|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Nov 7, 2008 18:00:11 GMT -5
Although I didn't vote for the Rep ticket and don't really agree with her policies, I think she got a raw deal and her treatment was quite sexist.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 7, 2008 18:07:29 GMT -5
Although I didn't vote for the Rep ticket and don't really agree with her policies, I think she got a raw deal and her treatment was quite sexist. i think some of it was, definitely. a lot of the treatment hillary clinton got was as well. but i read a lot about palin (that has been confirmed true) that would make her unfit for public office in my eyes. i'm glad she won't be vp or prez by default anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Nov 7, 2008 18:15:53 GMT -5
i think some of it was, definitely. a lot of the treatment hillary clinton got was as well. but i read a lot about palin (that has been confirmed true) that would make her unfit for public office in my eyes. i'm glad she won't be vp or prez by default anytime soon. Yeah definitely think Hillary got a lot of sexist treatment too.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 7, 2008 18:16:31 GMT -5
Although I didn't vote for the Rep ticket and don't really agree with her policies, I think she got a raw deal and her treatment was quite sexist. The attacks on her still ain't over. It's like, it's impossible to know what really happened behind the scenes. For instance they had Carl Cameron on The Factor a few days ago and he spilled out the "behind the scenes" stuff that he heard from others.(read: annonymous staffers) Those cowards... I don't know what to believe anymore. I think we'll see Palin on the Factor, explaining herself, and then maybe on the Oprah Show in a few months. Who knows.. Those "Can you care for your family if you're in the whitehouse?" cheapshots were definitely sexist.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 0:40:04 GMT -5
Goodness knows I couldn't not post in this thread. Palin got some sexist treatment, but it would have helped a lot if she hadn't appeared to make a purposeful effort to live up to sexist ideals and made a fool of herself as a human being. I think it was her pick for the ticket that was the most blatantly sexist thing of the entire election. She was exactly the pretty, airheaded caricature that women have been fighting for so long, and virtually every one of the things the GOP claimed were sexist (like questioning her preparedness for office) definitely were not. What was sexist were the photos taken of male audience members framed by her bare legs; the campaign buttons with "Coolest State, Hottest Governor" on them; the comments that being a mother in its own right might affect her ability to govern. But the thing is, she was sold to the country as A Woman. She is a Mother: look at her many children, accompanying her to more rallies and functions than those of any of the guy candidates! She is a Sexy Symbol: look how folksy and cute she is, winkin' and bein' a maverick and takin' on the "boys!" Sure, maybe she doesn't know much about anything beyond the Alaskan border, but she's a mom who understands momness and femaleness and what a man needs--isn't that enough? Hillary Clinton got plenty of flak for being a woman, but Clinton was, if nothing else, a demonstrably intelligent and knowledgeable lady who by and large sold herself as A Politician who happened to be female. I've found I don't agree with some of her views or her methods, but what I admired about her was that she didn't try to coyly hide her ambition; she didn't sex it up. And she got sneers for it, for being "unfeminine." She was a mother with a lower-case m, and no more precious with her parental responsibilities than the average male candidate. She got called a "ball-breaker," one of the ultimate sexist put-downs for a powerful woman who's viewed as being too aggressive. Palin was praised for making pricks feel good; Clinton was derided for making them whither. Both are unacceptably sexist. The crappiest thing about it all is that McCain could have chosen a sharp and knowledgeable VP candidate who was also a woman; even a beautiful woman, as much as I despise the fact that to be widely respected a female generally needs to be attractive as well as competent (to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, people don't want to watch a woman age in office ). So, knowing they had plenty of other options, why did they choose a woman who seemed to embody all the things that makes feminists want to tear their hair out? That bothers me particularly; was it a purposeful thumbing of the nose, or just a cynical conviction that she is the kind of woman most would rally to; or did McCain and friends honestly think she represented the best of her sex? It's just senseless to have a woman playing up the stereotypes of her sex and Motherliness, and then being shocked and outraged when she then gets pidgeon-holed based on her sex. It really is basically the equivalent of a black candidate acting like a minstrel show player, and then complaining it's "racist" to talk about it. Damn right it's not fair, but playing to the stereotypes wouldn't work unless people acknowledged those stereotypes in the first place. If sexism were dead, people would be totally indifferent to Palin's Hockey Mom status, for instance. And as a side note, now that it's politically advantageous for the losing party to scapegoat the easiest target, Bill O'Reilly finally gives his listeners permission to believe that Palin is an uneducated hillbilly who according to his anonymous source, believes Africa is a single nation. O'Reillyites are now allowed to accept that she DID do horribly in the Couric interview, and that she and her campaign knew it was awful, and the reason for the suckiness was that Palin refused preparation. Also, according to Palin's aids, none of the questions asked by Couric or Gibson were "gotcha" journalism. Oh, and fun fact meant only to embarrass Palin on a very personal level: she once answered a door in her bathrobe. Because that is really relevant and classy to report on. But not to worry, O'Reilly fans--you are still heartily encouraged to believe it is evidence of an evil liberal media bias that other news channels had the audacity to report on the evidence of Palin's glaring inadequacy before the election. I dearly hope Palin doesn't show up again in four years.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 9, 2008 1:48:04 GMT -5
I dearly hope Palin doesn't show up again in four years. well, who knows...maybe there'll be a moose-hunting accident and it won't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Nov 9, 2008 3:24:58 GMT -5
A lot of those rumors were proven to be just bold faced lies. The person she supposedly answered the door in a towel to stated for the record she never answered the door in a towel and was always dressed appropriately.
I don't see how you can compare acting and behaving like a normal female to a negative black stereotype.
Are you saying if she acted more like a man she would have done much better and would have only had to put up with the ball breaking negative female stereotype?
Are female traits and behaviours somehow defective and less than how a man normally behaves?
It seems that is what you are implying.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 10:42:42 GMT -5
Hey, that's the same video I linked.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 10:44:28 GMT -5
A lot of those rumors were proven to be just bold faced lies. The person she supposedly answered the door in a towel to stated for the record she never answered the door in a towel and was always dressed appropriately. That's the problem with these annonymous cowardly sources. You don't know who to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 15:44:53 GMT -5
Jessica Wabbit -------------------- A lot of those rumors were proven to be just bold faced lies. The person she supposedly answered the door in a towel to stated for the record she never answered the door in a towel and was always dressed appropriately. You can thank Bill O'Reilly for publicizing that. I mentioned it only to illustrate O'Reilly's amazing turnaround from defending Palin at every turn when it looked likely to help the Republicans get elected, to slandering her personally when it became politically expedient to find a scapegoat. Whether she answered the door in a towel or not is really something I don't care about or need to know. Jessica Wabbit ----------------- I don't see how you can compare acting and behaving like a normal female to a negative black stereotype. You're saying that playing on her good looks and acting like an airhead are "normal female" behavior? I would absolutely hope not; I know enough bright, capable women (many of whom also happen to be very beautiful!) that I really don't think Palin is representative, thank god. Even when she did know the answer to a question, her responses were word salads more treacherous than a George Bushism. I would be willing to bet that you don't get by on your looks, Ms. Wabbit; you are a competent professional who proves your worth with actions. No? Jessica Wabbit ----------------- Are you saying if she acted more like a man she would have done much better and would have only had to put up with the ball breaking negative female stereotype? More like a man?? Do you consider competence and effectiveness to be "manly?" I heartily disagree. Women like Clinton get slammed for being too "manly" when they dare to rely on their own strengths and smarts, and that is the problem. Being good at what you do and unafraid to show it is not exclusive to one sex, and should not be considered so. And any woman that wants to compete with the guys had better be good at what they do, since the whole "women's lib" thing hinges on the idea that a woman can do just as well as a man. Palin was not able to do just as well as her male counterparts (even Bush, which is kind of scary). She severely limited the press's access to her, vomited up talking points whenever she did go on the record, and derided any question she could not answer as "gotcha" journalism. On a conservative radio show, she unbelievably said that it could be considered a violation of the First Amendment for the press to call her campaigning "negative" and to criticize her remarks. This is a woman who is being held up as a model female politician? I reject that. Compare her with Clinton, who was able to stand up with her contemporaries and talk intelligently about the state of the nation and the world. There is no way Clinton would ever have wildly misinterpreted the First Amendment, or choked on a weird rant about "job creation" and health care when asked about the purpose of the Wall Street bailout. Clinton represents a woman who knows she is "as good as" the men as a stand-alone person. Palin represents a woman who believes men have brains and women have folksy female intuition, and who derive all their worth from their ability to raise a family. ...Which is perfectly ok; it is totally worthwhile to devote oneself to being a Mother who uses her intuition to decide how to best bring up her kids. BUT, motherliness is not a stand-alone qualifications for being a physicist, a computer programmer, a lawyer, a politician, or next in line to the office of the presidency. You need to have the brains and know-how of your male counterparts. "Famaleness" is not a handicap, and should not be tolerated as an excuse. Either you can meet the demands of the job, or you can't. Period. Jessica Wabbit ---------------- Are female traits and behaviours somehow defective and less than how a man normally behaves? Again, if you think it is normal female behavior to eschew education and competence and rely on a pretty face and a coy wink... I can't help you out here.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 15:55:58 GMT -5
Naptaq ---------------- Hey, that's the same video I linked. Sorry, I didn't see it; but then I rarely click on your links, lol. So you noticed that O'Reilly defended Palin before the election, and after the election willingly aired nasty rumors about her with little more than a shrug? You noticed that he's now telling his viewers that Palin is a dumb hillbilly who failed the Couric interview, BUT that it is evidence of a nasty liberal bias for other stations to have reported on it before he did? No wonder you don't know what to believe anymore...
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 16:20:19 GMT -5
So you noticed that O'Reilly defended Palin before the election, and after the election willingly aired nasty rumors about her with little more than a shrug? Yes. And to correct you: In the clip he defended Ms. Palin. No he didn't say she was dumb. I don't believe she is, because to be a governer, or to be even elected governer, requires a certian level of intelligence. The sexist stuff and the "it ain't really her baby" kinda thing was a fairly obvious bias by some far-left outlets. We'll see what happens next week.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 17:44:50 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- Yes. And to correct you: In the clip he defended Ms. Palin. Lol, not really. The best he said about her was that "the woman's not dumb" to the extent that her handlers could not teach her that Africa was a continent, and that the talk about her outrageously expensive family wardrobe (I think was the reference) "sounded like nitpicking." Also keep in mind that the reporter guy is in O'Reilly's service. Everything he said was cleared with the Big Boss in advance, and that includes the "she answered the door wrapped in a towel" story, which was not newsworthy except as a means to embarrass Palin, and which O'Reilly reported without comment. Naptaq -------------- No he didn't say she was dumb. I should not have said "dumb." He implied that she was very ignorant of the world. Naptaq -------------- I don't believe she is, because to be a governer, or to be even elected governer, requires a certian level of intelligence. Elected office is by definition a popularity contest. You don't have to be anything but popular to become a governor; or president, for that matter. You have to use circular logic to conclude that being an elected official means a person must be intelligent; it's another unfalsifiable claim. No matter how many examples might be presented to you as evidence of a not-very-smart official, you can just say, "well, they MUST be pretty smart, because their position requires a certain level of intelligence." You could never be proven wrong even if every elected official were clinically retarded. Naptaq --------------- The sexist stuff and the "it ain't really her baby" kinda thing was a fairly obvious bias by some far-left outlets. Bullshit misdirection. That was reported virtually exclusively by left wing bloggers, which includes the popular but non-mainstream blog the Daily Kos. They were not major media outlets. And if you want to bring partisan opinion blogs into this, you will go down in flames, because there are innumerable right wing blogs out there that say insane things every day, and the left just ignores them. Also, the rumors were stupid; they weren't sexist. Just like shrieking about Obama "palling around" with a terrorist was stupid, not racist. On the actual sexist front, pleeenty of right wingers showed their own sexism when they complained that the press should not question Palin's credentials because as a woman, she was owed respect. Whaaa..? Male politicians get torn apart in the press every day, but no one ever worries that they can't handle it, or claims that they deserve "deference" before they can hold a press conference, because they are big strong men who can defend themselves even against "unfair" questions. They treated Palin like a "delicate flower," as evil liberal MSNBC anchor Campbell Brown rightly put it. It was a blatantly sexist presentation by the right wing. Some left-wingers brought up the sexist argument that Palin ought to have been dealing with her infant son and her family rather than running for office, but it was a fringe argument from the start, and no respectable news source aired it. MOREOVER, in the clip I posted (and yours, if it is the same), O'Reilly specifically refers to other news outlets' reporting of Palin's disastrous Couric interviews as, I think "snarky" was the word he used, while almost in the same breath saying that Palin DID in fact blow the interview, and she knew it, and her handlers knew it, and it was predictably bad because she didn't prep ahead of time, and the campaign didn't think Couric's questions were "gotcha," either. So, how was it snarky for other news stations to report the interview as a failure when O'Reilly is now admitting that Palin did screw up the interview for one reason or another? Well, it just is, because the completely unbiased O'Reilly decrees it is so! Defending an opinion with actual examples and analysis is for liberal pinheads. Naptaq ---------------- We'll see what happens next week.
By then perhaps O'Reilly will have clearly articulated your new opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 17:57:25 GMT -5
By then perhaps O'Reilly will have clearly articulated your new opinion. I meant by then she'll (maybe) go on The Factor, as I said in my first post of this thread. Well the bickering in the McCain campaign is a legit story so he let the man report what those rumors were without comment. Nothing wrong there - let the people make up their own mind. Besides it's a developing story, so most of the facts are not in yet. If he were to supress the news he would be the right wing version of MSNBC.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 18:32:29 GMT -5
Naptaq --------------- I meant by then she'll (maybe) go on The Factor, as I said in my first post of this thread. And O'Reilly will tell you what to think about it. Right. Naptaq -------------- Well the bickering in the McCain campaign is a legit story so he let the man report what those rumors were without comment. Nothing wrong there - let the people make up their own mind. Besides it's a developing story, so most of the facts are not in yet. So it's "legit" to report on the bickering now, after it can't affect the election, but to report on it prior to the election is an evil, unfair, left wing liberal smear. Got it. Naptaq --------------- If he were to supress the news he would be the right wing version of MSNBC. You are really nuts. MSNBC is the liberal version of Fox, who set the original standard for partisan reporting. O'Reilly DOES actively suppress stories that go against his bias, at least as much as anyone else. This is another illogical circular argument from you: O'Reilly can't be biased because he's O'Reilly, and O'Reilly is not biased. But what did I expect? I'm arguing with the guy who thinks the reality of telepathic powers is being suppressed by a scientific conspiracy. This is a thought-provoking, if poorly written, evil left wing analysis of O'Reilly's reporting. I'm not so much interested in the guy's commentary, but he presents several enlightening O'Reilly quotes. For instance, O'Reilly's defense of Palin on Letterman after the Gibson interview: "The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? [...] I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha." The site then presents two examples of earlier interviews in which O'Reilly actually defined the Bush doctrine: "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists."
"They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen." He blatantly lied about not knowing the Bush Doctrine, in order to protect Sarah Palin. And let me guess: your response is going to involve a rant about Olbermann being the evil liberal anti-christ, with MSNBC as the leader of a fascist liberal cabal who may or not be allied with the Evil Scientist Telepathy-Deniers to warp reality and make O'Reilly look like a liar and a biased right-winger. Yeah, we know. So try to actually address the point this time.
|
|