|
Monday, 13 March 2017
quote [ Many of these men (and women, too) would never admit that their hatred of Clinton was linked to her gender. She’s untrustworthy, they said—more so than a candidate who openly, compulsively lies more than any other candidate in recent memory. She’s corrupt, she has baggage, she’s shrill, she’s cold. Clinton was far from a perfect candidate, and there were lots of level-headed reasons to disagree with her. But it’s hard to look at the surplus of pure contempt lobbed at her over the years and not attribute it at least partly to the fact that she’s a woman. ]
If you still don't see it, if you still think that gender was not a major factor, I'm afraid you're unable to see it, and that is genuinely frightening.
|
kylemcbitch said @ 10:17am GMT on 13th March
Sanders only won in caucus states. Caucuses are far less representative of the people than open primaries. Clinton won the open primaries...
That's just it, it's not a statement about Sanders losing, it's a statement on the activities of the DNC proper. You make the same mistake most people do: assuming people upset with a principal is actual upset with results.
You know who else has systems with many parties? The Philippines, It allowed for a vote split that left all the sane people arguing over many candidates, and allowed a minority of crazy people to elect Duterte.
Sure, but that's not exactly a response to the point. My point wasn't that there needs to be third parties, it's that because they are not viable in our system you are forced to make a choice between head and heart, and you can find fault with either. The point I was making is that blanket statements aren't wrong, Hillary Clinton lost because of sexism. I fundamentally believe that. The issue is because enough people were sexist to have an impact, painting everyone with that brush on the opposite side of you a failure to understand interpersonal nuance.
This is true. I base it on general pattern in society, proven studies of extreme bias, and my own lifetime experiences. While not everyone hated Clinton for being a powerful woman, lots of people did, and it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions. We are all more sexist than we like to admit, even progressive feminists can be sexist against women because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture.
You will find no major disagreement here. But I do have to point out the thing your fundamentally railing against you are guilty of yourself. "it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions" correct. However, this article is literally the same thing, it is making it easy for you to not have to justify possible nuance so that existing perception is upheld.
As long as we live in a sexist, racist society, which is our society summed up in a blanket statement, it will only ever be fixed for white men.
Okay. See, my goal in this life isn't to provide people a pathway to the abuse white men have dumped on them, even if they deserve it (and let be honest, a lot of them do.) It's to remove those abuses at all. To me, this system isn't "fixed" for white men, except in the projorative meaning of the term. If white men enjoy a system stacked in their favor, then the system is broken. I'd apply that same logic to any group you'd like to put in place of "white men" as well.
We don't live in a sexist and racist society. We live with sexists and racists who like ourselves, can have a say in law, order, and government in general. So long as we continue to misunderstand the issue like this, yeah, we are going to keep letting those sexists and racists run circles around us.
kylemcbitch said @ 10:18am GMT on 13th March
Sanders only won in caucus states. Caucuses are far less representative of the people than open primaries. Clinton won the open primaries...
That's just it, it's not a statement about Sanders losing, it's a statement on the activities of the DNC proper. You make the same mistake most people do: assuming people upset with a principle is actual upset with results.
You know who else has systems with many parties? The Philippines, It allowed for a vote split that left all the sane people arguing over many candidates, and allowed a minority of crazy people to elect Duterte.
Sure, but that's not exactly a response to the point. My point wasn't that there needs to be third parties, it's that because they are not viable in our system you are forced to make a choice between head and heart, and you can find fault with either. The point I was making is that blanket statements aren't wrong, Hillary Clinton lost because of sexism. I fundamentally believe that. The issue is because enough people were sexist to have an impact, painting everyone with that brush on the opposite side of you a failure to understand interpersonal nuance.
This is true. I base it on general pattern in society, proven studies of extreme bias, and my own lifetime experiences. While not everyone hated Clinton for being a powerful woman, lots of people did, and it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions. We are all more sexist than we like to admit, even progressive feminists can be sexist against women because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture.
You will find no major disagreement here. But I do have to point out the thing your fundamentally railing against you are guilty of yourself. "it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions" correct. However, this article is literally the same thing, it is making it easy for you to not have to justify possible nuance so that existing perception is upheld.
As long as we live in a sexist, racist society, which is our society summed up in a blanket statement, it will only ever be fixed for white men.
Okay. See, my goal in this life isn't to provide people a pathway to the abuse white men have dumped on them, even if they deserve it (and let be honest, a lot of them do.) It's to remove those abuses at all. To me, this system isn't "fixed" for white men, except in the projorative meaning of the term. If white men enjoy a system stacked in their favor, then the system is broken. I'd apply that same logic to any group you'd like to put in place of "white men" as well.
We don't live in a sexist and racist society. We live with sexists and racists who like ourselves, can have a say in law, order, and government in general. So long as we continue to misunderstand the issue like this, yeah, we are going to keep letting those sexists and racists run circles around us.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 10:17am GMT on 13th March
Sanders only won in caucus states. Caucuses are far less representative of the people than open primaries. Clinton won the open primaries...
That's just it, it's not a statement about Sanders losing, it's a statement on the activities of the DNC proper. You make the same mistake most people do: assuming people upset with a principle is actual upset with results.
You know who else has systems with many parties? The Philippines, It allowed for a vote split that left all the sane people arguing over many candidates, and allowed a minority of crazy people to elect Duterte.
Sure, but that's not exactly a response to the point. My point wasn't that there needs to be third parties, it's that because they are not viable in our system you are forced to make a choice between head and heart, and you can find fault with either. The point I was making is that blanket statements aren't wrong, Hillary Clinton lost because of sexism. I fundamentally believe that. The issue is because enough people were sexist to have an impact, painting everyone with that brush on the opposite side of you a failure to understand interpersonal nuance.
This is true. I base it on general pattern in society, proven studies of extreme bias, and my own lifetime experiences. While not everyone hated Clinton for being a powerful woman, lots of people did, and it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions. We are all more sexist than we like to admit, even progressive feminists can be sexist against women because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture.
You will find no major disagreement here. But I do have to point out the thing your fundamentally railing against you are guilty of yourself. "it certainly made it easy for lots more to just not like her and never need to justify why that was, never have to critically examine their own perceptions" correct. However, this article is literally the same thing, it is making it easy for you to not have to justify possible nuance so that existing perception is upheld.
As long as we live in a sexist, racist society, which is our society summed up in a blanket statement, it will only ever be fixed for white men.
Okay. See, my goal in this life isn't to provide people a pathway to the abuse white men have dumped on them, even if they deserve it (and let be honest, a lot of them do.) It's to remove those abuses at all. To me, this system isn't "fixed" for white men, except in the projorative meaning of the term. If white men enjoy a system stacked in their favor, then the system is broken. I'd apply that same logic to any group you'd like to put in place of "white men" as well.
We don't live in a sexist and racist society. We live with sexists and racists who like ourselves, can have a say in law, order, and government in general. So long as we continue to misunderstand the issue like this, yeah, we are going to keep letting those sexists and racists run circles around us.
