Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
It is beyond sexist...it is an odd and irrelevant headline.
You can see the gold earrings in the video, but without the headline I doubt I would have paid attentiont to them. She does jerk her head a bit much, and that is distracting. That same message could easily have been said by Scott Brown.
When I clicked the headline to see the video, I assumed she'd be wearing some weird dangling balls that were bopping around distractingly. But she's wearing the most standardized, low-key stud earrings imaginable. It's like saying some male politician and his red tie are running for the Senate.
"It's like saying some male politician and his red tie are running for the Senate."Ha!I may be sexist, if the inverse of this applies to the POTUS position.During one of the R debates I did mention to someone that guys liked yellow and blue ties, instead of red.
Maybe they just don't like "her".
Well, she does have balls. That's been clear for a while.
Is she in training to out headshake Katherine Hepburn?
Inexplicably sexist...It may be a jejune thing to do, but I'm not convinced that commenting upon someone's jewelry or attire is ipso facto sexist. It could be, but not necessarily. Because, actually, I can envision a critic commenting upon a male politician's tie or whatever, and I very much doubt you'd ever call that sexist.
I'll say this: in that video she looks a lot younger than her age (62). But, maybe that's a sexist observation.
Perhaps they're a trademark?Gold ball earrings, not balls.
I don't see how it's sexist to note in the title she's wearing gold ball earrings.If it were a video of the late Ed Bradley interviewing the late George Carlin, both of whom regularly wore stud earrings, and the title was, "Ed Bradley and His Little Gold Earring Interviews George Carlin and His Little Gold Earring", while it would be a stupid title, I would not interpret it as an attempt to attack the masculinity of either man. But maybe others would, not sure.
She's hard to watch. Does she have Parkinson's disease?
It's like saying some male politician and his red tie are running for the Senate.Which would not be sexist.Sheesh.
I assumed with that headline and the source being BHTV that she had to be a Republican. Odd.
Typical liberal idiot. Doesn't get the cause and effect liberal policies have on the (and others) a favor with the taxpayer's money. It's a MA election so she will probably win and the MA idiot electorate will continue to bitch afterwards about government corruption never understanding thats the system the democrats have had in place since forever.
It could have only been more sexist if it had referred to her hair.
Elizabeth Warren is a democrat. She has been working for Barack Obama on economic issues. So frankly, her criticisms of Scott Brown are frankly a bit off base and I do not see why voters would pick her. But her earrings have nothing to do with it.
"It could have only been more sexist if it had referred to her hair."Is this like Althouse sussing out how BHO's hair color changes to bolster his material du jour?Seeeexxxxxiiiiisssttttt!
I suspect the Bloggingheads crowd is quite pleased with her, reflecting their ideals and all as she potentially exerts more political power for their cause.It's a compliment, and they don't mind sacrificing what many here would think is too much individual liberty, or as Ann may be suggesting, some sort of masculinity (or not really at all) with reverse discrimination.Now, they're probably ok with her as long as they get to keep coming up with theories and empirical data on Uncle Bob's message board proving that more justice, fairness and equality are just around the corner...or ought to be....with candidates like her.
Her earrings add as much to the campaign as she does. That's damning but not necessarily sexist.When I read the post title my first thought was, "and her little dog too?"
Blogginheads is doing her a favor by directing our attention to her ear lobes instead of her words.She flatters herself to think that her success in lobbying for the creation of a new and--at best--superfluous regulatory agency constitutes "fighting all my life for working families." Instead, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is just another way for idiot regulators to deter banks from lending to the very people it's supposed to help.The fact that she seems to think that powerful, sinister forces are aligned to prevent her from speaking truth to power is what's most disturbing.She's a narcissistic fool who thinks that a fucking law degree qualifies her to run society. Just like Obama.
Sexist - easy to assert, more difficult to intelligently explain why.
Warren is a socialist. Obama would sound just like Warren if he ever let the veil slip. Warren fervently & desperately believes all the smart Ivy elites could fix everything with more and more central planning.
"Her ideas are what ought to scare the hell out of prospective voters."Fuck yeah! Just imagine the temerity of that socialist beyotch...trying to hold the financial elites and their institutions to account, and wanting to protect working Americans from further depredations by these oligarch swine.Bravo to Ms. Warren! She's a rare person of plain-spoken integrity, and I applaud her intent even as I recognize she will be steamrollered by the gangsters of Wall Street arrayed against her.
I don't think it's intentionally sexist. Whoever Robert Wright has editing that site chooses a super-snarky, offensive headline for every video link. It's irritating and one of the reasons I only watch the diavlogs on the site--never use picks, never more video on the tips, and certainly not project apollo videos!
She's a rare person of plain-spoken integrity...Oh, that's a good one. The first thing an aspiring politician learns to say is, "I'm on your side." There's absolutely no integrity involved.
From the Daily Caller, 9/16/2011"Former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson has plenty to say about allegations made about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Joe McGinniss’ forthcoming book “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin.”In an interview on the radio show “Gridlock” on KWWN, ESPN’s Las Vegas affiliate, Tyson took a few shots at Palin, boasting about interracial sex and the allegation that Palin had an affair with former NBA star Glen Rice.“Glen Rice is a wonderful man,” Tyson said. “He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up … in there. Pushing her guts up in the back of her head!”Tyson went on to say that Rice was too “non-threatening.”“Glen Rice is a nice, mellow, docile man, non-threatening guy,” he said. “You want someone like Rodman — yeah baby! Let’s get that donkey in here now. [laughter] Just imagine Palin with a big old black stallion ripping. Yeehaw!”Daily CallerEarrings, huh?
"Almost any woman is trained from birth to know that those are earrings designed to blend into the background."But the thing is, they don't. Maybe they should, but they don't. They're catching the light in a way that I did actually find distracting. That left earring is by far the brightest object in the video. The way she has her head aimed (and the fact that she's got a little of the Obama jug-eared thing going on) means the earring is facing directly at the camera instead off to the side.Not that a headline like that should have been written, but I can see why the person who did it, against what should have been their better judgment, did it. Watching the video was like staring into a flashlight.
By the end of the video, did she finally shake the cooties out of her hair? Not meant to be sexist....just askin' 'cause baby there's a whole lotta shakin' going on, going on.
Warren's YouTube video here - comments are open!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx2H31ZgkIQAll that talk about middle class families - and the only villain she can find to pick on is big corporations. (Small bankrupt solar energy corporations are a bigger issue than GE.) Her little gold ball earrings have more substance than that speech.Let her have it!
It's like saying some male politician and his red tie are running for the Senate.And yet, on hearing this, I don't immediately think, "That's sexist!" It's almost like we're trained to be oversensitive over comments about womens' apparel. Do women get some sort of special privilege not to have irrelevant, superfluous remarks made about their appearance?I assume you're reading a patronizing tone into the remark? Why isn't there any discussion about whether the remark actually is sexist? I guess it's about jewelry and women, so ipso facto it's likely sexist.
"The real Elizabeth Warren merely wants to exert" stringent "bureaucratic control over financial institutions...."Fuck yeah! I'm all for government oversight and regulatory control over the financial institutions. That is exactly what we need.Strong government regs imposed on the financial institutions in the wake of the great depression of the 1930s reigned in reckless and criminal behavior of the great financial institutions and helped keep us from suffering another great depression (or frequent smaller depressions) for over a half century. Prior to such controls, periodic depressions had been a regular and frequent feature of American life.Of course, we see now the results of letting the financial institutions have their way...a return to economic instability, corruption and criminality as SOP by the financial instituitions, and threat of systemic collapse.
Robert Cook: Thank you for coming to the Dwight G Manning Gymnasium at the Louisa May Alcott Middle School and sharing your socialist ideas!
Before Elizabeth Warren announced her Senate campaign, she was within 9 points of Scott Brown. Granted, polling has it's limitations, especially this far out. Still, it carries sobering gravity for the Brown campaign and reflects a coming together of dynamics for the widely-respected, consumer advocate.Many political observers have edged towards stating the race is hers to lose. We aren't hedging our bets, she will beat Scott Brown. Here's why:http://democratdeal.blogspot.com/2011/09/lioness-in-senate-why-elizabeth-warren.html
A few thoughts:1.) Live by the sword, die by the sword. Beside the fact "that left earring is by far [being] the brightest object in the video," I think the same "soft-focus" technique used to make her look years younger also heightens the contrast of the reflection and washes out the texture of her earlob providing a flatter background that makes the gold earing balls stand out even more. 2.)Sure it's not just a parallel to Scott Brown's "barncoat" or his pick-up truck?3.) Warren wants us to think those "little gold balls" are really "big brass ones."
Post a Comment