So feminists! what do you make of this?

Meghan McCain: Gingrich's Treatment Of Bachmann "Obviously" Sexist | RealClearPolitics

Not that I hate feminism, but when you these kind of women that all want to play both the victim card AND accuse someone of sexism, without any sort of evidence, this really in my opinion undermines your philosophy. Unless he says "im sexist/hate women/etc.", then anything else is just assumption, and borders on slander.

Gingrich would have likely given that answer to anyone, although FactCheck backed up Bachmann. I don't think it was gender oriented nor taken that way.

There will be too many concocted "offenses" and "gaffs" that are nothing in this election season.

This is the woman who openly says she is subservient because she is a woman and let her husband decide her career for her.

When a woman is openly and explicitly sexist about herself, it's hard for me to work up the energy to be angry about it.

And, to be fair... she really doesn't know anything about politics. It's not sexist to state the truth. Now that Cain is out, I'd say she's probably the least-informed person left in the race. So, since she is uniquely ignorant (which is quite an accomplishment in such a circus of ignorance), she deserves to be treated as such. The fact that she's female doesn't release her from scrutiny.

This isn't about "women in politics." It's about Bachmann. Who plays herself down as the dumb little woman, and acts the part.

DarkWizard12 said:

Meghan McCain: Gingrich's Treatment Of Bachmann "Obviously" Sexist | RealClearPolitics

Not that I hate feminism, but when you these kind of women that all want to play both the victim card AND accuse someone of sexism, without any sort of evidence, this really in my opinion undermines your philosophy. Unless he says "im sexist/hate women/etc.", then anything else is just assumption, and borders on slander.

Click to expand...

Really, you equate what one person, who is not in any leading capacity, said with a whole movement?

And no he doesn't have to say ""im sexist/hate women/etc.", he just have to say something that is actually sexist for example: "what does she know, she's a woman," to be sexist.

But I don't see anything in the article to indicate that he was referring to her gender rather than her history of saying some very silly stuff.

nonpareil said:

Really, you equate what one person, who is not in any leading capacity, said with a whole movement?

And no he doesn't have to say ""im sexist/hate women/etc.", he just have to say something that is actually sexist for example: "what does she know, she's a woman," to be sexist.

But I don't see anything in the article to indicate that he was referring to her gender rather than her history of saying some very silly stuff.

Click to expand...

3 actually, it wasn't the whole movement, it was just when said movement has these people up there on the news, as if they matter.

And that goes with the "etc", you know.

I read the short article - I watched the video.

So - what did he say?

All that article was: a short bit of dribble based on assuming I keep up with their tones of voice towards everyone which I don't - I read more than I listen to and watch RE politcs. The debate in question: I missed watching it on tv and instead I read the transcript. :shrug: Nothing in the transcript came out that way.

All the video was: random snippets of journalists and reporters suggesting he's sexist towards her.

There was no evidence presented and thus I can't asses and make a decision. If someone wants me to see sexism (etc) they need to provide evidence of it: not just "he said she said they said"

Now: in general - not just RE Bachmann - but sometimes there seems to be a bit of sexism towards women in politics from some people. But I only say that bcause I've SEEN it - not because I watch a snippety video claiming that it happened. (Example: when people kept cuing into Palin and her parenting being challenged while she was on the road: because she's female everyone defaulted to the assumption that she should be a stay at home parent - no one considered that Todd did any of that at all . . . I thought that was sexist: no men have ever had to face such scrutiny per their parenting - and hte only comparison anyone ever made was a Congressman who had several children after his wife died and was still a member of Congress)

Now: what did annoy me a bit: the panel of 3 women invited to discuss this 'issue' - 4 women talking about it . . . what, can men NOT discuss potential sexism? Looked to me more like women ganging up on Gingrich.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

This is the woman who openly says she is subservient because she is a woman and let her husband decide her career for her.

When a woman is openly and explicitly sexist about herself, it's hard for me to work up the energy to be angry about it.

And, to be fair... she really doesn't know anything about politics. It's not sexist to state the truth. Now that Cain is out, I'd say she's probably the least-informed person left in the race. So, since she is uniquely ignorant (which is quite an accomplishment in such a circus of ignorance), she deserves to be treated as such. The fact that she's female doesn't release her from scrutiny.

This isn't about "women in politics." It's about Bachmann. Who plays herself down as the dumb little woman, and acts the part.

Click to expand...

You message reminds me of a woman explaining the obsticle to a woman becoming president of the United States is women voters. That woman's view is that enough women are so jealous of any other woman having more that the obsticle women for president have is other women jealous of the accomplishment and determined not to let the woman candidate get still further ahead.

You message is an example.

After only 5 years in the House of Representatives and as only a House of Representative's member, she has won the only "election" of any kind so far for President, the Iowa Straw poll. If I am not mistaken, she is the first women ever to be a potential whatsoever in the Republican Primary for president. From which you deduce that "she really doesn't know anything about politics."

I think it likely accurate by her political record that she knows more about politics than you. However, because you do not agree with her stance on issues, you declare she is stupid rather than just wrong.

BTW, FactCheck confirmed that she was accurate in what she said about Gingrich and explained why.

Gingrich, sexist? No, couldn't be.

joko104 said:

You message reminds me of a woman explaining the obsticle to a woman becoming president of the United States is women voters. That woman's view is that enough women are so jealous of any other woman having more that the obsticle women for president have is other women jealous of the accomplishment and determined not to let the woman candidate get still further ahead.

You message is an example.

After only 5 years in the House of Representatives and as only a House of Representative's member, she has won the only "election" of any kind so far for President, the Iowa Straw poll. If I am not mistaken, she is the first women ever to be a potential whatsoever in the Republican Primary for president. From which you deduce that "she really doesn't know anything about politics."

I think it likely accurate by her political record that she knows more about politics than you. However, because you do not agree with her stance on issues, you declare she is stupid rather than just wrong.

BTW, FactCheck confirmed that she was accurate in what she said about Gingrich and explained why.

Click to expand...

Yup, that must be it, *I'm* the sexist. It has nothing to do with Bachmann going on about how she is subservient to her husband in everything, the fact that she's a Congresswoman from Minnesota and didn't even seem to know what the Keystone Pipeline was, or believed that we have an embassy in Iran.

Nope, I just don't like women. Especially Republican women. That's gotta be it. :roll:

I think Ron Paul is wrong, but I don't think he's stupid. And I don't think Bachmann is necessarily stupid, either - just sexist and ignorant.

There are entire websites dedicated to this woman's ignorance for reason. And it's not because she's a woman. It's because she says tremendously ignorant things, constantly.

Given Gingrich's lengthy history prior to his statement regarding Bachmann, I think it is fair to assume the statement was sexist.

Wonder why Newt hasn't said anything like this about Perry who is every bit as incompetent as Bachmann? Oh yeah, Perry has a penis.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

This is the woman who openly says she is subservient because she is a woman and let her husband decide her career for her.

When a woman is openly and explicitly sexist about herself, it's hard for me to work up the energy to be angry about it.

And, to be fair... she really doesn't know anything about politics. It's not sexist to state the truth. Now that Cain is out, I'd say she's probably the least-informed person left in the race. So, since she is uniquely ignorant (which is quite an accomplishment in such a circus of ignorance), she deserves to be treated as such. The fact that she's female doesn't release her from scrutiny.

This isn't about "women in politics." It's about Bachmann. Who plays herself down as the dumb little woman, and acts the part.

Click to expand...

She's a millionare and a national poitician. I bet she had as much to do with deciding her career as anyone.

apdst said:

She's a millionare and a national poitician. I bet she had as much to do with deciding her career as anyone.

Click to expand...

Her political one, I don't know. But her career before politics, according to her, was decided by her husband.

Whether or not she's telling he truth is a different question entirely, of course.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

Given Gingrich's lengthy history prior to his statement regarding Bachmann, I think it is fair to assume the statement was sexist.

Wonder why Newt hasn't said anything like this about Perry who is every bit as incompetent as Bachmann? Oh yeah, Perry has a penis.

Click to expand...

Cuz perry has never really went after him, even in debates. Bachmann spent her whole time attacking him, and without having facts straight(politifact confirms).

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Her political one, I don't know. But her career before politics, according to her, was decided by her husband.

Whether or not she's telling he truth is a different question entirely, of course.

Click to expand...

Either way it creeps me the hell out.

DarkWizard12 said:

Meghan McCain: Gingrich's Treatment Of Bachmann "Obviously" Sexist | RealClearPolitics

Not that I hate feminism, but when you these kind of women that all want to play both the victim card AND accuse someone of sexism, without any sort of evidence, this really in my opinion undermines your philosophy. Unless he says "im sexist/hate women/etc.", then anything else is just assumption, and borders on slander.

Click to expand...

I agree there is no evidence that Gingrich is sexist when he refuted Bachmann. Candidates are mean to each other all the time, and Bachmann is a little crazy. However this does not mean that every feminist agrees with this charge. Feminism is the idea that women has equal rights. What is wrong with it?

DarkWizard12 said:

Cuz perry has never really went after him, even in debates. Bachmann spent her whole time attacking him, and without having facts straight(politifact confirms).

Click to expand...

That is absolutely false. The organization quoted has stated the Iran could be within months of developing a nuclear weapon and has appeared to be conducting relevant tests.

The claim that Bachmann was "false" is based upon the government of Iran denying they are working on nuclear weapons. It appears DarkWiz believes the man who boasts of purging all gays out of Iran and declares the State of Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth is the absolute final authority on truth.

Who was proven 100% absolutely false was Gingrich saying as speaker he obtained 4 balanced budgets, when he was only in Congress at all for 2 of the 4.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yup, that must be it, *I'm* the sexist. It has nothing to do with Bachmann going on about how she is subservient to her husband in everything, the fact that she's a Congresswoman from Minnesota and didn't even seem to know what the Keystone Pipeline was, or believed that we have an embassy in Iran.

Nope, I just don't like women. Especially Republican women. That's gotta be it. :roll:

I think Ron Paul is wrong, but I don't think he's stupid. And I don't think Bachmann is necessarily stupid, either - just sexist and ignorant.

There are entire websites dedicated to this woman's ignorance for reason. And it's not because she's a woman. It's because she says tremendously ignorant things, constantly.

Click to expand...

There are far more websites to the "ignorance" of Obama - the president that doesn't know how many states are in the USA and had to be corrected that his is Christian, not Muslim.

The desperate partisan attacks by both sides trying to make gaffs out of nothing is aimed at the lowest intelligent voters.

I don't think it's sexist to point out what is obvious. Telling Bachmann she belongs in the kitchen would be fitting, because it seems like she enjoys playing up the traditional female role a lot. I think Bachmann herself is sexist and she's trying to appeal to the conservative base by being the proper woman who knows her place. The only problem is that she is a few decades late, because not even that many conservatives are so old school anymore.

What I would love to see is a female candidate who is that traditional, but is also hyper-intelligent at politics. It would be win-win for post-modern feminism. I ultimately support Bachman's choice to live out a traditional role because modern feminism ultimately supports that choice; what I cannot abide is stupidity and ignorance in a Presidential candidate who will be responsible for making critical decisions of this nation.

If she wants to be an ignorant house wife, good on her I guess, but she has no business running for POTUS. :shrug:

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

Given Gingrich's lengthy history prior to his statement regarding Bachmann, I think it is fair to assume the statement was sexist.

Wonder why Newt hasn't said anything like this about Perry who is every bit as incompetent as Bachmann? Oh yeah, Perry has a penis.

Click to expand...

Perry wasn't even near 10%. Only a fool would be frontrunner and attack downward at who had become a 2nd tier candidate.

To add to previous message, politifact did not make a fact-determination on Bachmann, but declared politifact's own political ideology and declared Bachmann ideologically wrong when she defined required health insurance and universal government assured health care as "socialized medicine." In short, Politifact has made itself a Democratic organization evaluating the issues of Republicans and those they disagree on are declared liars for partisan reasons only.

Calling mandatory health insurance "socialized medicine" is not a lie, it is an ideological perspective that most Republicans share.

DarkWizard12 said:

3 actually, it wasn't the whole movement, it was just when said movement has these people up there on the news, as if they matter.

Click to expand...

Feminism puts these women up there?

And that goes with the "etc", you know.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Temporal said:

I don't think it's sexist to point out what is obvious. Telling Bachmann she belongs in the kitchen would be fitting, because it seems like she enjoys playing up the traditional female role a lot. I think Bachmann herself is sexist and she's trying to appeal to the conservative base by being the proper woman who knows her place. The only problem is that she is a few decades late, because not even that many conservatives are so old school anymore.

What I would love to see is a female candidate who is that traditional, but is also hyper-intelligent at politics. It would be win-win for post-modern feminism. I ultimately support Bachman's choice to live out a traditional role because modern feminism ultimately supports that choice; what I cannot abide is stupidity and ignorance in a Presidential candidate who will be responsible for making critical decisions of this nation.

If she wants to be an ignorant house wife, good on her I guess, but she has no business running for POTUS. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I think I agree.

I don't hate her, I don't particularly like her either - but I don't see her being POTUS material either and that has nothing to do with gender - but personality and stamina. (for me) She doesn't have it. I expect certain things in a POTUS that many of those presently running just don't have. (aside fro mteh fact that on certain issues we don't agree)

I challenge the GOP to stop bringing forward the 'pretty women' in politics - honestly, if they weren't 'pretty women' I don't think the GOP would support them at all because they overall are a bit sexist and feel their women must comply with their traditional and conservative values. (no one can actually provide evidence otherwise)

This is why a conservative female will never become POTUS - it conflicts with some conservative values. When Palin was brought into the game men bailed on the GOP just to avoid voting for a potential female president.