When Hillary is President, will she be called: Hag Twit Blonde Banshee Bitch Etc. Etc. Etc.?

[omega minimo]

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today." -- MLK, Jr.

*

Opening GD on this historic day, the first couple of gender slurs are overlooked, because it is a historic day and both Valerie Plame (today's hearing) and Joe Wilson (see the Symbolman video of the Conyers DSM Basement hearings) are striking examples of how to speak clearly and graciously in the face of all this evil and bile that surrounds them (and us).

Today is their day. And Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson may be the names that history remembers, names that turned the tide for the floundering American Democracy. Now they are classic -- and classy -- examples of how to communicate effectively and focus on what's important. I was struck, not so much by Ms. Plame's blond hair or strong features, as by her confidence, her calm, her simple eloquence. This is how to do it, folks.

So, okay, the first couple of slurs in the titles aren't worth bothering over and then there's another and another and another title on the title page that refers to women with derogatory terms BASED ON THEIR GENDER, not on who they are or whatever the topic is about.

This is a call for expanding awareness and growing some vocabulary, so we know how to say what we want to say-- including occasionally slamming people-- without resorting to terms that are slurs; terms that imply that the criticism is not toward their behavior, but toward their gender. Or worse yet, that the behavior being criticized is BASED ON THEIR GENDER.

This will become part of the process of accepting and relating to women as leaders, as candidates, even as Presidents. Let's use some imagination and get away from trashy terms that reflect more on the ignorance of the critic than the actions of the target.

Thank you.






------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C., August 28, 1963.

"I Have A Dream," by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, nad the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew our of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, whem we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcript checked against the version published in Martin Luther King, Jr: The Peaceful Warrior, Pocket Books, New York, 1968.
http://www.afn.org/~dks/history/dream.html

[whistle]

1. In other words moral duties, assessment of goodness and value

...and moral virtues and vices. Republicans claim they have a lock on these character traits but their actions and behaviors suggest differently

[omega minimo]

2. "Moral" is a verb

:thumbsup:

"Republicans claim they have a lock on these character traits but their actions and behaviors suggest differently"

Hypocrisy is convenient

:thumbsdown:

[whistle]

3. Uhmm, I thought moral was an adjective descriptive of a likely

...behavior or action taken. Typically as in right or wrong issues where the moral thing to do may not always be the most popular thing to do.

<snip>
Related phrases: moral hazard moral rights moral philosophy moral panic moral obligation bond moral realism moral absolutism moral majority droit moral


Definitions of moral on the Web:

relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; "moral philosophy"

concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life"

ethical: adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone"

arising from the sense of right and wrong; "a moral obligation"

the significance of a story or event; "the moral of the story is to love thy neighbor"

psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect; "a moral victory"; "moral support"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&defl=en&q=define:moral&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[omega minimo]

4. you said it

"behavior or action taken" sounds like a verb to me!! Active. Walkin the walk, not just talkin the talk. :applause:

[TheConstantGardener]

5. War Criminal

That will be the honest label; hopefully we will avoid that nightmare and have a good Dem in office however.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. Voting for the IWR

doesn't make her a war criminal.

Your rhetoric here and in other threads is over-the-top.

[TheConstantGardener]

26. Yes it does

Unconstitutional war criminal in that case.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Then go arrest her

for god's sake - your rhetoric is ridiculous.

[merh]

6. Guess you aren't paying attention.

They do it now.

And remember how they belittled Reno because of her looks.

The right will find whatever flaw, perceived or real, to chip away at anyone, male or female, on the left that they are intimidated by.

[omega minimo]

7. Guess it wasn't clear enough.

"Opening GD on this historic day, the first couple of gender slurs are overlooked, because it is a historic day...
"So, okay, the first couple of slurs in the titles aren't worth bothering over and then there's another and another and another title on the title page that refers to women with derogatory terms BASED ON THEIR GENDER, not on who they are or whatever the topic is about.
"This is a call for expanding awareness and growing some vocabulary, so we know how to say what we want to say-- including occasionally slamming people-- without resorting to terms that are slurs..."

This was not a thread about Hillary but about women leaders and public figures and how they are referred to by all sides.

You say "they do it now." And "we" do it now. The OP wasn't limited to what "they" do on "the right." The reference was to a rash of slurs on the title page-- whether it was us referring to what "they" are doing or whether some of "us" were doing the same damn thing..... it ends up being the same damn thing.

So, whoever is doing it, the suggestion is:

"Let's use some imagination and get away from trashy terms that reflect more on the ignorance of the critic than the actions of the target."

And whoever is the first female President, House Speaker, outed covert agent hero, televised tiara-wearing hearing activist, etc.:

"This will become part of the process of accepting and relating to women as leaders, as candidates, even as Presidents."

"....without resorting to terms that are slurs; terms that imply that the criticism is not toward their behavior, but toward their gender. Or worse yet, that the behavior being criticized is BASED ON THEIR GENDER."

Even positive comments focused on appearance and gender trivialize the accomplishments and miss the concept of Martin's "content of their character" Dream. Gender is not absent from the equation; but it is not the first and foremost aspect. Sometimes it's just a distraction.




Thank you

[merh]

8. And there have been no opening threads in GD that refer

to the looks of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rush, et al.???

There will always be such slurs on political enemies. Outrage over them will not stop them.

Taking the high road is a personal choice, focusing on the good and touting it over the petty is an option.

[omega minimo]

10. Apples and oranges

[MedleyMisty]

11. I haven't noticed it being done so often and so constantly, no.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

32. There you go again,...

Clear, succinct, rational, you should copy this and just post it a hundred times a day, every time one of these uninformed(?) individuals makes one of these stupid replies.

[bobbolink]

36. Then there will always be a lack of peace.

"There will always be such slurs on political enemies. Outrage over them will not stop them."

We can choose to do the same as "their side", or we can choose peace.

Isn't this how wars get started???

Joan Baez, where are you and your Peace Training when you are sooooo needed?!

[genie_weenie]

9. Dynastic Continuation of the Authoritarian Plutocratic

Controllers? Those involved in the Federal Government are admirers of power for powers sake. Hillary will be no different.

[porphyrian]

12. As long as gender is an issue, gender will continue to be an issue.

And as long as ignorance, hatred and social deviance are part of the human experience, every conceivable form of prejudice and discrimination will exist in some context. Awareness, education and acceptance of our differences will go a long way towards reducing the negative impact of these.

[omega minimo]

14. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"

"Awareness, education and acceptance of our differences will go a long way towards reducing the negative impact of these."


Yes-- and someday with more acceptance of our similarities, women will be viewed as people, the way men are. Women in leadership and non-traditional roles will be normalized, accepted, overlooked because it will be common.


Happy Plame Day, P!! :toast:

[porphyrian]

17. Happy indeed. Same to you.

:toast:
;)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Oh No, Did Someone Say Douchebag Again? C'mon DU TSK TSK.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[omega minimo]

15. If you don't get the concept, you can just talk about your coffee and newspaper

:donut:

[Morgana LaFey]

18. You write good stuff, make superb points

but sometimes you are too subtle. I'd suggest that before you hit Send you recheck your work to make sure your point is explicit. In this case, it's explicit primarily in the subject title, and then it goes in all directions. I'm not surprised some posters take the opportunity to distract from the main point. Or pretend not to get it. Or actually DON'T get it.

But I am glad you brought it up. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

22. Good advice. Thanks. Although sometimes

subtlety can be good troll-repellant :evilgrin:

"You write good stuff, make superb points"

As do you: (worth repeating) :spray:

"Women are routinely held to a different (usually higher) standard relative to personal appearance. THIS IS SEXIST.
Women are routinely expected to be beautiful to truly have worth and value -- but if too beautiful then they're considered dumb. THAT IS SEXIST.
Prominent women -- even in the highest positions, such as Valerie Plame (superspy) and Hillary Clinton (Senator and Presidential Candidate), unlike men in the same positions, get reported on in the media on the basis of their personal appearance. THIS IS SEXIST.
<>
This practice in the media AND IN SOCIETY (including here) serves to trivialize the woman and her accomplishments (and all women and their accomplishments and contributions to soceity), and diminish her influence and power (and that of all women). THIS IS SEXIST.
<>
But women as a class and even more so as individuals (read that Plame article again) ARE harmed -- trivialized, diminished, objectified, thoroughly disempowered. THIS IS SEXISM at an institutional/societal level, which negatively affects all women, and DU needs to line up to hep STOP this shit, not contribute to it."

:yourock:

[Morgana LaFey]

29. ROTFL

subtlety can be good troll-repellant

You got THAT right! Never thought of it that way: just make sure to write above their level, which oughtn't be that hard. FABULOUS

:rofl:

Thanks for the nice compliments too. VERY appreciated. (Put another way: thank heavens SOMEone read that! LOL)

[omega minimo]

44. threw in a big speech with lotsa words n stuff two!11

:evilgrin:

...... and um, hey, not to say I tole ya so.......... but i had a feeling your points were "worth repeating" :thumbsup: OH-- where'd they go? :yoiks: :wow:

[Annces]

19. I agree - that is always a low blow to

comment on a person based on their looks. Beauty is on the inside also. And women have always been especially criticized based soley on their appearance.



I always have admired Linda Hunt for shining through.

[Cerridwen]

20. In response to the thread title...yep, she is and will continue to be.

And it will continue to be okay to call "their" side those things as we're defending against the same crap coming from "their" side about "our" side. "Don't say I'm part of the Democrat party, dammit! It's Democratic, you skanky, ho, bitch!" Apparently, framing only applies to "them" not to "us" and only in regard to the words 'liberal' and 'Democrat/ic'. /sarcasm

I have http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=436169&mesg_id=436169">my own issues with yesterday's Code Pink protest during the Plame hearings. But it sure as hell isn't about who did it.

The irony, to me, is to watch the "mann coulter" and "ann the man" and "tranny annie" crap which is suddenly oozing through threads about the Code Pink protest as they attack the protester rather than the protest itself. Why anyone is outraged at the treatment this woman is receiving from the press is beyond me. Well, not really. I've read posts here that show the same "concern" of messenger over message.

Oh, well, I keep posting.

Hey, omega. How ya doin'?

:hi:

[omega minimo]

23. Gee, I'm sure sorry about yer dog........

:spray: :hi: Hey there Cerridwen. Thanks for the link to that great thread. And these "thought-provoking" comments.

"The irony, to me, is to watch the "mann coulter" and "ann the man" and "tranny annie" crap which is suddenly oozing through threads about the Code Pink protest as they attack the protester rather than the protest itself. Why anyone is outraged at the treatment this woman is receiving from the press is beyond me. Well, not really. I've read posts here that show the same "concern" of messenger over message".

Is it just easier? Easier to pick some superficial feature and fixate like a bunch of eight year olds at a sleepover?

It makes your points in the other thread all the more useful and important-- STAY ON MESSAGE.

Glad you're here. And in this thread we have "Sexism 101" and a link to "Media 101" -- cool B-)

[Cerridwen]

24. LOL - you're killin' me!

:hi:

I think it's "comfortable" more than "easier." It can be dis-comforting to realize that we are part of the problem then, follow it through and to admit that we are. And, for those who insist on pointing out to us our own prejudices and hypocrisy, it's "off with their heads!"

Thanks for the K & R and post in the other thread. I would like for us all to realize that we're on the same side and to work together to present our, seemingly various, messages. Sometimes that means we get to step back and let someone else take center stage to present their message for a change. So often we wind up working at cross purposes for the same ends. Thank you for the role you take in showing so many of us that our "individual" messages need to be heard if we're going to get our "collective" message into the public sphere.

Earworm ALERT!

"And the beat goes on...and the beat goes on.
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain..."

[omega minimo]

25. YOU RADICAL!!!!!!!!!!11 Mebbe yer one uh thum "Idjut Libruls"!!!!

"I would like for us all to realize that we're on the same side and to work together to present our, seemingly various, messages."



:wow:







"Thank you for the role you take in showing so many of us that our "individual" messages need to be heard if we're going to get our "collective" message into the public sphere."

We know that the "individual" messages are intrinsic to the "collective" message and we must address one to address the other. Women's rights could not be MORE relevant to the overall package (and underlying causes) of our "collective" cause.................. that's rarely discussed here. Successfully. Stuck on the "individual," mostly blind to the "universal."

That's why it matters. I didn't come here to champion this. The Rules suggest that we shouldn't have to.

Ah well. There it is.

[Cerridwen]

28. Naw, I'm actually a radical, pinko, commie, socialist, feminazi

who's a member of the thought police. I know 'cuz I've been told so by, well, just about anyone who disagrees with me and would rather call names than discuss any message; much less the "'individual' messages (which) are intrinsic to the 'collective' message" to use your well phrased phrase. :D

But, hey, I'm getting better and copy and paste and remembering to post to my journal so I don't have to copy and paste.

:rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

30. Those are homophobic remarks

and DU is a LOT more sensitive to homophobia --- and will remove those posts when alerted more reliably -- than sexism. So alert on them when you find them.

[Cerridwen]

35. They are, it is (now) and I do.

Though, an alert is not a guarantee of a delete. A delete is not a guarantee that the poster learned anything except to remain silent. And sometimes the volume of posts takes more time than some of us have to address individually.

It's sad, really. Thirty years later and we're still fighting over the same words for the same reasons. What exactly is taught in history and politics classes these days?

BTW, hiya. Good to "talk" with you.

:hi:

[Clark2008]

27. She won't be president in many peoples' estimation, so, she

won't be called anything but an "also-ran."

:hi:

[terrya]

31. One would hope "Madame President"

Or Ms. President.

[bobbolink]

33. THANKS!! You'll get the usual slams

from defensive people who don't give a shit who they hurt, but you are absolutely right!

I will add that it's really interesting to also see the threads angrily "correcting" those who let their anger out on transgendered people.

Yet, dumping the same way on women doesn't rate the same ire.

Many of us sadly reflect that we thought we were finished fighting these sexist battles 30 years ago. I begin to wonder if it will come to the same end.... we "go on strike" and refuse to participate in political activities which continue the gender wars.

Many very good women, smart women who contributed much to DU, have left because of this very issue. Yet, we're told ...."Good people leave, but are replace by other good people." So, as long as we're all seen as replaceable, rather than valuable human beings who deserve to be treated with respect, you'll see us leave.

Not that it seems to matter.

[Bunny]

37. Paul Mooney, a brilliant black comedy writer, recently declared that

he was going to stop using "nigger" in his works. He came to the conclusion that trying to take over the word to lessen its impact really hasn't worked out.
i see a lot of women who claim that they are fine with being a "bitch", they're proud of it in fact. The time will come when it will be used against them, with a vengeance, and perhaps their feelings will change.

Getting so-called progressive people to drop their gender slurs is a battle I'm no longer willing to wage. Those who want to "get it" and improve themselves will do so. Those who don't are not worth my time.

Now, sit back and wait for that Lounge gang, who think they are oh-so-clever, to organize their posse and come over here to hijack your thread. The most ironic part of that is that the biggest offenders are also the loudest shouters when their ox is being gored. Their indignation is great, indeed.

[bobbolink]

38. When did it become "liberal values" to offend and hurt your own?

You have worded this very well, and I concur completely!

As I've said elsewhere, we women thought 30 years ago we had done away with the sexist crap. It's defeating beyond words to find out what is acceptable now, and here on DU, of all places!

So many really fine women have left over this, yet it continues. :(

Thanks again for your fine words!

:toast: :hug: :toast:

[Bunny]

39. I think it's part of the anti-PC meme that has deeply imbedded itself

into our consciousness. People want to be free to be jackasses as often as possible. On a progressive site, people generally know enough not to be racist, but there's plenty of hate and ignorance directed against women, GLBT, etc.

[bobbolink]

40. Yup, our going against authority went too far.

We ended up swallowing the RW meme.

Excellent point!

[omega minimo]

48. Three words:

Pussycat Dolls.

Ow Mah Gawd. is that 2 words? :spray:


The Backlash liveth. The Backlash is so relevant after 2 decades that I'll betcha lotsa folks don't even know what it is!

"Feminazi"? I listened to Limbaugh this week (never do, but the "progressive" Limaugh Ed Schulz drove me to the real thing....) and he invoked his trademark hate-term. He can take a lot of credit for the mass insanity that we're going through.

Yeah, the meme got swallowed.

Madonna has a lot to answer for, too.

:hi: bobbolink

[omega minimo]

50. Isn't it ironic

"The most ironic part of that is that the biggest offenders are also the loudest shouters when their ox is being gored. Their indignation is great, indeed."

The sad part is that our common cause is as elusive as the OP is "subtle." Hey, I've raised it-- to a deafening silence. It's especially bizarre when gender rights folks attack women's rights advocates.

Another subject of commonality we can't get to because all the trivial distractions are SOOOOOoooooooooooooOOOOO entertaining.
:sarcasm:

[ComerPerro]

41. would you prefer douchebag /asshole/ bastard /jerkoff, terms that are usually attributed to men?

[omega minimo]

42. I'd prefer options that aren't a knee-jerk, either/or, defensive strawman set-up

Howz that sound? :hi:

What does being "judged for the content of the character" not for outward appearance, mean to you?
How would that ideal be served by deepening the use of slurs against other groups?

"Expanding awareness," "growing some vocabulary" and "let's use some imagination" do NOT add up to using boring, cliched "jerkoff terms that are usually attributed to men." Anyone interested in what MLK has to say is not going be inclined to think more hostility and defensiveness is the answer to anything.

Thanks fer asking :toast:

[ComerPerro]

43. you haven't said anything

your basic beef in your post seemed to be that you didn't like terms like "bitch" and "hag" and "Witch", etc, because they are usually attributed to women.

And nowhere in your post do you appeal to just dropping attacks of any kind on anyone.

[omega minimo]

46. okay-- so the short answer to your question is: no

It's been pointed out that the OP may have been too subtle-- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may be interested in this and not just trying to start a fight.


"And nowhere in your post do you appeal to just dropping attacks of any kind on anyone."

That was the intention of the quote at the top of the OP and the Dream speech. We're all in this together.

The historical context of the Dream speech talks about social progress being independent from legislation (the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or the recent Amendment to the Constitution giving women the right to vote). After the law is passed there is a lot of work to do and consciousness to raise.

I don't see this as a war of women against men.

I hope that helps.

[ComerPerro]

47. so your OP is more of an attack on personal insults, not insults based on gender?

do I understand correctly?

Point being: "Bush is a bastard" is as bad as "Hillary is a bitch"?

Wasn't sure if you're advocating words that aren't gender-specific, or if its a matter of saying all generic insults without concern for gender or race or whatever, are detrimental.

[omega minimo]

49. The OP isnot an attack

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today." -- MLK, Jr.

Can you connect the dots?


"And Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson may be the names that history remembers, names that turned the tide for the floundering American Democracy. Now they are classic -- and classy -- examples of how to communicate effectively and focus on what's important. I was struck, not so much by Ms. Plame's blond hair or strong features, as by her confidence, her calm, her simple eloquence. This is how to do it, folks."

That's pretty clear. Can you hang there for just a moment, CP? Where actions transcend gender? Where people are judged by the content of their character and not their gonads? And when events are reported, recorded, referred to, remembered, the history doesn't put the gender aspects before all else?

The difference between how males and females are treated (see previous sentence) is that gender is WAY up at the top of the list of relevance regarding females and pretty much invisible for males. The gender divide is also used frequently to trivialize and dismiss the actions and concerns of women because they are women. That is why it is objectionable. That is why it is BIGOTRY.

Do you get that?

I'd love to see someone comment on Dick Armitage, not that he was the original leaker of Plame's name but that he looks and sounds like some bizarre sort of cartoon character out of a Popeye/Three Stooges nightmare. Has that happened yet? Maybe on The Daily Show. I mean really, THAT GUY IS FUCKING BIZARRE. :wow:

What's happening today? Fixation on Valerie Plame's hairstyle rather than her testimony? Attacks on a Code Pink tiara wearer's gender identity rather than the issues?

"So, okay, the first couple of slurs in the titles aren't worth bothering over and then there's another and another and another title on the title page that refers to women with derogatory terms BASED ON THEIR GENDER, not on who they are or whatever the topic is about."

Got it now? :thumbsup:

"This is a call for expanding awareness and growing some vocabulary, so we know how to say what we want to say-- including occasionally slamming people-- without resorting to terms that are slurs; terms that imply that the criticism is not toward their behavior, but toward their gender. Or worse yet, that the behavior being criticized is BASED ON THEIR GENDER."

The playing field is not even. Yet.

[ComerPerro]

55. well, so maybe "attack" wasn't the best word, but I think we're on the same page

So you're saying men are attacked for their ideas or views or what they say, while women are attacked on outward, external things like looks alone.

I haven't been in the Plame threads, but I'd seen titles (like the comments on Code Pink members). And I think you raise a good point.

I just misunderstood at first, from your phrasing.

But here's my question:

Can I still make comments about Ann Coulter? LOL

[burythehatchet]

45. I'll be too busy trying to catch the monkeys flying out of my butt

[BlooInBloo]

51. What Clinton's insult-prospects will be if she gets elected: Ask Jackie Robinson.

I soooo have a crush on Plame after seeing and hearing her give testimony!

lol!

[omega minimo]

52. The First American Female President will help Americans get the concept

"The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

[AZBlue]

53. Unfortunately, I'm sure she will be here on DU.

You make excellent points - thank you for the thoughtful post. I agree with you - I'd like to see far fewer nasty slurs here and everywhere in society and far more people following the examples of grace and poise put forward by the Wilsons. I've said before that I'm very sorry for the horrible mess that was thrust upon them and they probably never wanted the notoriety that they've gained, but at least we now have them as models of best behavior under trying times.

[BenDavid]

54. All you anti-HRC in here I

tell you what you can do. Stay your asses home and do not vote. We do not need you. HRC is going to become the President of the United States.
Your non vote will not matter because HRC and WJC and her team are going after the other people that did not vote in the last election of 04, 2000.There are a lot of votes to be picked up in that 50 plus percent that does not vote....So, be well and keep on ranting and come January 20, 2009 you can lie to your friends and say, I voted for her to save face....

I do thank you,
"in the interest of peace"
(mi-pene darkhei shalom)

[kdpeters]

56. Can we call her a dick?

That's not based on her gender.