December 13, 2017

The delusion that Elizabeth Warren "slut-shamed" Kirsten Gillibrand.

I'm reading "Did Elizabeth Warren Just Call Her Fellow Senator a Slut?" (by Tyler O'Neil at Pajamas Media) because it was linked by Glenn Reynolds in a post that says "And yesterday [Warren] was 'slut-shaming' fellow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand."

O'Neil is talking about Warren's response to this Trump tweet...
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!
... which I blogged about here. I said a few things about what Trump was doing with that tweet, but I ended with:
Trump is toying with sexual innuendo. The woman is "USED!" and she "begg[ed]" and "would do anything."
So it didn't surprise me when, later, I saw that Elizabeth Warren tweeted (in response to Trump's tweet):
Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump....
That's not Warren slut-shaming Gillibrand. That's Warren seeing the same thing I saw, I believe. I said "toying with," where she used the device of asking a question, and I said "sexual innuendo" where she said "slut-shaming." It's the same point.

O'Neil concedes that Trump's language "does seem sexually suggestive," which I think gets him as far as agreeing with me. So what's different about how Warren put it? O'Neil says the term "slut-shaming" is a way to criticize someone who's "blaming the victim of sexual assault" because she was acting or dressing a certain way, so that would mean that Warren implied that Gillibrand must have been overtly manifesting sexuality and that it was wrong of Trump to react to her expressiveness in a negative way.

I think that's what O'Neil is groping at. I'm trying to help O'Neil make sense even as I think that O'Neil does not make sense and that whatever shred of sense there may be is used at the price of looking as though he'd just do anything to attack Elizabeth Warren.

218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
holdfast said...

Gillibrand, like most politicians, is a whore. That's quite distinct from being a slut.

Sluts are fun; whores only give it up for money.

In Gillibrand's case that's not sex - it's her "political principles" - i.e. she's a lib/prog crusader, but for enough $$ she'll help our real estate developers, Wall Street banks, etc.

Gillibrand's whore-value is her vote in the US Senate, not her body - which is maybe a 2/10 in the real world (which makes her a Senate 8/10, but who cares).

buwaya said...

Over-analysis.

The point is not the reasonableness of any statement.
Merely that it is a fairly fresh sort of ammunition.

Everything said in such things can be reduced to "he's poopy!"
Its just that it works better with some variety.
But far more important is volume.

Pinandpuller said...

A whore will vote with anyone.

A bitch will vote with anyone but you.

Inga said...

The same odd assertion was made on a thread yesterday. How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was Warren calling Gillibrand a slut because Warren mentioned “slut shaming” is beyond me. It took a tremendous amount of dishonesty or creativity.

Renee said...

Didn't see it the same way, because that's how Trump talks about men as well.

n.n said...

No, the jury is divided. Half the people believe, accurately, that Warren is shaming the slut, a promiscuous, untrustworthy woman, who follows the prevailing winds, money, votes, etc. (Pro-Choice).

Inga said...

“Didn't see it the same way, because that's how Trump talks about men as well.”

Trump uses men’s sex to shame them and to control them? I haven’t seen Trump doing this.

n.n said...

c. 1400, "a dirty, slovenly, or untidy woman," according to OED "Of doubtful origin," but probably cognate with dialectal German Schlutt "slovenly woman," dialectal Swedish slata "idle woman, slut," and Dutch slodde "slut," slodder "a careless man," but the exact relationship of all these is obscure. Chaucer uses sluttish (late 14c.) in reference to the appearance of an untidy man. Also "a kitchen maid, a drudge" (mid-15c.; hard pieces in a bread loaf from imperfect kneading were called slut's pennies, 18c.).
slut

Yeah, she's not a slut. Far from it. In the NAACP vernacular, she's a "hole" as in "black hole". I wonder if "white hole" would be considered diverse (i.e. racist).

Inga said...

Slut shaming is a way assholes like to try to subdue and control women. Only self hating women and certain men don’t understand this. Some women actually engage in slut shaming themselves.

Kevin said...

The point of calling slut shaming is that the behavior is natural and should not be turned into something dirty.

In this case, the possibility that Gillibrand may have been willing to provide sexual favors for campaign contributions.

Warren could have said, "wow are you really implying that about my colleague in the Senate"? That would have demonstrated her disbelief that her friend could act that way.

But she didn't. She went with don't slut shame my friend for what you perceive she might do or has done. The implication being that even if Gillibrand had performed sexual favors, one shouldn't put them down for doing so.

To use a sports metaphor, Trump put the ball on the one yard line. Warren ran it in and spiked it.

Rabel said...

O'Neil's post at PJ Media and Instapundit's link to it had one and only one purpose - to get Instapundit readers to click on the link.

Mission Accomplished.

Glenn and Roger sold out to the ad money a few years ago. It's to your credit that you haven't done the same.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

I don't understand the shock. Remember when it was high political satire to joke about Trump servicing Putin?

Implying that politicians would do sexual things for political favors is common, and it is rarely meant literally. It is a figurative statement of how debased it is for the politician to do something for donors, fellow politicians, etc. It is uncouth, vulgar and in bad taste -- but perfectly common in every day American language.

Kevin said...

How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was Warren calling Gillibrand a slut because Warren mentioned “slut shaming” is beyond me.

Everyone stop slut-shaming Inga! What she chooses to do is not for you to judge.

Now how do you feel?

Inga said...

“The implication being that even if Gillibrand had performed sexual favors, one shouldn't put them down for doing so.”

That certainly was not the implication. How the heck can you get that from the term slut shaming?

“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or PRESUMED activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

In contemporary usage, slut is a reference to vulnerable women and girls exploited by female chauvinists to exhibit their warez in a parade, in anticipation of a revenue drive.

Nonapod said...

This game of semantic gotcha is tedious and difficult to follow. It all seems so absurd, but maybe that's the point? People are going to infer all sorts of meanings to the stuff Trump Tweets, he obviously knows that all too well and tries to take advantage of that. He purposely will use ambiguous wordings and unusual shorthand expressions. Whether for good or ill, Trump sows chaos with language.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Also: There is no doubt that is *exactly what Trump intended*, and comes back to the whole *take him seriously, not literally* thing.]

rehajm said...

The attempt is so strained it could have been BREAKING NEWS: on the CNN crawl.

Inga said...

The implication Trump was making was that Gillibrand would give sexual favors in exchange for campaign contributions. Warren was pushing back against such an implication and clearly described what Trump was doing as slut shaming. I think perhaps the meaning of term slut shaming isn’t fully understood by the people getting confused about what Warren was saying.

Matthew Sablan said...

People who think Trump literally meant she solicited sex for votes/money: Do you think Colbert literally meant Trump would perform oral sex on Putin, or do you think he meant it as a hyperbolic example of the ends to which Trump would go to please someone politically?

When you read this, do you think that even though the intent is to create the ridiculous hyperbolic "anything" that they really mean they'd do it, or is it a figure of speech?

n.n said...

Trump exposes the disorder and paradox forced by redefining, appropriating, characterizing language for use by special and peculiar interests. And, of course, the popular use of euphemisms. For example: "Planned", "Choice", "diversity", "social justice".

Liberalism is divergent.

Progressivism is monotonic.

Conservatism is inertial.

We'll have a gay old time.

n.n said...

The Winter Semantic Games.

Kevin said...

“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or PRESUMED activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”

How do I get that from the term slut-shaming? Because it's in the definition you quoted.

“Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or PRESUMED activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity.”

You are putting the emphasis on the idea that it might be presumed - someone might be criticized for something she didn't do. If that were true, we wouldn't need a word like slut-shaming for it. We would simply say, don't comment on innuendo. Get the facts before you judge.

But the proper stress is on the criticism. We are told that even if it were known to be true with certainty, (her real activity) she should not be criticized for it. It is only because the truth of her actions can be in conflict with our markers of good behavior AND YET WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO COMMENT ON IT that the word slut-shaming even exists.

Slut or no, we are told, it is the shaming that is wrong.

Curious George said...

Did Warren infer Gillibrand was a slut....well yes, although it surely wasn't her intent. It's just that the Pow Wow Chow chef isn't that bright.

SPeaking of not that bright, our resident dullard Inga:

"The same odd assertion was made on a thread yesterday. How anyone could come to the conclusion that it was Warren calling Gillibrand a slut because Warren mentioned “slut shaming” is beyond me. It took a tremendous amount of dishonesty or creativity."

This is the same idiot that asserted that Trump's tweet was "sexual harassment. Seriously.
Looks like "tremendous amount of dishonesty or creativity" just found their poster child.

Qwinn said...

I agree with Matthew Sabian. It was perfectly ok for liberals to joke about Trump fellating Putin. Still ok, in fact. And not "innuendo" about it, but with maximum vulgarity.

But "innuendo" against Gillibrand where the exact same language could be used against a man and it would NOT be considered sexual or innuendo, Ann and Warren hear slut shaming.

It's pretty repulsive. That said, I don't think Warren or Ann was suggesting Gillibrand is a slut, and thought those headlines were ridiculous. But what Ann and Warren and the media are accusing Trump of *solely because of the gender of the person he said it to* is every bit as unfair and reprehensible as slut shaming.

Matthew Sablan said...

All the people who say they'll get Trump out of office "by any means necessary:" do you literally believe they'll sleep with people or perform sexual favors to get him out of office?

How literal are you willing to take everyone else so you can take this literally?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Gridlock happens purposely when Republican politicians like Marco Rubio decide they will do anything to oppose anything good for the country if a Democratic President proposes it. And that’s now Marco Rubio’s campaign platform: Gridlock. "

-- How dare President Obama slut shame Marco Rubio.

Is this it? Is this the rule? Because, God, if it is, it is a stupid rule.

tim in vermont said...

I don't see the slut shaming. It's corruption shaming, as for seeing slut shaming, it's like the old saying, if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it. It's bullshit projection from Democrats.

Matthew Sablan said...

Al Franken -- literal, figurative?

Inga said...

“Do you think Colbert literally meant Trump would perform oral sex on Putin, or do you think he meant it as a hyperbolic example of the ends to which Trump would go to please someone politically?”

Trump is the President of the USA, directing a disgusting tweet to a sitting Senator. His many hyperbolic comments are beneath the dignity of the Office.

Matthew Sablan said...

Were these voters slut shaming Clinton and Trump?

n.n said...

Pro-Choice/abortion logically implies denying due process, disproportionate sentencing, but, in the urban lexicon it connotes civil rights, even human rights, and progress (one step forward, two steps backward) which it is.

There was also the instance of setting targets, which was interpreted to mean a setup for a hit or elective abortion. The NYT pleaded ignorance to forming close associations, which was followed by at least two attempts to abort Republican representatives.

Matthew Sablan said...

It may be disgusting, and it may be hyperbolic -- but it is perfectly mainstream American use of language.

Sorry. If you REALLY want to get offended by this, we *literally* need to change how we talk about politics.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

I guess Warren just assumed that when Gillibrand was hitting up Trump for donations, that sex was on the table.

Sebastian said...

The issue is not whether Trump or Warren implied that Gillibrand is a slut.

The point of the slut-shaming smear, used by a prog against Trump, is to shut up Trump and play on women' feelings. He is a mean man and women deserve better. It is working.

Kevin said...

People who think Trump literally meant she solicited sex for votes/money:

For the record, I didn't think Trump's "anything" meant that. I think if we find ourselves with female Senators giving out sexual favors for campaign contributions, we should burn the whole place down.

But I did immediately think Warren's comment suggested that whatever Gillibrand did Trump shouldn't be putting her down for doing it.

Warren was playing to her base. She wanted to throw something out that might be hip, catchy, and retweeted. And she really didn't think it through.

If you think Gillibarnd is happy Warren used the word "slut-shaming" in reference to her, I have a bridge to sell you.

holdfast said...

"slut-shaming" is the new "Islamophobia" - a meaningless term used to shut down debate that someone doesn't like.

n.n said...

She may have implied there was a friendship with "benefits" in the social liberal vernacular. However, she is not a slut in the original meaning. Perhaps in the NAACP vernacular. That said, as language progresses, the meaning can be anything, something, or nothing (i.e. political congruence) to follow the prevailing political winds.

BDNYC said...

I always understood "slut-shaming" to mean judging a woman who likes to get drunk and hook up with random men. The idea being it's wrong to judge her for her sexual choices because her choices are hers and hers alone. It's something she shouldn't be ashamed of.

This is the mentality that gave rise to slut walks.

This is why Sen. Warren's tweet seemed to suggest that her sister senator is a loose woman who shouldn't be ashamed of herself.

Inga said...

“But I did immediately think Warren's comment suggested that whatever Gillibrand did Trump shouldn't be putting her down for doing it.”

Only in your imagination. Warren did not imply anything of the sort. That’s an odd way to see it, perhaps you wish that is what she meant, she didn't.

Achilles said...

Trump told the truth about Gillibrand. That is it. It makes democrats mad when someone tells the truth about them. They are in general disgusting and amoral and their only goal is power over other people.

Gillibrand serviced Bill Clinton politically until it was advantageous to turn on him. She clearly has no principles beyond political expedience and power. Just like Inga. Or any other democrat. They all supported a known rapist when it gave them power. It is what makes them hollow inside and why they clearly cannot be allowed to have power over others.

n.n said...

The point of the slut-shaming smear, used by a prog against Trump

Is to influence elections. Sometimes in collusion with foreign intelligence assets and governments, to the tune of billions of dollars, uranium assets, and immigration reform.

Achilles said...

I remember when democrats would say things like drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.

History starts anew every day when your only principle is power over other people.

Inga said...

People who slut shame use a woman’s sex to imply she is behaving too boldly, too strongly, too independently. It’s a way of controlling a “sassy” woman.

FIDO said...

Shrug.

Since Sarah Palin and the excoriation she received, I don't see any more need for civility. Right now, the press, the entertainment media and Democrats are being miserable hypocrites in how they attack Republicans.

So why should we watch our tongues for people who a) hate us already with a thousand burning suns anyway and b) do it back to our women?


I know this offends Ms. Althouse, but civility is based on reciprocity. Take the planks out of your side's eyes, thanks.

Qwinn said...

A "disgusting tweet" that is ONLY "disgusting" because it was said to a woman. Said to a man, the EXACT same words, no one would've thought twice about it.

Because equality!

It is Ann, Inga and Warren who assume "anything", said by a man to a woman, includes sex, while if said by a man to a man does not.

Because heteronormativity! Which I thought was bad too.

Kevin said...

Only in your imagination.

No, because it's been drilled into my head by the media that no matter what a women does with her body, it's wrong for me to criticize her for it.

Her body her choice, I'm told time and again.

Nor are women supposed to do this to the women, lest men believe there are actual lines women should not cross.

So as I've pointed out in the very definition you cited, it's not whether any behavior happened or not, its the criticism which is objectionable.

Thus, it was Trump's perceived moralizing and not Gillibrand's perceived or actual willingness to trade sexual favors for campaign contributions, which society tells us is the worst thing in the exchange.

Warren clearly thought that was the worst thing discussed, which is why she Tweeted as such.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Is it a delusion?

Warren used "slut-shaming" in a metaphorical way that indirectly puts Gillibrand in the position of the slut, Trump being the slut-shamer, and Gillibrand being the object of his slut-shaming. True, the context that arguably denies Gillibrand is a slut.

But that's what's complicated about the term slut-shaming - it communicates that is wrong to shame but it also communicates that it is OK to be a slut, or more precisely that it's OK to engage in behavior that might cause one to be called a slut.

In this case the "slutty" behavior Trump's tweet references is Gillibrand's political relationships with Schumer, the Clintons, and him.

So there is a bit of innuendo in Warren's tweet. She could have chosen a better metaphor. Or perhaps it was intentional. Warren and Gillibrand are potential rivals for the 2020 Democratic Presidential nomination. Both have said they are not running.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
holdfast said...

Sorry, is this like when Democrat David Letterman joked about a sports team running a train on Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter? It's hard to keep up.

Bay Area Guy said...

I think the Left makes a mistake when it tries to parse Trump's words to find the one racist/sexist nugget that will finally get cause his downfall.

I think the Right makes the same mistake when does this to folks (like Warren) as well.

No, Fauxchahontas did not accidentally call Gillibrand a slut, jeez.

Let's get that tax cut bill passed before Xmas -- the rest is just commentary (obiter dicta).

Nonapod said...

Also remember that both Warren and Gillibrand have 2020 presidential ambitions. So a very cynical observer may conclude that Warren may fear Gillibrand, she's younger and has less baggage. So associating the term "slut" with Gillibrand, even in an indirect way could even be a strategy. Although that may be a bridge too far, I don't know.

Larvell said...

"I said 'sexual innuendo' where she said 'slut-shaming.' It's the same point."

Yes, in the sense that saying a guy kissed someone while they were both intoxicated is the same point as saying he raped her.

MadisonMan said...

Slut-shame with respect to a Senator is click bait.

Kevin said...

People who slut shame use a woman’s sex to imply she is behaving too boldly, too strongly, too independently. It’s a way of controlling a “sassy” woman.

Right. Who are we to judge if Gillibrand gives hummers for $100 campaign contributions? Or $50. Or $5.

It's the people who would morally object to it who are the real menace to society!

Renee said...

Igna

“Didn't see it the same way, because that's how Trump talks about men as well.”

Trump uses men’s sex to shame them and to control them? I haven’t seen Trump doing this.


Umm no, because Trump wasn't using sex at all in his tweet. He has said that politicians do kiss his rear end though in the past.

Nonapod said...

Looks like Left Bank of the Charles concluded the same thing I did and beat me to it.

Kevin said...

No, Fauxchahontas did not accidentally call Gillibrand a slut, jeez.

Then please explain what she meant.

Seriously. You can't just say, "Oh, she didn't mean it." You have to explain what it meant in terms that don't leave Gillibrand looking worse for Warren having said it.

Pick up your pencils. Time starts now.

Bay Area Guy said...

I don't like the word phrase "slut-shaming." It's too judgmental.

In college, we had the "Walk of Shame." That's Sunday morning when females, often hungover, in varied stages of clothing disarray would quietly leave apartments or frat houses to return to their sorority or apartments in a somewhat disheveled state -- hopefully, before anyone would see them.

But that was all in good fun. No Al Frankens or Harvey Weinsteins allowed.

The Dems now have a 2-pronged attack against Trump: (1) Russian collusion with Mueller and (2) sexual harassment charges by various females.

I hope Trump's legal counsel is ready.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Kevin,

Then please explain what she meant.

She, Fauxchohontas, meant that Trump had insulted Gillibrand with sexual innuendo.

Inga said...

“Umm no, because Trump wasn't using sex at all in his tweet. He has said that politicians do kiss his rear end though in the past.”

Really? What did Trump mean when he said Gillibrand would do anything for a campaign donation?

"Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office 'begging' for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!"

Trump used sexual innuendo against Gillibrand. I don’t think there are too many people that didn’t understand that. Unless maybe you’re like Sarah Huckabee Sanders and think one would only take it that way if “their minds were in the gutter”. Which is laughable.

Jim at said...

Trump said the same things - and worse - about Ted Cruz, you stupid bint.

Was it sexual innuendo then? Of course not.
Nor is it now.

Your stupidity is only surpassed by your blatant dishonesty.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Really? What did Trump mean when he said Gillibrand would do anything for a campaign donation?"

-- The same thing Americans have meant for probably over a century when saying the same thing about politicians?

Kevin said...

I said "sexual innuendo" where she said "slut-shaming." It's the same point.

Sexual innuendo was the correct term. It implies something may have been insinuated without getting into moral judgment. It discusses Trump's behavior independent of Gillibrand's.

Slut-shaming goes further. It says the innuendo should not be morally disparaged, whether or not it is true. It criticizes Trump's behavior while absolving Gillibrand of moral judgement.

One can use sexual innuendo with the most chaste person. It does not even have to be derogatory in nature.

Unfortunately for Warren, one can only use slut-shaming in the presence of a real or perceived "slut".

Greg said...

I think the whole point was to make fun of Warren's use of the term slut shaming. Like your Granny trying to say she's woke, or suing acronyms like YOLO. (or me for that matter)/ Strictly as the term is meant to be used, yes her tweet implied she was calling her a slut. Because slut shaming is meant to be used in the context of someone acting in a manner that might be considered slutty and being criticized for it. It's not used in a context where someone is falsely accused of acting slutty.

Kevin said...

Really? What did Trump mean when he said Gillibrand would do anything for a campaign donation?

Write draft legislation, make phone calls, show up at weddings and funerals, take his calls, give him intel on other Senators, let him peek at draft bills, speak at charity events, come to groundbreakings and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, have her picture taken with him, get tickets to sold out shows, come on The Apprentice, say nice things about him in the press, pressure zoning boards, make favorable votes, call bank regulators...

The list is endless.

Inga said...

To come to the conclusion that Warren was saying it was OK for Gillibrand to use sex to get ahead is ludicrous. I’m quite sure she does not think it’s acceptable. One would have to assume she has reason to stab Gillibrand in the back. They could very well be on a ticket together in 2020. Warren is a Democratic women, who votes the same way on issues that Gillibrand does. There is no rational reason that Warren was implying Gillibrand used sex to get campaign donations. None.

tim in vermont said...

New Senator appointed to fill Franken's seat seems as hot as Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Clinton's seat...

Inga said...

“Write draft legislation, make phone calls, show up at weddings and funerals, take his calls, give him intel on other Senators, let him peek at draft bills, speak at charity events, come to groundbreakings and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, have her picture taken with him, get tickets to sold out shows, come on The Apprentice, say nice things about him in the press, pressure zoning boards, make favorable votes, call bank regulators...”

Surrrrre.

Matthew Sablan said...

Inga: Have you never actually heard someone call a politician a whore in a figurative sense?

Inga said...

Matthew, again, Trump is the POTUS. He’s not just “anyone”.

gadfly said...

Seriously, Ann ... Do you really give a flying you-know-what about the idiocy that flows from the feeble mind of Donald Trump when he tweets about anything?

Gillibrand started a fight with Trump that she is ill-equipped to finish and now we must put up with so-called news about (or in Trump's case, listen to the cable shows discuss) the upcoming references to blood direct from the adolescent-in-charge's iPhone.

Presidents are supposed to spend their waking hours (20 for Trump?) running the government, while, at the same time, not ragging on women.

Renee said...

Igna, I am in agreement with the list of Kevin created. Gillibrand isn't a bimbo intern like Monica Lewinski, Gillibrand had power and influence to create and do things for Trump just like all of her male peers. It strikes me as it being odd that men see the power Gillibrand has a U S Senator, but all the women reduce Gillibrand to only being able to offer sex.

Trump sees her in a higher light than most woman, even if it is to kiss his tushy.

Matthew Sablan said...

So? It's fine to say you don't think he should be vulgar, but don't pretend to not understand what he means.

Kevin said...

To come to the conclusion that Warren was saying it was OK for Gillibrand to use sex to get ahead is ludicrous.

Calling out slut-shaming isn't saying the underlying behavior is OK - that too would be a moral judgement just like saying it's not OK.

Slut-shaming says it's not OK to pass moral judgement on anything a woman does sexually. It says, no matter what happened or didn't happen, we are not to pass judgement.

Rather than approving or disapproving, it turns Gillibrand's campaign requests into a judgement-free zone.

Qwinn said...

We have reached the absurd point where we could find half a dozen examples of Trump using the same language against men, and it would make no difference. What he meant is irrelevant if the women reading it read it different when said to a woman, and their assumptions are unfalsifiable because they rely on mind reading and a hypocritical demand to be treated with kid gloves and equal simultaneously, which is of course impossible, and therefore the man can ALWAYS be attacked from one angle or the other as required.

Everyone knows that men can be whores in a political sense, selling political favors for cash. The position of Ann, Inga and Warren makes it literally impossible to point out women doing the same thing. Women are simply to be assumed - no, REQUIRED to be considered of perfect moral character.

Otherwise, tell me, ladies, how CAN we possibly point out a political whore (in the sense a man could be) that is female in words that you would not interpret as sexist or innuendo? Give us the sentence. A way to hold a woman just as accountable as a man without insuting women everywhere.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Presidents are supposed to spend their waking hours (20 for Trump?) running the government, while, at the same time, not ragging on women."

-- Eh, I blame this on America constantly wanting their president to be cool and hip. Remember when it was awesome when Obama used his time talking to us about all the cool television he watched and filling out his bracket?

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

Did you know that "duck fart" is an anagram of "fucktard" ?

Nonapod said...

Warren has demonstrated herself to be fairly mercenary many times in the past (the most obvious being when she claimed she was Native American in order to save money for college). I don't believe it's too much to imagine that such a person would be capable of purposely associating a suggestive term with a potential rival while ostensibly defending them. In US presidential politics, no tactic is too underhanded. After all, power is all that matters.

Qwinn said...

If Trump had the presence of mind to change "anything" to "anything aside from sex", the screeches of "innuendo" would be even louder.

So give us a peek at the answer sheet, ladies. Tell us how Trump could've said what he said to Gillibrand, which he has also accused men of, without you clutching your pearls?

I posit: There is no way, and you are okay with that.

wwww said...

I posit: There is no way, and you are okay with that.


No need to guess or argue! we'll know if suburban women are "okay" with Trump's tweets come Nov of 2018.

Maybe they love the drama and his bon mots and will vote for his agenda with enthusiasm! Or maybe they are exhausted or disgusted from all the drama -- and are too tired to vote for his agenda.

Time will tell.

Qwinn said...

The lesson being: NEVER vote for anyone other than white heterosexual men. They are the only ones who can be criticized and held to account without committing thoughtcrime.

Exceptins can be made for Republican women and minorities, about whom you can say things the KKK of the 1920's would've been ashamed of and it's perfectly okay.

Qwinn said...

Wwww:

Democrat women will of course find fault with it. Ann did, and she's the fairest of the bunch. Far far worse and more blatantly sexist criticisms of Sarah Palin and Huckabee are ignored.

And the media will make sure that everyone who isn't a staunch Democrat only hears the Democrat interpretations.

Which is why we are fucked.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well, I am a woman and I did not see any sexual innuendo in Trump's tweet.

The will do anything for donations meant, to me: would vote anyway you wanted, promise you anything, do you all sorts of favors. Basically sell herself, or himself, for money in exchange for whatever they can give.

Now, in reality that DOES make you a whore. But, it doesn't necessarily make you a sexual whore. Men and women in politics have been selling themselves, selling their votes, selling out their morality for ages.

Just stating a fact.

wwww said...


Or "Lesson":

If your nominee says things like "blood coming out of her...wherever" there might be a, well, lack of enthusiasm from women voters in the future.

Particularly if he persists in tweets as a President that...um...imply sexual things...And then he denies it! It's a pattern -- don't expect people to not recognize the pattern.

Humans are sensitive to pattern recognition.

Inga said...

“So give us a peek at the answer sheet, ladies. Tell us how Trump could've said what he said to Gillibrand, which he has also accused men of, without you clutching your pearls?"

So Trump has accused men of having sex with him to get campaign donations?!

Damn!

Qwinn said...

Have you found any "patterns" in the way the Left criticizes conservatives named "Sarah", wwww?

Matthew Sablan said...

So. Yes. The left will deliberately pretend not to understand what Trump meant to instead pretend he meant something else.

Qwinn said...

No, Inga, he has accused men of offering "anything" for donations.

You assume sex is included only if he's saying "anything" to a woman.

Which makes you the heteronormative sexist, not him.

wwww said...

Well, I am a woman and I did not see any sexual innuendo in Trump's tweet.


Yes, but there is a base of women voters who voted for Moore in Alabama. Those are not the women voters that that Republicans will be watching in 2018 or 2020. Trump has a very solid 33% base.

The political implication is relevant for how women react who are swing voters, not base voters.

I'll call it right now. The persistence of these tweets are not helpful for the R. party in 2018. Will make it harder to win suburbs.

Inga said...

Naïveté or something is else at work here.

wwww said...

The left will deliberately pretend not to understand what Trump meant to instead pretend he meant something else.


The left will vote how the left will vote. The question is how are independents and swing voters seeing it?

wwww said...

Have you found any "patterns" in the way the Left criticizes conservatives named "Sarah", wwww?

? Are you talking about a commenter here?

BDNYC said...

In short, Sen. Warren didn't "slut shame" Gillibrand. She just lowkey called her a slut.

Bay Area Guy said...

Also, as a reminder, not to sound like Mr. Rogers, but when we stray too far from substantive issues:

1. Desirable tax rate
2. Appropriate immigration policies
3. Appropriate response to Islamic terrorism
4. Defense policy towards North Korea
5. Trade policy
6. Replacing Obamacare

..we are stuck in the leftwing playground.

Qwinn said...

"Naiveté"

Out: Begging the question.

In: Buggering the question till it screams.

wwww said...

"Far far worse and more blatantly sexist criticisms of Sarah Palin and Huckabee are ignored."

oh, I see what you're talking about.

Here's the deal with that: a Presidential tweet is going to get national and, even international coverage. Sarah Palin isn't in the news right now. Huckabee is someone that a "normal" doesn't hear about. By normal, I mean people who don't follow politics as a hobby. Like we're doing. We can't trust the responses of political hobbyists to any of this.

Think about your friend at church or book group or someone you chat with at the grocery store. Are they watching press briefings? Probably not. So they aren't hearing any of the responses to Huckabee, either.

But they are a lot more likely to hear about a presidential tweet. Because, well, he's the President.


jwl said...

Ronald Reagan - "Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

tim in vermont said...

You shouldn't reward the troll with a response when even she doesn't believe what she's peddling.

Qwinn said...

Wwww: Please. Sarah Palin was the VP candidate when she was ripped apart in the most sexist ways imaginable in the national spotlight.

Ever read "I want to hate fuck Ann Coulter"?

Never once heard a leftie denounce that one.

rhhardin said...

How does slut shaming survive when there's also slut shaving, slut shaking, slut shaping and slut sharing.

jwl said...

'Slur shaming' needs rebranding if concept is to be taken seriously, President Trump did not use that word but conversation ends while talking about whether Sen Gillibrand is slut or not.

jwl said...

Slur Shaming = slut shaming

Anonymous said...

Althouse quotes and writes:

someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!

... which I blogged about here. I said a few things about what Trump was doing with that tweet, but I ended with:
Trump is toying with sexual innuendo. The woman is "USED!" and she "begg[ed]" and "would do anything."


I'm sorry, but your claim, at best, comes from a place of great ignorance. She's a politician. The suck up to donors all the time.

It's not about sex, it's about humiliation. It's why just about all politicians HATE fundraising.

You have the excuse that you're not a politician. Warren is one, so she has no excuse.

rhhardin said...

John and Ken on KFI had to apologize sincerely for calling Whitney Houston a crack whore, expressing no interest in her death against the media hysteria.

I never trusted them again after that apology.

Don't bother listening we're not going to ever say anything un-PC again.

Slut shaming is a positive thing in politics.

Inga said...

Does Rhhardin slut shame his dogs?

Sebastian said...

"Women are simply to be assumed - no, REQUIRED to be considered of perfect moral character" While lamenting the "unintentional fetishization" of women.

@www: "The persistence of these tweets are not helpful for the R. party in 2018. Will make it harder to win suburbs." Correct.

Sebastian said...

The left has found its wedge issue. Race failed. Russia failed. But women's feelings won't.

NIkki Haley, get ready. An artfully resigned resignation after the midterms would do: "While I am proud that President Trump has done xyz, I believe we must believe women. Because what I have heard from women about the president disturbs, me, I regretfully announce that I have offered President Trump my resignation." Then run. And recruit Jodi Ernst.

R.J. Chatt said...

The world is made up of two kinds of people: people who actually have listened to Trump's speeches and know what he has said and people who never have, and refuse to, but think they know what he is about. Trump has talked extensively on the campaign trail about his experiences with politicians coming up to Trump Tower to solicit (see sexual innuendo) campaign contributions and how disgusted he was by the process, but that he made contributions in order to get favorable (see sexual innuendo) treatment for his business deals. That's one of the main reasons he self-financed his primary run, in order to not be bought by anyone. (again, more sexual innuendo)

I agree with DBQ, that Trump's tweet was not being suggestive sexually unless you choose to read it that way. Warren insists that we must read it that way and throws shade at Gillibrand at the same time, as if she's defending her. It's subtle. We might note that Gillibrand, unlike Warren, might have sex appeal. With Warren you get plain vanilla, absolutely zero sex appeal.

Kamala Harris, who has lots of sex appeal, is staying clear of this nonsense. Smart move.

Rocketeer said...

To come to the conclusion that Warren was saying it was OK for Gillibrand to use sex to get ahead is ludicrous. I’m quite sure she does not think it’s acceptable.

Warren thought it was okay to lie about her ethnicity to get ahead. Why would anyone presume she would feel any differently about using sex?

Jupiter said...

Seems pretty simple. Gillibrand just needs to tell us what she won't do for a campaign contribution. There must be something.

I have to say, looking at pictures of the woman, if she sidled up to me and said "I'll do anything for a campaign contribution", I'd tell her to wash my car.

Inga said...

“Warren thought it was okay to lie about her ethnicity to get ahead. Why would anyone presume she would feel any differently about using sex?”

Another erroneous assumption.

Achilles said...

wwww said...
"Far far worse and more blatantly sexist criticisms of Sarah Palin and Huckabee are ignored."

oh, I see what you're talking about.

Here's the deal with that:


Shorter pile of drooling idiocy: Because you don't care about the principle or the consistent application of the principle, only the way you can selectively apply the principle in a way that gives your side more power over other people.

Sebastian said...

Of course, as others have implied, the great irony of the 2016 election is that Hill was the one Dem who prevented Dems from starting the witch hunt then and exploiting women's feelings against Trump.

Many women disliked Trump. They just hated Hill more.

Many women had doubts about Trump. They just knew that Bill had done worse.

Many women were open to a mean-to-women we-are-due pitch. Without a prior housecleaning, bottled up by the Clintons, the Dems just couldn't make that pitch.

Now they can scorch the earth properly and reel women in.

dbp said...

Warren might be stupid, but maybe she was being a crafty frenemy to Gillibrand.

By calling out Trump for "slut-shaming", Warren burnishes her feminist cred and implies that Gillibrand is in fact a slut. Warren, Gillibrand and the empty-suit Senator from California will be the most likely Democratic candidates for president in three years.

Comanche Voter said...

Gillibrand starts a fight with Trump (it doesn't take much to do that because he's always on the prod).

Trump turns around and, rhetorically speaking, kicks Gillibrand in her political nuts. (There Crocagawea does that analysis avoid the "slut shaming" horror of it all?)


Some folks call Trump a bully. Others call him a scrapper who enjoys a good fight. There's a bit of truth in both characterizations.

In either case Gillibrand started a fight that she is ill equipped to win. And she's not helped by Liawatha coming up with some faux sympathy in an attempt to jab at The Donald.

Jupiter said...

Inga said...
"To come to the conclusion that Warren was saying it was OK for Gillibrand to use sex to get ahead is ludicrous."

Very good, Igna. Now, would it also be ludicrous to come to the conclusion that President Trump was saying Gillibrand had attempted to use sex to get ahead? I suppose it would be a little clearer if he had used the word "slut", like Gillibrand's rival did. There's an ambiguity to "anything" that just clears right up when you call someone a slut.

Inga said...

“In either case Gillibrand started a fight that she is ill equipped to win.”

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The more Trump bullies and slut shames women, the more women will leave him. Look what happened in Alabama. Republican white women either stayed home, voted for Jones or wrote in a candidate. Trumps words eventually will have consequences, it’s already started happening.

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rocketeer said...

Another erroneous assumption.

It's neither erroneous, nor an assumption.

She claimed minority status at UT law school. She literally "checked the box." She is not a minority.

Qwinn said...

Since we're quoting Reagan:

"The Soviet leaders reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, and that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause."

Extend "The Soviet leaders" to the entire Democrat Party and... yeah. Pretty much spot on.

Rabel said...

"Kamala Harris, who has lots of sex appeal..."

You're working with out-of-date information. That horse has left the barn.

Inga said...

“She literally "checked the box." She is not a minority.”

She believed what she had been told by her family. There are many people who think they have Native American heritage, by family stories passed down through the generations, only to find out they don’t when they’ve taken a DNA test. She didn't try to perpetrate a fraud. This is an old story and an old argument.

Ken B said...

Missing the point. If a a Republican objected to “perv shaming” Moore we'd see those here denying that Warren called anyone a slut saying he called Moore a perv.

Of course it’s BS either way. English lacks a clear subjunctive, but in French or German warren would have used it.

dbp said...

Anyone who checks off the minority box because of "family folklore" is either an idiot or a grifter.

Qwinn said...

Inga won't extend any benefit of the doubt whatsoever when half a signature is an admitted forgery, but she's ready to go to the mattresses (innuendo!) to chalk up Warren setting herself up as "the first woman of color to attend Harvard" to a completely innocent mistake based on the assumption that her family innocently made up a distant native american ancestor for no reason whatsoever and lied about it to her for her entire life.

Unexpectedly.

Inga said...

"I am very proud of my heritage," Warren told NPR in 2012. "These are my family stories. This is what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw. This is our lives. And I'm very proud of it."

In that account and others, a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American.

Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being "Native American." They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory. Critics note that she had not done that in her student applications and during her time as a teacher at the University of Texas.
Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage.”

Rocketeer said...

In that account and others, a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American.

It is not.

Howard said...

Warren not fit to be poster girl for national democrat congress takeover. She doesn't play well in Reagan democrat country. They already got the coastal and urban elites locked up.

Qwinn said...

Was that genealogist as much of a "genealogical expert" as the "handwriting expert" Allred found to claim Wilson's handwriting was Moore's?

Or how about "David Baker", the "handwriting expert" who visited this very blog and asserted the same thing repeatedly?


Howard said...

She more likely has Norge Sami People blood like my family: apple cheeks, olive skin and an insatiable desire for cod liver oil.

StCoop said...

"I think that's what O'Neil is groping at." "Groping at"??? Isn't that a turn of phrase that should now be avoided?

StCoop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

we are stuck in the leftwing playground

They do excel in framing (semantic games), erecting fences (for exclusion), constructing walls (for privacy), and running euphemisms. Shame. Shame. They are Pro-Choice.

That said, it is the weird woman or man that perceives everything through a sexual, gendered lens. It's amazing that the human species got past "hello."

Big Mike said...

Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage

Just another lie from a lefty politician.

Qwinn said...

StCoop, nice catch.

Clearly, Ann has insinuated that O'Neill is guilty of sexual assault. You can tell by her choice of words like "groping".

That's ridiculous, you say?

How the hell are the rest of us supposed to tell?

What standard can you rebut that with that you haven't summarily denied to Trump?

n.n said...

"Groping at"??? Isn't that a turn of phrase that should now be avoided?

Yes, it has been terminally depreciated with persistent clumps of sexual innuendo. You should probably avoid "clump", too, which has a storied history of sexual innuendo, beginning at conception until some time around birth, and diverse clusters thereafter.

walter said...

Stupid approach by Warren.
Trump's tweet was precisely about knowing Gillibrand.
I bet Warren's big on the "Don't you know who I am?" bit.
However, I do much prefer Warren in written form.
That voice....

tcrosse said...

So are we using the One Drop rule to determine who is Native American ?

J. Farmer said...

I'll take "Things I Couldn't Give Two Shits About" for a thousand, Alex.

Kyzernick said...

It's so obvious what's happening here. Inga's family ignores her and she has zero friends. Thus, she comes here to get attention. That's the only possible explanation for most of her comments. I'd chalk it up to raw stupidity, but clearly she is able to use a computer and log onto the internet and find a blog to comment on, so she simply cannot be THAT stupid. Don't get me wrong, she's quite dull and her intelligence level reflects quite poorly on whatever institutions educated her, but this is clearly attention seeking behavior.

Sad!

dbp said...

"Warren maintains she never furthered her career by using her heritage to gain advantage"

Pure coincidence I'm sure, that Warren was the only Harvard law faculty member who got her law degree from a no-name university.

Angel-Dyne said...

Sebastian: The point of the slut-shaming smear, used by a prog against Trump, is to shut up Trump and play on women' feelings. He is a mean man and women deserve better. It is working.

It is? With whom? Beside the pussy-hat dingbats - of course it works with them, but that doesn't change anything in the political landscape.

You may be right that this is "working" with significant numbers of the sort of women who voted for Trump, but what's your evidence for this? Media hysteria and pussy-hat caterwauling don't necessarily represent public opinion.

Michael K said...

"this is clearly attention seeking behavior."

I'm leaving Inga alone today but there are some really weird looking people in LAX as I eat my sandwich.

Glad to be leaving again.

Qwinn said...

George Zimmerman: Redneck
Elizabeth Warren: Redskin

roesch/voltaire said...

Sometime this blog looks like a political version of gamer gate as it faults women from Inga to Warren to Gillibrand. while defending the males in power.

Qwinn said...

To further burnish her "Native American" credential, Elizabeth Warren also contributed a crab recipe to a cookbook of "authentic tribal recipes" that turned out to be the Duchess of Windsor's favorite crab dish from an upscale Manhattan restaurant.

I wonder how that got into her "family lore".

I'm sure Inga has a plausible explanation.

tcrosse said...

Warren and Gillebrand, both US Senators, are not In Power ?

Static Ping said...

Oh, Elizabeth Warren, or at least whoever runs her Twitter for her, did call Gillibrand a slut. I'm quite sure it was completely unintentional and indirect, but, yes. I think whoever runs her Twitter is one of those unthinking intersectionality idiots who just assumes she should pile on the entire outrage conga.

Given today Warren's Twitter demanded that Jones be seated immediately in the Senate despite that being illegal confirms that the person is an idiot at least.

Kevin said...

Sometime this blog looks like a political version of gamer gate as it faults women from Inga to Warren to Gillibrand. while defending the males in power.

I have said it before and I will keep saying it: EVERYONE STOP SLUT-SHAMING INGA!

How was that? Are my feminist credentials renewed for another 100 posts?

Unknown said...

So Warren is a Harvard Law Professor, yes?

She is out there demanding that Doug Jones be seated today, not in January when the term expires. And says that McConnell should be fired and jailed if he doesn't seat Jones right now.

She has heard of a term, yes? I don't know if she meant to call Gillibrand a slut, but she's openly demonstrating she's a full scale idiot.

--Vance

FullMoon said...

Ya got three women mentioned as candidates. Warren, Gillibrand and Harris. Look at their photos. Lizzie Warrren comes in third. Warren associated the word slut with her competition. Now, the internet is discussing whether Gilli is a slut or not. Does Warren think she is a slut or not. Does Trump think she is a slut or not.
Warren just punched Gilli and she got herself back into the conversation. Keep an eye open for her sly attacks on Harris in the future.

BJK said...

To my mind, I think claiming Warren's tweet constitutes slut-shaming is a hyperbolic response on-par with Warren calling the "Pocahontas" nickname in another Trump tweet a "racial slur."


Remember that news cycle?

Big Mike said...

@Althpuse, you’re right, but the issue is irrelevant. Begging for campaign funds is one of the more unseemly parts of being a politician, so I can picture Gillibrand being all smiles and charm to Democrat fat cat donor Donald Trump, sort of like a whore telling a guy that he’s so big, please be gentle, he’d making her climax a second time, and it’s all bullshit to get the john to part with extra cash. (Or so it’s been portrayed in the movies. Before I met my wife I couldn’t afford a prostitute; after I married there was no other woman on the planet.). Fair in my book for Trump to slide the knife in.

In the end the whole bogus story is click bait, and now I’ve clicked too.

Sebastian said...

@Angel: "Media hysteria and pussy-hat caterwauling don't necessarily represent public opinion." True. But VA and AL elections provide some evidence. My own fancy on-the-ground research provides some more. And then there's the evidence unfailingly supplied by male intuition.

But forget evidence: let's take "it's working" as hypothesis, and test it as we go along.

Drago said...

Howard: "She more likely has Norge Sami People blood like my family: apple cheeks, olive skin and an insatiable desire for cod liver oil"

Here's a nice recipe for you my fine Norge brother: http://icecook.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-cook-whale.html

Only attempt it when you are really really hungry!

Lutefisk is next.

Florence said...

Qwinn said...
“We have reached the absurd point where we could find half a dozen examples of Trump using the same language against men, and it would make no difference.”

Here are three of those examples:

1) Donald J. Trump on 9/6/15 “Club4Growth will do anything for a handout just like every other POLITICIAN running… Pay to Say organization”
2) Donald J. Trump on 1/16/16 “Was there another loan that Ted Cruz FORGOT to file. Goldman Sachs owns him, he will do anything they demand. Not much of a reformer!”
3) Donald J. Trump on 1/25/16 “Cruz lies are almost as bad as Jeb’s. These politicians will do anything to stay at the trough!”

So…was Trump sexually harassing or “slut-shaming” Ted Cruz and Club4Growth? Or does it only qualify as that when he says it to Kirsten Gillibrand? And if your answer to the second question is yes, then you need to step back and reevaluate your biases.

I agree with Dust Bunny Queen that I, as a woman, did not see any sexual innuendo in Trump’s tweet (just like I didn’t in his similar language tweets towards men and organizations). Those that did need to take their mind out of the gutters.

Regardless of what he meant, Gillibrand and Warren need to grow up. They knowingly got into the mud pit that is politics. They don’t get to selectively act like they aren’t just as filthy just because they are women.

Qwinn said...

"Given today Warren's Twitter demanded that Jones be seated immediately in the Senate despite that being illegal confirms that the person is an idiot at least."

Two words.

Toricelli. Lautenberg.

Actually, four more words.

2000 Florida Presidential election.

Deadlines and time restrictions written in clear print in the Law only apply to Republicans.

In 2 weeks, it could be a hyperscandal of the greatest possible proportions that Jones wasn't seated immediately. If they want that to be the narrative, that'll be the narrative. Even when caught straight out, half the population will believe it because they're *saturated* with it.

Yahoo.com homepage. MSN.com homepage. Every news site I see when Windows 10 gets my attention about the latest, it's a leftist article that rarely even mentions physical evidence and timeline reversals completely disproving the leftist narrative. Usually it's the AP.

It's how they get away with it. None of the evidence we talk about here daily is ever seen by well over 50% of the public. Talk radio, Fox News, One America network. REALLY not hard to fill your media schedule up completely without any of those 3, especially when the first two get 100% unrelenting hatred of a thousand burning suns on every single other frikkin' channel AND the internet.

Someone recently mentioned the suburban housewives getting exhausted by the constant drama. Heh. It's catered to them explicitly and continuously. No, it's everyone ELSE, all the voters, that get completely exhausted by the drama. The entirety of Bush's 8 years was the coming of the apocalypse. The difference is, this time I'm enjoying the tears. That was a nice year long happy meal of schadenfraude, but the lefties had a victory. I can't *wait* for the November Senate post 2018.

The sweet irony - remember how both Meade and Ann's son thought the media looked downcast believing that they had info that Moore was going to win, but then Moore lost? Well, downcast or whatever they think they saw, I bet they expected the media wanted Moore to lose. They knew, but they wanted Moore to win. The lefties gotta find another villain now. And now they know openly forged documents about claims from 2 generations ago is enough to gain power.

PJ said...

It seems that there is (largely unstated) disagreement over whether the term "slut-shaming" includes the behavior "falsely characterizing a woman as a slut." To everyone who thinks that term includes that behavior (for instance, apparently, Ann), Senator Warren's use of the term is on its face reasonably interpreted as a claim that the President falsely characterized Senator Gillibrand as a slut. To everyone who thinks that term does not include that behavior (for instance, Kevin), Senator Warren's use of the term, on its face, is more reasonably interpreted as a claim that the President shamed Senator Gillibrand for engaging in what he believed to be slut-like behavior; that interpretation does not imply any skepticism on Senator Warren's part about whether Senator Gillibrand actually engaged in slut-like behavior.

I agree with Kevin about the meaning of the term "slut-shaming," and I think it's funny that Senator Warren used that term in a way that implies (no doubt unintentionally) that she is at least open to the possibility that Senator Gillibrand actually engaged in the suggested slut-like behavior. I'm the first to admit I may be wrong about the accepted meaning of the term "slut-shaming" -- I'm nearly as old as the principals in this drama, after all, and am perhaps as likely to be mistaken about it as Senator Warren is. But until we can agree what the word means and doesn't mean, we will keep talking past one another.

Qwinn said...

Oh, and a compelling actress or two.

Aspiring actresses NEVER become leftist activists.

That never happens.

And the Left would never find the skills of a couple of decent actresses useful.

That would be wrong.

You can't find one good actor or actress among the Left. That totally explains the political climate in Hollywood. Anybody know the name of the right-wing acting school the Left permits to exist? I know there's *supposed* to be at least one.

Anyway, apparently if you can make ridiculously implausible claims backed up with admission of forgery, but suffuse it with superhuman acting skills, that's good enough for the media targets of the Left.

What amazes me is when sometimes intelligent people *know* about the forgery, know about the multiple sources documenting Wilson's lie, seem to still think Wilson acted it well enough that she gets to pull it off and it's fair to continue to call her rancid accusations credible.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Used - as in politicians on the left use people for power and money.

Darrell said...

There is a whole Wiki designed to prove that Inga is wrong about Warren. Find it in here.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/11/its-time-for-elizabeth-warren-to-apologize-for-her-native-american-deception/#comments

Bay Area Guy said...

Disentangling:

1. KG and other female Dem Senators call on Franken to resign for groping.
2. Franken resigns -- on a date to be named later.
3. KG says that Trump should resign, because he has sexually harassed women, like Franken
4. Trump tweets in response, hammering KG for soliciting campaign funds from him, suggesting she'd "do anything" to get them.
5. KG criticizes Trump for tweet
6. Warren criticizes Trump for "slut-shaming" KG.
7. Crafty O'neal suggests that Warren has suggested the KG is a slut.

Henry said...

This is easy.

slut-shaming is a verb. It describes a manner of attack. Warren is describing what (she feels) Trump did.

slut shaming is a noun and a verb. It describes an attack on a slut. Jesus said, don't go there.

dbp said...

PJ's above post points to a common misunderstanding of the term "slut-shaming". It is not to falsely claim that a woman is a slut, it is the wrongful attempt to shame a woman for (the perfectly legitimate behavior of) being sexually promiscuous.

Henry said...

holdfast said...
Gillibrand, like most politicians, is a whore. That's quite distinct from being a slut.

I was reading Parliament of Whores and a friend asked, "Why not Parliament of Pimps?"

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"delusion... by... Pajamas Media..."

Yeah. Let's start with addressing the delusion that you'd get sober reporting from an outlet called "Pajamas Media."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

On second thought, the article makes sense. Trump can't be accused of slut-shaming if Gilibrand is not a slut. This is the intersection of identity politics vs. bread and butter politics. Does a NY senator care more about Wall Street, feminism and identity politics or about whether people can earn enough to put food on the table? A slut who takes contributions from anybody would probably be more about the former than the latter. I've never declined to call the Reprobate Republican Pedophiles a bunch of political prostitutes and I sure as hell am not going to cower to Democrats who fit the exact same description. Advantage: Trump. He's right to call out the political prostitutes (pity he doesn't apply that standard to himself or to the far worse Republicans) and if the Democrats want to go all tizzy about whatever implications that has for their gentle, delicate, feminine, personal sexual sensitivities then fuck them too.

Howard said...

Drago: I knew it, you're as Norwegian as Brown Cheese. Whale sounds good. My Granny from Minnesota threatened to make us eat a bite of lutefisk before we could have krumkakes, but Mom save us from it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Average American: We don't earn enough to put food on the table and the politicians only care about millionaires and fetuses.

Democrat Feminist: Who cares about that or about you? Some guy at some point made me feel uncomfortable about my sexuality because of how comfortable (however inappropriately) he felt about his. That is way more important and obviously the #1 issue around which we should organize our politics.

I submit that sluts probably care less about money than about sex because apparently the latter is what makes the former possible. So feminists, by caring more about sexual identity and gender politics than about money, are sort of the sluts in this equation.

Do whatever you want with your sexuality. Be promiscuous, be chaste, be ambivalent, apathetic, passionate, celibate, sloppy, who cares. But don't expect me to give more of a fuck about that than about whether America's economy works for anyone with a net worth of less than $10 million. If you do, then you're too fickle for me to give a damn about, either. You slut.

Drago said...

Howard: "Drago: I knew it, you're as Norwegian as Brown Cheese."

Only half. The other half is Dutch and American mutt. Dad was a jersey boy and mom was a West Philadelphia daughter of a professional boxer.

Unknown said...

Nonsense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

-sw

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Anyway, I think it's perfectly fine (and desirable) that Trump connected the issues of personal and political prostitution. If that's what it takes to put both the feudal lords and the politicians they own as well as feminist lunatics on notice, then so much the better. If you ask me all those groups are responsible for fucking up our politics, and therefore destroying our economy. Time to bring them all down a notch, together? So much the better.

Drago said...

TTR: "Yeah. Let's start with addressing the delusion that you'd get sober reporting from an outlet called "Pajamas Media."

Are you familiar with why they call themseves that? Its an amusing story.

fivewheels said...

The top of this thread is too clogged by comments by people who don't know what slut-shaming means. Did anyone get around to explaining the point simply?

You can't slut-shame someone who isn't a slut. By definition. Duh.

If the subject is not a slut, what you are doing is something other than slut-shaming. It's like ... you can't kidney-punch someone in the nose.

Henry said...

Trump can't be accused of slut-shaming if Gilibrand is not a slut.

Why not? Trump's insults and their targets need have no connection at all.

Drago said...

"It's like ... you can't kidney-punch someone in the nose."

You didnt grow up where I did....

Henry said...

You can't slut-shame someone who isn't a slut.

Of course you can. Slut-shaming isn't something argumentative people aspire to. It's an ad hominem technique for denigrating a female opponent.

This is like saying you can't fascist-shame someone who isn't Hitler.

FullMoon said...

The Democrats' 2018/2020 Assault Allegation Strategy Inciting female voter outrage to overturn Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 2018, and defeat Trump in 2020.

Unknown said...

Speaking, vaguely, of sluts.... Minnesota Governor named Franken's replacement today. His female Lieutenant Governor. No, she's not the slut part of the story.

Franken, however, is backpedaling furiously from his resignation statement and saying stuff like "the date is unknown" and "We think all the accusers were Republican."

I'm sure Inga will be along any minute to denounce him from blaming the victims....

But in any case, more popcorn. Franken, as predicted by virtually everyone on the right, is not going to resign.

I'm sure Warren will demand that McConnell seat the replacement anyway so Minnesota will just have to have 3 Senators until Franken resigns.

--Vance

fivewheels said...

You don't understand what slut-shaming is. It's not insulting someone by calling them a slut. The (supposed) problem of slut-shaming is the implication that there's anything wrong with being an actual slut. Keep up with your modern feminism.

If it were a parallel construction, accusing someone of fascist-shaming would be saying that they're too close-minded to understand that being a fascist is perfectly OK. That's the usage of slut-shaming. Get it?

n.n said...

A slut is a slovenly female or male. It's diversitist to "=" one or the other sex.

buwaya said...

"about whether America's economy works for anyone with a net worth of less than $10 million."

Hey! Lay off my net worth pal. Us $10 millionaires are people too.

n.n said...

Warren reminds people that denying individual dignity (color, sex diversity), debasing human life (selective-child, recycled-child), selectively excluding politically unprofitable minorities ("="), sexualizing adolescent and prepubescent children (e.g. transgender conversion therapy), and denying due process (and proportional sentencing) is a priority.

traditionalguy said...

Trump said she wanted to exchange political donor support for political votes. The knee jerk self centered thought that she does sex for political donations really is a stretch. Even Benedict Arnold would not demand blow jobs from George III.

n.n said...

You don't understand what slut-shaming is

It's when female chauvinists deny girls and women's agency (e.g. Pro-Choice), or hold slut parades full of interns and starlets for political, social, and fiscal profit.

narciso said...

I'm shocked gambling is going on here,

Gillebrand the Fannie liebowitz who started as a tobacco atty, once accused senator Daniel inouye postumously

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Hey! Lay off my net worth pal. Us $10 millionaires are people too.

Barely. But no one's attacking you on those grounds, lizard-man. They're attacking the idea that you should have greater sway over the republic.

Whatever you did to earn $10 million it apparently didn't involve anything having to do with your use of a brain.

buwaya said...

"Whatever you did to earn $10 million it apparently didn't involve anything having to do with your use of a brain."

My brain wore out years ago. These days I am making do with my liver, spleen, kidneys and testicles. It amazing what you can achieve with those things.

When those go I will do like Ignatius Reilley ("A Confederacy of Dunces") and rely on my pyloric valve.

John Smith Smith said...

One of the running gags on Broom Hilda (a comic strip about a fictional kind-hearted but often crabby witch in a poor-side-of-town version of fairyland who was basically a 'comic' version of a lonely older woman with a lousy job and sarcastic friends and no husband)

(Broom Hilda is a comic strip I read in my teen years with compassion both for the title character and her surrounding cast - wondering back then, before effective acne medicine was a thing, if one day I too would be a running gag for others, an unattractive older person looking for physical affection and respect in a world where my feared lack of what we now call SMV would be as obvious to all as poor Broom Hilda's lack of SMV was obvious - (nota bene - however I did disapprove without reservations of Broom Hilda's long ago decision to buy that first broom - Sad!)

as I was saying, one of the running gags on Broom Hilda was the way the lesser characters would say the wrong thing in the wrong way about this thing that none of them understood, genuine affection as shared among the fortunate and attractive, and respect for their well-coupled happiness. Which Broom Hilda, of course, and her little friends, too, would never ever, never ever achieve, as long as the comic strip was published in the daily papers.

That was humor, in the 70s. I feel quite confident that Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump both neglected to read, with as much care as me, Broom Hilda, back in the day.

narciso said...

Remember Caroline Kennedy, was the runner up for that, for reasons passing understanding they subsequent ssender as ambassador to Tokyo.

narciso said...

Sent her, I think that is a borderline declaration of war.

Qwinn said...

I initially said I agreed that the "Warren says Gillibrand is a slut" interpretation and headline was silly, but after being reminded of and thinking about the meaning of slut shaming (and yes, it HAS always meant there's nothing wrong with being a slut), I have to agree, Warren's accusation makes no sense unless Gillibrand is in fact a slut. It's not the same or any kind of extension of "sexual innuendo".

Sarah said...

I dunno, I'm having trouble keeping track of the slurs, slut, slut-shaming,etc., whatever happened to good old-fashioned unmistakable insults?

Anyway it reminds me of an bad old joke. The professor is symbology of archaic American Indians and to illustrate the material is creating various circles, wavy lines, star-like shapes on the screen for the assembled audience to see.

After a while someone shouts "Professor how dare you subject us to all these obscene images!" The professor shouts back, "Sir, are you referring to these innocent shapes? You obviously have a filthy mind." The guy in the audience hollers, "what are you talking about, you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!"

Trump's tweet contained sexual innuendo? Come on, who really has the dirty mind? All I can say is, it ain't Trump.

Bad Lieutenant said...

"I'd kill for one of those Teslas!"

"I'd sell me own grandma for a cuppa... Well, I'd sell YOUR grandma for a cuppa..."

Remember, literally VA. seriously.

Althouse, when you get stuck on words like this, we think you are:

a) stupid,
b) autistic,
c) failing your Turing test,
d) fucking shitting us,
e) all of the above,
f) being clever in some way that you have sadz that we don't appreciate.

Poll time?

Bad Lieutenant said...

Literally vs. Seriously. Stupid Android.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»