Meanwhile you made multiple posts whose sole purpose seemed to be to keep score on media outlets you clearly think are hypocritical on political correctness regarding sexist language. I'm pretty sure that was your intent for posting the original article, not your stated one.
The Possible Cultural Shift Against Tolerance of Sexual Harassment and Assault
- Thread starter CPX
- Start date
- Status
Meanwhile you made multiple posts whose sole purpose seemed to be to keep score on media outlets you clearly think are hypocritical on political correctness regarding sexist language. I'm pretty sure that was your intent for posting the original article, not your stated one.
If discrimination against male genitalia in politics ever moves beyond "conceptual" and "the opposite of reality" to a tangible issue I'll treat allegations of the same with gravity instead of a hamfisted attempt to muddy the waters. Otherwise, it's embarrassing to bring up this current events snarkiness as a material offense in the context of today's sexual harassment and assault.
Edit: There is also no "excuse" in my replies as the is no harm inflicted.
My intent is irrelevant regarding the question of whether the discussion of the ad is appropriate for this thread. If you think that any of my posts were inappropriate you can report them rather than armchair mod.
I'm not arm chair modding, I'm discussing your intent which I believe to be relevant to this thread. As previously discussed, there seems to be a group of people that see the cultural shift against tolerance of sexual harassment and assault as part of their private war against political correctness. After all, sexual harassment is often defended as being an overreaction of political correctness. Comments and actions that were ok 20 years ago suddenly aren't. Thus your intent which I believe was to highlight hypocrisy in the media in regards to sexism was a backdoor way to muddy the waters as a defense. "See, women do bad things too and yet this biased media only focuses on the bad things men are doing."
If you read my other posts in the thread I think you'll change your mind. My intent was see what people in this thread thought about the ad along the lines of the theme of this thread. My personal interest is in observing whether the definition of sexism in the media and the population at large excludes statements such as the one made by Nessel. I literally linked to that in the post where I first mentioned the ad. I don't consider it hypocrisy if that's the case. I consider it the redefinition of a term. Language evolves. I like to be able to use it correctly. "Sexism" is bad word to use improperly. The "muddying the waters" idea you pitched makes no sense because running this ad is at worst harmless compared to even a single instance of sexual assault.
Is this sarcasm? What's the liability of having three women in charge? We've had centuries where all of the positions are men; if we agree that women are comparable, if not identical, then what's the problem with an all-woman ticket?
I'm 100% sure it's sarcasm but I'm not sure who in the thread made that arguement for the sarcasm to be against, because it certainly didn't seem to me that the post directly above it said anything negative about having 3 women running for different offices in one state.
Other than the fact that everything ends up ashes?
Properly "fighting fire with fire": Burning ahead of the fire to remove fuel for the uncontrolled fire.
Improperly: Randomly lighting more shit on fire. See Also: "pouring fuel on the fire".
Now, if she is running against someone with a reputation for sexual harassment or otherwise whipping his penis out, then fine.
By itself, it's blatant sexism. "Who is harmed"? All men. You think such sexism will never be combined with racism and used against a black candidate?
Finally, it's hypocritical, unfair, and counter-productive. You can rationalize "eh, it's not that big of a deal, it's just evening the score" or whatever all you want.
But think of the monkey and the cucumber. Whatever past history, it's blatantly unfair now and will evoke inflammatory reactions.
I don't think she should drop out of the race or anything, but she should issue an apology.
Nessel did not say "vote for me because my opponent is statistically more prone to sexual harassment". I mean, that happens to align with evidence, but it runs afoul of the norm ZnU mentioned about prejudging individuals, and (as you say) could be repurposed to call blacks criminals, gays promiscuous, etc.
She said "I promise I won't pull a Weiner because I don't have one." That's neither a slur against mankind, nor an improper comparison between groups and individuals. It's the literal truth, and directly relevant to our evolving standards for public officials.
----
I was ambivalent when I first posted the link. I called it the Sam Bee strategy, speaking as someone who likes SB but doesn't particularly enjoy her show. No longer. After seeing the hysterical response from men, I think it was absolutely the right time and place. (Keeping in mind that YouTube != network TV). The pearl-clutching on behalf of "all men" harmed (!) by the gods-honest biological truth has to be seen to be believed.
I'm reminded of the Christians who recoiled at the Trump-Bush video leak, not because of the character revelations, but because he used the p-word. Shame on me for thinking our team was any better. People who insist that important topics remain off limits for fear of offense *always* favor the status quo: whether it's puritans keeping sexuality in the closet, or privileged folk who feel uncomfortable when race & gender are mentioned in polite company.
She said "I promise I won't pull a Weiner because I don't have one." That's neither a slur against mankind, nor an improper comparison between groups and individuals. It's the literal truth, and directly relevant to our evolving standards for public officials.
----
I was ambivalent when I first posted the link. I called it the Sam Bee strategy, speaking as someone who likes SB but doesn't particularly enjoy her show. No longer. After seeing the hysterical response from men, I think it was absolutely the right time and place. (Keeping in mind that YouTube != network TV). The pearl-clutching on behalf of "all men" harmed (!) by the gods-honest biological truth has to be seen to be believed.
I'm reminded of the Christians who recoiled at the Trump-Bush video leak, not because of the character revelations, but because he used the p-word. Shame on me for thinking our team was any better. People who insist that important topics remain off limits for fear of offense *always* favor the status quo: whether it's puritans keeping sexuality in the closet, or privileged folk who feel uncomfortable when race & gender are mentioned in polite company.
Remember that Democrats lost in 2016 because their base was depressed while R's was fired up.
As much fuel on the fire as possible. You don't fight fire with water pistols.
One the one side you have people who are protecting a child molester and serial harasser who used power and position to the point he was banned from the mall and shadowed by cops to keep him from high school cheerleaders.
On the other side is a simple joke, with no harm, just terrible hyperventilating by people who are at the top of the list decrying PC language on here, or anywhere else.
Cry me a river.
And StarSeeker, of course I would get on you. You're being terribly hypocritical and purposefully ignorant of what actual harm and sexism are. A one liner joke is not it. When it comes from conservatives, it is coupled with decades of practices and behavior.
Words alone mean little. To say otherwise is to go down the rathole of borderline or innocuous behavior being harassment, which is what many of you were complaining about.
Asking someone on a date is not harassment absent other issues. Making a joke isn't either. The sudden reversal is bullshit.
One the one side you have people who are protecting a child molester and serial harasser who used power and position to the point he was banned from the mall and shadowed by cops to keep him from high school cheerleaders.
On the other side is a simple joke, with no harm, just terrible hyperventilating by people who are at the top of the list decrying PC language on here, or anywhere else.
Cry me a river.
And StarSeeker, of course I would get on you. You're being terribly hypocritical and purposefully ignorant of what actual harm and sexism are. A one liner joke is not it. When it comes from conservatives, it is coupled with decades of practices and behavior.
Words alone mean little. To say otherwise is to go down the rathole of borderline or innocuous behavior being harassment, which is what many of you were complaining about.
Asking someone on a date is not harassment absent other issues. Making a joke isn't either. The sudden reversal is bullshit.
They haven't even had primaries yet, have they? At the moment on one side is a Democrat and on the other side is another Democrat. I suppose it's possible Pat Miles Jr. is the incredibly rare Democrat who's supportive of Roy Moore but I can't find any public statement to that effect.
This is a straw man. You should recognize that Nekojin. She's made a campaign ad out of a penis joke, a straw man and an appeal to vote for her because she's a woman.
How does that help anything?
Is your argument here something like "That can't be what Nessel meant because surely she wouldn't run afoul of that basic norm?"
Also, are people getting the idea that the ad was a joke from source beyond personal interpretation? I ask because the candidate herself didn't call it a joke and actively defended it as a serious statement. I'm more inclined to trust the candidate to explain how she meant the ad to be taken. I google [Nessel ad "joke"] and don't get any sources authoritatively explaining that she meant the ad as a joke. If she did mean it as a joke I'd like to know. Maybe I don't have the best sense of humor. Her delivery is totally deadpan.
What she says is all about not having a penis to show anyone, but the images shown while she says that portray men not accused of showing penis. You've got Roy Moore, Charlie Rose, and Trump. Those aren't penis-flashers. I guess she would have shown Louis C.K. or Anthony Weiner for those, since those guys are literal penis flashers. It leads me to belive that her comments actually were along the lines of "vote for me because my opponent is statistically more prone to sexual harassment".
I'm not critical of the ad. I like it and I agree with her. I just don't get the heavy interpretive lens some folks are applying to it. Why do you need to read these other things into the ad? It's like people are making apologias for something that's already fine.
EDIT: Maybe this is the point of difference: Some people assume that there exists a broadly-accepted norm that applies equally to all demographics prohibiting prejudicial speech. Perhaps that is the norm in the refined circles in which those people run. If you assume that norm, you have to apply interpretation to Nessels' ad (e.g. "it's a joke" or "this is what she really meant") to fit her speech into that schema. But I take Nessels' ad at face value and then look at how society reacts to see whether such a norm exists. Observing no mainstream backlash, I (may eventually) conclude that there is no such norm (Occam's Razor). I suspect that by and large mainstream people are very comfortable with a double standard here. I think the double standard is beneficial -- a temporary phenomenon that's characterizing the movement toward equality for women in real political and economic power.
Here's what Nessel thinks:
[url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthaettus/2017/12/01/shesrunningforoffice/#323bf8aa7e18:2f2bi7no said:
Nessel believes it helps by getting her and other women elected to office where they can personally exercise actual power to support and defend women. Seems like quite a direct benefit if her gambit pays off.
I laughed.
If you told me it was a Samantha B/SNL bit I'd believe it.
I think she tried a risky ploy at a time that seemed right. I also think it will tank her chances. No one votes for a politician with a sense of humor.
So... Dana Nessel's comments are getting a whole lotta traction.
But, the proximate cause of her statements, you can't run a ticket with all women, seems to be pretty much ignored. What would the proper response be to such an assertion? We know alot of people have issues with the way Dana Nessel expressed it. Is it acceptable to say we need more women representation in government? Is that sexist? Is it acceptable to express that one of the benefits of increasing gender diversity in positions of power might be to make sexual harassment less acceptable? Is there a problem with men as perpetrators of sexual harassment? If so, is there something socially or culturally we can do to better teach men about consent and boundaries?
But, the proximate cause of her statements, you can't run a ticket with all women, seems to be pretty much ignored. What would the proper response be to such an assertion? We know alot of people have issues with the way Dana Nessel expressed it. Is it acceptable to say we need more women representation in government? Is that sexist? Is it acceptable to express that one of the benefits of increasing gender diversity in positions of power might be to make sexual harassment less acceptable? Is there a problem with men as perpetrators of sexual harassment? If so, is there something socially or culturally we can do to better teach men about consent and boundaries?
More women, yes. Is it sexist? No. More women would make sexual harassment less acceptable? Short term I can definitely see that.
I don't know how you can get to your last two questions though with our current situation. There's been cases of women abusing power as well, there just isn't as many cases due to the current disparity between how many men are in positions of power versus how many women are in positions of power.
I don't think it's a smart decision to automatically assume that sexual harassment is male dominated when the predominate amount of objectionable sexual harassment seems to stem from power politics within an establishment. I personally don't feel there's enough evidence to say that women are automatically less likely to sexually harass someone when there hasn't been enough to push them into positions of power to abuse (If that makes any sense? Basically; we don't have enough examples of powerful women to be able to make the case that women are less likely to abuse said power). In the current situation, obviously men dominate the ranking because there's no real other competition; our society in the past has favored men over women and is slowly moving away from that dynamic.
It could end up being true that women in general are less likely to sexually harass when in a position of power. I just don't think we've got the data to back it up. Right now, it would seem that men in general are the more likely harassers (As that's the power dynamic in society right now). This should change, absolutely. I just don't think edifying and putting the other mainstream gender up on a pedestal is the best way to tackle the issue.
This obviously doesn't mesh with generalized sexual harassment between coworkers without power disparity. I just also wonder how many things men in general have been told to either brush off or even pursue that women would consider harassment due to the gender stereotypes that we have constructed. The idea of Toxic Masculinity would say that there's plenty that rational people would consider harassment that men are expected to just accept in stride.
Who said this? Anybody she's running against? Or is this like Trump when he goes "People are saying...."
Add on: From reading 3-4 articles she literally does the "people are saying" or "people have told me".
I guess nobody is talking about it because the only person that they can find saying it is Dana Nessel herself. Which is sort of weird.
Which I have to admit is some pretty amazing campaign kung-fu. Create a statement, then say something controversial against it, then use your first statement as the reason you had to say the second.
Still, seriously. It was the whole bit in her ad leading up to the statement that you don't like. Are you saying she is lying about that. Is she a sexist and a liar? Is it hard to believe that there would be push back from the party and political advisers for an election slate that is all women?
You asked why nobody is still talking about it, that's probably because nobody can be tagged as having actually said it but Dana Nessel herself.
This should be easy as all belief to point to somebody of note who said it.
This should be easy as all belief to point to somebody of note who said it.
So, she is lying and she is a sexist. Got it.
A columnist named Jack Lessenberry talked about this several times when discussing the workings of the state party. It concerns inner working of the party so I'm not sure what kind of public statements you are asking for. People are not saying to the public that an all-women ticket is bad they are saying it directly to her. Why her claiming that should be so unbelievable is beyond me. Note that there isn't a primary to choose the candidate, the party just picks who it wants.
So it's bad that I'm asking for evidence. Heck we hold posters to a higher standard then you are holding her to on this forum. Which is really sad.
If you claim something you should be able to provide evidence of it. She claims "people are saying" which is exactly what Trump does all the time, and then uses what "people are saying" as a reason to make her own controversial statement.
You directly asked why nobody is talking about it, I'm saying that the reason that nobody is talking about it is because so far nobody can point to somebody actually saying it.
I'm happy to look at evidence that suggests otherwise.
Add on: Also Asking somebody for proof before you believe something is not the same as saying they are lying and it would be much appreciated if you learned that.
If you claim something you should be able to provide evidence of it. She claims "people are saying" which is exactly what Trump does all the time, and then uses what "people are saying" as a reason to make her own controversial statement.
You directly asked why nobody is talking about it, I'm saying that the reason that nobody is talking about it is because so far nobody can point to somebody actually saying it.
I'm happy to look at evidence that suggests otherwise.
Add on: Also Asking somebody for proof before you believe something is not the same as saying they are lying and it would be much appreciated if you learned that.
You're not real familiar with the concept of punch up not down are you?
Anyone running for AG of Michigan as a major party's nominee is higher status than the vast majority of men, so she's punching down when she stereotypes men this way.
This is why radical feminists don't waste their time discussing women's issues with men. They would rather not spend 90% of the conversation on men.
Is that supposed to be an argument? If you have one, make it. She didn't make an attack on high status men, she made an attack on all folks with male genitalia. She's a managing partner at a law firm, running for a major state office. She's punching way, way down (below the belt, so to speakRight....
. (Your apparent attitude that women are supposed to be low status just because they're women is very 18th century).
Edit: to debra: I'm not in any way trying to argue that Nessel's ad is a big deal, or that it's in any way equivalent to more serious acts. Just annoyed by hawkbox's "punching down" comment and the implication that women, even rich and powerful women running for public office, are low status compared to men in general.
Is that supposed to be an argument? If you have one, make it. She didn't make an attack on high status men, she made an attack on all folks with male genitalia. She's a managing partner at a law firm, running for a major state office. She's punching way, way down (below the belt, so to speakRight....
(Your apparent attitude that women are supposed to be low status just because they're women is very 18th century).
Right...
Is that supposed to be an argument? If you have one, make it. She didn't make an attack on high status men, she made an attack on all folks with male genitalia. She's a managing partner at a law firm, running for a major state office. She's punching way, way down (below the belt, so to speakRight....
(Your apparent attitude that women are supposed to be low status just because they're women is very 18th century).
Actually, she did talk about high status men. She was talking about the position and a pledge not to abuse the office in the same manner. She was literally talking about the AG's office in the same paragraph.
Is that supposed to be an argument? If you have one, make it. She didn't make an attack on high status men, she made an attack on all folks with male genitalia. She's a managing partner at a law firm, running for a major state office. She's punching way, way down (below the belt, so to speakRight....
(Your apparent attitude that women are supposed to be low status just because they're women is very 18th century).
Right...
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
This is content free noise, and you know better. Next time is an OW for trolling if you’re not even going to make a plausible effort at engaging.
Is that supposed to be an argument? If you have one, make it. She didn't make an attack on high status men, she made an attack on all folks with male genitalia. She's a managing partner at a law firm, running for a major state office. She's punching way, way down (below the belt, so to speakRight....
(Your apparent attitude that women are supposed to be low status just because they're women is very 18th century).
Right...
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
This is content free noise, and you know better. Next time is an OW for trolling if you’re not even going to make a plausible effort at engaging.
What's the fucking point? There's nothing to engage with these dipshits. OW happily taken. Christ I mourn for your country.
You mourn for our country because we don't automatically assume women, even rich and powerful women, are lower status than men? Are you listening to yourself at all here?
What's the fucking point? There's nothing to engage with these dipshits. OW happily taken. Christ I mourn for your country.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
Doubling down on nothing is not a valid way to engage in a debate. If you cannot engage in good faith and actually have a discussion, then GTFO.
OW given.
Your bullshit is exactly the reason I have you on ignore. Go ahead and defend bigots and liars like Fil. More power to you.
It's so painfully transparent these days it's just a good reason for me to move on.
edit by Shavano:
You get another OW for abusive language.
No more of this.
It's so painfully transparent these days it's just a good reason for me to move on.
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
edit by Shavano:
You get another OW for abusive language.
No more of this.
- Status