Obama Shames Voters

[BmorePat87]

(09-29-2017, 01:50 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Wait. Did she say that back in 08 when Hillary was running against her husband or this last election?

Probably not, but I'm assuming you're asking because you're interpreting her as saying they should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman. She's attempting to suggest that Trump's platform was one that was detrimental to the rights of women and dictated things to them rather than give them a voice. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-29-2017, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Probably not, but I'm assuming you're asking because you're interpreting her as saying they should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman. She's attempting to suggest that Trump's platform was one that was detrimental to the rights of women and dictated things to them rather than give them a voice. 

Except last I checked... women can like strong economies, jobs, crackdowns on drugs and crime, safer borders, and tax cuts just as much as men. Those aren't gender issues.

Meanwhile Clinton has a husband who was getting BJs in the oval office, and her right hand woman had a husband sending dick pics to underage girls. So it's not like they were exactly killing it in the empowering women category either.

That tape doesn't make Trump's entire political platform inherently anti-women's interests. Nor does having a vagina make Clinton's entire platform inherently pro-women. When you're working in a system where you only really get two choices with a realistic chance of winning, neither one is going to be 100% in your interests. (If you think they are, you're likely conforming your interests to their stances, instead.) So you choose which one has more of your interests in mind. So saying that any woman who voted against her own interests by voting for Trump, is some sexist BS that would never fly the other way around, regardless how you try and spin it.

[hollodero]

(09-29-2017, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The problem I have with the whole misogyny thing is that misogyny is basically another way of saying Trump hates women.

No it isn't. I don't think he hates them, I think he looks down at them. He might be more of a "woman defier", but that's all the semantic debate there is to have (if you agree with me, what you might not do).

(09-29-2017, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Sure we can get into semantics and talk about how misogyny doesn't necessarily have to mean "hate" but the fact of the matter is that most of the time when anyone uses the word they are implying that the person they're applying it to does in fact hate women or just doesn't really care about them.

Well... you asked what makes him a misogynist, I gave my reasons why I think the word applies. You having a problem with the word because it might mean something else to someone doesn't make him any less of a misogynist.

Your point is strange to me. If someone says "I despise Mexicans", I would call that person racist. And I would do so even though someone might interpret it as "that person's hating Mexicans", when in fact the person rather scorns then hates them. Now you might say I'm making it all abot semantics, but I don't - you do :)

(09-29-2017, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Trump has made bad comments about women..... but he makes bad comments about a lot of people and doesn't just attack women. Also I'm not sure how cheating and bragging about it makes you a misogynist.

It's the sum of things that make Trump a misogynist in my books, not just cheating; I didn't even mention that. I personally don't think cheating is misogynic (just being shabby).
Wht I really find amazing, and hard to really argue, is the "he says bad things about other people as well"-defense. That doesn't make too much logical sense, does it? "I can't be called a misogynist, look what bad stuff I said about male Mexicans" doesn't hold up in my moral court.

(09-29-2017, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The reason I'm arguing this is because Michelle Obama is doing exactly what I just said, whixh is implying that Trump doesn't care about women by saying he's not a "voice" for them and therefore is a misogynist. I fail to see how such a conclusion is reached. Because he says bad things about people? Sorry but that doesn't amount to hating women or not caring about them.

The reason you're argueing this is that you're a conservative :) I mean nothing bad by that, it's just a statement of fact. You kind of defend Trump a little and kind of look for a reason to attack Michelle. And it has to do with your political leanings. I do not mean any offense by that :) it's just a bit tough to follow you here. For example because it's not argued Trump is a misogynist because he's not a voice for women, but because he looks down at women. Does he? I'd say yes (because of that long list of things others and I have mentioned), you might say no, but that's what it's about.

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 02:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: The problem I have with the whole misogyny thing is that misogyny is basically another way of saying Trump hates women. Sure we can get into semantics and talk about how misogyny doesn't necessarily have to mean "hate" but the fact of the matter is that most of the time when anyone uses the word they are implying that the person they're applying it to does in fact hate women or just doesn't really care about them.

Trump has made bad comments about women..... but he makes bad comments about a lot of people and doesn't just attack women. Also I'm not sure how cheating and bragging about it makes you a misogynist.

The reason I'm arguing this is because Michelle Obama is doing exactly what I just said, whixh is implying that Trump doesn't care about women by saying he's not a "voice" for them and therefore is a misogynist. I fail to see how such a conclusion is reached. Because he says bad things about people? Sorry but that doesn't amount to hating women or not caring about them.

Actually, Matt, misogyny does mean "hate." That's one of the points which distinguish it from "sexism."  Hate can take the form of constant contempt for women, actively displayed. It is not cancelled because a misogynist brags that his wife and daughter are "hot" or hires some women in his business.  

And it is not ok because Trump disparages other groups as well as women.  What if some one said "Sure, Matt is bad at table tennis; but so what, he fails at other sports as well."  Would you feel well defended?

And no one is saying Trump is a misogynist because he isn't a voice for women or doesn't care about them. They are saying he is a misogynist because of the things he says and does. E.g., tweeting insults about the aging Kim Novack's plastic surgery, some one he doesn't even know. And of course grabbing "p"--that's walkin' the walk, not just talkin' the talk.   It would be rather twisted to argue Trump's groping proves he loves women.

If Trump publicly made disparaging comments about the way black people look and punched one and said "I get angry when blacks don't shine my shoes right," no one would say he was just "saying bad things about people" and that doesn't amount to hating or not caring about black people.

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 02:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll just assume you are unaware of Hillary's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick and other women that accused Bill of sexual abuse. Or Monica's assertion the Hill's "blamed the women" for Bill's transgressions.

Before you go: "Where's the proof, these are just allegations". Ask yourself would you give Trump the same benefit of the doubt.


You can roll with she "made a valid point". I'll roll with she belittled any woman that voted for Trump simply because she thought they should not. 

Certainly I am aware that "the Hills" made private remarks about her husband's accusers. A wife defending her husband against charges that appear rather hard to substantiate. Why would Broaddrick deny Clinton had raped her and then change her testimony amidst a crowd anit-Clinton lawyers?  All beside the point anyway since Bill Clinton has not running for office in 2016 and is not Michelle Obama's husband.

And I would certainly give Trump the same "benefit of the doubt."   I have been doing it all along.

Michelle "simply" thought they should not vote for Trump because his disgusting, misogynistic behavior disqualified him for the office, assured he would do little to further women's issues. Why speak as if there were some other personal preference which motivated her, and not the disgusting behavior all have witnessed and all claim to deplore?

You are rolling here with a choice--1) attack Trump for his unapologetic denigration of women,  or 2) attack Michelle for asking women voters to ask why they voted for a man like that.  You've chosen the latter.

[*bfine32*]

(09-29-2017, 05:43 PM)Dill Wrote: And I would certainly give Trump the same "benefit of the doubt."   I have been doing it all along.

We're done. 

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For practical purposes and by the sociological definition, yes. They are not the majority in power. 

I ask the question because I've seen feminists correct people on that score. Perhaps they were hoping women would realize their potential power.

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We're done. 

You're done. I don't opt out of civil discussion that way.

[Vlad]

(09-29-2017, 05:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Certainly I am aware that "the Hills" made private remarks about her husband's accusers. A wife defending her husband against charges that appear rather hard to substantiate. Why would Broaddrick deny Clinton had raped her and then change her testimony amidst a crowd anit-Clinton lawyers?  All beside the point anyway since Bill Clinton has not running for office in 2016 and is not Michelle Obama's husband.

And I would certainly give Trump the same "benefit of the doubt."   I have been doing it all along.

Michelle "simply" thought they should not vote for Trump because his disgusting, misogynistic behavior disqualified him for the office, assured he would do little to further women's issues. Why speak as if there were some other personal preference which motivated her, and not the disgusting behavior all have witnessed and all claim to deplore?

You are rolling here with a choice--1) attack Trump for his unapologetic denigration of women,  or 2) attack Michelle for asking women voters to ask why they voted for a man like that.  You've chosen the latter.

This thread has become an utter joke. I don't care what that she-male thinks.

Women want equal treatment to men? Thats perfectly fine.  Trump is equally degrading and unpologetic toward women as he is toward men.

Because he called Rosie Odonnel a fat slob does in no way shape or form suggest he is "against women" or a mysoginist.
Women that voted for Trump agree with Trump no doubt.

End of story. Stop whining.

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 06:42 PM)Vlad Wrote: This thread has become an utter joke. I don't care what that she-male thinks.

Women want equal treatment to men? Thats perfectly fine.  Trump is equally degrading and unpologetic toward women as he is toward men.

Because he called Rosie Odonnel a fat slob does in no way shape or form suggest he is "against women" or a mysoginist.
Women that voted for Trump agree with Trump no doubt.

End of story. Stop whining.

Whoa!  I'm not the one crying about all the terrible shaming Michelle Obama has done to poor women who voted for the misogynist. 

And while Trump certainly degrades people around him of all genders, he does not denigrate men as men. Quite the contrary.
What a strange defense of Trump anyway.  I'm constantly amazed at how standards of public decency have dropped under Trump.

After all the misogynistic acts of Trump recounted on this thread, you write as if he called one woman a fat slob one time.  Michelle Obama is a "she-male"?  Little wonder you don't see Trump's misogyny, let alone have a problem with it.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-29-2017, 07:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Michelle Obama is a "she-male"?  Little wonder you don't see Trump's misogyny, let alone have a problem with it.

Called it.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-29-2017, 06:42 PM)Vlad Wrote: This thread has become an utter joke. I don't care what that she-male thinks.

Women want equal treatment to men? Thats perfectly fine.  Trump is equally degrading and unpologetic toward women as he is toward men.

Because he called Rosie Odonnel a fat slob does in no way shape or form suggest he is "against women" or a mysoginist.
Women that voted for Trump agree with Trump no doubt.

End of story. Stop whining.

Yup.

It's like none of them give women the credit for not voting for another woman who couldn't even keep her husband faithful to her. Why would any woman vote for another woman who isn't strong enough to keep her family together?

[Vas Deferens]

Why would any Christian leave, sue and slander his wife just for a younger model? Doesn't seem very Christian to me.

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yup.

It's like none of them give women the credit for not voting for another woman who couldn't even keep her husband faithful to her. Why would any woman vote for another woman who isn't strong enough to keep her family together?

Wow. That is some of the most sexist shit I've seen from you.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-29-2017, 09:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wow. That is some of the most sexist shit I've seen from you.

That women do not like other women who can't keep their family in order?

They feel sorry and compassion for these women they don't follow these women.

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 10:03 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That women do not like other women who can't keep their family in order?

They feel sorry and compassion for these women they don't follow these women.

Not just that specifically. Pretty much everything about your statement was sexist as hell. The idea that a woman is to blame for her husband's infidelity is ridiculously sexist, is offensive to women, should be offensive to men (as it perpetuates the idea that men are just mindless sex craved animals that are incapable of controlling themselves), and is just plain wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(09-29-2017, 09:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Wow. That is some of the most sexist shit I've seen from you.

While the method left much to be desired, pointing out the behavior Hillary exhibited would be part of the reason that Michelle Obama's comments are self-serving. The last comment made was sexist, but not the bulk of it. 

[NATI BENGALS]

Yea back in 96 when Bill got a blowjob means anything and everything trump did or will do is excused. How do we not all know this now?

Racist conman russian puppet who looks down on women? Pshhh. Never forget what bill did and obamas wife said.

[Matt_Crimson]

Quote:No it isn't. I don't think he hates them, I think he looks down at them. He might be more of a "woman defier", but that's all the semantic debate there is to have (if you agree with me, what you might not do).


Well... you asked what makes him a misogynist, I gave my reasons why I think the word applies. You having a problem with the word because it might mean something else to someone doesn't make him any less of a misogynist.

Depends on what your definition of a misogynist is though. My point was that I feel the term is usually used as in hatred for women, which isn't something I feel actually defines Trump.

Quote:Your point is strange to me. If someone says "I despise Mexicans", I would call that person racist. And I would do so even though someone might interpret it as "that person's hating Mexicans", when in fact the person rather scorns then hates them. Now you might say I'm making it all abot semantics, but I don't - you do :)

Not sure this example is equal to what's being argued here. Saying you hate Mexican's is in fact a racist position and would therefore make you a racist. Has Trump said he hates women? I don't remember him doing so. You're taking things that Trump said and declaring him a misogynist. I don't feel he is.

Quote:It's the sum of things that make Trump a misogynist in my books, not just cheating; I didn't even mention that. I personally don't think cheating is misogynic (just being shabby).
Wht I really find amazing, and hard to really argue, is the "he says bad things about other people as well"-defense. That doesn't make too much logical sense, does it? "I can't be called a misogynist, look what bad stuff I said about male Mexicans" doesn't hold up in my moral court.

The point is that you're using such instances to support your accusation that he is a misogynist. You're saying "Trump says bad things about women, therefore he is a misogynist" but I don't find that to be all that great of an argument when he does the same thing to other people who are not women. What has Trump done to women in general that shows he has a great disdain for them that is not comparable to men?

I know he's personally attacked women, but I question to what degree his attacks are actually misogynistic and whether it's more so him being disrespectful as an individual by nature to anyone who challenges him and people being overly sensitive to it.

Quote:The reason you're argueing this is that you're a conservative :) I mean nothing bad by that, it's just a statement of fact. You kind of defend Trump a little and kind of look for a reason to attack Michelle. And it has to do with your political leanings. I do not mean any offense by that :) it's just a bit tough to follow you here. For example because  it's not argued Trump is a misogynist because he's not a voice for women, but because he looks down at women. Does he? I'd say yes (because of that long list of things others and I have mentioned), you might say no, but that's what it's about.

Not really.

I'm arguing because....

1. I'm bored.
2. I think Michelle is wrong for saying what she said.

I don't consider myself to be anything. I just like to state my views and leave it at that. You said I looked for a reason to attack Michelle but I don't find that to be true. bfine posted the article and I responded because I believe she's wrong.

You're saying Trump looks down on women because of the things he's said about them but things like grabbing them by the (whatever) are more so sexist statements than they are statements of misogyny , and sexism and misogyny are not two terms that should be used interchangeably, although that's what's become of the two words in today's usage of it. Misogyny is really sort of like racism, but towards women rather than someone of a particular race. But I feel the term has kind of become this loose term to mean "insulting to women" but it's really more than that.

[BmorePat87]

(09-29-2017, 03:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except last I checked... women can like strong economies, jobs, crackdowns on drugs and crime, safer borders, and tax cuts just as much as men. Those aren't gender issues.

I pointed that out in my previous post, check it out.

Quote:Meanwhile Clinton has a husband who was getting BJs in the oval office, and her right hand woman had a husband sending dick pics to underage girls. So it's not like they were exactly killing it in the empowering women category either.

I'd say their husband's infidelity has zero to do with their ability to empower women. 

Quote:That tape doesn't make Trump's entire political platform inherently anti-women's interests. Nor does having a vagina make Clinton's entire platform inherently pro-women. When you're working in a system where you only really get two choices with a realistic chance of winning, neither one is going to be 100% in your interests. (If you think they are, you're likely conforming your interests to their stances, instead.) So you choose which one has more of your interests in mind. So saying that any woman who voted against her own interests by voting for Trump, is some sexist BS that would never fly the other way around, regardless how you try and spin it.

I never actually cited the tape, just various comments on how he sees the role of women and his actions towards women, particularly underage girls. The rest of your comments are in line with what I said in my previous post when I said many women are conservative and have other identities that they want to give a voice to. 

edit: here you go http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Obama-Shames-Voters?pid=438882#pid438882