May 13, 2016

"This is one of the biggest campaign errors you will ever see. It is a Clinton tweet that accidentally looks pro-Trump."

Says Scott Adams, displaying this:



I'll womansplain: Look at that mean face! We, the women, using women's ways of knowing, know that the mean face means that when he says "as good a job," he means as judged by mean men like him who are systematically incapable of seeing what women do as equal and who have a big stake in believing that things are already equal because women are not equally good.

154 comments:

LYNNDH said...

I do hope that you are being sarcastic.

mccullough said...

Trump is too well known for ads like this to be effective. Hillary's campaign is going to have to make effective adjustments. Make America Fair Again ain't going to cut it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think Time to start believing Trump's rhetoric makes for a very pro-Trump ending. I understand the intent, but I don't think it works the way intended.

pm317 said...

You are all good enough!

AllenS said...

"She wants to play lumberjack, she's going to have to learn to handle her end of the log." --Harry Callahan

AprilApple said...

FU Hillary - You Crook. Anything you have to say never trumps your Crookedness.

tim in vermont said...

Althouse is right on this. Abstract logic is not the approach. Hillary is obviously sexist in her assumptions.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Hillary's campaign is going to have problems because the people who staff it are incapable of empathizing with Trump supporters.

Their indoctrination, excuse me I mean education, prevents it.

Look at what George Clooney said at Cannes.

"We aren't going to give in to fear of Muslims or immigrants."

George Clooney, who is a VIP at Cannes and owns a fabulous villa on Lake Cuomo in Italy wants you to know that we aren't going to give in to fear.

Who is this "we" you speak of George.

coupe said...

Fox has a story on Clinton, who as Secretary of State had to receive a secure message. She became frustrated over the process, and ordered her staff to declassify it by removing the markings and send it to her in the clear.

Do we really want this type of person (easily frustrated by technology) leading our Country, and the capability of ordering WMD attacks on other nations?

Is frustration with technology compatible with being a President of a nuclear power?

Hagar said...

It is the skirts on the front desk, "answer the phone and do a little light typing" for $500/week that I wish something could be done for, but I suspect they will get precious little benefit from whatever legislation the gentry elite is intending to enact.

EDH said...

I'll womansplain: Look at that mean face!

Proving it's subliminal to women, even Althouse, so it's working:

Notice in that lower left close-up of the "Trump-pout": the Donald's chin forms a raised triangular shape of a vaginal mons pubis.

Tank said...

Hagar said...

It is the skirts on the front desk, "answer the phone and do a little light typing" for $500/week that I wish something could be done for, but I suspect they will get precious little benefit from whatever legislation the gentry elite is intending to enact.


Don't forget they are going to get the benefit of bathroom penis diversity.

Jane the Actuary said...

I think we're meant to take offense to this because we're supposed to read this as "men can be slackers and still be paid well, but not women."

Maybe?

tim maguire said...

That's a fine womansplanation, professor. What sort of women do you think might be swayed by that? Women who are not already in Hillary's camp, that is.

Ann Althouse said...

The question is how the Tweet works. Adams is always talking about persuasive power and how the human mind reacts to stimuli (not about the literal meaning of statements).

In that view, I am properly explaining what the persuasive power us supposed to be.

The question is how it works. It doesn't matter how it feels to people who are never going to vote for Hillary anyway. What matters is that it persuade some who can be persuaded and invigorates those who are inclined to support her.

She especially needs to win back those who've gone gaga for Bernie, and on them, I think it could be effective.

Brando said...

Best hope for Trump is the sheer ineptitude of the Clintons and their allies when it comes to campaigning.

Rick said...

We can agree it's a dog whistle to extremists, but how does this conflict with the assertion it's an ineffective ad?

Kevin said...

At yet at Clinton's own foundation women are paid 38% less. It would seem to undercut her credibility on the issue, no?

http://nypost.com/2016/04/13/why-hillary-never-makes-equal-pay-day-pay-off/

Ann Althouse said...

It's a wedge.

mockturtle said...

That really sums it up about Hillary. It amazes me that, with the amount of money her campaign is spending, the results are so pathetic.

CStanley said...

Having to womansplain an ad is a lot like having to explain a joke.

Darrell said...

Hillary knows that if she were paid for doing a good job she wouldn't be able to buy hamburger meat.

Dan Hossley said...

Can there be that many women walking about with a victim mentality to make a difference in the general election?

Fernandinande said...

Billary refers to those naughty white men: "The average American woman working full time makes 79 percent of what men are paid. Women of color earn even less: Black women make 60 percent of what white men make, and Latinas earn just 55 percent. And despite what Trump would have you believe, it’s not because they aren’t working hard."

Billary doesn't say: "Asian-Americans Lead All Others in Household Income"

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: She especially needs to win back those who've gone gaga for Bernie, and on them, I think it could be effective.

I'm calling bullshit on that. Specifically, young women -- one of the key cohorts lost to Bernie -- already know that older women are in positions of power and "judge" them daily. These older women -- Hillary types -- are managers and professors. Young women don't daily come in contact with "Donald Trumps" -- except in their fantasies.

Quaestor said...

I'll womansplain...

Do trans-gals womansplain or mansplain? Or do they transplain?

Transplain... Hmmmm. I like that. Sounds creditable, doesn't it? Like it might actually be something. Like something related to the physics of a distant future...

Cap'n! I canna give ye Warp 7 or even Warp 1! The transplainer is malfunctioning again! Best ask the Klingons for terms...

tim in vermont said...

I know a few millennial Bernie fans. This ain't gonna do it. Though not surprised that it worked on Althouse, but if Hillary is worried about old feminists... fill in the blank.

chickelit said...

mockturtle said...It amazes me that, with the amount of money her campaign is spending, the results are so pathetic.

The gold standard for that folly is JEB! Has Hilary exceeded that yet? If so, Trump will remind us soon.

damikesc said...

"We aren't going to give in to fear of Muslims or immigrants."

George Clooney, who is a VIP at Cannes and owns a fabulous villa on Lake Cuomo in Italy wants you to know that we aren't going to give in to fear.


Nah, he's right. He won't be afraid of them.

Now Americans he doesn't agree with --- THEY are terrifying folks.

Trump can CONSTANTLY note how he promotes women to management in his companies while Hillary pays women WAY less than she pays men at the Foundation carrying her name and in her own staff.

rhhardin said...

New Yorker cartoon, long ago, wife to husband : "Now, don't try to reason with me."

Wayne Booth took it as a title for one of his books.

tim in vermont said...

Let millions in who don't speak the language and have few skills then bitch about their low pay because racism. Let's not talk about how their arrival affected the existing workers because racism!

Todd said...

That tweet (with the womansplain) is rich coming from Hillary since she does not pay the women that work for her as much as she pays her "men"...

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

EDH said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's a wedge.

A "wedge" tissue? "The rounded mass of fatty tissue lying over the joint of the pubic bones, in women typically more prominent and also called the mons veneris."

exhelodrvr1 said...

Hillary is telling women to be afraid of someone who will give them equal pay for equal work.

So the feminists who are interested in power rather than equal treatment, will like that ad. But women who are suspicious of Hillary, and on the fence from an issues-perspective, will not like that ad.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, could you womansplain that again to me? This time without all the cant and with a substantially lower b*ll***t content.

Fernandinande said...

Kevin said...
At yet at Clinton's own foundation women are paid 38% less.


Close: men earn 38% more = women earn 28% less.

Compared to non-Hispanic white men, Indian[dot] American women actually earn more on average, and Chinese American women earn about the same.

Billary's attempted logic would be:
"The reasons are complex: A sizeable portion of the wage gap is due to persistent discrimination—and simply cannot be explained by factors like education, experience or occupation. Many white men are also subject to discriminatory and outdated workplace policies and held back by gender norms that influence what they study, what they are paid, or what opportunities are open to them.

We should be fighting to close the wage gap—not blaming white men for it."

M. Simon said...

No man can ever judge a woman. There for a woman with a male boss should get infinite pay. Because WOMEN!

I dunno Ann. If women are being cheated so badly why don't they start their own companies and hire women exclusively? Sounds like an opportunity to me. If I believed that.

Rick said...

Ann Althouse said...
It's a wedge.


It's a wedge between a few extremists clinging to a decades-old cliche and Trump at the cost of announcing her vision is a decades-old cliche. And since this plays right into what people already think of Hillary - she's a dinosaur fighting a battle over so long they have to lie (77 cents on the dollar) to pretend it's still going on - this is going to stick to her.

She's looking more like Bob Dole every day.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Dan Hossley said...

Can there be that many women walking about with a victim mentality to make a difference in the general election?

Walking around? No. Sitting out the couch, watching soaps?...

chickelit said...

She's looking more like Bob Dole every day.

Don't forget the ED association.

Speaking of cherish, here's a free association from 1966.

MJ said...

If you have to explain a TWEET...it's not effective by definition.

That leaves you with the take home message..."time to start believing Trump's rhetoric".

I think Scott is right on this one.

AprilApple said...

Hillary will get the frumpy prog-lady vote. These prog-ladies are not concerned about optics. They drink the kool-aid. They may not be in love, but they fall in line every time. Do these frumpy prog-ladies have influence over their younger fem-proglings? I'm not sure.

chickelit said...

Do these frumpy prog-ladies have influence over their younger fem-proglings? I'm not sure.

I'm petty sure they don't.

DanTheMan said...

Of course Clooney is not afraid of Muslims. He doesn't fly commercial.

Quaestor said...

She especially needs to win back those who've gone gaga for Bernie, and on them, I think it could be effective.

I doubt the "gaga for Sanders" crowd are going to be won back by any kind of ideological ploy, however half-assed. They hate her because she has Clintonian ethics. (Has them? Hell, she invented them.) Hillary has been pushing all the same SJW buttons Sanders has, but they have availed her but little.

Sanders has authenticity, which to the post-post-modernist mind is better than competence or a command of the facts (facts being the Enemy Incarnate). The important thing about Sanders to his supporters is he believes his own bullshit. Hillary is also a bullshitter, but she's a remarkably incompetent one. Everything she says is calculated to obfuscate, but everybody knows their being conned. Sander's rhetoric is unpolished. His hair isn't combed, or dyed. His suits are Mens Warehouse trash. AND THEY LOVE HIM FOR IT.

In contrast Hillary is blonder now than when she wore ugly sandals at Wellesley. She has a small army of Asian tailors busy sewing pantsuits for her with no colors found in nature. And her posed pictures have a "say cheese and have a snort of coke" non-spontaneity that's truly alarming, like she needs regular visits to a regeneration station in order to remain in human form. Take a look at the Official Portrait. Is that an alien replicant or what? You'd have to be an idiot not to go outside and check if that face said the sky is blue.

Zach said...

I get where the woman-splain is coming from, but I wonder if Hillary isn't assuming the sale here. The tweet only really works if you're already so anti-Trump that you take the worst possible reading of the sentence for granted. The scary pictures aren't even that scary.

There's value in keeping your partisans hyped up about an election, but this seems more like ineffectual sparring than a real body blow.

James L. Salmon said...

Donald Trump should retweet this with the comment, "I'm Donald J. Trump and I approve this message."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Take a look at the Official Portrait. Is that an alien replicant or what?

Looking at that portrait makes me want to rethink my position on the Reptoid Conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

Its like they used toothpicks to prop the corners of her mouth up to simulate a smile.

Zach said...

There are many, many reasons not to vote for Trump, but there's also a danger of getting buck fever and shooting at the herd rather than one deer. Trying to respond to every stupid thing he says disrupts the message and dilutes the best arguments.

Hillary also has many negatives, but "Crooked Hillary" is something you can go back to over and over again.

eric said...

It's going to be a fun election cycle.

Not so sure it'll be a fun ending though.

Curious George said...

"damikesc said...
Trump can CONSTANTLY note how he promotes women to management in his companies while Hillary pays women WAY less than she pays men at the Foundation carrying her name and in her own staff."

I'll bet there are a lot of stories like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY&feature=youtu.be

traditionalguy said...

War on men whose persona says they are in authority.

That works on American women, but does not work on Hispanic women.

Quaestor said...

The Nightmare has already begun.

damikesc said...

I dunno Ann. If women are being cheated so badly why don't they start their own companies and hire women exclusively? Sounds like an opportunity to me. If I believed that.

I've asked feminists (including my mom) that question before.

"If women are paid less than men, why do men have jobs at all? Why wouldn't a company hire only women and get a significant advantage over competitors?"

We can also ask why "transgenders" tend to be male-to-female so commonly if men have all of the perks.

chickelit said...

@Quaestor: Who knew Cronkite was into burlesque?!

John Althouse Cohen said...

Look at that mean face!

"Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?"

Big Mike said...

@eric, the 2016 election reminds me of the verse from Simon & Garfunkel: "Any way you look at it, you lose.

Kate said...

I agree with the womansplain, and for another man this tweet might work. But the "judgment" face from Trump is one we've seen before: "You're fired." And he uses it for men and women, and often with a dose of humor. The collage makes me chuckle.

chickelit said...

@JAC: Candidates mock each others' appearances. Even Hillary does it.

Big Mike said...

@damikesc, it does explain why Carly Fiorina is less popular than she by rights ought to be. Carly proves that a woman with enough talent and work ethic can get to the very top, and can even take on a guy whose family name is on the building and win. Women coming back from their two-hour lunches and complaining about how unfair their bosses are for not promoting them over somebody -- male or female -- who actually gets work done just doesn't get it in their book.

chickelit said...

Come to think of it, of the three major candidates still in the race, only Bernie Sanders has been a grown up about physical mocking.

Hagar said...

Tank, my point is that in many of the small businesses around the country, the "skirt on the front desk" is the one who keeps the place going. She is the one who knows who is who and what is what and where everything is and what should be done about it, while the owner and titular boss has not done any real work for 20-30 years and is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is, but does not know it.

Birkel said...

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hillary+clinton&view=detailv2&&id=276DDAD9DCC95D7A893468F6817CAB2C6F4CDB2C&selectedIndex=151&ccid=nvldzEaU&simid=608025077837269352&thid=OIP.M9ef95dcc4694f4f10ac0d051d1d46b8fo1&ajaxhist=0

So, uh, maybe Clinton might be careful about face comments.

Quaestor said...

There's a wonderful little sleeper of a dystopian fantasy film by Terry Gilliam called Brazil.

Take a look at this Hillary pic from years back And then compare it to this.

Todd said...

Hagar said...
Tank, my point is that in many of the small businesses around the country, the "skirt on the front desk" is the one who keeps the place going. She is the one who knows who is who and what is what and where everything is and what should be done about it, while the owner and titular boss has not done any real work for 20-30 years and is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is, but does not know it.

5/13/16, 11:35 AM


Really? How many small businesses have you worked in or started? What you are saying is much more relevant to big businesses where the President has NO CLUE about the day-to-day as they are working on the big picture. The current small business I work for (~11 employees) still involves the owner to a very high degree. He has been in his business for over 20 years and has forgotten more than the rest of us will be able to learn. I have other friends that currently run small businesses and it is true for them as well, all heavily involved in the details. Hell it is THEIR money on the line. Not shareholders.

Yes, the "front office lady" knows much but if she knew as much as the owner, why is she working for him?

retail lawyer said...

So, it appears that a "Women's way of knowing" is different from a man's way of knowing. I did not know this. What if it results in knowing different stuff and not knowing some stuff? Maybe this is why women vote differently from men.

Achilles said...

Dear Miss(Mrs?) Hillary Clinton,

Please please please stay in the race. Do not listen to those horrible men counseling you that you are going to get destroyed in the general. You can totally beat Donald Trump. All the way to November! For the Vagina!

P.S. I know you are thinking of offing your husband. God will remember.

Yancey Ward said...

If you have to explain it, it isn't effective. Adams is right about the tweet- it is more likely to appear to be pro-Trump to the average reader and viewer. The only types of people who are going to look at that tweet and say, "Right on, Sister Clinton," are people who are already in Clinton's camp, and the mildly to severely autistic.

EMD said...

I've heard of Bernie Bros.

You mean there are Bernie Hos?

Ken B said...

Althouse in NOT being sarcastic. She is speaking imputatively. She is gracing her imputation with a touch of irony but her point is that many people *really do think this way* and will *really truly think* Trump is being misogynist. Of those many are Sanders supporters whose votes she needs.

Adams has fallen into the trap of thinking words mean what they mean.

Brando said...

"If women are paid less than men, why do men have jobs at all? Why wouldn't a company hire only women and get a significant advantage over competitors?"

Exactly--it shows that clearly something else is at play than companies just giving women a raw deal. Maybe some feminists (in keeping with "victim philosophy") think it's because men hold all the power and are enforcing widespread discrimination so women never have this chance to compete, but that's not convincing in this day and age. Someone would have cracked this code and gotten ahead by hiring women exclusively.

There basically is no gender gap when you actually compare apples to apples in the job market. The actual gap is between those who have traded down jobwise for the sake of more flexible schedules and those who have not.

exhelodrvr1 said...

retail lawyer:

You're absolutely right!! Women know better!!

Brando said...

The more I see of Hillary's campaign the more I think I may need to reassess my belief that Hillary has a solid (but not overwhelming) edge in this election. Despite normal Democratic advantages and Trump's mistakes, she is running a very tired campaign and not doing it well at all. She may very well lose this thing, which would make her husband's efforts to get Trump into the race all the more deliciously ironic.

It's as though her team dusted off the Obama campaign book from 2012, then translated it into Japanese and back into English again, and then to top it off asked a friendly chimp to put it into play for them.

Todd said...

Brando said...

There basically is no gender gap when you actually compare apples to apples in the job market. The actual gap is between those who have traded down jobwise for the sake of more flexible schedules and those who have not.

5/13/16, 12:36 PM


In fact, even women owned businesses are not 100% woman staffed. It MUST be a sinister plot by the Patriarchy(!). NO ONE EXPECTS THE PATRIARCHY!

Sebastian said...

"I'll womansplain: Look at that mean face! We, the women, using women's ways of knowing" Step in there right direction but doesn't go far enough. The proper feminist line is: if women do "as good a job," they deserve more. It's harder for a woman to do as good a job, with the second shift and the glass ceiling and underrepresentation and stereotyping and millennia of being the second sex and all, so "as good a job" is actually a better job, therefore deserving of higher rewards.

Brando said...

"Trump can CONSTANTLY note how he promotes women to management in his companies while Hillary pays women WAY less than she pays men at the Foundation carrying her name and in her own staff."

There's that, but it's also important to make the policy argument. A good response on this gender gap crap is "Hillary bemoans the pay gap, as if she is unaware it is already against the law to discriminate against women in employment. But the real reason for the gap is working mothers having to tradeoff family obligations with work obligations. Hillary offers complaints and no real solutions. Instead, I'd rather incentivize companies to expand flexible schedules and telework, and fix our regulatory climate so women--and men!--can more easily work for themselves on their own time and have more choices to improve their incomes."

It's what Romney might have used if he didn't get caught talking about the binders thing.

John said...

Are there still people in America so stupid that they believe the "Women earn 76 cents on the male dollar" means that women are discriminated against in the workplace?

It only takes about 30 seconds of thought to figure out that the statement makes no sense whatsoever on its face.

Yes, women do make 76 cents on the dollar but discrimination has nothing at all to do with it.

To paraphrase the Harry Callahan quote: when a woman can handle her end of the log she will make the same as the guy handling the other end does.

If you have 1 fireman on the front of a stretcher but need 2 firewomen on the other end, who in their rational mind would think that the 2 women should each get paid the same as the man?

Brando said...

"Do these frumpy prog-ladies have influence over their younger fem-proglings? I'm not sure."

Judging from the millennial women flocking to the Bern (and let's go on a limb here and say it's not because of Sanders' sex appeal) I'd say the frumpsters' influence on them is nil. That group may still fall into the Hillary camp, but it'd be by default.

Hagar said...

Because of the "den mother instinct" or something like that, I guess.

And, since consulting engineers generally are small businesses, I have seen that from the inside, and years ago when I worked for a general contractor, from the outside. There was many a small subcontractor or supplier that we wished the boss was out when we called with a question. The "secretary" would know us and tell us or find out and call back without further ado, while the boss would try to be vague and shrewd and pump us for information that we were not about to give the old gossiper and generally just wasting our time before he would ask the secretary what the answer to our question was and relay it to us.

Dan Hossley said...

Her tag line is telling. "Time to start believing his rhetoric". Doesn't that imply that you shouldn't believe a candidates rhetoric, because they just say things to get elected.

She's telling us her frame of reference and that's her problem. She's not trustworthy because her statements can't be taken at face value.

Like the "hot sauce in her purse" when she's talking to black people. (That statement was so wrong in so many levels, the most obvious is that she doesn't carry a purse).

Like the "we're going to put the coal mines out of business" when she's talking to the greenies.



Brando said...

"Are there still people in America so stupid that they believe the "Women earn 76 cents on the male dollar" means that women are discriminated against in the workplace?"

Sadly there are--remember in 2012 when asked about the gender wage gap, Obama's answer was the "Lilly Ledbetter law" (basically extending the statute of limitations for sex discrimination suits) which should have had him laughed out of the arena. But instead, all people could talk about was Romney's answer (the "binders full of women") which, his misspeak aside, wasn't really a policy answer either (but rather a statement that he personally was a good guy and wanted to hire women--not stating what he would do as president).

The gap has everything to do with choices women make in terms of jobs they take.

campy said...

...who in their rational mind would think that the 2 women should each get paid the same as the man?"?

Do you know how tiny a voting bloc "people in their rational minds" is?

dbp said...

The art of a successful nationwide campaign is to let zealots know that you are one of them without mainstream people thinking you are a zealot too.

As a man, I will take Althouse's womansplaining at face value and assume it is correct:

"I'll womansplain: Look at that mean face! We, the women, using women's ways of knowing, know that the mean face means that when he says "as good a job," he means as judged by mean men like him who are systematically incapable of seeing what women do as equal and who have a big stake in believing that things are already equal because women are not equally good."

Okay, this succeeds at encouraging hardcore feminists who believe women are systematicaly paid less for the same work--never mind that when you control for hours worked, education, experience and occupation, almost all of the pay difference vanishes.

But how is this not utterly alienating for any man? Why would any man vote for a woman who believes that no man can be trusted to be fair to women? It is sure bet she will not be fair to men.

damikesc said...

It's as though her team dusted off the Obama campaign book from 2012, then translated it into Japanese and back into English again

You're giving me flashbacks of the best episode of Newsradio ever.

It's what Romney might have used if he didn't get caught talking about the binders thing.

Not going to lie....to this day, I still don't get why what he said was bad. He wanted to hire a woman and was given numerous names of "qualified" women. Why did the press act like it was a "gotcha" moment? I never got the logic.

Not saying you felt it was a gotcha thing either, Brando, just you're a smart guy and might be able to explain something that I've never seen a good explanation for.

walter said...

This won't make sense unless the viewer takes the repeated claims of "pay gap" at face value. The facial expressions of the man are there to suggest denial.

Sebastian said...

"If you have 1 fireman on the front of a stretcher but need 2 firewomen on the other end, who in their rational mind would think that the 2 women should each get paid the same as the man?" You are way behind. See Wimbledon: men play 5 sets, women 3, get equal pay, because equality. That's what "as good a job" means to feminists.

YoungHegelian said...

Adams thinks this is a pro-Trump tweet. This is nothing compared to the anvil the Obama administration dropped on the Hillary campaign with that "transgender bathroom business" from the Obama Dept. of Education.

Just think of how much fun Trump with have with that ruling at his rallies, not to mention the debates! It oughtta be on pay-per-view!

You know who that ruling affects the worst? Women, and Hillary's stuck defending it.

Some days I really wonder just whose side the Obama administration is on. Then I remember the lefty tendency to politically overreach, & I know that the harpies at DoE are really just trying to help.

madAsHell said...

she needs regular visits to a regeneration station in order to remain in human form.

The Invaders. A Quinn Martin production. I loved that show!!

damikesc said...

"If you have 1 fireman on the front of a stretcher but need 2 firewomen on the other end, who in their rational mind would think that the 2 women should each get paid the same as the man?" You are way behind. See Wimbledon: men play 5 sets, women 3, get equal pay, because equality. That's what "as good a job" means to feminists.

Or soccer, where the Women's World Cup generates far smaller audiences, which makes them way less valuable to advertisers, but they demand equal pay as the men. As somebody said, if the men's World Cup pulled the same numbers as the Women's, FIFA would be scared to death.

Todd said...

G...
Yes, the "front office lady" knows much but if she knew as much as the owner, why is she working for him?
----------

Because his dad gave the business to his son, not to his secretary.

5/13/16, 1:26 PM<

So you are of the opinion that women are incapable of starting their own businesses? That they need to have businesses given to them by men? How "liberated" of you...

Zach said...

It's what Romney might have used if he didn't get caught talking about the binders thing.

Not going to lie....to this day, I still don't get why what he said was bad. He wanted to hire a woman and was given numerous names of "qualified" women. Why did the press act like it was a "gotcha" moment? I never got the logic.


The context was that Obama got waxed in the first debate that year, and the only thing to seize on with Romney was a minor verbal flub. If "Binders full of women" is all you have, "binders full of women" is what you go with.

Going from Romney to Trump reminds me of that saying "I cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man with no feet."

We never knew how good we had it.

Hagar said...

I have heard a few of these ladies say that they just could not find it in their conscience to leave these doofuses to fend for themselves. Besides, think of the other employees; they are such nice people, and who would take care of them if they leave?

Todd said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fernandinande said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brando said...

"You're giving me flashbacks of the best episode of Newsradio ever."

That was a hilarious scene.

"Not going to lie....to this day, I still don't get why what he said was bad. He wanted to hire a woman and was given numerous names of "qualified" women. Why did the press act like it was a "gotcha" moment? I never got the logic."

The content of the response was fine--he was pointing out that he personally goes out of his way to find qualified women. Of course, the snarky leftists made their hay out of his misspeaking ("binders full of women" rather than "binders full of women's resumes", as if he really meant the women were in the binders).

But I think he missed a chance to knock that one out of the park. Remember, Obama's answer was weak--the Lilly Ledbetter thing--and Romney could have pounced ("Obama loves trial lawyers, we know this...after all, it has long been against the law to discriminate on gender in the workplace, and a Con Law professor should know this...") and pointed out that Obama was just mouthing usual boilerplate. Then Romney could have expanded on a point he only touched on--that flexible schedules and telework would do far more to erase the gender gap, because women could find more valuable work that could fit into family schedules (men could too). He could point out that as a businessman, he understands how those needs could be met, and what business owners require and how best to incentivize them to make these changes, which would do far more for the gender gap (which is really a "family" gap) than some sop to trial lawyers.

To me, if that argument was made clearly right there, it would have been a good theme for the campaign--Obama with old, special interest ideas and we need a businessman pragmatist who can cut to the heart of the issue.

Hagar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
johns said...

Well said, Brando, at 2:00. And Hagar, you say that bosses don't recognize the value of women in the workplace. Have you ever read the studies comparing how women like male bosses versus female bosses? Still think that women are the victims?

Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mary E. Glynn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Xmas said...

Jimmy James "Macho Business Donkey Wrestler".

In other Clinton news...Codename: Energizer!

tim in vermont said...

Read that link to ways of knowing. It would seem that more than half of women don't think, but rather repeat stuff they've been told, or don't think at all.

Barry Dauphin said...

If you need to explain why the ad is good, then it isn't good.

Rocketeer said...

For the 5,000th time:

If women really were taking 77% of the pay of men for the same work, no man would be employed.

tim in vermont said...

Rock, read the ways of knowing to see why that falls on deaf ears.

eric said...

This won't be a problem for much longer.

Any woman who thinks she isn't getting paid equivalent to a man can simply declare herself a man.

Any man who is out of a job because employers have to pay him more can simply declare himself a woman.

Oh, and I can't wait until the NBA and the WNBA are all played by people who were born male.

I mean, seriously, if I couldn't make in the NBA, I'd change my gender and go for the WNBA. Same with golf, soccer, tennis, etc.

Todd said...

Rocketeer said...
For the 5,000th time:

If women really were taking 77% of the pay of men for the same work, no man would be employed.

5/13/16, 2:32 PM

tim in vermont said...
Rock, read the ways of knowing to see why that falls on deaf ears.

5/13/16, 2:36 PM


What is funny about this is when you are face to face with someone that says that and you ask them why anyone would hire men if that were actually the case, they say PATRIARCHY!

If your follow-up question is why then are women owned businesses also not 100% women staffed? You will hear crickets...

To put the final nail in the coffin, point out that Hillary actually does pay her female staff less than she pays her male staff as do a number of other Democrat politicians.

The look on their faces is what happens when reality tries to chip through the wall!

clint said...

"Barry Dauphin said...
If you need to explain why the ad is good, then it isn't good.

5/13/16, 2:28 PM"

Not necessarily.

Assume that any ad that seems ridiculously lame or stupid is actually quite clever but targeted at an entirely different demographic.

Hagar said...

And Hagar, you say that bosses don't recognize the value of women in the workplace.
Have not said any such thing; I said that in many small businesses the "skirt on the front desk" actually is the central person in the business, but rarely is recognized as such and paid anywhere near what they are worth.
It is also difficult to speak of "victims" (does everything have to be about "victims" these days?) when many of these ladies would be very happy just get some appreciation and common courtesy.

And that is from what I have seen and heard with my own little blue eyes and pink ears.

Static Ping said...

What's that phrase about the dog whistle and the dog?

David said...

It's not a wedge. It's a wedgie. A woman wedgie, he worst kind.

Trump, by the way, is a pretty good wedge player for an non-professional golfer. And he wedges well as an unprofessional presidential candidate.

Trump has accurately calculated that very few people feel sympathy for Hillary. Even those who like her and will vote for her don't have a lot of sympathy for her as an individual. They sympathize with her woman-ness not her Hillary-ness.

Imagine being elected president when practically nobody likes you. It's gonna happen this year.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Besides which, all unions have the principle that all people in the same job category should get the same pay, and if there is any diffrerence, it should be based on seniority, or credentials, but not anyone's human judgement as to who is doing a better or a worse job.

The idea is that if bosses, or human resources departments, are free to rate anyone better or worse, they'll rate women lower, even though they are not really lower, as is proven by blind testing of musicians playing the violin.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias

And what the whole Lilly Ledbetter case was about was someone who was evaluated (actually because many years efore she worked at alower rate of pay, all the subsequent promotions and raises kept her being paid less than men)

People also rate a Stradivarius higher when it's the same as any good violin.

Even worse than people who neve heard of the idea of bias, are people so ignorant or based as to believe they are capable of fairly rating people, and Donald Trump is in this pigheaded category.

Hillary Clinton tweeted that because Donald Trump said (saying that if people do a better job they'll be paid more) is, to her followers, ipso facto nonsense - the kind of nonsense that they are fighting against.

harrogate said...

He's saying women get paid less because they're less productive .


Not a surprise that Adams thinks it makes Trump look good , to say that .


Whether the American people agree with Adams is a different question tho.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Zach said...5/13/16, 10:55 AM

Zach said...

I wonder if Hillary isn't assuming the sale here. The tweet only really works if you're already so anti-Trump that you take the worst possible reading of the sentence for granted.

She is. Who else is going to follow her tweets?

Then why do this at all?

The sale has NOT not been made, because what she is selling, or wants to get from them, is not their vote.

What she wants them to do is to give money to her. Again and again, so long as they haven't given $2,700 for the primary, and $2,700 in the general election, and double if you include a spouse as the giver.

Rick said...

harrogate said...
He's saying women get paid less because they're less productive .


In fact he is not. He's saying they're paid less in total because they do less in total. Productivity is doing less per unit of input. This restatement eliminates the explanation that women earn less because women work less, which we know is one of the two major reasons the so called wage gap exists (the other is the field of work or profession).

It's no wonder the left manages to find outage in everything since their practice is to misinterpret statements to exclude reasonable meanings. Since these misinterpretations never occur in reference to their own leaders it's obvious this inability to understand is driven by political bias, whether subconscious or not.

Whether the American people agree with Adams is a different question tho.

Americans who are smart enough to look past the propaganda agree, and the rest will vote Democrat. I think that says something about Democrats.

Andrew Pardue said...

Professor I think in the world of social media or especially twitter, if you have explain, womensplain, mansplain or splain in any way you have lost. This is an unforced error by Hillary point to Trump. Or more accurately a double fault on her serve.

Beach Brutus said...

"It's a wedge." ... based on and perpetuating a fallacy ... a known fallacy ... one that has been known for several decades. Where's Lonesome Roads when you need him?

Static Ping said...

I can see Ann's point that this ad may be baffling to a large, perhaps a large majority, of the readers and may be objectively logically deficient, but is very effective for a particular market that has different assumptions and prejudices. Welcome to divided America.

mockturtle said...

Of course Clooney is not afraid of Muslims. He doesn't fly commercial.

Plus, he is married to a Muslim.

Barry Dauphin said...

Clint

Not necessarily.

Assume that any ad that seems ridiculously lame or stupid is actually quite clever but targeted at an entirely different demographic.


Oh, so Hillary is afraid she needs to persuade women to vote for her. Good to know. Maybe that is what needs 'splainin' and not the ad.

bagoh20 said...

I think Althouse is saying dumb people will get it.

It's like Trump's comment "... women get it better than us."

Everybody is so sexist lately. You gotta be LGBT to get any respect.

amielalune said...


I've observed that women who are good "front office ladies" are those who do not want the stress, the angst, and the risk of being a small business owner. They want a nice steady job where they can make a contribution, get paid acceptably and go home at the end of the day and concentrate on their own lives, not on the business 24/7.

The women who "run the place" are contributing their multitasking skills to make sure the business runs smoothly. They are not out there bringing in clients, customers, networking, forging relationships, etc., and that's not what they are needed for. The owner is generally needed for that role.

Laslo Spatula said...

So why does the white gay urban professional make more than the rural white heterosexual?

Shouldn't white and male be equal?

And if the rural white heterosexual fucks a guy in the ass can he now expect a raise?

And if the rural white heterosexual gets compliantly fucked by a guy in the ass can he now expect an even better raise?

No, he can't. And No again. Obviously.

Because: Culture.

He is now a rural white heterosexual who has fucked a guy in the ass, or has been fucked by a guy in the ass, but he still needs to be at the Feed Store at Five AM.

Because the Transvestites and Lesbians need to feed their horses early.

Don't even get me going on the horse-fuckers.

I am Laslo.

Fernandinande said...

Federal quotas:
Hollywood Studios Targeted by Feds in Gender Bias Investigation
"Given the startlingly low number of female directors, the feds’ investigation of sex discrimination in Hollywood is overdue. Lawsuits may follow."

Given the startlingly low number of male elementary school teachers, the feds won't do anything except applaud.

Chuck said...

My God; has anybody Googled "Trump" and "John Miller" in the last two hours?

I could not have made this up if I tried.

Althouse I will look forward to your blog post on this one! Also Scott Adams on the "master persuader." I am not sure how I could have imagined the extent to which the mainstream media has kept its powder dry through the course of the Republican nominating process.

Drudge can't spin this one; the only hope will be to lay low, give it no air time, rush every other imaginable story into press, and try hard to ignore it.

Except that Trump, today, has denied the voice was his, after admitting years ago that it was his voice (as is obvious to everyone but the deranged mind of Trump).

tim in vermont said...

News Flash! Trump is living rent-free in Chuck's head!

Ann Althouse said...

@cuuck

Yes, I have been seeing that, but am not at my desktop. Maybe tomorrow. Quite ludicrous, for five reasons.

walter said...

damikesc said... I still don't get why what he said was bad.
-
Especially to the left. He completely caved to the notion that it was up to him to look past applicants and seek women who were qualified. Hidden in his full response was the "revelation" that gender inequal stats don't factor in who applies..only the outcome being considered and then through a hammer seeking nail lens.
If the same statement came out of Obama's mouth it likely would have been hailed as commitment to "social justice".
The unspeakable infraction

walter said...

Chuck,
John Miller can be Trump's veep. Although he would have to be like "Charlie"..only seen from behind.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I've said it a million times. She's incompetent even as a politician.

tim in vermont said...

he means as judged by mean men like him who are systematically incapable of seeing what women do as equal and who have a big stake in believing that things are already equal because women are not equally good.

I remember how women dominated Engineering Mechanics and Thermodynamics... But not to worry, none of the skills or talents required to succeed in that arena are required in the actual job market.

There are people with a big stake in believing that women are systematically underpaid for doing the exact same level and quantity of work based only on their belief that men and women evolved exactly equally in all attributes except the undeniable ones visible to the eye. As if we were created by a loving and fair God, not evolved through millions of years of hardscrabble wilderness existence.

I swear feminists think that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: @cuuck

Yes, I have been seeing that, but am not at my desktop. Maybe tomorrow. Quite ludicrous, for five reasons.


Good one, Althouse! You are master of words!

Laslo Spatula said...

Fernandinande said...
Federal quotas:
Hollywood Studios Targeted by Feds in Gender Bias Investigation
"Given the startlingly low number of female directors, the feds’ investigation of sex discrimination in Hollywood is overdue. Lawsuits may follow."

A quick Google:

Highest box-office gross of a film directed by a woman (not counting male/female co-directors):

"Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" (2009)Director: Betty Thomas Domestic gross: $219.6 million

1. Chipmunks?
2. A sequel?
3. A fucking "Squeakuel"?
4. Squeakuel? Really?
5. $219.6 million is the best you got?

Perspective:

"Titanic": 2.187 billion USD.
That's right, bitches: billion.
And 'Titanic' hasn't even had a Squeakuel yet.
Maybe a woman can film that.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Titanic II: The Squeakquel"

Daisy, a spunky orphan chipmunk, survives the sinking of the Titanic to arrive in New York in the pockets of a rich Steel Magnate.

Daisy, through hilarious hi-jinks, teaches the rich Steel Magnate that there are more important things than money, and helps him find true love with a poor female flower-girl.

Quotes:

Steel Magnate: "Daisy! You left little droppings on my handkerchiefs again!"

Daisy: "Hee hee! SQUEAK!"

____


Steel Magnate: "Daisy! You left little droppings on my date's dinner napkin!"

Daisy: "Hee hee! SQUEAK!"


___


Steel Magnate: "Daisy! You left little droppings on my note to the flower girl telling her it was over. Was that a sign?"

Daisy: "Hee hee! SQUEAK!"


___



Steel Magnate: "Daisy! Remember the Titanic? Don't fall in that ice bucket!"

Daisy: "Hee hee! SQUEAK!

"Oh."

"Fuck."


I am Laslo.

Chuck said...

tim in Vermont:

I just knew, that if I queried the Althouse readership, someone would explain in detail to me the whole truth and meaning behind the Trump/"John Miller" story. Why Trump posed as a fictional publicist. What he was hoping to accomplish. How Trump handled Marla Maples' apparent reaction. Why Trump denied the story, then admitted it, and why he is now denying it. What do Trump's denials just today mean about his own personal veracity in this campaign?

tim, you are just the man to answer all of these questions and clear this whole thing up. I knew we could count on you.

Michael K said...

The "mansplaining" thing is big to my daughter-in-law who told my son that he spent too much time with his family.

That's the last we heard from him.

That's pretty much the last we have heard from them.

"Pussy-whipped" is another term I've heard.

Men have feelings. I'm feeling hungry. The steaks are almost ready.

Fernandinande said...

Laslo Spatula said...
"Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" (2009)Director: Betty Thomas Domestic gross: $219.6 million


My favorite movies feature talking animals or giant monkeys, and ALvin didn't disappoint! Even though it wasn't very gross.

Fun fact! The Alvin series was inspired by Ingmar Bergman's early cartoons:
"I devoted my interest to the mysterious world of nests, the smell of chipmunks, quivering above the strangest vegetation of medieval paintings of a proto-Dave and carved figures on ceilings and walls. There was everything that one's imagination could desire — angels, saints, talking animals, chipmunks, Dave."

Paul said...

Trump is going to destroy Hillary. Just absolutely destroy her. I can see it coming like a slow-mo train wreck.

walter said...

.. like a slow-mo train wreck."
Decision 2016..

walter said...

Unity!

Freeman Hunt said...

If you can't understand the persuasive power it might have for progressives, imagine an alternate tweet:

Some pictures of a frowning, imperious-looking progressive man.
Text: "There's no reason to think that women have anything to fear from sharing their washrooms with men."

Now one might say, "Oh, but one is true and the other isn't," but the progressive thinks the same thing flipped around. It doesn't matter if he's wrong, only if he can be persuaded by the approach.

Comanche Voter said...

An unforced error? After so many errors by the Hildebeest, at this point what difference does it make. Forced, unforced, brain dead, negligent, uncaring, incompetent gross dereliction of duty--I mean what's one more error?

tim in vermont said...

Chuck, it was 25 years ago. Who can possibly know the context?

tim in vermont said...

Women's ways of knowing:

Silence is the name given to the first epistemological position, and describes women who felt disconnected from knowledge...

These women deserve our sympathy, so I will not lay into them.

Received knowledge describes the epistemological position in which women in the study perceived knowledge as a set of absolute truths received from infallible authorities. The process of learning, as understood by received knowers, involves receiving and repeating the knowledge and words of authorities.

That "way of knowing" describes liberals to a tee. What I don't get is why they are interested in discussions on political blogs.

Subjective knowledge is characterized by the recognition of the self as an authority. Subjective knowers rely on their own subjective thoughts, feelings and experiences for knowledge and truth - the "infallible gut"...

Women with this perspective at some point experienced the development of a "protesting inner voice" , which allowed them to make their own claims to truth and knowledge. Along with the nascent discovery of the inner voice, subjective knowers showed a general distrust of analysis and logical reasoning


I know a couple like this. We are now into the vast majority of women and logic and reason have not reared their ugly heads except as things to be avoided or distrusted.

Procedural knowledge reflects the recognition that multiple sources of knowledge exist, and that procedures are necessary for evaluating the relative merit of these sources. Procedural knowers focus on methods and techniques for evaluating the accuracy of external truth and the relative worth of authority.
...

Most procedural knowers in this study were economically privileged, Caucasian, young college students or graduates


Now we are talking about thinking! It is of course beyond the pale to suggest that these women are more economically privileged because they think more effectively!

Constructed knowledge as a position is characterized by a recognition of the interrelatedness of knowledge,... Women with this perspective considered all knowledge as constructed, and understood that knowledge is inherently mutable, subject to time, experience, and context. They saw knowledge as "a constant process of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction".

Women in this position generally came to it after intense self-reflection. They were able to engage in what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule refer to as real talk: the ability to listen, share and cooperate while maintaining one's own voice undiminished. The position of constructed knowledge often involves enormous "empathetic potential": a capacity to feel connected with another person despite potentially enormous differences. Many women in this position nonetheless experience loneliness and discouragement, largely due to difficulty in finding companionable and supportive partners.


I am an "it's turtles all the way down" thinker myself. What always amuses me is the question of which turtle people choose as the place to plant their flag for a fight. Us fucking men hate these kinds of deep thinkers!

On the other hand, I will be very interested to see when these women construct the first spaceship to reach another stellar system based on their alternative constructed knowledge. The whole term has the connotation of falsity to it, as if the efforts from Aristotle, through Newton, Einstein, Niels Bohr, and the whole boys' club constructed just one possible knowledge structure, one created to benefit men.

My problem is that I have a liberal arts degree but studies math and physics in a non trivial way. So it is hard to get too carried away on the "turtles all the way down" way of thinking.

mockturtle said...

I like your analysis, Tim.