The overriding theme of Tuesday night’s primary coverage was that it was a big night for female politicians. But there is a noticeable dearth of rah-rah sisterhood going on...
I’m not surprised that the only primary race to be noted by Feministing is Kamala Harris’ victory in the Democratic race for California attorney general or that the comments on a straightforward who’s-who post at Jezebel are full of bile regarding Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman. But it is disappointing that many liberal women don’t even seem to want the GOP to have strong female candidates. As Sara Libby wrote in Slate yesterday, “Do you still cheer if the ceiling is crashed by two conservative businesswomen?”You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game. The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!
Isn't it ironic that a feminist frets that there aren't more cheerleaders?
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
What good is a conservative cheerleader.
"We women are not a team."
Then stop going to the bathroom in them.
This is somewhat related. I have two friends that are absolutely convinced that Sarah Palin isn't qualified for anything. Curt, is a huge Liberal and Gary is a huge Conservative. They share more than a dislike of Palin, both go to what are called titty bars. They just don't have a healthy view of women other than what is projected on those stages. Both are married, and have no women friends other than their wives. All too often, feminists just don't like other women.
Barry, Barry, he's our man!
If he can't do it, it's all Bush's fault!
If women are equal, then what kind of job would complaining feminist commentators have? Isn't it in the best interests of places like Feministing for women to remain perceived as subservient so they can write and complain about it?
But it is disappointing that many liberal women don’t even seem to want the GOP to have strong female candidates.
Well its not surprising. I mean it certainly shoots holes in the belief system that conservatives keep women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant when one of those women breaks the glass ceiling and says, oh by the way, I'm a conservative.
Its really no different than a Hispanic or African-American being a conservative and subsequently shunned. You can't be accepted when you're not following the liberal script which defines what your role is to be.
I have a female friend of a decidedly feminist bent who once offered the provocative view that there should be 52 women in the U.S. Senate, since women make up 52% of the general population.
At the same time, in exchange for those 52 women senators, my friend would be perfectly willing to accept that not all of them would be her ideological twins. In other words, in exchange for a truly representative Senate in terms of gender, said friend would be willing to accept the female equivalent of a Trent Lott, the female equivalent of a Strom Thurmond, even the female equivalent of Jesse Helms.
An interesting approach, to say the least.
Word verification: hernomm
@MadisonMan: Yeah. They won the war, but they just can't stop fighting. Like that planet eating machine in Star trek. Or like Mother's Against Drunk Driving.
You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game.
Yes. Thank you.
The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!
That is a failure of some liberals, but all. Yes, this is good, indeed.
I admit that when I meet a woman who identifies as a feminist, my guard goes up a little bit, but in all but a very few cases, we usually agree on almost every gender related issue--equal rights, equal pay, common sense harassment rules. In the instances when we coudn't get along, the woman was just a nasty peice of work. In my experience, the proportion of nasty men and women is about the same.
Of course, feminism capital "F" has been politicized--a shame but probably inevitable. Special interest groups always will be gobbled up by one of the major parties, and that, over time, usually destroys the movement. Feminists (small f) of both sexes and both parties will continue to vote for good candidates and just shrug (or laugh) at the Sisters.
Ann says women aren't a team, this isn't a game, then wonders why liberals aren't "cheering" for the other side.
Guys don't want to be treated like people. Only women do.
Ann says women aren't a team, this isn't a game, then wonders why liberals aren't "cheering" for them.
::shrug:: Anything wrong with cheering for individuals who happen to be women? (Yes, I think there's a difference.)
Word verification: incut.
Condi Rice, a black woman, got zero points from the liberal diversity panel judges.
They're NOT "womyn" they're Conservatives or Republicans...Sheeesh this is easy.
Everyone KNOWS the only true womyn vote like Pelosi.
Some day historians will look back and admit that the glass ceiling was partially erected with female hands.
The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!
If they are liberals first, then yes. If they are feminists first, then no. It used to be that the two supposedly went hand in hand, but since the Clinton years, they are becoming mutually exclusive.
Most of the women who identify as feminists are really just liberals who really like to talk about sex.
- Lyssa
"The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates."
This is not puzzling. Feminists (with a capital F)are liberals first and therefore not really feminists at all. They just flog ideas they don't really believe in to further what they actually believe.
I don't have any answers, but I do find this topic interesting - was just thinking about this issue yesterday after finishing a non-fiction book on an unrelated topic but in which the author talked about one of the protagonists (a black man imprisoned for life without parole) cheering Obama's election & then realizing his life wouldn't be changed. Reflecting back on the book and the election and wondering how many people just wanted to break the barrier and elect a black man as president. That led me to wonder about how many women were more moved to vote for a black man versus a woman for no other reason than that (though I realize most, if not all, would say they voted on issues & platform, etc.) and not just black women, but white women, too - and I am, of course, thinking of Obama vs. Hilary, without the Republican vs. Democrat differences.
Lyssa beat me to it--brilliant minds and all that. But she is slightly more brilliant for getting there first and saying it better too.
You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women as people.
We are living in a period when children of both sexes are systematically taught that feminine traits are everything good and noble and male traits are close to criminal. The standard for what it is to be human has been utterly feminized. Still not enough. When is enough? When?
I think part of the problem for liberals is that conservative women politicians put the lie to the old chestnut that if women ran the world, there'd be no more wars and abortions wouldn't be controversial, etc. Like we'd all live in some kind of mommy paradise.
Identity politics depends on each group being special. Special but equal.
It turns out that that's not true.
Can a conservative like Larimore really be a feminist? Kinder, kueche, kirche -- not Slate "magazine" -- are the proper sphere of the woman. (Attributed to Kaiser Wilhelm II)
After hearing Meg Whitman ads five times an hour for the past six months, I'm not surprised she won. A dripping faucet can eat a hole through an iron tub, given enough time.
Aw shucks, thanks dbp!
I'll take it one further, that liberals have a vested interest in destroying conservative candidates that belong to one of "their" groups. If people begin to see that just because you are (female, black, gay) doesn't mean that you have to vote democratic/be liberal, they're going to lose a big part of their base. We've seen it with many female candidates lately, but it goes back further- see, e.g., Clarence Thomas.
Liberals don't own previously oppressed groups, and they're afraid that people are starting to figure that out.
- Lyssa
Amazing how much spam -- and really space-consuming spam -- dominated the comments over there.
lyssa: Most of the women who identify as feminists are really just liberals who really like to talk about sex.
Brilliant.
Further, why do people assume Carly Fiorina is a conservative? By avoiding any form of political activity, even voting, until she was well into middle-age, she has left less of a track record to scrutinize than did Elena Kagan.
Her law professor/appelate judge dad was conservative, but does "like father, like daughter" always hold?
The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!
No, it is an indication that they are frauds. It is an indication that their real number one priority is power, that they only use the issue of women (and race, etc.) in order to acquire and keep and exercise power. And when their power is threatened, they will oppose, even when it is against the advancement of the cause of women.
Thus, because it advances their real cause of power, they vastly prefer the election of such men as those who commit sexual assualts on women and leave them to drown after driving them off of bridges.
It is an indication that, to them, the only real woman is a liberal, a liberal woman who neuters her very womanness, who denies the very things that differentiate them from men by killing them and chemically suppressing them, so that she is no different from a liberal man.
So when someone comes along who is (a) conservative and (b) an authentic woman who welcomes being a woman as an existential reality, rather than a political construct, they must be opposed and destroyed.
The other day, Slate wrote a piece along the same lines, giving a history of "anti-feminist-feminists," basically listing a number of really successful women and declaring them not feminists because, well, ... they tried to make it not about abortion, but that was pretty much all they had.
http://www.slate.com/id/2256184/
I've been mulling on trying to come up with something great to say about it. I think I'm going to take the route that, if they can declare Sarah Palin (and me!) an anti-feminist, then I can declare Hillary Clinton an anti-feminist, and explain how her use and excuses for Bill are completely contrary to actual female progression.
- Lyssa
Never forget Margaret Thatcher wasn't a woman, or Golda Mier, according to the Feminist Sisterhood. dbp has it right on the money.
Big Mike said...
Some day historians will look back and admit that the glass ceiling was partially erected with female hands.
You mean womyn are finally having erections?
Of course they don't care if conservatives have strong female candidates. Their whole rah-rah-women thing is just their form of Democratic identity politics.
An annoying thing: As a woman, you're always expected to be interested in special groups or causes just for women.
As a woman, you're always expected to be interested in special groups or causes just for women.
Very true. And there's absolutely no way to express your disinterest, or disagreement, without it being taken as if you just called their baby ugly.
- Lyssa
The right sort of women are a team. Or perhaps I should have said that the left sort of women. Surely we have all noted the joy of the progressives when a woman succeeds in business and holds conservative ideas.
Women are quite smart about life. Married women are usually conservative, unless the are on Government welfare, as single moms are. And the successful single women who make more than $40,000 a year have encountered the other end of the government's redistribution stick called oppressive taxation. What I mean is that being a feminist that is only for liberal Democrats today is another one of Crack's cults for willingly decieved women.
"The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates."
Or it is an indication that they liberals are bad feminists. Perhaps they are just progressives pretending to be feminists. A real feminist would applaud female accomplishment.
Maybe it is like liberation theology where socialists pretend to be religious in order gain access to religious people in order to spread socialism by diluting religion.
Trey
law student: yeah, Fiorina and Whitman are conservatives now? Who knew.
Laurie: as a recent GOP activist I can tell you that the rank and file were very excited about the prospect of electing Condi Rice, and before her Colin Powell. Everyone's looking for that magic minority/woman candidate to be our ace in the hole, prove our non-racist cred and excite everyone.
Ridiculous thinking IMO.
Do you suppose it has anything to do with the "business woman" part of it?
It seems obvious that real feminists are supposed to be liberal rather than conservative, but I think there is also a really big dose of real feminists are supposed to promote feminism in their career. They are supposed to be *about* women.
I suppose I'm saying that women are supposed to be on that team.
I think this is true for other groups as well but what happens is that by being on the "woman" team or the "Hispanic" team or whatever other team, a person limits themselves and their reach and influence. If you're playing for the "woman" team you've given up representing half the population. You've marginalized yourself.
So you have Condi... not playing on the "woman" team but dealing with nations and matters of State. And you've got Hillary... traveling around promoting women's issues. (Condi did do some women-in-power things but somehow it wasn't her focus.)
Palin gives off that not playing for the "woman" team vibe despite what she actually does say and do. And it could be that just by being businesswomen these conservative women, no matter their virtue or ability or lack, have made a choice not to play for the "woman" team.
Maybe, as an exercise, the ladies at Feministing could discuss the question... Was Ayn Rand a feminist? Why or why not?
I think it would be revealing.
It's especially hilarious when one considers that the stereotype is that them mean ol' conservative types want women to be submissive and stay with Woman's Work.
When facts clash with the narrative, the narrative wins.
Maybe, as an exercise, the ladies at Feministing could discuss the question... Was Ayn Rand a feminist? Why or why not?
I can tell you the answer to that, you needn’t pose the question and await an answer. Amanda Marcotte, IIRC, has explained that “Feminism” is a movement that seeks “social justice” akin to the civil right movement. As such it is a movement of the Left. Ayn Rand was definitely not a Leftist/Progressive/Liberal, by definition she could NOT have been a “Feminist.” If you are not opposed to the unjust (socialist) patriarchal (feminism) racist (anti-racism) hetero-normal (gay rights) Imperialist (anti-war) system you cannot truly be a feminist.
Let's compare the feminist street cred of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Hillary Clinton.
Meg Whitman's success was completely independent of her husband. In fact, she abandoned her career at P&G to come to SF for her husband's medical career.
Carly Fiorina's career did not advance till Frank Fiorina -- an AT&T executive -- took an interest in saleswoman Carly, eventually marrying her.
Although Hillary Clinton might have been unknown to history had she not married Bill, at least when they met they were equals, law students with their working lives ahead of them.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Feminists would have a woman deny all of her true feminism and virtues, ignore what actually makes a woman a woman.
The movement was once true and did good, but it has become skewed and now I believe it falls under the category of those that "call evil good and good evil."
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Not what many leading feminists say....and where that the case I doubt anyone wuld be writing things like, "She's a REPUBLICAN nota womon" or calling certain womyn politians "shiksa B*tches" and hoping for a gang-rape.
FLS, if that were what feminism REALLY was, feminists would be DELIGHTED with Sara Palin.
But then you knew that before you wrote the post, didn't you? 8)
Trey
FLS, if that were what feminism REALLY was, feminists would be DELIGHTED with Sara Palin.
It's a necessary but not sufficient thing. From the discussion yesterday, shouldn't conservatives be DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan? No, it's not enough to be conservative to win the admiration of conservatives.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
and...
Well behaved women seldom make History.
Is there a dispute about this? Of course, well behaved men seldom make History either, but this is the point isn't it? People willing to put themselves out there and piss people off and take risks... people who do not conform... are more likely to make the sorts of waves that are remembered.
How are these things not descriptive of Condi Rice or Palin or Fiorina or Whitman or whoever else? Certainly Ayn Rand, like her or loathe her.
The push by feminists is the opposite of viewing women as "people" or valuing misbehavior. Women are to be viewed as women. And women who do not behave are to be shunned or destroyed.
It's a necessary but not sufficient thing. From the discussion yesterday, shouldn't conservatives be DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan? No, it's not enough to be conservative to win the admiration of conservatives.
Wrong, FLS….you see Palin IS a womon, and a SUCCESSFUL womon…. Feminism is NOT about XX chromosones and their possessors succeeding, independently of their men? Wow, who knew? Your example confuses genes and ideology….Palin IS a womon, genetically, whether or not we agree with her ideology….whereas it’s debatable whether or not Buchanan is a Conservative.
But thank you for your contribution.
I read some of the most gawd awful "feminist" tripe in criticism of the movie Iron Man. It's not that I'm the same gender as these people, it's that I'm a different species.
I listened to a "feminist" author talk about her werewolf heroine and then read the book to discover that "feminist" meant leaving the weak to hang rather than protecting her pack. Again, it's not that I'm the same gender as these people, it's that I'm a different species.
It could be fear.
The world is changing and it's changing in an uncontrollable way. These women who refuse to go along in an orderly manner, who just up and DO whatever they darn well want to do... they contribute to the feeling of uncontrol and uncertainty.
It's possible that the hostility is based in fear.
Feminism is NOT about XX chromosones and their possessors succeeding, independently of their men?
Consider the divorced California female entrepreneur, Dorothea Puente, who rented rooms to elderly men and took their money, killing any who complained. Can you see why feminists might not warm up to her, despite her business success?
Feminism is the radical notion that women are men.
From the discussion yesterday, shouldn't conservatives be DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan? No, it's not enough to be conservative to win the admiration of conservatives.
Well if feminism is about the liberation, empowerment and individual success of women, then feminists should celebrate Sarah Palin. Her conservative ideology shouldn't be a factor unless being a conservative is a disqualifying factor which then means feminism isn't about empowering women but enmpowering a certain type of woman.
That was a good shot though.
Consider the divorced California female entrepreneur, Dorothea Puente, who rented rooms to elderly men and took their money, killing any who complained. Can you see why feminists might not warm up to her, despite her business success?
I should have read this before responding to you. I thought you were actually trying to engage in a serious discussion.
WTF was I thinking.
But I am delighted with Pat Buchanen when he sticks to actual bona fide conservative principles. It is the racist crap that offends me, and racism is NOT a conservative value.
Success, hard work, accomplishment, independence, these are supposed to be the hallmarks of a feminist woman. Palin is rejected by feminists who are socialists because she is anti-socialist.
They are socialists in feminist clothing. By their fruit, we know them.
Simple.
Trey
Consider the divorced California female entrepreneur, Dorothea Puente, who rented rooms to elderly men and took their money, killing any who complained. Can you see why feminists might not warm up to her, despite her business success?
It would depend wouldn’t it? Had she been abused as a child by her father? Abandoned by her father? Raped, repeatedly in childhood or adulthood, by her spouse? Did she oppose the Vietnam War? Does she support gay marriage/pot legalization? Suddenly she’s a victim of the patriarchy and our socially uncaring society, a victim….in need of understanding and treatment, not condemnation. So yes, I can see Amanda Marcotte supporting her.
Consider the Alaska female entrepreneur, Sarah, who worked a number of jobs, reared a family, and then decided that her town needed new leadership and ran, successfully, for mayor. Then, got appointed to a state commission, and seeing literal “Good Old Boy” Corruption and the Good Old Boy Network, literally, at work blew the whistle on the corruption. After that she ran for Governor, on a platform of reforming the corrupt State House practices, and won. Can you see why feminists might not warm up to her, despite her business success? No, but then feminism is inscrutable, that way….probably has something to do with her being a “breeder,” a hick, not Ivy League, and not having aborted a number of her babies.
It's a necessary but not sufficient thing. From the discussion yesterday, shouldn't conservatives be DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan? No, it's not enough to be conservative to win the admiration of conservatives.
Quick reminder - the only commenter at Althouse who is DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan is reliable liberal shill garage mahal.
The conservatives denounce his (both Buchanan's and garage's) antisemitic views each time they're brought up.
(Tired of hearing these reminders? Me too. Want to stop hearing them? Stop trying to slip in snide innuendo that conservatives - especially conservative commenters here at Althouse - share and admire Buchanan's odious views.)
Don't give it a thought about these two. They stand just along side of slim and none for their chances of victory.
Of course the really burning questions is, "DId Palin get a boob job?"
former law student said...
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
6/10/10 12:00 PM
A while ago I did a whole post on this one little slogan.
1. Since everybody thinks that women are people, it is not a radical notion at all. It is better described as common sense or just obvious.
2. Feminism goes well beyond this little "radical notion". If it didn't then everyone would be a feminist and the whole exercise would be pointless.
3. If feminists really believe that it is radical to believe that women are people, then logically they must believe that most people disagree with the statement since a thing is only radical when a small minority believe it. It follows then, that they are either paranoid or very much out of touch with reality.
The rest of it is here.
You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game.
The same could be said for black people.
Quick reminder - the only commenter at Althouse who is DELIGHTED with Pat Buchanan is reliable liberal shill garage mahal.
At least I never wore a Pat Buchanan for President button, and did a meet and greet for him welcoming him to my city. Also Pat Buchanan doesn't consider me a Brigader for Buchanan, as he does Sarah Palin. Nice to see you just can't get me off your mind though.
Ta-Ta now!
Meh. Progressive Democrats aren't really interested in women or minorities. They're interested in women and minorities voting for them. It's just tribalism, creating group identity and enforcing it through normative definitions of what it means to be a woman or a minority.
You might look at me and think, "Oh, that guy's a conservative Asian American." But to most progressives, I'm a race traitor, a guy who votes against my own interest and hates my own skin. It's even more damning that I'm an immigrant and grew up in poverty. I've got the resume, but my beliefs label me an Asian Uncle Tom.
The same could be said for black people.
AC? Kent? Lincoln? Revenant? Help.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people
and that men aren't.
"Also Pat Buchanan doesn't consider me a Brigader for Buchanan, as he does Sarah Palin."
If he reads this blog he does. And you think Buchanan thinks Palin would support him for political office?
A while ago I did a whole post on this one little slogan.
Does the post explain why Debrahlee Lorenzana was too sexy for Citibank? How many men have been told that their attractiveness was preventing their co-workers from concentrating?
"What good is a conservative cheerleader."
Someone hasn't slept with any.
"AC? Kent? Lincoln? Revenant? Help."
What, garage? Your racism detector go off?
I would like women to be treated like people, just like other people in the group "people" instead of in their own other group "women."
And the same thing could be said about treating black people like any other members of the group "people".
The same thing could be said for anyone that would like to be treated like a member of the group "people" but instead is told that their identity ought be primarily something else.
AC? Kent? Lincoln? Revenant? Help.
Sure thing!
garage mahal said...
Palin's church can't be any weirder than Obama's, and if she is a Pat Buchanan Republican I feel safer. He is about the only sane Republican I've heard these past 8 years. An truthfully I thought Buchanan's joke about Washington D.C. being "Israeli occupied territory" years ago friggin hilarious, with some truth behind it. But, I'm in the minority of liberals who like Buchanan.
9/3/08 7:20 PM
garage mahal said...
Better us than bitter and miserable fucksticks like you that call for spilled blood over health care bill votes. Or your racist asshole teabagger bretheren that call people n*ggers and spit on them on their way to a vote. Real darlings, you all. In truth, people like you would love nothing more than putting your boot on someones neck. That's why you always think someone else is trying to do it to you.
3/21/10 10:41 PM
Hey, you never did tell us how your search for comments by conservatives who expressed your level of anti-semitism turned out. I'm guessing you didn't find any.
You also never answered if the "Garage Mahal" account that dribbled out a few posts 3.5 years ago was yours in addition to the one you're currently posting with here at Althouse. I'm guessing it was, but you don't want to admit how you've used multiple accounts over the past 3.5 years, after your repeated claims that you've been posting consistently here under just one name for 5 years.
The problem for feminists is the real world. Good managers, man or woman, are likely to be conservative, unless they're relying on manipulating the federal government to gain competitive advantages.
What has always annoyed me about hardcore feminists is that they seemed to despise femininity. If they want to be dock workers or CEOs, by all means, let them; but don't persecute women who want to be mothers and homemakers. To do so implies that women who make that choice aren't real women.
The idea that traditionally male roles are somehow superior to traditionally female roles is the heart of the issue, but feminism seems to be based on the very assumption that this is true. I don't get that. I would think that real feminism would be concerned with giving women the credit they deserve and always have deserved, wherever they contributed to society. Men who belittle, mistreat or fail to appreciate what they owe to the women in their lives range from boors to criminals. Only those who cherish them live up to the proper role of men.
Women who think they enhance themselves by acting like frat boys, only perpetuate the old stereotypes and make a lot of men emphasize their most negative traits.
At least I never wore a Pat Buchanan for President button, and did a meet and greet for him welcoming him to my city. Also Pat Buchanan doesn't consider me a Brigader for Buchanan, as he does Sarah Palin. Nice to see you just can't get me off your mind though.
You can keep spreading trying to spread the lie, garage, but it doesn't become any more true through repetition.
Buchanan update:
McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, who declined last night to comment on Palin's relationship with Pat Buchanan, today denies it to ABC:
'Gov. Palin has never worked for any effort to elect Pat Buchanan — that assertion is completely false. As Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin did attend an event with Mr. Buchanan in her hometown, where reports described her wearing a Buchanan for President button. She wore the button as a courtesy to Mr. Buchanan, and in an effort to make him feel welcome during his visit, but immediately sent a letter to the editor of her local paper clarifying that the button should not have been interpreted as an endorsement of any kind.'
The statement leaves a bit of space between working for Buchanan and supporting him in 1996, but there's no evidence that she did back him then.
I also spoke to Bay Buchanan, Pat's sister, this morning. She also said her only knowledge of Palin's contact with Buchanan was at the event in the '90s, which she described as a fundraiser for Alaska Republican Jerry Ward. Ward couldn't immediately be reached.
(And, yes, we know, you're already on the record pointing out that we can't trust anything that sneaky lying Jew, Michael Goldfarb, says, garage.)
"Ann says women aren't a team, this isn't a game, then wonders why liberals aren't "cheering" for the other side."
Uh... no, I didn't.
You can keep spreading trying to spread the lie, garage, but it doesn't become any more true through repetition.
There is no lie. Neither Palin or Goldfarb deny Palin met and greeted Buchanan to Wasilla, or was wearing a Buchanan for President button. Why meet a raging anti-semite worthy of such scorn from you?
I'm guessing it was, but you don't want to admit how you've used multiple accounts over the past 3.5 years, after your repeated claims that you've been posting consistently here under just one name for 5 years.
This is just weird. Admit to what? Switching accounts? What's your theory?
Now please address this statement on this thread. Feel free to copy and paste an old comment from me. But, I'd appreciate it if you would also address it, I'm already sensing a double standard you so abhor.
"The same could be said for black people."
I agree with "The Counterfactualist" that blacks should be treated as people, rather than a team in some kind of identity-group-victim game.
I'm not sure why garage mahal disagrees.
Can you explain to everyone why you object to treating blacks as people, garage?
Or why the concept of treating blacks as people frightens and confuses you so much that you needed to call for help?
I understand that you'd be upset if he suggested we treat Jews as people, but I didn't realize you were also opposed to blacks being considered part of humanity as well. Is this another viewpoint you've adopted from your idol and font of all truth, "the only sane Republican," Pat Buchanan?
Ann, you did right in your post:
You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game. The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!
Also, still waiting for the results of your search to find anything said by a conservative here on Althouse that rises to your level of anti-semitism.
A direct answer to my question about whether the multiple "Garage Mahal" accounts over the past 3.5 years on this blog were all yours would be great, too.
Can you explain to everyone why you object to treating blacks as people, garage?
I didn't. Why do you think blacks were singled out in that statement? Because he/she thought they receive victim status?
And WTF are you talking about "multiple garage mahal accounts"? If there were multiple accounts, they wouldn't be the same name?
Answer the questions, garage.
I don't know what the fuck I'm answering! I type in my email address and password, and voila, up comes blogger garage mahal. That email address I enter is from a domain I owned that hasn't even been active for 4 yrs. That's how long I've used it. Are you just jonesing for another screen name to google or what. Jesus. I have a gmail address, sometimes when I use it it automatically logs me off here. Not sure if that's what you mean, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Enough with the bad-faith excuses and playing dumb.
Answer the questions, garage.
Just remember that conservative women don't count.
Or, to quote Tina Brown:
"... actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time."
AC
I'm done. You're impossible to debate.
"Garage Mahal said...
I'm sorry, but not everyone that is critical of Israel is a kook, or anti-semite. They refuse to behave like a responsible country and join the IAEA, and verify their nuclear caches. They continually spy on us, and play us for saps. I would argue they need nukes, considering their nast neighbors. But why not just come clean, as we ask other countries to do?
Why on earth would Israel drop between 1-3 million cluster bombs, with a 40% dud rate, all in the last 72 hours while a peace agreement is being worked out?
10/21/06 2:55 PM "
"Garage Mahal said...
They needed a study to find out women have smaller brains, and talk too much?
12/10/06 1:52 PM "
Garage Mahal said...
The PNAC neocons get duped by an Iranian spy promising ponies and harmonious relations with Iraq/Israel -- promising an easy war -- trusting a guy that once fled Jordan for bank fraud in the trunk of a car! -- and paying him 27 million dollars of taxpayer money.
Damn Democrats!
10/30/06 4:27 PM
Are those yours? Because those comments - like all of the comments from "Garage Mahal" on this blog in 2006, is made by blogger profile 09549633975357196247.
In late 2007, "garage mahal" start posting on this blog using blogger profile 06485491995866513686 - the same one you're posting under now.
Are these two different account both yours? They certainly seem so, based on the snarky, obnoxious, fact-free, anti-semitic commentary from both profiles. But having used multiple accounts contradicts your repeated claim that you've used the same account here for more than 4 years.
""Ann says women aren't a team, this isn't a game, then wonders why liberals aren't "cheering" for the other side.""
I said I didn't.
Garage said:
"Ann, you did right in your post: You know, it's fine with me if we just start treating women like people. We women are not a team. And this isn't a game. The failure of liberals to cheer about the female GOP candidates is an indication that they are strong candidates. That's good!'"
Aw, come on. Is my blog really that hard to read?! I didn't wonder why the liberals aren't cheering. I said that the failure of the liberals to cheer is evidence that the women candidates on the opposition side are no mere tokens but genuine threats. And I think it's good that the female GOP candidates are strong. I didn't "wonder" why the liberals weren't cheering. I *explained* why the liberals weren't cheering. That's the opposite of wondering!
Really, I try to write clearly. I think you had to be reading through a fog of delusion to read that twice and be so wrong.
I'm done. You're impossible to debate.
Hey man, you're the one who cried out for help when someone suggested blacks should be treated like people.
It's not my fault that such a concept frightened and confused you.
I *explained* why the liberals weren't cheering. That's the opposite of wondering!\
Ok, wondering was a bad choice of words. But don't you think if liberals were true feminists, they shouldn't be cheering because women aren't a game or a team? (your words). Small point I know.
"But don't you think if liberals were true feminists, they shouldn't be cheering because women aren't a game or a team?"
You have trouble reading what I'm saying, yet you put all those negatives in one sentence. I think my answer is yes. Yes, in the sense of: they shouldn't be cheering.
Sorry to come in late. I have maintained for years that much of the energy behind feminism was the resentment that women of the elite classes in our society felt when they were not treated as well as their brothers and male classmates, even when they got better grades. That is an entirely legitimate gripe, but disguising it as a concern for all women is self-deceptive. (The concern for women in general is along a continuum, and is quite real in some elite women. But it is not universal, and is quite secondary in all but a few.) It is not merely a set of liberal ideas that capital-F Feminist women wish to see dominate, but the class that espouses them. Then the others can have the scraps. References to remaking society in a way beneficial to women, upon examination, benefit a particular class first, and women in general second. These are baronesses complaining that they have not the status of barons, not general uplift for other women.
To those who reject this explanation as stereotyping and unlikely, at least bear in mind that my sample is women in the helping professions - psychologists, social workers, pastoral counselors, psychiatrists. Many have genuine concern and empathy for all distressed women, and indeed, distressed people in general. But if you hang out with them for decades, you begin to see the resentment of competent women of other classes - psych nurses, OT's, managers who came up through the ranks. Folks usually say what they really mean eventually.
Women's groups must maintain the "victim" mantle. Successful Republican women prove that there is no need to wallow in victimhood. Thus, their wins invalidate the women's movement as it appears today.
"Although Hillary Clinton might have been unknown to history had she not married Bill"
If Hillary hadn't met Bill, she would have been an excellent Undersecretary of Health and Human Services in the Gore administration.
"Amanda Marcotte, IIRC, has explained that “Feminism” is a movement that seeks “social justice” akin to the civil right movement."
Ah yes, Amanda Marcotte, briefly official blogger for the guy who knocked up his girlfriend and then tried to deny paternity. Which was that, feminism or social justice?
--Not THAT Michael
Guys don't want to be treated like people. Only women do. :D
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा