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.