Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-29-2010, 01:13 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

If Traister and Rosin accept the legitimacy of Palin's calling herself a feminist, then why should a male supporter of Palin be asked to provide an explanation as to why he calls himself a feminist?

Why can't some defender of the 'feminist' label provide a clear definition of the term? (Stephanie--Can you?)

Rosin's definition [someone who seeks 'to make women's lives better'] essentially allows everyone to call himself a feminist. If 'feminist' simply means a supporter of legal abortion, then I'm a feminist and Sarah Palin is an anti-feminist.

Neither of these definitions seems very defining.

**

Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.

Henry B. Adams
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-29-2010, 01:17 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
If Traister and Rosin accept the legitimacy of Palin's calling herself a feminist, then why should a male supporter of Palin be asked to provide an explanation as to why he calls himself a feminist?
I think it's clear why Palin might call herself a feminist. She seems to think that women are entitled to be treated equally and pursue the same opportunities as men and leads her own life in a way consistent with that.

Quote:
Why can't some defender of the 'feminist' label provide a clear definition of the term?
I gave one above, and agreed to one that Bloggin' Noggin' gave.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-29-2010, 01:23 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

No, Operative--I say we leave Sarah Palin in the discussion--and solve the problem by having someone provide us with a clear definition of what feminist means, if anything.

It appears to be a term which mainly gets to be 'owned' by leftish women, so a 'pro-life', Palin-supporting male who calls himself a feminist ought to feel required to provide some explanation. It appears that everyone involved in this thread accepts that the term can't be defined crisply, with words, so we need to point to individuals, though Sarah Palin shouldn't count.

That strikes me as being awfully mushy.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-29-2010, 02:08 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
It appears to be a term which mainly gets to be 'owned' by leftish women
No one has said this, neither in this discussion nor in the diavlog you are commenting on.

Quote:
so a 'pro-life', Palin-supporting male who calls himself a feminist ought to feel required to provide some explanation.
Anyone who uses the term will presumably have some reason why, with which others may or may not agree. It's silly to say you are a feminist and then when asked why say "oh, because" or "it's a nice word" or "I'm a lesbian in a male body" or some moronic thing. When most people use the term they do so to mean something, and it's generally not all that confusing or hard to figure out -- as I pointed out, that's so certainly with Palin and with the various other conservative women who are claiming it.

So, if some pro-life Palin supporting guy told me he was a feminist, I would assume by that that he was saying that he supports equal rights and opportunities for women, thinks that women and men should be treated equally when it comes to organizing their lives, with no assumption that women with children must stay home or the man must be the breadwinner and the woman do all housework or the like, and that the husband and wife would be equals, not the woman subordinate to the man in terms of leadership (I know there are some religious conservative women who would take issue with this).

And if my assumptions were right, sure, he's a feminist in my view, even if I might argue with him about some of his policy preferences. If he really thinks women need to stay home and do what their husbands say and that women working are taking jobs from men or that men with families should be paid more than women or single men, well, then, he's not, and just messing with you in using the term. It doesn't seem that hard.

As for mushiness, everything's mushy. What "conservatism" means is mushy (although libertarianism doesn't fit, IMO), what "liberalism" is mushy. Like I said before, radical feminists and liberal feminists traditionally disagree on tons of issues, and there are all sorts of other disagreements and splits even within the movement (and my use of the term here and that in the diavlog is broader than the "movement" usage). So what?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-29-2010, 03:16 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Thus, the arguments become about more difficult issues (it seems to me) -- media coverage that seems slanted, how people really live their lives, and so on, and for the most part I think that's not so much a political issue (although there are political issues that one can argue for based on these things) and instead a social one. ...

I'd say a feminist stance is to lead one's life in a way that places equality as a priority, in terms of how the family is run, etc. ...
The tension some of us feel (at least one other commenter used the word "tension") derives from the assumption that feminism is strongly political. And so there's a problem with the Sarahs of the world who are successful but seem to stand in opposition to many aspects of traditional feminist politics. We imagine a choice: shun successful women (impossible) or accept their politics as aspects of their feminism (also impossible).

In your definition, you seem to lean more toward the latter choice, but importantly, you take the sting off it by emphasizing that the big political battles are largely resolved. This ties to my earlier point that it's hard to measure any gender-based differences concerning political issues. Most of the remaining issues are social attitudes that are not directly controllable via legislation.

I think you have crafted a good defensible position. Just let me know a convenient time; I'll drop by and wash your dishes.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-29-2010, 03:40 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Bloggin Noggin: "I think Susan Faludi defines feminism as at bottom the view that women are persons"

[!]
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-29-2010, 07:35 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I'm speaking of gender differences on the issue of women's rights in our national conversation. So my last question still stands. If both sexes are in rough agreement, why do we use the term "feminism"? I'm trying to tease out whether feminism is really a name for a basket full of political positions with support that is gender-neutral.
Historically women have not had the same opportunities, freedom of choice and participation in decision making as man have. Anybody, man or woman that recognizes that's the case and that advocates or takes action towards correcting that problem so that there are no legal or cultural obstacles to equality, is by definition a feminist. What specific legal or cultural limitations need to be changed may vary over time, but the goal remains the same.

I don't know what you're asking, but I provided the above to see if you can develop your question from there.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:06 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Stephanie wrote:
I think it's clear why Palin might call herself a feminist. She seems to think that women are entitled to be treated equally and pursue the same opportunities as men and leads her own life in a way consistent with that.

In American public life today, who would not count as a feminist, under your definition? If Sarah Palin--a strong ally of James Dobson--counts as a feminist...then I'd like to know who isn't a feminist?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:10 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default The latest from James O'Keefe

Our Documentary Takes A Strange Detour

Whatever we do, I think it's very important that we are always very polite and respectful to these people. Because obviously they intend to play by the same rules we do.

From O'Keefe's planning document:

Quote:
Equipment needed

a. Video

1. hidden cams on the boat

2. tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine

b. Props

1. condom jar

2. dildos

3. Music

a. Alicia keys

b. 80s romance songs, things that are typically James

c. avoid Marvin Gaye as too cliche

4. lube

5. ceiling mirror

6. posters and paintings of naked women

7. playboys and pornographic magazines

8. candles

9. Viagra and stamina pills

10. fuzzy handcuffs

11. blindfold
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:12 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
As for mushiness, everything's mushy. What "conservatism" means is mushy (although libertarianism doesn't fit, IMO), what "liberalism" is mushy. Like I said before, radical feminists and liberal feminists traditionally disagree on tons of issues, and there are all sorts of other disagreements and splits even within the movement (and my use of the term here and that in the diavlog is broader than the "movement" usage). So what?
If we were trying to define the political label conservative, I think we'd have got significantly farther by this stage in our back-and-forth. Every definition of feminism I've heard, within this thread, includes virtually every person in American public life. Were we discussing the label conservative, I suspect we could agree on some commonsensical definition that included John McCain and excluded Barack Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:18 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Yes, and having come to power as a willing participant in a sham marriage that brutally disparaged a number of Bill's discarded ex-sex-toys, added to various oddities such as her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia--that probably didn't win her many votes either.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:30 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
Yes, and having come to power as a willing participant in a sham marriage that brutally disparaged a number of Bill's discarded ex-sex-toys, added to various oddities such as her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia--that probably didn't win her many votes either.
Hillary's claims about he Bosnia trip were pretty dumb. I'm more upset about her (and Bill) pandering to racists in the '08 primaries. But, I think that grafs like the above are deeply unfair to her. I'm generally a fan of Hitchens. On the Clintons and on Iraq he's completely off the rails.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-29-2010, 09:36 PM
chrisn chrisn is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 57
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Aemjeff:

So, Bill Clinton's been taking advantage of women for much of his adult life (and in some casing abusing his authority to do so) directly in contradiction to his professed ideals and those of his voting bloc...and Hilary's likely known about this for quite some time, but presumably shut up because (highly suspiciious in the case of Paula Jones, if you don't stand up for Paula Jones, who do you stand up for?), like all things Clinton, political power is more important than most moral standards and hypocrisy is fine as long as you get elected (riding Bill's coattails all the while)?

It's good to know that like a lot of feminists you're willing to overlook a lot of morally suspicious behavior as long as your ideals are represented in power in this case. May you reap what you sow or as a potential feminist work to isolate such people who misuse your ideal.

Hannah Rosin sure isn't rising to the challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-29-2010, 09:59 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Carl Paladino threatens to murder reporter

"You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take ya out, buddy."

Since the murder threat was made in the context of protecting his daughter, he'll probably gain 20 points in the polls.

And a reminder to non-conservatives: Whatever you do, don't show a hint of disrespect for Carl and the movement that spawned him.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-29-2010, 10:03 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisn View Post
Aemjeff:

So, Bill Clinton's been taking advantage of women for much of his adult life (and in some casing abusing his authority to do so) directly in contradiction to his professed ideals and those of his voting bloc...and Hilary's likely known about this for quite some time, but presumably shut up because (highly suspiciious in the case of Paula Jones, if you don't stand up for Paula Jones, who do you stand up for?), like all things Clinton, political power is more important than most moral standards and hypocrisy is fine as long as you get elected (riding Bill's coattails all the while)?

It's good to know that like a lot of feminists you're willing to overlook a lot of morally suspicious behavior as long as your ideals are represented in power in this case. May you reap what you sow or as a potential feminist work to isolate such people who misuse your ideal.

Hannah Rosin sure isn't rising to the challenge.
Don't bring up Paula Jones. There are allegations, but no facts, except Clinton's settlement, which isn't dispositive - regardless of Republican Schadenfreude.

Do you mean to seriously suggest Hillary take the blame for Bill's womanizing?

Hatred of the Clintons is still so toxic that a decade after Bill left office people are still making ugly claims and repeating lies. I've said it a thousand times, I didn't love Bill Clinton, but after 1996 I sure as hell considered myself on his side. The Republican party disgraced itself in pursuit of him - and the continuing ugly slandering of his wife, all these years later, is a sign that the moral depravity they demonstrated during his term in office is still palpably, disgustingly alive and festering. (Something just as well demonstrated in their treatment of Obama, of course.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-29-2010, 10:37 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Don't bring up Paula Jones. There are allegations, but no facts, except Clinton's settlement, which isn't dispositive - regardless of Republican Schadenfreude.
Oh, I disagree, AemJeff. I think we're entirely within our rights to apply our intuition to matters such as Paula Jones. When we assess the character of others, we're under no obligation to extend courtroom-identical rules concerning 'due process.' Indeed, I've never observed anyone seriously attempting to employ such rules, upon herself, in assessing the character of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Do you mean to seriously suggest Hillary take the blame for Bill's womanizing?
No--and I said no such thing. However Hillary vouched for Bill's character, to the public, on multiple occasions--in situations wherein highly credible accusers have come forward with accusations concerning Bill's sexual abuses. That constitutes, in my judgment, ethically compromising behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Hatred of the Clintons is still so toxic that a decade after Bill left office people are still making ugly claims and repeating lies. I've said it a thousand times, I didn't love Bill Clinton, but after 1996 I sure as hell considered myself on his side. The Republican party disgraced itself in pursuit of him - and the continuing ugly slandering of his wife, all these years later, is a sign that the moral depravity they demonstrated during his term in office is still palpably, disgustingly alive and festering. (Something just as well demonstrated in their treatment of Obama, of course.)
If you're accusing me of ill-motivation, AemJeff, then let me merely say that I am taken aback; I had heretofore believed us to be engaged in to-and-fro among gentlepeople.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-29-2010, 10:57 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
Oh, I disagree, AemJeff. I think we're entirely within our rights to apply our intuition to matters such as Paula Jones. When we assess the character of others, we're under no obligation to extend courtroom-identical rules concerning 'due process.' Indeed, I've never observed anyone seriously attempting to employ such rules, upon herself, in assessing the character of others.



No--and I said no such thing. However Hillary vouched for Bill's character, to the public, on multiple occasions--in situations wherein highly credible accusers have come forward with accusations concerning Bill's sexual abuses. That constitutes, in my judgment, ethically compromising behavior.



If you're accusing me of ill-motivation, AemJeff, then let me merely say that I am taken aback; I had heretofore believed us to be engaged in to-and-fro among gentlepeople.
I was replying to another user, and I only named a relatively abstract entity as the object of my ire; but you're free to conclude what you like. The campaign of lies and calumny directed at that Clintons is the worst thing that's happened in American politics in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Watergate - though the prosecution of Clinton probably stands out as the greater abuse of the Constitution. The transparency of those lies, and zeal of his opponents' attempts to smear him ought to have made you a little more skeptical.

You're well within your rights to do many things. Applying reasonable standards is optional.

I don't particularly have a problem with Clinton's character. His sex life interests me about as much as most people's, which is to say very little. His relationship with his wife is a matter for them to negotiate. Smearing her on the basis of that relationship is a poor way to conduct yourself in public.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:04 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I don't particularly have a problem with Clinton's character. His sex life interests me about as much as most people's, which is to say very little. His relationship with his wife is a matter for them to negotiate. Smearing her on the basis of that relationship is a poor way to conduct yourself in public.
I don't recall expressing any interest in Bill Clinton's sex life, AemJeff. To smear a person is to attack them in some illegitimate way. I have not observed any individual in the thread do that; if you have, please employ argument rather than dogmatism. Our readers out there in Dubuque expect peace and love in the chatroom.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:15 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
I don't recall expressing any interest in Bill Clinton's sex life, AemJeff. To smear a person is to attack them in some illegitimate way. I have not observed any individual in the thread do that; if you have, please employ argument rather than dogmatism. Our readers out there in Dubuque expect peace and love in the chatroom.
You attacked his "character." What other issue could you possibly be referring to? His handling of the deficit? And you've certainly smeared Hillary, calling her a liar (and repeating a litany of Hitchensesque adjective salad), in addition to accusing her of engaging in a "sham marriage" (which looks a lot like an interest in Bill Clinton's sex life to me, btw.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:48 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
You attacked his "character." What other issue could you possibly be referring to? His handling of the deficit? And you've certainly smeared Hillary, calling her a liar (and repeating a litany of Hitchensesque adjective salad), in addition to accusing her of engaging in a "sham marriage" (which looks a lot like an interest in Bill Clinton's sex life to me, btw.)
Your most recent contribution helps clarify our difference, AemJeff--thanks. You believe that to comment upon the character of an ex-president ought to be considered off-limits; I don't. You believe that to describe Hillary's Bosnia falsehoods as 'lies' constitutes an illegitimate attack; I don't. You believe that to consider the Clintons' marriage a fiction equates to prurience; I don't.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-29-2010, 11:53 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdicate View Post
Your most recent contribution helps clarify our difference, AemJeff--thanks. You believe that to comment upon the character of an ex-president ought to be considered off-limits; I don't. You believe that to describe Hillary's Bosnia falsehoods as 'lies' constitutes an illegitimate attack; I don't. You believe that to consider the Clintons' marriage a fiction equates to prurience; I don't.
You're imputing to me opinions I haven't expressed, and don't hold. The differences between us are other than what you state.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:04 AM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
You're imputing to me opinions I haven't expressed, and don't hold. The differences between us are other than what you state.
And on that note, let's call it a day. (I invite readers to--in particular--examine my penultimate comment, with particular attention to the faithfulness with which I repeated AemJeff's stated points.)

Onward and upward!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:12 AM
chrisn chrisn is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 57
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

AemJeff:

Fair enough. Let's overlook the way in which Bill Clinton brought his moral depravity right into the White House and so into the public eye, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is in some ways, not her own woman...owing her career as she does in part, to Bill. Let's overlook such matters and focus only on politics.

Shouldn't feminists aim to transcend current politics...and to not allign themselves with one party by default...?

That's no better than a backwoods pastor exhorting his flock to vote for one candidate.

Shouldn't reasonable women choose to accept the responsibility to clarify their own thinking...realizing that while benefitting from feminism they owe a debt to the radical feminists, Marxists, and anti establishment types, thus having to define their own influences. ?

I get it, they'll probably just appeal to other people under a political platform where their own thinking fails. That happens a lot at Slate magazine.

Are they comfortable with the assault on the family as religion defines and helps to maintain it in our society...in their personal lives? Do they want to marry, instead of just including ever more people in the definition of marriage upon a legal platform with the State or the legislature as arbiter of such idealism? This is where this debate is happening I think...about including conservative women.

Shouldn't there be a discussion about the pressure that such idealism places on our politics...and our institutions...?

At what cost comes this change for the better, in what larger context...?

OF course, this is just where I'd like to see the conversation go...
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-30-2010, 07:08 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Take a few minutes and watch Glenn Beck prove that Barack Obama is leading a revolutionary Marxist movement to take over the United States and eventually slaughter of millions of Americans.

Reminder to non-conservatives: It would be wrong to say anything impolite about Glenn Beck or his followers. While they accuse of us participating in a movement to destroy America, we must remain very polite and respectful of them.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 09-30-2010 at 07:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-30-2010, 07:28 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Take a few minutes and watch Glenn Beck prove that Barack Obama is leading a revolutionary Marxist movement to take over the United States and eventually lead to the slaughter of millions of Americans.

Reminder to non-conservatives: It would be wrong to say anything impolite about Glenn Beck or his followers. While they accuse of us participating in a movement to destroy America, we must remain very polite and respectful of them.
on the front page of the WSJ today is a report that McDonald's is dropping the mini HI plan it provides its workers because the HI carrier cannot comply with the mandate from Obama/Democrats to payout 85% of HI premiums to claims. They say the large number of particpants in the plan and low premiums result in back office costs > 15% of premiums.

When the the goverment mandates that a business provide specific products at specific prices, that is socialism. As in government command and control of peoples lives.

The solution is states rights. Allow some states to be socialist, allow others to be places where honest, self reliant people can live, prosper and control their borders.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-30-2010, 09:17 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Reminder to non-conservatives: It would be wrong to say anything impolite about Glenn Beck or his followers.
I don't think the average conservative/ libertarian would think it wrong to say impolite things about Beck. He's is quite fringy.

Quote:
While they accuse of us participating in a movement to destroy America, we must remain very polite and respectful of them.
It seems to me that you are in the business of accusing the right of participating in a movement to destroy America. In fact you go so far as to extend it to destroying the entire world!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-30-2010, 09:29 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisn View Post
AemJeff:

Fair enough. Let's overlook the way in which Bill Clinton brought his moral depravity right into the White House and so into the public eye, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is in some ways, not her own woman...owing her career as she does in part, to Bill. Let's overlook such matters and focus only on politics.
But before you start overlooking...I think the Clinton affair has shown that moral depravity means nothing unless it can be used politically to destroy ambitions. He is now considered to be the most beloved living politician.


Quote:
Shouldn't reasonable women choose to accept the responsibility to clarify their own thinking...realizing that while benefitting from feminism they owe a debt to the radical feminists, Marxists, and anti establishment types, thus having to define their own influences. ?
Don't forget the Hoover Corporation


Quote:
Shouldn't there be a discussion about the pressure that such idealism places on our politics...and our institutions...?

At what cost comes this change for the better, in what larger context...?

OF course, this is just where I'd like to see the conversation go...
Me, too! What I see is an inexorable trend towards abandoning the traditional definition of marriage. My generation has done a lot in the way of destroying it.

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-30-2010 at 09:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-30-2010, 09:53 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post

The solution is states rights. Allow some states to be socialist, allow others to be places where honest, self reliant people can live, prosper and control their borders.
I just don't see this as a workable solution but I understand the sentiment. It would entail a lifelong commitment of the citizens to stay put. Otherwise, if they weren't doing well in one system they could move to the other, thereby burdening that system unfairly. I think we need to keep the states united and instead use the tried and true political process to provide the ebb and flow of political solutions.

tried and true...ebb and flow.

Last edited by badhatharry; 09-30-2010 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-30-2010, 10:15 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisn View Post
AemJeff:

Fair enough. Let's overlook the way in which Bill Clinton brought his moral depravity right into the White House and so into the public eye, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is in some ways, not her own woman...owing her career as she does in part, to Bill. Let's overlook such matters and focus only on politics.

Shouldn't feminists aim to transcend current politics...and to not allign themselves with one party by default...?

That's no better than a backwoods pastor exhorting his flock to vote for one candidate.

Shouldn't reasonable women choose to accept the responsibility to clarify their own thinking...realizing that while benefitting from feminism they owe a debt to the radical feminists, Marxists, and anti establishment types, thus having to define their own influences. ?

I get it, they'll probably just appeal to other people under a political platform where their own thinking fails. That happens a lot at Slate magazine.

Are they comfortable with the assault on the family as religion defines and helps to maintain it in our society...in their personal lives? Do they want to marry, instead of just including ever more people in the definition of marriage upon a legal platform with the State or the legislature as arbiter of such idealism? This is where this debate is happening I think...about including conservative women.

Shouldn't there be a discussion about the pressure that such idealism places on our politics...and our institutions...?

At what cost comes this change for the better, in what larger context...?

OF course, this is just where I'd like to see the conversation go...
If politicians were to limit their "moral depravity" to illicit blowjobs, I would rejoice. If anybody thinks Clinton originated the practice of enjoying a bit of sport in the Oval Office, then they have no sense of how politicians actually behave in the real world. (By the standard by which you would judge Clinton, Nixon turns out to be among the most moral Presidents of modern times, by all accounts.) Clinton had the bad luck to have opponents who were willing to cross lines that had never been crossed before. And those opponents were exemplified by such upstanding citizens as Newt Gingrich (of whom I hear very little condemnation from the Right for his well established record in regard to women.) The hypocrisy of Republican disapprobation directed at Clinton is boundless and despicable.

A poltician owes her career to another politician - perhaps a successful one with whom she has a family relationship? Surely Hillary is unique in that! She's Secretary of State of The United States of America. She ran a viable campaign for the Presidency. Why are you sniping about irrelevancies?

Feminists look to one party over the other for the simple reason that one of those parties embodies the ideals represented by feminism - imperfectly, sometimes, but the alternative is home to Phillis Shlafly and James Dobson, fer cripes sake. The Republican party celebrates the antithesis of Feminism - the complaint that the women who see feminism's goals as important don't find themselves comfortable in that environment is a sign that whoever is ounting the complaint has no understanding of, or doesn't really care about those goals. You can't "transcend" politics by hitching your horse to an anachronism - which is the best description of certain core Republican social ideas of values that I can conjure.

And you're perfectly right about one thing. The "assault" on "family values" is a chimera, as far as I'm concerned. Religious values have no place in the core definitions by which a secular republic sets its values.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 09-30-2010 at 10:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-30-2010, 11:29 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

I'm curious where you are coming from here, Abdicate. Are you trying to argue that certain people aren't feminists? That feminism is BS? That people shouldn't call themselves feminists? What? If you have a point, it's unclear, and I wish you'd be more upfront about it.

Quote:
In American public life today, who would not count as a feminist, under your definition?
I don't believe my definition would apply to everyone, not even close. I think lots of people (even in public life) still believe in traditional sex roles being the one right way to live one's life. Now, granted, even conservative politicians who want to appeal to mainstream America will probably at least be quiet on the issue, but being quiet and not claiming the term feminism doesn't make you a feminist, even if you don't actively oppose the views that I have identified as central to feminism.

I think feminism kind of has two parts. First, the movement -- people who are actually involved in trying to work toward the goals of equality in an activist way. Second, and what we are talking about here, people who generally see themselves as in agreement with the goals or achievements of feminism. These people may think that feminisms goals are largely achieved or may see a lot of work left but disagree about what's required to bring these goals about. If everyone did agree with that goal and fit into my definition of feminist (and was willing to proclaim it happily), I wouldn't see that as depriving feminism of its specialness or importance, I'd see it as a victory. That no one disagrees about women having the vote (well, Ann Coulter aside) and it's more and more a fringey position to defend workplace discrimination and that even conservative politicians speak up for women's rights (even if they disagree with certain policy positions that I support) is a victory.

The discussion here seems to be whether people who believe in certain tactics can claim only those in agreement with them as "real feminists" and dismiss others who share the goals (and are happy about the extent to which they've been achieved) but prefer different tactics.

Personally, I don't see how they can -- who says their preferred tactics are definitive of "feminism" and how is this different than Catherine MacKinnon or her followers telling me I'm not a real feminist because I have a different view of the first amendment?

Moreover, there's a long history of feminists (especially the older generation, the people bitching about younger women as described in the diavlog, in part), complaining that younger women, including people like Sarah Palin and other conservatives, but especially just your usual woman who enjoys the benefits won by feminism, are hypocritical in not calling themselves feminists. That's because the "I'm not a feminist but" crowd clearly did generally share the basic assumptions and goals of feminism, the ones that have basically been achieved, especially, which they take advantage of.

Thus, it seems to me that as far as the basics go, feminism is stronger if it's seen as an "of course" kind of view, "of course I'm a feminist," "of course I believe women should have equal rights and opportunities," even if that means that the social or political form of feminism is watered down somewhat. It's never been the same as the movement, after all, in that someone like me (or even Rebecca Traister) and someone like Andrea Dworkin were never going to agree on most tactical things.

So you ask:

Quote:
If Sarah Palin--a strong ally of James Dobson--counts as a feminist...then I'd like to know who isn't a feminist?
I don't know if Palin is a feminist. I see reasons to believe she could be, so if she wanted to proclaim herself one (she's gone back and forth), I wouldn't disagree. If she did so while claiming that most women should stay home with the kids and it was more important for men to have jobs first and so on, then, no, but she hasn't said that.

Dobson, on the other hand, takes the position that women and men should follow their traditional roles and mothers not work outside the home because they are mothers. Thus, he is not a feminist. If Palin said she agreed with Dobson on this, I'd have no problem saying she's not a feminist either (I don't see Phyllis Schafly proclaiming herself a feminist, but I wouldn't agree with her either).

Last edited by stephanie; 09-30-2010 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-30-2010, 11:35 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Quote:
When the the goverment mandates that a business provide specific products at specific prices, that is socialism. As in government command and control of peoples lives.
No it isn't. And the leap from "mandating things of businesses" which all governments to "controlling peoples' lives" which conjures up thoughts of 1984 is a large one.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-30-2010, 11:35 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Hatred of the Clintons is still so toxic that a decade after Bill left office people are still making ugly claims and repeating lies. I've said it a thousand times, I didn't love Bill Clinton, but after 1996 I sure as hell considered myself on his side. The Republican party disgraced itself in pursuit of him - and the continuing ugly slandering of his wife, all these years later, is a sign that the moral depravity they demonstrated during his term in office is still palpably, disgustingly alive and festering. (Something just as well demonstrated in their treatment of Obama, of course.)
For the record, I totally agree. I'm not getting into a discussion of the Clinton scandals in '10, for heaven's sake (I'm highly suspicious of the motivation behind such an irrelevant discussion), but wanted to let you know upfront that I agree, even if I say nothing more.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:07 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

M
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
For the record, I totally agree. I'm not getting into a discussion of the Clinton scandals in '10, for heaven's sake (I'm highly suspicious of the motivation behind such an irrelevant discussion), but wanted to let you know upfront that I agree, even if I say nothing more.
Thanks. I appreciate that. And I agree with the sentiment that we ought not even be discussing this, at this point. But, much as I think of myself as generally moderate, this is an issue guaranteed to set me off - I can't stand to let the continuation of these lies go unchallenged.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:27 PM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
M


Thanks. I appreciate that. And I agree with the sentiment that we ought not even be discussing this, at this point. But, much as I think of myself as generally moderate, this is an issue guaranteed to set me off - I can't stand to let the continuation of these lies go unchallenged.
Who in the world qualifies as generally liberal to you?????

I'd like to think of myself as generally moderate, but I'm not. I'm libertarian conservative, and I know that some of my views are outside of the mainstream (but nevertheless correct).

Having seen you defend the ICC at Ground Zero, Helen Thomas, and Alan Grayson, Jeff, I think it is a bit absurd for you to claim to be a moderate. Your positions simply aren't moderate--they represent the left-wing of the country. And not the center-left either. They're firmly left-wing, outside of the political mainstream.

'Moderate' is supposed to be a somewhat tangible description of one with positions generally shared by a majority, or at least a large plurality, of the population, away from either idealogical base. It's not meant to be a term that one uses to affirm one's belief in their general logical approach to politics.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:43 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
For the record, I totally agree. I'm not getting into a discussion of the Clinton scandals in '10, for heaven's sake (I'm highly suspicious of the motivation behind such an irrelevant discussion), but wanted to let you know upfront that I agree, even if I say nothing more.
When people attack others' intentions, they generally do so with embarrassment. It's somewhat unusual to see people doing so without apology--as AemJeff and Stephanie do. That's refreshing.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:54 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by operative View Post
Who in the world qualifies as generally liberal to you?????

I'd like to think of myself as generally moderate, but I'm not. I'm libertarian conservative, and I know that some of my views are outside of the mainstream (but nevertheless correct).

Having seen you defend the ICC at Ground Zero, Helen Thomas, and Alan Grayson, Jeff, I think it is a bit absurd for you to claim to be a moderate. Your positions simply aren't moderate--they represent the left-wing of the country. And not the center-left either. They're firmly left-wing, outside of the political mainstream.

'Moderate' is supposed to be a somewhat tangible description of one with positions generally shared by a majority, or at least a large plurality, of the population, away from either idealogical base. It's not meant to be a term that one uses to affirm one's belief in their general logical approach to politics.
You generally haven't responded to my "defenses" in a way that makes me feel that you understood the nature of my argument in most of those cases. You seem to completely miss that I'm often not arguing my specific view, but instead am arguing about the nature of the argument raised against those topics by somebody else. For example I was defending Thomas from the charge of anti-Semitism, not trying to agree with her characterization of Israel. I think I'm generally pretty clear about my interest in such arguments, but I'll have to think about that.

I'm not going to defend my self-description as a "moderate" in explicit terms. You're just going to have to infer my beliefs from the arguments I engage, and the opinions I express.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:58 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by operative View Post
'Moderate' is supposed to be a somewhat tangible description of one with positions generally shared by a majority, or at least a large plurality, of the population, away from either idealogical base. It's not meant to be a term that one uses to affirm one's belief in their general logical approach to politics.
Your English is as obscure as your "logical" politics. What is a "tangible" description of a political position anyway? I think that aemjeff has made amply clear in a number of posts that he is a political moderate, even by the dubious standards of a "libertarian conservative."

I have no idea, and neither do you, what you mean by a "logical" approach to politics. If you think that "libertarian conservativism" is a logical, mainstream position in American politics, then I think you need to review the meaning of conservatism and perhaps brush up your on logic: the last I heard the principle of contradiction still stands.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-30-2010, 01:22 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: How crazy is Glenn Beck?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kezboard View Post
No it isn't. And the leap from "mandating things of businesses" which all governments to "controlling peoples' lives" which conjures up thoughts of 1984 is a large one.
there are no constitutional protections against the goverment mandating what an individual can produce and what they can sell their production for.

Look at how the democrats are defending this mcdonalds, mini health plan issue today. Sebellius says her dept has not yet set the rates. As in they are going to get to it and they will decide how much a business will be allowed to spend on "overhead".
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-30-2010, 03:22 PM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
You generally haven't responded to my "defenses" in a way that makes me feel that you understood the nature of my argument in most of those cases. You seem to completely miss that I'm often not arguing my specific view, but instead am arguing about the nature of the argument raised against those topics by somebody else. For example I was defending Thomas from the charge of anti-Semitism, not trying to agree with her characterization of Israel. I think I'm generally pretty clear about my interest in such arguments, but I'll have to think about that.

I'm not going to defend my self-description as a "moderate" in explicit terms. You're just going to have to infer my beliefs from the arguments I engage, and the opinions I express.
My point is that most people consider Thomas to be an anti-semite. Most people are opposed to the ICC near Ground Zero. Most people find Alan Grayson's behavior to be incredibly offputting. The only one that I have specific polling on is the ICC, but the other two are reasonable. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them--by all means, you can make the alternative case (I happen to disagree with the alternative case on each of them). But when you take positions that a clear majority of the American people disagree with, you can't reasonably call yourself moderate.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-30-2010, 03:24 PM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Clinton, Palin, and Feminism (Rebecca Traister & Hanna Rosin)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Your English is as obscure as your "logical" politics. What is a "tangible" description of a political position anyway?
Public opinion polling.

Quote:
I have no idea, and neither do you, what you mean by a "logical" approach to politics.
I was seeking to explain how it is that Jeff would describe his process in determining his views.

Quote:
If you think that "libertarian conservativism" is a logical, mainstream position in American politics, then I think you need to review the meaning of conservatism and perhaps brush up your on logic: the last I heard the principle of contradiction still stands.
If you fail to understand what I was actually saying then perhaps you should brush up on your English. I have a far greater grasp of American political science than you do, so do not condescend to me.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.