I've watched the clip of Paul with Savannah Guthrie on "The Today Show," and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but it is, and now any time Paul talks over a female, we'll hear about it and this meme will grow. Rand Paul has his response: He's "pretty equal opportunity." He's "been universally short tempered and testy" — toward males and females — and he needs "to get better at holding my tongue and holding my temper."
That's a good answer. Equality is a great concept, and women mostly want equality, and, I think, most men want equality for women. But in real life, rudeness toward women is perceived differently. For one thing, it was traditional for more respect to be shown to women, so we — some of us — notice its absence. And the reaction well, but I'm an asshole to everybody doesn't satisfy those who want a culture of civility.
But even for those of us who don't want special sensitivity to women and who think it will hurt women's opportunities — in journalism, in politics, and elsewhere — we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past when women were subordinated and diminished and dissuaded from entering the fray. (I had a high school English teacher who asserted with confidence that women could never work as broadcast journalists because our voices were unsuitable to the medium.) With that background understanding, what is objectively equal treatment may feel unequal.
Of course, it's also true that Rand Paul has his opponents who will use whatever works, and I fully expect them to accuse him of sexism whenever they can now. Once it's a meme, that's how it goes. If he remains "short tempered and testy," whatever hits women will be highlighted as Rand Paul's problem with women. If he manages to take the edge off, because he's trying "to get better," what niceness is aimed at women will be characterized as patronizing and even exclusionary. His opponents will want to box him in. Whatever he does will be wrong.
April 9, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
148 comments:
But even for those of us who don't want special sensitivity to women and who think it will hurt women's opportunities — in journalism, in politics, and elsewhere — we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past when women were subordinated and diminished and dissuaded from entering the fray.
That sentence should be sent off to the Smithsonian as a perfect example of female logic.
Shorter version: "We want what we want and we will tell you after the fact if you got it right or not." This is how womanly thought defies abstraction.
Once it's a meme, that's how it goes.
It's interesting, of course, that it became a meme. You could almost see it happen real time on Twitter yesterday, kind of like the stupid "Binders of Women" thing.
A person at ThinkProgress or OFA has an idea, and blasts out through email or Twitter, "Hey! Look at how sexist this is" and ta-da.
A meme is born.
we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past when women were subordinated and diminished and dissuaded from entering the fray.
Women haven't been dissuaded from entering the fray in two generations, at least.
We've had a good 20 years of raising girls on "Girl Power".
The problem is that many girls really are being raised to believe they have a very special place in life. They must be listened to. They will not have to listen.
It is always a Democratic meme. Even if the Republican is a woman. The more I read of this stuff the more I think that the Nineteen Amendment was a mistake.
Oh, and his answer on abortion made my heart sing.
@tim in vermont
If you don't think human perception is subjective and contexualized, you're delusional.
In fact, your reading of my text isn't lucid and rational at all. It's reeking with subjectivity and emotion.
Everyone has been waiting for him to implode, haven't they?
It seems like the 'Rand Paul will self destruct' meme has been waiting for something like this since his running away from immigration questions video came out.
"This gender myopia, this gender monomania, has become a disease. It's become a substitute for religion. It is impossible that the feminist agenda can ever be the total explanation of human life."
---Camille Paglia a week ago.
Whatever he does will be wrong.
So Rand Paul's problem with women turns out to be the same as everyone else's problem with women.
If women are going to expect and need gentler treatment, perhaps they shouldn't run for office.
Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
I think a part of this is also a "preparation" for the general election by those who favor Hillary. Even if Rand doesn't become the GOP nominee, the early criticism he faces for "rudeness" towards women will make the eventual GOP nominee more sensitive to this, and maybe hold his punches somewhat when it comes time to debate with or criticize Hillary in the general election.
Of course, if the GOP nominee (whoever he is) is smart, he will take this as an early lesson and figure out how to handle female opponents masterfully. He's been warned--this is what they'll try to do.
If you don't think human perception is subjective and contexualized, you're delusional.
Where did I say that? Where did I say that women weren't human for that matter?
I admit that I threw in the word "womanly" to kick the hornets's nest a little. Sorry about that, but "contextual" thinking is limited in power. It is nothing but a trap as one can always drag in more "context" like, for example, your little anecdote about your teacher's opinion.
Women take nagging to the voting booth.
Almost nothing can be done by men anymore. The stupid woman got the treatment and contempt she deserved, but men are non grata in our society now.
I'm disappointed that Paul apologized. He should never have called himself testy. He should have simply stuck to his guns and pointed out that he won't have his record mischaracterized by an interviewer without being corrected.
You have to take account of women being women because they're different from men.
One way they're different is nagging.
You can expect taking offense.
Eric Berne had a viable response, for the yes-but game : "That's a tough problem you've got there," walk away and look for a game of rape-o (come hither get away from me you beast).
Any republican candidate will come away from any interview by the MSM as "the most dangerous person in America".
This morning, Chris Cuomo verbally waterboarded Ben Carson on CNN for his failure to fully embrace and promote the LGBTQQRT-LMNOP community.
Someday Althouse will give an argument for gay marriage besides stamping of tiny foot.
@tim
I can't answer your questions. Your reading of my text is so bad, so infused with your own unacknowledged emotions that there's nothing I can do but encourage you to reread.
And -- as Rand Paul once said to a lady -- calm down.
Human perception is subjective and therefore every perception is valid?
The great vision of liberal democracy is that beneath these differences we have of race and ethnicity and sex there was a common humanity, that human beings have rights and dignity and needed to be treated equally.
Not because they are black or gay or female but because they were humans.
The great threat to this vision is that there isn't.
I don't like Paul either, by the way.
Not enough knowledge, too many talking points.
"Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd."
Cruel neutrality...
with an emphasis on cruel.
Now don't try to reason with me.
Althouse needs a course on zingers.
"Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd."
I'm not a Rand Paul supporter but your reaction and his response to the Democrat with byline on Today make me want to give him another look.
You are so far in the tank for "the gay crowd" that your objectivity was lost long ago. It's the equivalent of Islamophobia.
1775 the foot-stamp heard around the world.
Women's history.
"Whatever he does will be wrong."
Bears repeating...
The magical media shield only works if you embrace the progressive narrative.
I fully expect them to accuse him of sexism whenever they can now.
That's true of every Republican candidate. What conservatives yearn for is a politician who recognizes that the media is fundamentally dishonest and malevolent, an enemy camp that coordinates its actions with the Democratic party and various left-wing activist groups. It will require a very different approach than the one any Republican has used so far.
(Ideally, that same Republican understands, believes in, and is confident defending conservative values.)
I'd go with referring to the interviewers as "You and your other multi-breasted anchors."
Then they'd forget talking-over.
Go for the men's vote.
Women are only different in wonderful ways. There would be no war if women were in charge.
We are more peaceful. We work together better- especially in the Senate. When we are portrayed as the Secretary of State on TV, we are beautiful like Tea Leoni. Not ugly like Kevin Spacey.
Oh sure, we are put upon in ways men never are. We are interrupted. People explain things to us. Men sit next to us and smoosh our purses and yoga mats with their big manspreading legs.
Do you have a problem with that, you sexist misogynists? Well, you should have spent more time in gender studies class when you were in college, and less time raping.
Ann Althouse said...Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Rand Paul lost me when he made his first statements about immigration and foreign relations. On those vital issues, I fear he will be another 4 years of Obama.
But at least he seemed principled. His pandering to the anti-gay vote just showed he's not so principled either.
Binders full of women all over again. Manufactured controversy. This will get more coverage than creepy Joe Biden got for rubbing shoulders and whispering in women's ears.
The greatest value Rand may provide is to rip the cover off gross media bias. Romney always accepted the premise of the press and Candy Crowly knifed him for it. The press is certainly going to bait Rand in the run up to face Hillary. I like that he won't play the game. It may hurt him in the short run but it's better for the country that he push back - our sensitivities be damned.
>>Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Obama pandered to the anti-gay crowd in 2008, and you still voted for him.
I think most women's voices are unsuited to broadcast news. Especially at the local stations in flyover. Shrill and or giggly.
I don't trust R Paul to be commander in chief. While I'm happy to support libertarian notions of limited government when reasoned, I believe we need a robust defense and that defense is the correct role of the national government. I can't respect a candidate who minimizes authentic dangers.
Hearing that he's routinely rude doesn't help. How something is done is just as important as what is done; method and message must both be correct. It also will likely limit him; successful politicians are generally likeable and affable (Reagan and Clinton come to mind). It's a testament to Bill Clinton's personal appeal that even though I disliked nearly all his policies, voted against him twice and thought he weakened the country, I still like him - odd but true.
He treated her the way he should treat every Democrat/Leftist/Broadcaster. Don't accept their assumptions, don't let them frame the debate, don't let them ask you when you stopped beating your wife.
This is why Romney should have thrown Crowley (verbally, he probably couldn't heft her) off the stage when she tried to help (did help) her hero, Mr. Zero.
All of these people are waiting with their zingers, their traps, their prepared attacks. He can't let them set the frame.
ALTHOUSE: Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
4/9/15, 7:15 AM
This bugs me too. He's making an argument thats too cute to understand and it doesn't match reality. His argument is that government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage and that marriage should be defined by private contract. As a libertarian, I totally support this concept. But the reality is we have nearly 250 years of history where our government has defined marriage and that's not changing. He must face this reality. And, if government is defining marriage, the most libertarian position is for government to define marriage as expansively as possible and ensure all people retain their maximum level of rights. Rand could easily make that argument and still disagree with same-sex marriage because of a religious belief. Further, Rand isn't facing the reality that being on the wrong side of this issue will get him labeled a bigot. So many people I know who might consider supporting him have said exactly what you said, Althouse - he lost them with the pandering.
Once it's a meme, that's how it goes.
The bigger question is does he stop pushing back once it becomes a meme? That's how the meme does it's damage. Keep going, and it blunts the effect.
The Clintons learned this a long time ago.
The media probably believes that being testy with them is a bad thing. Really? The public views the media with the same respect as used car salesmen and lawyers. Of course, since they are the ones with the megaphones, they will claim that disrespect for them is a negative. We’ll see. They also thought that beating the crap out of Memories Pizza for thought crime was a good idea.
Megyn Kelly has the most shrill voice on TV lately. It works for her, because she's very smart and very quick, and that shrill voice projects. I'd like to see her interview Rand Paul.
And by the way, why isn't Matt Lee of the AP being raked over the "war on women" coals for his obvious mansplaining to Marie Harf?
Is it because he's in the MSM? or because she's not an important political figure?
Whatever comes out of a GOP mouth is fodder for lefty memes.
It's interesting that the fight for women's equality still takes the form of demanding special protection, even from mean men who, gasp, interrupt women before they're finished.
"Obama pandered to the anti-gay crowd in 2008, and you still voted for him."
That was different. Because context.
And shut up.
I hope that this isn't the kind of thing that brings Rand down. I think he probably can't win (at least in 2016) but he really adds a lot to the conversation.
I realize I'm not typical, but the kind of testy back and forth between Paul and Guthrie doesn't bother me, while the hyperpolite mean-girl talk between women sets my teeth on edge (e.g. Couric/Palin, Hillary/anyone.)
Regarding your HS English teacher, read Terry Teachout's post about men's speaking voices and his first big voiceover job at the tender age of 59.
Randall Paul is using two first names. And why is he refusing a human last name???
He must be another Space Alien Presidential candidate. And not our first one. We just did that with War Drone Commander Obama.
We really need to have a look at the so called Birth Certificate again. Did "they" just desinate him RP, like ET's parents did? Or HAL's parents did?
Yo Bob: Megyn interviewed him last night!
She also had some comments about Chuck Todd complaining about the "rudeness" Rand showed to Savannah Guthrie and Kelly Evans (of CNBC) and telling him that women can handle stuff just like guys and stop pretending we are delicate little flowers (or something to that effect).
http://www.foxnews.com/shows/the-kelly-file.html
Was there a non-pandering candidate for Althouse to choose from in 2008?
Poor leftwing grrls. Be nice to them, while they Lucy your football.
Yo, paminwi: thanks for the pointer! I should have guessed that and am listening to it now.
If women journalists have to be treated differently, then candidates would be insane to sit for interviews with them. You can't push back? Lol, fuck that.
"Was there a non-pandering candidate for Althouse to choose from in 2008?"
Has there ever been?
Yes, women want equality 'Mostly'. Which means they want equality when it comes out to handing out the cake and ice cream, and being treated like little princesses the rest of the time.
Rand Paul should simply insist that all future interviews be conducted by men.
He is a legitimate contender for the White House. He has something the networks need. He should be able to insist on some conditions.
I think the Savannah Guthrie and the previous CNBC reporter were both terrible interviewers. They were more interested in ambush. They presumed that they would be saying the interesting things, and Rand Paul was only there to play the victim.
Rand Paul is right not to play that game. He is right to question their premises at every opportunity. If he is not to be permitted to do that with women interviewers, then perhaps the delicate flowers should not be permitted to interview him.
Rand Paul should simply insist that all future interviews be conducted by men.
He is a legitimate contender for the White House. He has something the networks need. He should be able to insist on some conditions.
I think the Savannah Guthrie and the previous CNBC reporter were both terrible interviewers. They were more interested in ambush. They presumed that they would be saying the interesting things, and Rand Paul was only there to play the victim.
Rand Paul is right not to play that game. He is right to question their premises at every opportunity. If he is not to be permitted to do that with women interviewers, then perhaps the delicate flowers should not be permitted to interview him.
"Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd."
Not that I'm happy with any pandering to the anti-gay crowd, but who hasn't done exactly that? Obama did much more blatantly in 2008 and arguably that was more damaging as it gave additional cover for "liberals" to continue opposing gay marriage. And any GOP nominee is going to be going up against Hillary, who strongly supported her husband's far more egregious anti-gay policies--and she only "evolved" a year ago.
We don't choose our candidates in a vacuum--and if it came down to Paul with his unfortunate pandering to the anti-gay marriage crowd or Hillary who has never found a bus she wouldn't throw the gays under, it's no question Paul would be the least bad option on that issue.
Dayamn. If Megyn Kelly asked me to please pass the salt, I'd hide under the table.
Someday Althouse will give an argument for gay marriage besides stamping of tiny foot.
How about it's none of your business who someone marries?
@Bob
That's where Laslo will be.
Sorry, gals, but in my opinion you broads shouldn't vote. Yer all just too delicate. Let the menfolk handle this.
>>How about it's none of your business who someone marries?
Unless you actually have a business...
Treat every woman like she has a sexy friend you want to have sex with.
I am Laslo.
Sorry Dan, "Do what you want you want but leave me out of it" is now defined as intolerant bigotry.
God made only a small number of women beautiful on the outside. Then he sent His Son to us to help us love all of them, anyway.
I am Laslo.
Gaystapo message to evangelicals and conservatives isn't the once-heralded live-and-let-live proverb; it's the ISIS shout to the infidel, "Renounce your faith or die!"
Why does everybody think, that because you don't agree with gay marriage, that you HATE gays, or are Anti-gay??
"Treat every woman like she has a sexy friend you want to have sex with."
This also applies to mothers with sexy daughters.
I am Laslo.
Rand Paul is a Senator who can't handle a lightweight today show interview.
Hey, women are not such delicate flowers after all. The awkwardly named Debby Wasserman-Schultz (who always reminds me of the Sargent in Hogan's Heroes) is all in favor of killing 7 pound babies. Not even Rand Paul is that tough.
Ann Althouse said...
Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Your UW colleagues will be so proud of you, Ann!
Funny, Obama's 2008 pandering had insufficient effect on you.
"can't handle?" I don't think that means what your thing it means.
This isn't about gender. It's about pro-democrat hacks in the media.
Male or female. Media hacks do not deserve respect.
Ann Althouse said...
Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Hasn't that always been your litmus test for every candidate everywhere?
How about it's none of your business who someone marries?
The government made it our business when they gave it tax and regulatory protections.
You might as well say "it's none of your business which organizations get charity status."
The media are pro Democrat. But they are not bright. Watch how John Yoo handled John Stewart. It's not that hard but a conservative has to know how to handle it. He wasn't there to one up a ditz. He was there to make a good case for himself and his ideas.
Memes. It makes me nostalgic recalling all the other memes I've seen. there was the "satanic cult" meme, the "play the record back to hear the devil" meme, the "Michigan militia is going to kill you" meme, the "ritualized sex abuse in day care" meme, the "flushed koran" meme, and of course the current "rape culture on campus" meme. UW Madison -to provide one example - even has a Campus Women's Center to, and I quote: "Our mission is to confront the oppressions women-identified individuals face ...."
To this day, UW is oppressing women who need a center to escape the clutches of the patriarchy. The humanity!
"Whatever he does will be wrong."
This can be very freeing.
If you are going to do the time you might as well do the crime.
I am Laslo.
Reynolds:
"They’re your enemies. Treat ‘em like Obama treats Fox News. And you have to laugh at this: “Rand Paul thinks he knows how to be a journalist better than you do.”
Here’s a hint: He does. Because it’s not that hard to be a better journalist than Savannah Guthrie, and most of her peers. The truth is, they’re not very good at what they do, but so long as they function as Democratic operatives with bylines..."
BTW - Has anyone ever heard or noted a difficult question tossed to Hillary? A question that wasn't already scripted?
Washington Post headline today: "On first official day on the trail, Rand Paul turns in a prickly performance"
So Paul's campaign begins with the feminized press calling him "prickly." But it is Hillary--excuse me-- Mrs. Clinton who's got a watchdog group to protect her from sexist language.
Women Reporters: "We're just a tough, just as capable as male reporters."
"Rand Paul was mean to me!"
Advice to Republicans: Treat all reporters as the enemy because they are.
You must not express annoyance at annoying women.
Whatever he does will be wrong.
Isn't this true for everyman, every time, no matter what he does?
Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Anti-gay crowd or anti-gay marriage crowd?
One of the biggest mistake your crowd is making is unnecessarily conflating the two.
It is possible to oppose gay marriage without hating gays.
Whatever comes out of a GOP mouth is fodder for lefty memes.
You give them too much credit. More often than not lefty memes are made up of things that a Republican didn’t actually say but were “too good to check.”
It's hard out there to be a Republican. Questions about women and thermometers are almost impossible to answer!
It's an inevitable formulation when Liberals trash someone:
When someone agrees with them he's wise, brave, handsome and dresses well. If he agrees with people you dislike, he's pandering.
It's not strictly a bitchy woman thing. All Liberals do it.
Full disclosure: Hillary lost me with her pandering to the pro-gay crowd.
Full disclosure: Mrs. Bill Clinton lost me well before she pandered to the minority crowd with: "I ain't no ways tarred".
Gahrie said...
Anti-gay crowd or anti-gay marriage crowd?
One of the biggest mistake your crowd is making is unnecessarily conflating the two.
Yes, this is so true, and it allows progressives to lump more people into their "the bad others" category.
My best friend was* gay. Like many Americans I have family and friends I love who are gay. Yet I don't like redefining marriage to include anything other than one male and one female, so I'm called a hater, homophobic (what evil manipulation there is in attaching "phobic" to words in order to imply fear and loathing where there is just disagreement!), anti-gay or a non-person.
Titus and Alex love to call Republicans haters for holding the exact same position as Hilary! and Obama and Bill Clinton. That the above now pander and try to assert that they've always felt this way, the truth is blacks historically (and Obama in particular) have had great antipathy towards gays. There is great unease with gays adopting the language of the civil rights struggle when there has been no institutional widespread discrimination of the type blacks endured.
But for now, I'd just be happy if a few more sane voices would say in public that disagreement is not hate. That discussion is not discrimination. That mob justice is not justice at all -- it's facsism.
*"Was" because he's no longer living, having lost his battle with HIV.
Full Disclosure--Hillary Clinton lost me when she started pandering to the "circle the wagons around the sexual predator president" crowd.
Stonewall ≠ Selma
The Party of the Kennedys, Clinton, John Edwards, Carlos Danger, Spitzer, David Wu, Marion Berry, Mel Reynolds, Brock Adams and Gavin Newsom would like to discuss Rand's 'problem with women.'
Rand Paul lost me when he said "I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."
I like this blog, sorry to have been so snarky.
I still don't see your point, and I guess I never will.
don't want special sensitivity to women...
we observe how well women are treated with an understanding of what has gone on in the past
I guess one could treat other men with an understanding of how women have been treated in the past. That would seem to put the 'b' in subtle to carry that off, but whatever.
But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important.
Not something you would ever do garage. You are more into the omission of and refusal to acknowledge important facts that might get "misinterpreted" if widely known.
When has Rand Paul gone on national television to accuse half the country of being part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that lied about sexual affairs by his spouse?
When has Rand Paul sent out private investigators to uncover salacious private information about the sexual partners of his spouse, then used that information to blackmail or smear those same people?
When has Rand Paul laughed about getting a pedophile rapist off on a technicality?
Who is the true anti-woman candidate in 2016? Not Rand Paul.
Guthrie, of course, is married to a Democrat operative. This is helpful in creating the questions and the underlying umbrage at the effrontery of the questioned.
Rand Paul's problem is that, according to surveys, ruthless, uncaring libertarianism repels women, even though its most famous advocate was sweet, demure, nurturing Ayn Rand.
Now politicians have to tip toe around women.
The answer is to never submit to an interview with a woman.
How's that for advancing the cause?
Ann Althouse said...
Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd.
Fair enough, but it's interesting to note that candidate Obama apparently didn't lose you with his pandering/stance against gay marriage back in 2008.
Obama's shifting position on marriage equality
From supporting SSM to opposing it just in time for 2008 sure seems like a pander.
Anne Althouse said... With that background understanding, what is objectively equal treatment may feel unequal.
I appreciate your putting this into words, Professor, and I really hope it engenders empathy towards those men who complain that they "can't win" when dealing with complaints from woment about unequal treatment--it's frustrating to realize that one can be called sexist no matter what one does. I think this is one reason it's fair to conclude (from the empirical data) that women as a group don't really want capital E equality (the same treatment, concern, etc), but pointing that out is also grounds for being labeled sexist.
The complaints about women's voices are alive and well. (Hillary's cackle, vocal fry, etc. )I've come to appreciate deep, resonate voices, but for most of my life I thought they made the males with them sound old, stupid, and slow, which opinion didn't have any power to help Marcia Clark when she was being dismissed as hysterical back in the '90s.
Point being that perhaps the extra politeness traditionally shown women is a decent attempt to give them space to speak without having to flip into harsh, nasal mode.
The complaints about women's voices are alive and well.
I'm a woman and I very often don't care for women's vocal affectations. The vocal fry you mention, plus ending every clause with a question mark? And many women are not taught, as their well-bred grandmothers were, that a cool, low, well-modulated speaking voice is worth cultivating.
I really dislike the shrill, nasal sound of many womens' voices and the fact that we don't encourage well-spokenness in general anymore. (Think before you speak; choose your words carefully; avoid filler sounds; etc)
Sidebar[pun intended]: Do you guys remember listening to the court tapes on Serial of Adnan's lawyer? She was incredibly shrill and awful to listen to. Is that common with women trial attorneys? What effect does that have on the process? I'm sure nothing they do is not deliberate but it makes me wonder because it causes most listeners to cringe; instant dislike.
"I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."
So, he's Harry Reid.
After watching him on Fox News last night, it has become pretty evident to me that Rand Paul is simply an asshole, one who would not give a direct answer to a question presented to him. The republicans have got to have someone better.
Bu bu bu what about Harry Reid.
Even the most cursory examination of history shows that the most harmful thing to women--and human beings in general--is statism.
"Rand Paul's problem is that, according to surveys, ruthless, uncaring libertarianism repels women, even though its most famous advocate was sweet, demure, nurturing Ayn Rand."
Sad but true. The Gender Gap shows that women are the Socialist Sex. Rand and the other two members of the pro-freedom female triumvirate of her era, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane, were the exceptions that prove the rule.
4/9/15, 11:07 AM
Ayn Rand was sweet and nurturing? LOL. She worshiped a serial killer.
Anne Althouse said... With that background understanding, what is objectively equal treatment may feel unequal.
Especially to splooge stooges.
garage mahal said...
Ayn Rand was sweet and nurturing? LOL. She worshiped a serial killer.
Your ignorance is boundless.
I'm not revealing anything new by pointing out that garage mahal is our resident representative of the Stupid Left (i.e., the Left that came to prominence in the Internet era, when computers enabled a lot of morons to have opinions on things without bothering to read books or think about what they read, or even--in GM's case--to follow even the most elementary syllogism.
It's always amused me how the Left piles on Rand for her apparent admiration of a "serial" killer--without considering the context of her remarks in which she said she didn't admire him for the murder but for his demeanor in court and his obvious
intelligence--yet is always either making excuses or actually admiring homicidal Leftist "heroes" such as Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Che and Uncle Ho.
Rand should ask in his next interview with a lefty if Hill has ever accompanied Bill on the pedophile express.
Rand Paul should questioned why Bill and Hill did not pay taxes for last 10 years.
Another thought. The Dems should run a minority gay woman. According to the current meme of Republican war(s) on women, gays and blacks, the Dems would get 98% of the popular vote.
Here's something to keep garage mahal occupied. Go ahead, GM, read slowly--even move your lips if you have to. No one's watching.
Forgot the link:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/08/my-little-pony-to-children-marxism-is-not-magic/
garage mahal said...
Rand Paul lost me when he said "I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."
Rand Paul "losing you" is not a one-time historical event, as you state.
Rand Paul (and a great many other things) 'loses you' each and every morning when your consciousness awakens from the nighttime dream state, into the barely different fantasy world of your waking daytime activities.
Well, there is one brief moment when your consciousness has to acknowledge "fuck, I'm still garage mahal", but right after that, it gets back to soldiering on.
Rand Paul (and a great many other things) 'loses you' each and every morning when your consciousness awakens from the nighttime dream state, into the barely different fantasy world of your waking daytime activities.
Whoa. That was deep dude. Rea-lly rea-lly deeeeeep.
Rand Paul being argumentative: Totally sexist.
Obama calling a reporter sweetie and dismissing her: Totally not sexist.
In other words Rand Paul is going to get alinskied ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it") by the progressive left in cooperation with the American mainstream media.
"In other words Rand Paul is going to get alinskied ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it") by the progressive left in cooperation with the American mainstream media."
I doubt these guys even know who Alinsky is. It's much simpler--they want to hit him early, not just to beef his negatives and fire up certain groups (hey women! Another war on women!) but to put all the GOP on defense going into the Hillary onslaught.
I welcome this--trial by fire! Get to see what they got early on, and learn how to acclimate to it. Whoever goes into the gauntlet next fall should be ready for this sort of thing, and maybe the mainstream voters will be tired of this crap by then.
I'll take a guy who is a bit rude to a female journalist (and frankly, that's how he treats male journalists) by interrupting them over a woman who spent her adulthood helping smear any woman who dared correctly accuse her sleazy husband of fondling them.
Does anyone have some video of Rand Paul talking over and being extremely condescending towards male interviewers?
I want to believe he's a equal-opportunity, self-important jerk, but some evidence would help.
How dare Rand Paul talk over Savannah Guthrie's Democrat campaign commercial.
If Rand Paul said something in the woods, and a woman didn't hear it, would it still be wrong?
No reasonable person could think that Paul bristled at the questioner rather than the questions. Guthrie opened by asking an eye surgeon if running for president had always been part of his "master plan." Paul kept his cool. Guthrie then asked: if the framework "deal" with Iran were accepted exactly as written in black and white, would that be a good deal? Paul began to explain that Iran immediately disagreed with what the "deal" was reported to be. And Guthrie proved her devotion to the Democrat cause by interrupting Paul with the inane: But set that aside -- would it be a good deal? Paul wouldn't descend to Guthrie's level of stupidity, and things went downhill from there.
His handlers should refuse interviews by women.
Problem solved.
I don't think everyone who doesn't support gay marriage as anti-gay; some yes, but not all.
tits.
Savannah Guthrie's problem - all the time, not just here is that she plays the woman card. Does anyone . . ANYONE, hello? . . . believe for even a half second that if she was a smidgen less beautiful that she would have the job? (Calling Ann Curry, Lisa Matthews, and yes, Rachel "she's got a degree from Oxford so you better kiss her feminine ass" Maddow (ratings in the toilet, record lows for her)). Savannah is a mediocre interviewer who gets extra credit for looks that a man wouldn't get because people can take integrity in news from a man.
Rand Paul's mistake was not holding out for Matt Lauer. He was notched down a peg by an ineffectual model posing as someone who doesn't have the talent or chops ten thousand men have that could do a better job.
So, Ann, for all your mouthing about how you want to judge a woman by her talents, why are you not berating even further the wildly mediocre Savannah Guthrie?
The press will have its hands full when all of the GOP contenders are in play. They are all young, full of life and ideas and the anthesis of the old bag they will likely run against.
The press will not be able to pick these guys off one by one, it just will be too difficult to conjure up the war on women and racist meme for each and every one.
Hillary can hide in the wings all she wants but at some point she will have to step on the stage. She will have trouble keeping up with all the good ideas she will have to dismiss in her shrill and irritated way. She is an old bag and will blow her top. Watch.
oh goody. More war on women bullshit.
This is horseshit. They tried a "gotcha" question about abortion and he handled it brilliantly and made the media look like the hypocritical fools they are.
The media had to turn it into "Rand is a big meanie to women!!" to deflect from that fact.
Why does everybody think, that because you don't agree with gay marriage, that you HATE gays, or are Anti-gay??
4/9/15, 8:47 AM
That is exactly what I've been wondering. I was pro-gay marriage but it's starting to look like the predictions of the anti-gay marriage (NOT anti-gay) people - predictions I scoffed at - were correct. As Jonah Goldberg said, the gay activists are not content to have won the battle, they are now walking around the battlefield shooting the wounded in the head.
The viciousness is revolting. That's why I gave generously to both the Memories Pizza couple and the baker in Washington State. "Leave people alone" should work both ways.
Ann Althouse said...
"Full disclosure: Rand Paul lost me with his pandering to the anti-gay crowd."
So Rand doesn't think the government should define marriage and this is anti-gay marriage now? He is a libertarian for christ's sake. Is the only acceptable position that the government punish everyone who doesn't fully support and participate in every gay marriage that happens?
Unbelievable.
You voted for a person in 2008 that opposed gay marriage in a transparent and obvious pander. This is a flimsy and transparent excuse. Sounds like a baby boomer who works at a posh government job who doesn't want to vote for someone who might upset the government/my money spigot they have been hoovering up their entire life.
Pretty soon people like me are just going to stop paying taxes and let you parasites find another host.
--Megyn Kelly has the most shrill voice on TV lately. It works for her, because she's very smart and very quick, and that shrill voice projects.--
Megyn has a fairly rich, deep voice - not shrill at all. Greta Van Sustern is shrill,
If the li'l darlins can't handle the pushback they should stay out of the newsroom.
Lefties are such pieces of shit anyway.
@ihavemisplacedmypants
Sure, but there is a difference between not liking the voices and dismissing the content or person out of hand because of the speaking voice; that's bigotry.
My mother taught me the value of a well modulated speaking voice...because she lives in a dream world where everyone (even those who are not attracted to you or do not know you) automatically stop and listen to what you have to say, politely consider it, and move on. This does not actually happen unless you are attractive, rich, powerful, etc. hence the modern female vocal strain. I've noticed it often gets exponentially worse after motherhood since you are talking in the imoerative to small ppl who May or may not be listening to you all day. ;)
as instapundit would like to say, it's "battlespace preparations"
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/02/wapos-chris-cillizza-has-4-possible.html
" But the reality is we have nearly 250 years of history where our government has defined marriage and that's not changing. "
250 years or so- in the United States. Since history started being recorded in history. And only in the last few years, not even an eyeblink in history, has any government or religion said, man-man, woman-woman, man-woman, it's all the same. And the reason why? Because until recently, even the intellectual class was intelligent enough to realize it isn't. It takes a special kind of stupid to say it is. There is also a history of man-multiple-women being defined as marriage. And being judgmental here, a non-permitted position in liberalland,societies that permit such marriages seem to be worse overall in all aspects of life.
Harold -
There is some evolutionary rationale for polygamy (what you refer to as man-multiple woman marriage). In some societies man tended (or tend) to kill each other off, leading to a surplus of women. That's problematic for the survival of the species if each woman is limited to one man.
Maybe the reason they were "worse off" wasn't the polygamy; it might have been the conditions that made the polygamy necessary.
This is why you don't see multiple man to one woman marriage anywhere in history. (Or for that matter same sex marriage in history). It's reproductively inefficient.
Rand Paul has a problem with idiot 'journalists'.
If it appears he has a problem with the women, then what does that tell you?
Wow, re-reading all the comments on this thread, seems Ann has been pretty thoroughly spanked on her 'Rand lost me' statement.
Achilles recent comment is especially on point.
A real day brightener.
So people like Candy Crowley should be given--excuse the expression a wide berth?
How come grown women can't handle testy tones from men and have to cry like little girls in attempts to gain unearned sympathy?
Funny how women proclaiming their equality and strength have to be treated like special princesses at all times by men, otherwise their feelings get hurt and they pout.
Maybe Rand can bring a fainting couch to his press conferences for them.
Post a Comment