Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 84

Thread: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

  1. #61
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    I still don't see how saying someone is a wife/mother/daughter defines them by their relationship to MEN.

    Wife = could be a homosexual marriage as is permitted in several states.
    Mother = no men need to be around for this. She could be single with all girls, even.
    Daughter = again - doesn't need a male figure there - could just have a mom.

    This is stating your relationship to OTHERS in your life - just relationships . . . if people cared in general about that then they'd have issues with the opposite. Yet I've never heard someone get pissed when they say "our husbands, fathers and sons" . . . it's just a common phrasing. Definitely no petitions go around when this is used, here.
    As you pointed out yourself, it was obviously targeting men. Women do not define other women relationally, only men do that. Women define each other as "us", not wives, mothers, and daughters. That's a part of who they are, but they are so much more than just that.

    And people do NOT use the term "our husbands, father, and sons" in discussions about equal treatment of men. Those kinds of comments about men are almost exclusively used in discussions of war where the attempt is being made, specifically, to humanize the soldiers who die in war. It's not really comparable because it has a different goal. It isn't used as a replacement of the term "men", it is used as a replacement of the word "soldiers". "Men" is far more humanizing than soldiers is.

    Obama used wives, mothers, and daughters to replace the word "women". It wasn't done to humanize women in the workforce, it was used to appeal to the emotions of those who would subjugate them, and as such, he was, inadvertently, lowering himself to their level. You yourself have made note of that, so there's no point in backtracking now by pointing out that there was no necessity for men to be present in any of the relationships described. The fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to appeal to the emotions of men, and as such, the words were intended to define women by their relationships to men.

    Now, do I think it was petition-worthy? No, not at all. Do I think that it eradicates the value of his other comments? Absolutely not.

    Do I think that it acts as a convenient means to engage in a legitimate discussion about the way that language affects inequality? Most certainly.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #62
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    As you pointed out yourself, it was obviously targeting men. Women do not define other women relationally, only men do that. Women define each other as "us", not wives, mothers, and daughters. That's a part of who they are, but they are so much more than just that.
    It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.

    Also - where'd you come up with this notion of "women don't refer to people by their relationships - but as us" ?? Is there research on this? Strawman argument.

    And people do NOT use the term "our husbands, father, and sons" in discussions about equal treatment of men. Those kinds of comments about men are almost exclusively used in discussions of war where the attempt is being made, specifically, to humanize the soldiers who die in war. It's not really comparable because it has a different goal. It isn't used as a replacement of the term "men", it is used as a replacement of the word "soldiers". "Men" is far more humanizing than soldiers is.
    I've heard it countless times and not even in regard to 'soldiers' - I guess it depends on what we're tuning into, hunh?

    Obama used wives, mothers, and daughters to replace the word "women". It wasn't done to humanize women in the workforce, it was used to appeal to the emotions of those who would subjugate them, and as such, he was, inadvertently, lowering himself to their level. You yourself have made note of that, so there's no point in backtracking now by pointing out that there was no necessity for men to be present in any of the relationships described. The fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to appeal to the emotions of men, and as such, the words were intended to define women by their relationships to men.
    And I'm supposed to get my panties in a twist and sign a petition because of it? You don't have to like it - but it's ridiculous to explode it into something it's NOT. It was not meant to be offensive - and if anyone felt 'degraded' they (I say again) need to get their head out of their ass.

    Now, do I think it was petition-worthy? No, not at all. Do I think that it eradicates the value of his other comments? Absolutely not.
    Well we agree.

    Do I think that it acts as a convenient means to engage in a legitimate discussion about the way that language affects inequality? Most certainly.
    I promise you that his language *in that regard* had no effect on inequality - he was trying to deliver a point . . . and people got distracted from the point and instead focused on semantics.

    Per usual overdramatics.

    I'm going to continue to not care - not get pissy - and not get my wittle fewing hurt . . . 'cause I'm a big girl. I don't need a single reference in a speech to be what gives me a conniption fit.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #63
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,140

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Nonsense in search of outrage. Listen, women should take pride in carrying the title of the primary raiser of this nations children....I can hardly think of a more important job, or a tougher one.
    Oh, please.

    Women should get to carry the titles they like. Why shouldn't daddies be proud to have that title forced on them as the only thing of meaning they do?

    Because it isn't. That's why. And the same applies to women.

  4. #64
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    It's ok - you know - for a president to refer to men or women. It was obvious who he was directing that to.

    Also - where'd you come up with this notion of "women don't refer to people by their relationships - but as us" ?? Is there research on this? Strawman argument.
    Don't use the term "strawman argument" if you don't know what it means, Aunt Spiker. I didn't attribute anything to you in that statement, I was supporting the point that he was targeting men with his reference to women. You agree with that point even before it was made.

    you can't say in one breath that he was targeting men with the comment and then attempt to negate the fact that he was targeting men in the next. Be consistent.





    I've heard it countless times and not even in regard to 'soldiers' - I guess it depends on what we're tuning into, hunh?
    I suppose so. Any examples where it is being used outside of the context I mentioned, or is your argument purely anecdotal?



    And I'm supposed to get my panties in a twist and sign a petition because of it?
    See, if you actually knew what a straman argument was, you'd know that you just committed one.


    It was not meant to be offensive
    At what point did "offensive" come into the discussion?

    and if anyone felt 'degraded' they (I say again) need to get their head out of their ass.
    Whether or not people feel degraded is utterly irrelevant to any point I have made. I do believe that my point was entirely about reinforcing existing stereotypes that certain men have and how it acts to undermine the President's stated position to do this. I was really rather clear on that.

    Perhaps you were simply projecting your own tendencies on to me when you started on about strawman arguments in an perfectly incomprehensible fashion.




    I promise you that his language *in that regard* had no effect on inequality
    You are incorrect on that point, though. Study after studfy has shown the effects of language choices on inequality. Just because you have arbitrarily decided that ther ei sno effect does not mean that there actually isn't any effect.


    - he was trying to deliver a point . . . and people got distracted from the point and instead focused on semantics.
    As am I, but sometimes when you deliver a point, some overdramatic person comes on in and ****s all over it by pretending that you said things which aren't even remotely akin to that which you have said.

    I'm going to continue to not care - not get pissy - and not get my wittle fewing hurt
    Bully for you. And why, exactly, would I or should I give a **** about your emotional reaction to it?


    I don't need a single reference in a speech to be what gives me a conniption fit.
    Yet here you are, fitting your conniption all over the place, simply because someone had the audacity to attempt to have a rational discussion on the effects of language choices on inequality and you just didn't wike it that they did that.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #65
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't use the term "strawman argument" if you don't know what it means, Aunt Spiker. I didn't attribute anything to you in that statement, I was supporting the point that he was targeting men with his reference to women. You agree with that point even before it was made.
    I'll just respond with a clarification - your strawman argument was how you presumed women talk . . . claiming we don't use 'relationship labels' to identify people and instead we always say 'us'

    It was a ridiculous declaration.

    Per the rest of your post - we just disagree - you think he shouldn't and I don't care if he does. Apparently the difference is how we interpret his meaning.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  6. #66
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    I'll just respond with a clarification - your strawman argument was how you presumed women talk . . . claiming we don't use 'relationship labels' to identify people and instead we always say 'us'
    Again, look up strawman argument before tossing it around as a claim. At worst, my claim is a false one. False claim =/= strawman argument. Terms like that have specific meanings, and it is your duty to make sure you know what they are before you accuse people of presenting a fallacy of that nature.


    But to prove my point, which of the following sentences would a woman use:

    "We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

    or

    "We know our economy is stronger when women can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

    or even better, if one wishes to also make the emotional point along with the logical one (as it drives the point home better than Obama's and forces men to think of women as fully equal to themselves):

    "We know our economy is stronger when WE live OUR lives free from discrimination in the workplace and free from the fear of domestic violence."

    Which one(s) would a woman be most likely to use? I'm sure that there are some women who would use the first one, but I guaran-****ing-tee that the second and third are more likely to come form a woman than the first one would be.

    And you know what, if Obama had picked the third one himself, he'd have done a hell of a lot better at driving his point home because if he had done that, he would have used language that made women fully equal to men. That's the one I would choose as a man. Everyone would know I was specifically referring to struggles that are primarily faced by women, but I'd have used language that made it very clear that everyone suffers when any of us are treated this way.

    And let's go a little bit further on this. Obama's word choice was made worse by saying "our economy" in the same sentence as saying "our wives". While it is certainly possible for a woman to be married to another woman, the immediate assumption about "wives" is that they are married to men. thus, the economy is possessed by the same people who have wives, rather than being possessed by the women who are wives as well. It's a pronoun agreement thing. The second "our" implies men, so that causes the first our to imply men subconsciously. It's subtle, but it's present.

    Now, god knows I'm guilty of using sexist language myself (things like saying someone who is brave has balls and such) so I'm not even really criticizing Obama so much as I am reflecting on the point that is being made by the people with this petition. They do have a valid point, even if their approach to making that point is a little bit overdramatic. Ultimately, I'm far more concerned with discussing the point they are making as I think there is some real value to having that discussion.

    Of course, that discussion is impossible if people are so overly offended by their approach to making the point that they are totally uninterested in exploring the point rationally.

    It was a ridiculous declaration.
    No, calling it a strawman argument is a ridiculous declaration. At worst, my statement is false. Common sense appears to indicate that it is not false, though.

    Your best evidence that it is false is to call it something which it clearly is not. My best evidence to prove it true is to point out that the statement would more than likely have used very different terminology if uttered by a woman. That's significantly more evidence than a demonstrably false claim about my statement being a "strawman argument", though.

    Per the rest of your post - we just disagree - you think he shouldn't and I don't care if he does. Apparently the difference is how we interpret his meaning.
    I think the discussion is worth having, and you don't. I see how the terminology has effects and you don't. I think he certainly could have done a much more effective job of choosing his words than he did, you apparently do not.

    I don't care if he chooses to continue using that terminology though. When you say "I think he shouldn't" you are in fact creating another strawman, since I also do not care if he does. You've arbitrarily decided that I am making an argument which I am not making and then you are debating against that figment of your own imagination. That is a strawman.

    I am saying that he could use far more effective language and that his choice of language actually undermines his position, but I do not really give a **** if he does that. There are far better voices for women's equality than his.

    I can see why some women might dislike it, though. And the petition does kind of make sense since it's the only way for a normal woman to really bring the point to Obama's attention. I'm not as offended by it as you appear to be.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 02-22-13 at 06:28 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #67
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    There's no point in trying to convince me as to why I should be offended.

    I'm just not.

    It's quite simple.

    My status as a woman/wife/mother/daughter has been affected none by his words. Since I was a child things have improved for women all around.

    I see no issue here. . . and I'm moving on less the 1K word essay.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  8. #68
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    There's no point in trying to convince me as to why I should be offended.
    Who's trying to do that? Oh, yeah, nobody's doing that. It's a paranoid delusion of your own creation.

    Seriously, though, it's incredibly hypocritical of you to pretend I was making a strawman argument when you haven't done a ****ing thing BUT make them.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #69
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Until he claims women's vagina repel rape sperm, I think he'll be ok. Luckily for him, dumber people (republicans) distract enough to keep most of the feminists off of him.

    And Tucker... that's ridiculous man. You want to play semantics over whether he says "our" or refers to them directly? So, people are being derrogitory when they say "Support our troops" instead of "the troops"?

    Worst. Argument. Ever.
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  10. #70
    Professor
    Monserrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,497

    Re: Petitioners paint Obama as ‘misogynist’ who’s ‘alienating’ women

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Birth control is a tool used in a political rhetoric filled wedge from the administration to force religious institutions, and people of faith to cover something they are morally opposed to paying for. It is a measure of control, nothing more. Why should I as a taxpayer be forced to cover your BC for you, so that you can engage in an elective practice with no responsibility on your part to protect yourself in the matter?

    What is the nature of the debt from me to you, that I should pay for that?

    You want to have sex? pay for the BC yourself.
    All politicians have their platforms. Birth Control is a big issue for a lot of women and Romney clearly failed at getting his perspective and concerns across to the vast majority of women voters who have placed that high on their lists of what's important to them.

    I currently pay for my healthcare on my own and the taxes I pay go to other people and their health care in my state so I'm going to take the 'you' in your post as being a generalized 'you' and not aimed specifically at me. In any case I don't see why it's so difficult for anyone to understand why a woman would be more interested in Obama's platform then Romney's, they're not "Bimbo's" as one poster put it for voting for someone who is pandering to their needs and the GOP needs to either get a handle on this and better understand it or find a way to get around losing all those votes from women.
    I believe half of the things I say and say half of the things I believe.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •