Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=4951)

Bloggingheads 02-13-2010 06:59 PM

Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 

BornAgainDemocrat 02-14-2010 01:23 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Can't believe they didn't discuss The New Dating Game

JonIrenicus 02-14-2010 01:24 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
I think the point of promoting marriage, especially when children are in the mix, is that it tends to be a more stable basis of child rearing. That is the idea anyway, and I tend to agree with it until proven otherwise.


Assuming the partner is not abusive or dead weight of course. Single mothers do not have dual income streams like married couples often do. And while that may not be such a bother for Angelina Jolie or other women on the higher end of the income scale, it can make a huge material difference in terms of wealth and prosperity at the lower end.


Day care for poorer single women does not equate to an extra income stream. Daycare x10 does not come close to an extra income stream.


The problem is that many people are loathe go out on a limb and put down single parenthood. Sort of a let's not be judgmental mode. Which is fine. Can't have that... but making a case to people that having two parents is the preferred model, especially at the lower income levels should not be controversial or get resistance imo.

Baltimoron 02-14-2010 01:32 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 150865)
I think the point of promoting marriage, especially when children are in the mix, is that it tends to be a more stable basis of child rearing. That is the idea anyway, and I tend to agree with it until proven otherwise.

From the perspective of understanding population pressures, I think allowing families a free hand on procreation as a huge, tragic mistake.

Baltimoron 02-14-2010 01:43 AM

Abolish Valentine's Day
 
Any holiday that combines Christian - however forgotten and ignored - and galloping consumption is anathema. The little hearts, the candy, the obligatory gift-giving....it's Xmas with a high fructose corn syrup buzz.

And, in South Korea, it's worse. Today women give men candy. On March 14, those men will choose to reciprocate with chocolate. And then, on every 14th of each remaining month of the year, singles can meet for some food item to commiserate about their loneliness to the benefit of some restaurateur or store. For instance, on Black Day, singles meet to eat noodles and black bean sauce. And then, Xmas is basically another Valentine's Day for singles, just with a different theme.

I would like to go back in history, to the advertising firm that concocted this atrocity. I would set the sprinklers to malfunction, or pull a spark plug to cause the meeting to be canceled, etc. Valentine's is America at its corporate, agribusiness, conformist, sexist worst!

dieter 02-14-2010 02:12 AM

pro single mother is more pro family than a nursing home
 
I think the single motherhood issue went off track. In Germany and Austria it was almost standard practice that children of single moms were taken away from them and sent to nursery homes, where many of these kids were mistreated, banned from seeing their mothers, even abused for cheap child labor und personally blamed by nurses for their mother's irresponsibility.

The german Red Army Faction even stormed some nursery homes to set the kids free.

So the defence of single-motherhood was directed at this inhumane practice and it was actually pro family, rather than anti family, because surely one parent is better than none.

Well, the nursery homes were closed down and the remaining ones reformed, so that problem went away. Yet, the "defend single motherhood" meme remains and many later leftists and liberals misguidingly thought that they have to pretend that a father makes no difference.

That said, how do you promote marriage? Conservatives blame liberal and feminist intellectuals who are seen as the root of all evil. That is an easy cop-out and an excuse to sit on your hands and not seriously think about the issue.

I am not convinced at all that the masses plan their lives according to the ideology of obscure feminist magazines and elitist liberal newspapers. And the readers of these papers themselves largely live in stable relationships.

The kind of magazines most women read is full of marriage advise anyway. I assume that all of those church going americans receive plenty of sermons about marriage. Yet, the most religious seem to have the highest divorce rates.

thprop 02-14-2010 10:25 AM

Which one is more annoying?
 
I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.

Ocean 02-14-2010 10:45 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 150896)
I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.

Are you in a bad mood?

look 02-14-2010 10:48 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
thprop.

nikkibong 02-14-2010 11:38 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 150896)
I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.

What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

look 02-14-2010 11:49 AM

Sweets for the sweet
 
http://img2.timeinc.net/health/image...dy-400x400.jpg.

Ray 02-14-2010 11:54 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 150906)
Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

I think it'd be pretty great to have Matthew Lee or Glenn Lowry or what's-his-name with the stupid hats who writes about the military...yeah, some of those guys...have them talk about Jenny Sanford or Elizabeth Edwards or dating or marriage or whatever.

Mickey would be a horrible choice for this, however, for obvious and painful reasons.

Maybe BHTV could run a "Dude Stuff" segment--something right out of the New Sexism. Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.

Again, Mickey's no good here.

Ocean 02-14-2010 11:55 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 150906)
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

Yes, I agree. And let me add that "women's issues" doesn't mean that all women enjoy these topics! Or to make it clear: count me among those that don't.

I guess there is a way to talk about these topics, which are not very interesting to start with, in a way that may make them more appealing. But that hasn't been the case for what I can recall.

And I also agree that the participants are able to discuss other topics intelligently.

It's just that mellow girly talk!

Ocean 02-14-2010 11:56 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray (Post 150912)
I think it'd be pretty great to have Matthew Lee or Glenn Lowry or what's-his-name with the stupid hats who writes about the military...yeah, some of those guys...have them talk about Jenny Sanford or Elizabeth Edwards or dating or marriage or whatever.

Mickey would be a horrible choice for this, however, for obvious and painful reasons.

Maybe BHTV could run a "Dude Stuff" segment--something right out of the New Sexism. Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.

Again, Mickey's no good here.

LOL!

nikkibong 02-14-2010 12:09 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 150914)
LOL!

me too!

rcocean 02-14-2010 12:40 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.
I'm all for it - anything to keep Drezner and Lindsey off Economics and politics.

Wonderment 02-14-2010 02:56 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues.
The problem is that it's hard to have it both ways -- as a serious political commentator and a John Edwards-Jennie Sanford gossip monger. That is one of the reasons why Mickey -- also of Slate -- was so obnoxious in his "outing" of Edwards, and why it's silly for a public intellectual to spend 5 minutes here wondering whether it's true that Edwards is now engaged.

As Annie Lamont pointed out in the LA Times today, where on the scale of Cheny-like crimes do you situate John Edwards? Lamont decides to forgive Edwards and move on to important stuff to women like wars, health care and natural disasters.

Quote:

Edwards' fall from grace is the oldest story in America, and probably the world. He was a gorgeous, powerful man willing to torch his family, his career and those who trust him to get laid -- by someone whose name the rest of us can't even pronounce.

But where does Edwards even rank on the scale of loathsomeness when compared with, say, Dick Cheney? Not very high. Twenty names below John Boehner; 27 below Sarah Palin; directly after the TSA security people at the airport; and tied with Susan Collins.
To Bazelon's credit she points out that some feminist issues get reported and popularized in a manner skewed to the interests of upper middle class men and women.

Another problem is inflating the importance of gossip. I think Emily said something like "Sanford will always be remembered for...." The truth is that Sanford will not be remembered for anything. Healthcare under Obama will be remembered, torture will be remembered, Roe v. Wade will be remembered, Afghanistan will be remembered, but Sanford will be utterly forgotten in about 10 media minutes.

bkjazfan 02-14-2010 03:04 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
When I used to spend an inordinant amount of time reading non fiction I did a once over of George Gilder's "Men and Marraige." A conservative he thinks that for men the institution of marriage is an absolute necessity in order for them to be socialized into our society. Without it according to him you have men hanging out, committing robberies, using drugs, and those sorts of activites. Also, the late San Francisco Chronicle columnist, Charles McCabe, was of the same opinion.

Some say the military is a valuable experience for young men. I wonder if they same can be said about women joining, too?

Now, for these type of discussions I think Mike Walker of the National Enquirer (radar online) would be an excellent guest to have. His mag blew the whistle on John and Rielle and seems to be on top (no pun intended) of these type of salacious stories.

I don't follow sports but am not aware that the winter olympics are known for it's gayness. If so, what sports?

I think Mickey might be adept at these conversations. Afterall, he too was way out in front of the Edwards debacle on his blog and on BHTV.

John

Ocean 02-14-2010 03:08 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 150942)
The problem is that it's hard to have it both ways -- as a serious political commentator and a John Edwards-Jennie Sanford gossip monger. That is one of the reasons why Mickey -- also of Slate -- was so obnoxious in his "outing" of Edwards, and why it's silly for a public intellectual to spend 5 minutes here wondering whether it's true that Edwards is now engaged.

As Annie Lamont pointed out in the LA Times today, where on the scale of Cheny-like crimes do you situate John Edwards? Lamont decides to forgive Edwards and move on to important stuff to women like wars, health care and natural disasters.

To Bazelon's credit she points out that some feminist issues get reported and popularized in a manner skewed to the interests of upper middle class men and women.

Another problem is inflating the importance of gossip. I think Emily said something like "Sanford will always be remembered for...." The truth is that Sanford will not be remembered for anything. Healthcare under Obama will be remembered, torture will be remembered, Roe v. Wade will be remembered, Afghanistan will be remembered, but Sanford will be utterly forgotten in about 10 media minutes.

I agree. And all the time and energy that is being used to gossip about completely inconsequential events, is a distraction from the issues that really matter.

claymisher 02-14-2010 03:20 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 150906)
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

Bazelon is terrific on the gabfest but Dickerson and Plotz are unbearable villagers. She really ought to get her own show.

bkjazfan 02-14-2010 03:21 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
These people who write these "tell all" books say they do it for the cathartic effect. I think that is getting a bit old and may be bogus. That icludes you Andrew Young, no not that Andrew Young. Also, I wonder why anyone would want to read one of them? Talk about a waste of time that has to be one of them.

John

Lyle 02-14-2010 05:09 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Don't these people come on and talk about what they want to talk about? So whatever "sexism" that's here, it is all on their shoulders. Who cares really. Let them have their say about whatever.

Ocean 02-14-2010 09:57 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Talking about "good enough".

http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/comi...s/lg_horiz.jpg

look 02-14-2010 10:20 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Funny, yet depressing...

Where are my Uruguayan folk songs, please, Ocean?

Ocean 02-14-2010 10:56 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 150981)
Funny, yet depressing...

Most aspects of life are about compromises. Only excessive compromise is depressing.

Quote:

Where are my Uruguayan folk songs, please, Ocean?
Sorry, I thought I made it clear that Zitarrosa is a representative of "folklore". There is a huge overlap between Uruguayan and Argentinian music. I believe there is one or perhaps two styles that are considered to be Uruguayan. Here is another one by Zitarrosa (I couldn't find another singer/composer that I like on youtube). Listen to the guitar in between lyrics.

If I get some more I'll post in the future.

look 02-14-2010 11:12 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 150989)
Most aspects of life are about compromises. Only excessive compromise is depressing.

Agreed! But the cartoon seems to be about excessive compromise.


Quote:

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that Zitarrosa is a representative of "folklore". There is a huge overlap between Uruguayan and Argentinian music. I believe there is one or perhaps two styles that are considered to be Uruguayan. Here is another one by Zitarrosa (I couldn't find another singer/composer that I like on youtube). Listen to the guitar in between lyrics.

If I get some more I'll post in the future.
Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to music influenced by indigenous music.

The Zitarrosa is even more beautiful than the first two. Thank you.

look 02-14-2010 11:15 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 150958)
Don't these people come on and talk about what they want to talk about? So whatever "sexism" that's here, it is all on their shoulders. Who cares really. Let them have their say about whatever.

Yes, really. If a portion of the viewing audience enjoys it, who cares?

Wonderment 02-14-2010 11:32 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

There is a huge overlap between Uruguayan and Argentinian music.
Que en paz descanse.

look 02-15-2010 12:02 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 150996)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyOJ-...eature=related

Thank you, Wonderment, beautiful. She was born the same year as my mother (1935).

Don Zeko 02-15-2010 01:46 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 150906)
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

Yes, yes yes.

Ocean 02-15-2010 07:13 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 150996)

Yes, I have posted links to her music a few times in this forum. Also I wrote a comment when she died. A Latinamerican symbol.

Ocean 02-15-2010 07:19 AM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 150992)
Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to music influenced by indigenous music.

The indigenous people were exterminated by the Spaniards when they settled in the territory. Perhaps some were able to flee and hide and intermixed with other groups outside the territory. A few of them were captured and taken to Europe to be shown in theaters or in circus. Sad, really.

Quote:

The Zitarrosa is even more beautiful than the first two. Thank you.
I'm glad you liked it. I always think of this music as something that can only be understood and appreciated by people from the region.

PreppyMcPrepperson 02-15-2010 07:47 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 150906)
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.

I think you're right that no one asks men to get on BHTV and talk about gender issues, which is a problem. But it's worth pointing out that Dana at least writes specifically about women, family and gender issues. That's her beat. So it's not craven to ask her specifically to talk about that stuff.

bjkeefe 02-15-2010 08:02 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson (Post 151016)
I think you're right that no one asks men to get on BHTV and talk about gender issues, which is a problem. But it's worth pointing out that Dana at least writes specifically about women, family and gender issues. That's her beat. So it's not craven to ask her specifically to talk about that stuff.

And also that Emily evidently spends a lot of time contributing to and participating in Slate's XX blog.

But ... "craven?"

(I ask because I used to use that word to mean other things, and then I finally looked it up. It sounds like it should mean something other than, or in addition to, cowardly, but I don't think it does. Or is that what you actually meant? (In which case I'm even more puzzled.))

PreppyMcPrepperson 02-15-2010 08:36 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 151017)
But ... "craven?"

(I ask because I used to use that word to mean other things, and then I finally looked it up. It sounds like it should mean something other than, or in addition to, cowardly, but I don't think it does. Or is that what you actually meant? (In which case I'm even more puzzled.))

I've always used it to mean cowardly and in this instance, I meant it would be without courage, or sort of lame, to pick women to talk about women on the basis of gender alone, but in Dana's case, there's a substantive reason she's in this DV.

bjkeefe 02-15-2010 09:40 AM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson (Post 151018)
I've always used it to mean cowardly and in this instance, I meant it would be without courage, or sort of lame, to pick women to talk about women on the basis of gender alone, ...

Okay, thanks. I don't think of it as cowardly to do this, but I can see why one might; e.g., in the sense of not having men on to discuss gender issues, perhaps?

However ...

Quote:

but in Dana's case, there's a substantive reason she's in this DV.
... yes. And, I think, Emily as well. Also, I am fairly sure these two are not compelled to do these diavlogs, so I must conclude they want to.

look 02-15-2010 12:43 PM

Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 151015)
The indigenous people were exterminated by the Spaniards when they settled in the territory. Perhaps some were able to flee and hide and intermixed with other groups outside the territory. A few of them were captured and taken to Europe to be shown in theaters or in circus. Sad, really.

I'm glad you liked it. I always think of this music as something that can only be understood and appreciated by people from the region.

I didn't know that.

I tend think that music is a bridge between cultures. I think of Herb Alpert and Desi Arnaz as ambassadors for humanity. ;)

Lyle 02-15-2010 04:36 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
No, no no.

Lyle 02-15-2010 04:38 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
How do you know bhtv doesn't ask men to come on and talk about women issues? Have these women just not discussed whatever it is they wanted to discuss? They talked about women stuff... oh heaven forbid, women stuff.

PreppyMcPrepperson 02-15-2010 04:47 PM

Re: Which one is more annoying?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 151071)
How do you know bhtv doesn't ask men to come on and talk about women issues? Have these women just not discussed whatever it is they wanted to discuss? They talked about women stuff... oh heaven forbid, women stuff.

Firstly, I don't know, but I think (and that's all I said above) that they haven't, based on the fact that no men have come on to discuss women's issues, or gender issues more broadly. Secondly, we've had a few DVs where Bob betrays some of the process for organizing DVs, and the process involves some input from the DVers and some general direction from Bob and team. Thirdly, in this particular case, my comment was that Dana at least DOES generally want to talk about women so people should stop whining about her role here. In Emily's case, however, I thought Nikki had a point that the wider breadth of her knowledge is not tapped on BHTV.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.