvho.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm open to criticism of her.
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 02:48 PM by lwfern
But what you just wrote doesn't sound fact or position based, and therein lies the problem. It's more like a vague sense that she isn't competent, with no specifics to back it up. You just characterized her as a sort of stereotypical weak incompetent female, but based on what, exactly?

I've never heard anyone say about a man that he should step off the stage "for his own good" despite being a nice "gentleman." Saying she may very well be a "nice lady" but it's "for her own good" just sounds so ... patronizing.

If you have a problem with one of her positions, or a particular problem with something specific she's said, that's another matter. When we talk about men in politics putting their foot in their mouth, it's not this vague "he can't handle it" sort of thing. It's focused on specific comments like the macaca thing, or the dean scream (media manufactured, but my point remains), or the number of times they've said "I don't recall."

If I ever heard people expressing the sentiment that just, in general, the pressure of being in the public eye is too much for that gentleman to bear - then I might think differently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. based on things she's said
and written herself - starting with her Dailykos Diary. That in and of itself would have been enough to put me off if I hadn't already decided she was in over her head. Have you READ it?

Her leaving and coming back. Her denouncement of DU. Her attack on Democrats. Her announcement she's running for Pelosi's job. Come on. Who is she kidding? Does ANYONE on the planet really believe she could go up against Pelosi and win?

She lost my support about the time she hit Washington after she left Camp Casey that first time.

I don't think she's weak. Definitely not weak. Incompetent. Yes. But not because she's a female, but because she's just not suited for the public arena. Some people are. Some aren't. She isn't. She's passionate, yes. Articulate? not very.

You may have never heard "anyone say about a man that he should step off the stage "for his own good" despite being a nice "gentleman." - but you're about to.

I think John Edwards is a great guy. Very smart. I think he should step off the stage. He shouldn't be running. Now is not the time. Maybe in another decade.

I think Barack shouldn't be running for Pres - though I don't think he is anyway - VP, yeah. He's too young and inexperienced. (And no, not because he's black, either so don't even go there.)

I think Kerry made the right call to "stay off the stage".

I think the Rev. Jackson should get off and stay off the stage.

I think Mike Gravel shouldn't be anywhere near a stage except for entertainment purposes. He's funny but definitely not Presidential material.

Do you know who Erskine Bowles is? He was an advisor to Clinton. Absolutely BRILLIANT man. TRIED to run for office in NC. Twice. He was an abyssmal failure. He just wasn't suited for running for public office. It was embarassing, really. He finally did himself a favor and left the stage. He would make a great great public official - but he'll never ever get elected. He's a really nice guy. A gentleman. But he doesn't belong on the public stage. Just ain't his forte, ya know?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Cindy being a woman. I just think she's not suited and doesn't do a very good job of being a public figure. She was a good symbol at one time. Now? Not so much.

I wasn't being patronizing. I was trying not to offend the people who know her and really like her. Some of those people on this board are my friends. They really really LIKE her. And maybe if I knew her I'd really really like her, too. But I don't think I'd change my opinion of her on the public stage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. In all that stuff you wrote about the men
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 03:21 PM by lwfern
you see how you say again and again they should step off the stage - but you never once say "for their own good" like they are a child that needs someone to tell them how to take care of themselves for their well-being?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. for one thing - I don't think they're suffering
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 03:39 PM by mzteris
from some of the issues she's suffering from right now.

I do think it would be for "her own good". She's on the verge of a mental breakdown if you want my unvarnished opinion.

And not because she's a woman.

But if you want to insist on making that her crutch, go ahead.

Geez louise - maybe obama should step down for his own good cause he's black and the world ain't ready for a black President.

Maybe Hillary should step down for her own good cause she's a woman whose man done wronged her and she done stand byed him and all. And she's such a shrill bitch and all. And the world's not ready for a Woman President.

Maybe PELOSI should step down because she can't match drapes for shit. And she acts like some old GRANDMA. She's doing SUCH a terrible job, you know. Maybe she needs to grow herself a pair and put impeachment on the table. Maybe she's just not ASSERTIVE nor AGGRESSIVE enough. oooooo - maybe Cindy is implying that Pelosi is WEAK because she's a (gasp!) WOMAN and not "man enough" for the job, eh?

Not everything someone says about a person should be filtered through prejudices.

I AM a woman, damnit. I am a feminist, damnit. I am a liberal, damnit. I am entitled to an opinion about someone who is more than a just little troubled.

Sometimes a banana is just a banana. (Or is that too phallic a reference?)

When one behaves like a child, they need to be treated like a child. Male/female alike. I think bush should step off the stage and someone should whup his ass and I don't even believe in spankings.


edit typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. "She's on the verge of a mental breakdown"
mmm-hmmm.

She seemed just fine to me. Have you spent any time with her, or is this your Dr. Frist impression?

I'm not the one making her gender a crutch, or treating her like a child. She "behaves" like a person that isn't afraid to speak her mind, takes breaks when she needs them (all on her own, without you telling her it's bedtime), reassesses the situation, and comes back to do battle again, with different tactics. On her timetable. Not yours. There's nothing childish about any of that.

You may consider yourself a feminist, but when you infantilize women, when you decide they need to move out of the public eye and back into their home "for their own good", when you characterize them as mentally unstable - based on their having strong opinions, you aren't acting in a feminist way.

Now I hate to break this last part to you, but criticizing DU is not actually a sign of mental illness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. My Dr. Frist impression, of course
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 08:09 PM by mzteris
I said I hadn't met the women. But I am familiar with "mental breakdowns" - and no I'm not a doctor, I don't even play one on TV - but have you seen the expressions on her face? Have you listened to the strain in her voice? Have you read the bs she's been saying? Have you paid attention to the erratic behaviour?

:shrug:

You see it your way. I see it mine. But I want you to understand - in no uncertain terms - that I do not believe for one minute it's "because she's a woman".

God I hope that last line (of your post)isn't true - or I'd be first in line for being signed up. I criticize DU plenty.

I just think it is YOU who are "insisting" she's just a woman. I'm insisting she's a PERSON who is in need of help. And who has absolutely no business in politics.

If you're her friend, I think you'd be able to see that.




edit for clarification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. This is based on the quality of her voice and her facial expressions??
Gosh, maybe you should be a doctor. ;)

Seriously, citing evidence that she criticized DU, or criticized the democrats, or made facial expressions you don't approve of, or that it sounds like her voice is strained (what is that, exactly - is it anything like "shrill"?) ... on some level you have to realize that's not how mental illness is diagnosed, which leaves me wondering what the point is in citing all that.

You haven't got any evidence for - or qualifications to make a medical evaluation of her. So why bring it here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. and the words she says
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 09:20 PM by mzteris
and her actions - jeesh, I didn't think I had to repeat everything I'd already said.

facial expressions???? No. The STRAIN that is clearly showing on her face. Can you not see it?

Kinda like the strain on BUSH'S face and in his voice. And he's not a woman.



So - do you mind if I ask you what you think of this phrase -

"Dianne Feinstein is nothing more than a Republican man wearing a dress."


edit because of the strain I'm under I can't even type properly. Is it BECAUSE I'M JUST A WOMAN? nahhhhhhh - everyone knows women are better typists!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. "can you not see it?"
I've spent some time with Cindy. Not tons, there are others on DU that know her better. I've actually spent more with her sister, cruising around in Dede's car a few times along the gulf coast. But I have plunked my ass down next to hers in the bed of a pickup truck, and had some one on one time with her. There was no strain on her face. There was a woman who was in the mood for dill pickles, who was jokingly harassing the cook to get some for her.

The strain on her face was visible when she was talking about Casey or listening to the stories of other parents who had lost kids, or listening to the Iraq Veterans talk about their experience. And that same strain was visible on everyone's faces there who was doing the same thing. Every day on that trip, there were tears and sorrow and guilt. And also there was joy and love and humor. But that doesn't make the news or the blogs, because it's not news that we were sitting around on our asses laughing about dill pickles.

What you don't see in the media, which is why you shouldn't make mental evaluations of people you don't know based on media clips - as if anyone should need to be told that, is what people are like in real life, off camera.

Have you seen her dancing in the streets? Have you seen her playing a toy harmonica? Have you seen her arrive at a campsite, greet people with bear hugs and the biggest smile ever, and ask "hey, where's the beer at?"

If your answer is no, if you are trying to "diagnose" her based on a 3 minute youtube video you saw of a rally somewhere, or a post she made on a blog someplace, that's a bit silly. Good grief, I make all kinds of blog posts. If you look at one here or there, or even a few, you'd have a very one-dimensional view of who I am. I had a moderator at the Thom Hartmann site who thought I was a right-wing fundie. Now I think that's pretty hilarious, because I am so far left that the democrats sometimes feel very right-wing to me. But, you know, people read into things, and sometimes they read in stuff that isn't there. Maybe it's a human tendency to try to fill in details when we only get sketchy information about a person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. question -
how long agao was that?

Have you seen her, talked to her, recently?

She's probably a lovely fine person, and I'd probaly like her fine if I met her - but she DOESN"T COME ACROSS AS "FINE" IN THE MEDIA. Which, in this day and age - you're toast as far as campaigning goes. And in a lot of those cases, she ONLY has herself to blame.

Some people just don't photograph well. (I don't.) Some people just don't come across well in print, in media of any kind. They're great one-on-one - but as a packaged product - no.

I don't like a lot of the things I've heard her say. Regardless of how she said them. I definitely don't like a lot of things she's written. I don't like some of the "demonstrations" of which she's been a part. I disagree with the tactics. Doesn't make me a bad person, either. Doesn't make a troll. or a Republican. Or a woman-hater.


See - this is exactly what I didn't want ot have happen. I try to make a carefully worded innocuous statement that is non-offensive. Then you started hammering me on the "you don't like her 'cause she's a woman thing" - and I start trying to explain HOW and WHY I feel the way I do. I'm not saying I'm right or what I say is gospel. I was stating what *I* THINK about the matter - and I shouldn't get crucified for it. In the process you kept goading me (yeah, I felt goaded) into saying things a lot more harshly than I ordinarly would have.

(Admittedly I'm just a woman going through the change and a lot of relationship bs right now so maybe I'm just a little too EMOTIONAL about everything right now! Oh and just in case you didn't get this statement :sarcasm: )


"If you look at one here or there, or even a few, you'd have a very one-dimensional view of who I am. . . . I am so far left that the democrats sometimes feel very right-wing to me. But, you know, people read into things, and sometimes they read in stuff that isn't there. Maybe it's a human tendency to try to fill in details when we only get sketchy information about a person. "

Isn't this exactly what you've done to me here?

First I was "anti-woman", now I'm Bill Frist. I can't win for losing, can I? Unless I'm a Cindy backer, it seems like there MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME, eh?


BTW - you didn't answer my Feinstein question.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I didn't say you are "anti-woman."
Edited on Tue Jul-10-07 11:22 PM by lwfern
I said when you infantilize women, when you decide they need to move out of the public eye and back into their home "for their own good", when you characterize them as mentally unstable - based on their having strong opinions, you aren't acting in a feminist way. I see you've added some hyperbole here, but I haven't said "you don't like her 'cause she's a woman" - I've said these specific statements of yours are not feminist statements.

If this helps clarify things, when you attempt a medical diagnosis of someone you've never met based on media clips, you are acting like Bill Frist.

I assume there are other facets of your personality. I don't think I made a sweeping statement about you, not in the way you did about her. But when you do those things, those are not feminist actions, and infantilizing women isn't something I'd expect to see in this group.

If you'd merely said "I don't like a lot of the things I've heard her say. Regardless of how she said them. I definitely don't like a lot of things she's written. I don't like some of the "demonstrations" of which she's been a part. I disagree with the tactics." I never would have had a complaint from a feminist perspective. I would have disagreed with your viewpoint, but I would not have viewed it as patronizing.

I have no concern over how she photographs, and I am surprised a feminist would. I'm surprised a feminist would believe that if a woman doesn't photograph well, she's a failure as a "packaged deal." Again, not something I would expect to see in this group.

She looks about the same to me as most middle-aged moms who haven't bothered with surgery or makeup. That's not what's important to her. There are some people here actually who have complained that their family accused them of having mental health problems because they didn't follow standard beauty protocol. I don't know why those things are linked in peoples' heads, but people equate not wearing makeup and styling their hair in unnatural ways with low self-esteem. Maybe the opposite is true. Maybe the people who do cosmetic surgery and spend an hour in front of the mirror getting their hair and makeup just so and wearing coordinated outfits have the mental issues, eh? Who's to say?

Or maybe, just maybe, people make those decisions based on a variety personal reasons and priorities, and neither viewpoint is a sign of mental illness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. If I were saying them only because
she was a woman, I'd agree with you. But I'd say the same about any gender behaving in said way.

YOU'RE the one insisting I'm saying it "only because she's a woman" and I'm telling you I'm not.

Boy - you sure are reaading only what you want to read into the statements.

I did start out by saying I didn't like what she said and what she did. And you said I didn't like them cause she was a woman. push push push goad goad goad. So I try to clarify, to explain. You parse that into tiny little pieces that mean only what you WANT it to mean. You aren't reading what I'm writing. You're reading what you want to see me say.

My "she doesn't photograph well" has nothing to do with Her being a woman. I thought that unmade-up photo of Madonna people were groaning about was beautiful.

Cindy looks like she is under a considerable amount of strain. No amount of makeup will hide that. I didn't say she looked BAD. I said she looked STRAINED. For gods sake get the chip off your shoulder.

I'm as much of a damn "feminist" as YOU are and I really really resent your insinuations to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Once again, I am not attacking your overall credentials as a feminist
I am saying that promoting stereotypes of women as too emotional to handle stress is not a feminist way to act. Infantilizing them is not a feminist way to act. Those particular stances aren't promoting feminism, which is what this group is for.

Likewise, promoting the idea that a woman isn't a good "total package" because she doesn't photograph well - for whatever reason - is not promoting feminism.

I think you're at your best when you're writing things more like this:

Let's form opinions with facts and information. Not vitriol and rumour-mongering.
I don't want ditto heads. I want informed, respectful discussion. Not rumour mongering. Not name calling. Not repetitious BS.
if you don't understand the difference between constructive criticism and mindless vicious bashing, well i feel sorry for you.
slanderers, rumour-mongers - is called democracy?
it's the same damn crap over and over again - WITHOUT much substance to it, either, I might add.
don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for a candidate, tell me why I should vote for your candidate."


All of those were good posts, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. OK - deep breath
What I'm finding fault with is your insistence that what I'm saying is based on her sex. It isn't. I'd be saying the exact same things if it were PAT SHEEHAN doing, saying, acting, and looking that way.

Get it?

It has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with acting, talking, behaving, and - yes - looking - like a PERSON who is under considerable stress, is in over their heads, and is pursuing a course of action that is questionable for themselves and most certainly for the party they have embraced, embarassed, lambasted, and left.

I don't know how to make it any more simple than that. My comments are not predicated on her womanhood but my perception of the lack of ability that this person to be a public representative.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. My underlying complaint isn't that you're saying this because she is female.
My complaint is that it is a typically stereotypical and harmful way that female candidates are historically (and currently) discussed, dissected, and demeaned in political discussions in private and by the media. Therefore, I think we ought to be especially careful to avoid these stereotypes when discussing women.

I think you're making, essentially, the "I'm color-blind" argument here. You'd say the exact same thing whether it were a man or a woman.

I'm making this argument: "let's move beyond color blindness and acknowledge that people of different groups don't enter a level playing field. Because women are put down, again and again, in this exact way, reinforcing this stereotype causes harm to women as a class in a way that it doesn't harm men."

It's the reason why I do not comment on my female students' clothing, ever, or tell them "you look nice today" even if they are obviously dressed to the nines, and their hair is all styled up fancy. I might, though, comment on a male student who has an interesting garment on, like a tuxedo out of the blue, or a kimono.

I'm asking you to be sensitive to the fact that we are trained to view and discuss women in certain ways, and reinforcing that when talking about a woman by using the exact language and attitudes of the stereotypes is not identical to making the same comment about a man. It doesn't carry the same weight, just like calling a black person articulate and calling a white person articulate doesn't carry the same weight - even if you as the speaker would use the term no matter what color person you're discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. did you see this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1304585

BTW : I think your commenting on men's dress yet not women's could be a problem. If someone looks nice, they look nice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I don't actually think of it as "looking nice"
Edited on Wed Jul-11-07 10:40 PM by lwfern
I got off that mindset with some deliberate deprogramming. And I didn't mean to imply I routinely greet the boys with comments on their clothes - I routinely and deliberately avoid that, but not with the absolute zero tolerance policy I have toward the same comments aimed at the girls. I'm talking once or twice a year, a guy might come into the room with something very unique that I mention.

I did give positive feedback to a girl who made her own pattern and created a stuffed animal from a creature she designed. However, if it's clothing on a girl, even if I know she designed it, I won't comment on it. Girls get more than enough attention based on their looks and clothes, and there's some reason to believe that's connected to why they consistently underestimate their own academic capabilities in school.

Teacher feedback tends to be very gendered and if I'm an ever-so-slight counterbalance to that, that's okay. Teachers tend to give feedback to boys based on ability (praising their intelligence, their persistence if they had problems with something, etc.) and they tend to give feedback to girls based on appearance.

After I first came across that, the next day, I made a point of giving a random comment to one of the girls. It wasn't a critique of a project, like I normally give. It was a (seemingly) offhand observation as I was watching her work that she was consistently good at something, I forget what. The reaction blew me away, and made me very sad at the same time. She dropped what she was doing, and told me on the spot how much the comment meant to her, and she got all serious like it was a huge deal in her life. It was eye opening for me.

In one of the classes I took last year, the instructor actually told a student who had just gotten her first teaching job in an alternative school for teen girls, that they'd be less likely to misbehave if she complimented them each day on what they're wearing and how they look as they enter the room.

I was horrified (and said so). I don't think reminding girls of their status as little ladies and praising them as visual candy is an appropriate way to control their behavior. And I don't think it does anything meaningful for the self-esteem of teens that are there because they are in trouble with the law in some way. That was in a Masters in Education program, of all places.

Anyway, being aware that the girls are overloaded with the message that their appearance matters, there is no way I'm going to add to it. That's why I don't like the flattery, either, like when people here start entire threads about how "nice and ladylike" Chelsea Clinton looks. They don't get why I find that sexist - all they see is that it's a compliment.

Onto the McCain thread. Personally, aside from the obvious McCain's a homophobic ass reaction, a reaction I fully endorse, I was not impressed by the DU comments on his looks, although those were sparse and vague - nothing like a Laura Bush thread, where every bit of cellulite and gravity and counter-gravity is analyzed in detail. The focus is different. Even with that title, the temper tantrum bit which is deliberately infantilizing, overall he's being characterized and mocked on the basis of being homophobic directly because of a specific homophobic comment he made.

While the looks and temper tantrum comments might be a smack in the face to him if he read them, they aren't contributing to a culture where men as a class are discriminated against, where men as a class are devalued in the workplace for being unphotogenic, or where men as a class aren't taken seriously as professionals because they are stereotyped as being angry. There's no historical weight of oppression tied to those comments being directed at him.

What did you think of the thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. and another thing -
I don't think you read that post very carefully, I prefaced all the male references by saying "for their own good". I said Erskine Bowles was an embarassment to himself. but you skipped over that, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oi
I've been reading, mostly in GD, the very heated arguments. What surprises me, is once you get past the basic sexist posts of those belonging to the Church of the Eternal Dumbass, (the "attention whore" comments for instance) many of the the posters almost transcend gender on either side of the issue. It's an ugly way to see it happen.

My thought is if ever two women ran against each other, especially two women of stature--doesn't matter who really-- Every "Whore, Catfight, Fat, Ugly, Dumb Bitch" type comment would be in full force. As well as speculations on the last time they "got laid", sexual orientation, and what gender they REALLY are. Very Fucking Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. my opinion is very simple...
I don't think she should run for Pelosi's seat until she actually lives in the district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. and if she's not running as a Democrat -
she shouldn't get any airplay on DU. This site is for and about supporting DEMOCRATIC Candidates. Not 3rd party disruptors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. That would be an unconstitutional requirement.
Even requiring a candidate to be a resident of the state in order to run as a representative (before actually being elected) is unconstitutional.

The Qualifications Clause sets out the requirements for being in a representative, which is that you must be 25, a US citizen for 7 years, and once you are elected, a resident of the state you represent.

States are specifically prohibited from adding additional requirements to this. The courts have struck down California's right to require that a person be a state resident in order to run for office.

The burdens created by the residency requirement may very well deter candidates from running for Congress. Furthermore, California’s residency requirement burdens the entire pool of out-of-state candidates, whereas the Constitution only requires in-state residency of one, the victor. We therefore hold that California’s requirement that candidates to the House of Representatives reside within the state before election, violates the Constitution by handicapping the class of nonresident candidates who otherwise satisfy the Qualifications Clause.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. "being in a representative"
self-reporting myself to the grammar police, sorry for that bit of late night incoherence. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. I'm not talking about...
whether it's constitutional...I'm talking about my opinion. I would personally be irritated if someone from out of the area (or out of state) came into my congressional district just to run for office without living here and knowing the people here and understanding the problems that affect this area.

If Cindy really wants to run for Congress, she should do so from the district she lives in. Otherwise she's opening herself up to the criticism that it's not about getting elected to Congress or actually doing anything for her district or even about getting elected to try to end the war...it's about trying to embarass Nancy Pelosi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. As a personal opinion, it's obviously fine
so long as you aren't a judge. Of course by opposing her constitutional right to run, you're opening yourself up to the criticism that it's not about finding the best candidate to get elected to Congress or actually doing anything for the district or even about issues ... it's about trying to prevent Cindy Sheehan from running against Nancy Pelosi. ;)

If she were running against a republican in a district where there were no dems on the ballot, I'm not sure you'd be raising this as an issue.

The rationale for letting anyone apply and allowing the voters to decide who represents their views best is reasonable - it's a job; people shouldn't be restricted from applying for it based on arbitrary and exclusionary rules.

If your professional goal was to be in Congress, and you lived in a horribly red area, you should be able to apply for that job in another district - otherwise the law would basically condemn you to never being in Congress, or to having to make a huge financial commitment in order to even apply for the job. If I had a wonderful organic farm and orchard and handbuilt earth-sheltered house, I might be willing to sacrifice that in order to be in Congress and influence politics in a major way. But I shouldn't have to sacrifice the homestead just to submit a resume.

The school I teach at is currently undergoing a new principle search. Last year we went through the process, and two candidates were acceptable to us, but they both fell through, for financial and personal reasons. This year, we'll try again. While it would be nice to have someone familiar with the local area, if we limited our search to those who lived within our county, we would be excluding some highly qualified potential candidates, for a very arbitrary reason. Candidates from the other side of the US are welcome to apply, even though they may not be as familiar with the community relations issues we face; but we trust if we hire them that they'll move here, and represent the school well within the community and work for our common good, as part of their job.

Regarding your statement that she's trying to get elected to end the war ... would that be a bad thing for the people in that district? You make it sound like it doesn't have their best interests at heart. I would suggest that ending the war is good for the district, since it would save lives from the district, and free up money for social services for the residents. Looking at the cost of war website, if San Francisco weren't paying their share of the war, they could have afforded to send 200,000 kids in their area through head start, or insured nearly a million children for health care for a year. One could argue that Pelosi isn't exactly doing the best for the district. I imagine that will become part of the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Why even bother...
to have districts then? *sigh*

And actually I would raise this as an issue if she was running against a republican (but thanks for implying that I'm a hypocrite). :eyes:

My ideals actually mean something to me and I stick to them. For example, I am just as opposed to Obama and Edwards running for president due to their lack of experience as I was when George W when he ran for Texas governor with no experience (or when he ran for president after only a few years running the weakest "weak governor" state in the US).

If someone wants to run for Congress who lives in a red area...then they should either run and convince the locals to agree with them...or move somewhere where the people already are more in agreement with their philosophy and then work to learn the local issues and convince the people in the new location that they get it.

But, as someone who has seen first hand what a bunch of carpet-baggers can do (the Bush family isn't really from here after all)...I think I'll pass on voting for someone who doesn't even live in my district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The reason for the districts
is so the people that live there can vote as a bloc for whoever they think can best represent their interests within that district - it's not helpful to restrict the pool of candidates the voting bloc is allowed to pick from. That's not fair to the voting bloc, and does them more harm than good. It's a bit of the nanny state thing, deciding that they aren't capable for themselves of deciding who can best represent them. If they think an out of towner isn't their best choice for representing their views, they won't vote for them, right?

That scenario I gave above is actually very close to my situation, though not quite as drastic. I own a few acres, I've planted a fruit orchard and spent a lot of time trying to convert from "lawn" to something useful here. I live in a district that is republican. I'm not going to change that, and I think the advice to just convince the locals to agree with me is a bit flippant, to be honest.

If I wanted to run for office, there's no chance I could do it here. If I wanted to run in a nearby district, I would already have the obstacle of not having a personal fortune to start up my campaign, so realistically, I know I would be an underdog. Knowing my chances aren't that good, I couldn't ask my husband to give up my house for a likely losing proposition, and I wouldn't personally want to give up my house, to be honest, unless it was for a sure thing.

Requiring me to give up my house/land in order to have any sort of shot at being elected to congress is an unfair burden - and one, I would add, that is classist in nature. On paper, it's not. But in reality, it gives advantage to those who can afford to buy a second home or rent an apartment while still holding the mortgage on their first home. If I were rich, I could just rent a place in a nearby district for a few months, and if I lost the primary or the election, I could just let the lease run out and move back to my house. It wouldn't be an obstacle for me, if I were rich. It's only an obstacle if I'm poor. Also, in reality, given the makeup of our society and poverty statistics, because it is classist, it gives advantage to straight white men, who are most likely to be able to afford a high-risk move without risking their financial futures. Things that are classist are by default sexist and racist to some degree, just because of our society.

While I appreciate your observation that carpet-baggers can do a lot of harm, officials who already live in a district can do equal amounts of harm. That has far more to do with their political beliefs and corruption factor than their residency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 17th 2025, 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC