Obama Shames Voters

[Belsnickel]

(09-29-2017, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

Aww, how cute. Good effort.

[Matt_Crimson]

(09-29-2017, 05:27 PM)Dill Wrote: 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, the point of saying "Trump insults other people too" is to point out the fact that insults do not make you a misogynist. Saying you grope women does not make you a misogynist. What makes someone a misogynist is their hatred for women. Saying you grab women by the area means you hate women? Sorry but I have to disagree.

Trump has shown that he is someone who regularly attacks people who are against him. If Jeb Bush was a woman everyone would still be talking about how badly Trump treated him. But hey, he's a man so who cares.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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?

That's like blaming your wife she isn't strong enough to keep you off the Internet.

[*bfine32*]

(09-29-2017, 10:26 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 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.

So things that happened in the past should be dismissed? I'm good with that; how about you? 

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-29-2017, 11:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So things that happened in the past should be dismissed? I'm good with that; how about you? 

No they should be recognized for what they are. 

If necessary wrongs will be repremanded such as impeachment. Like in in the past when this country had leaders that we demanded show a smidge of common decency. 

[StLucieBengal]

(09-29-2017, 10:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

You are reading way too much into this....

If she can't manage her home how can she manage a nation?

Now as to blaming people...... if your wife cheats on you repeatedly over several years with several women. Then it's on you if you stay with her and just take it. Then it would be obvious that you have some sort of personal issue with yourself. Maybe it's a lack of confidence, maybe it's just that you don't care about your family or marriage. Either way you are not someone I am following into a foxhole.

Pointing this out is not sexist. It's merely pointing out that people do not follow the weak.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-30-2017, 12:11 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are reading way too much into this....

If she can't manage her home how can she manage a nation?

Now as to blaming people...... if your wife cheats on you repeatedly over several years with several women. Then it's on you if you stay with her and just take it. Then it would be obvious that you have some sort of personal issue with yourself. Maybe it's a lack of confidence, maybe it's just that you don't care about your family or marriage. Either way you are not someone I am following into a foxhole.

Pointing this out is not sexist. It's merely pointing out that people do not follow the weak.

(10-29-2015, 07:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So the military need never matched up with my life.

As if you could be bothered to get in a foxhole.

[GMDino]

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

Who started this thread?

[GMDino]

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

Hang on...it's a thread about Michelle Obama.  It'll get worse.

[Dill]

(09-29-2017, 11:06 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Dill, the point of saying "Trump insults other people too" is to point out the fact that insults do not make you a misogynist. Saying you grope women does not make you a misogynist. What makes someone a misogynist is their hatred for women. Saying you grab women by the area means you hate women? Sorry but I have to disagree.

Trump has shown that he is someone who regularly attacks people who are against him. If Jeb Bush was a woman everyone would still be talking about how badly Trump treated him. But hey, he's a man so who cares.

You are generalizing Trump's insults to the point where they have no content, then asking what's the big deal?

If someone calls the men AND women around him "idiots" in equal proportion, then yes probably no one would call that sexism, just personal abuse.

But to reiterate a point made above, it would be quite another thing if a white man habitually calls a black coworker the N word and complain his kind are lazy and shiftless, and make jokes about his hair and facial features.  Would anyone argue that such behavior is not racist  because he insults women and others too?

Insulting women does make you a misogynist if the insults are directed at women because they are women, and define them as inferior beings whose entire value rests upon their ability to please men by their looks, their genitals, or ability to cook and keep a home or otherwise serve.  That's how misogyny is distinguished from mere sexism--by the intent to denigrate.

The business of Trump grabbing women really has two parts. 1) to say a man "hates" women doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to kill them or something. Hatred can be expressed in a spectrum of behaviors, including violence and objectification--even of one's own daughter, if he speculates how large and wonderful his baby girl's breasts will be when she grows up (on NATIONAL TV. Jeezus!) . The misogynist not only thinks of them as less than men, but finds them contemptible, deserving of abuse and violation.  When his wife gets old he dumps her for a younger, more pleasing and compliant toy. 2) Trump wasn't just "talking"; by his own testimony, he regularly grabbed women without their consent, like they were meat, used his celebrity to violate them personally.  Even if we give Trump "the benefit of the doubt" by not believing him, we still have his celebration of imaginary denigration in speech.

To put one and two together, you "grab women" and brag to other men about it because you have contempt for them as persons with rights.  You don't escape the charge of misogyny just because you regularly heap contempt on others as well--like imitating a person with a handicap.


PS People do care about the way Trump attacked Jeb Bush, by the way.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-29-2017, 08:50 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Called it.

Actually, you called racism. That was just disparaging her looks as a woman. Sexist at best (or rather worst) and even then I don't know if calling someone ugly is sexist, rather than just shallow and/or mean. You gotta keep waiting for now.

(09-29-2017, 12:54 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Looking forward to a hypocrite call her ape-like soon.

[hollodero]

(09-29-2017, 10:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 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.

Yeah no offense, but there's a bit much feeling in it to be an airtight argument. You shouldn't be outraged because you feel the term means something
specific which it actually doesn't mean to many other people. I really don't want to get into the "is the term correct"-debate. If it isn't, it doesn't miss by much.


The problem with Trump is not people calling him argueably not pinpoint accurate names, it's really all the stuff Trump did and said that led to this. Why you chose to change perspective away from that is something I can not quite understand. This Michelle thing, if problematic at all (I don't think so, but whatever), isn't nearly as hefty as what your president did in his past and does in his present. The whole "Michelle shames voters"-outrage is an intellectual construct, for a predesired outcome. Trumps whole "facelift fatugly bleeding" statements [see the long lists posted] is repeated reality. How can your perspective on that be so different?

I assume political leaning because a) I have no other explanation and b) I'm always right on that one :) I'd guess you vote conservative, more importantly not democratic, and I don't mean anything bad by it. I just don't get the perspectives. If I were to sort the most outrageous, divisive or inappropriate comments in your political sphere, this Michelle one, no matter how you feel the term misogyny is percieved, couldn't possibly make the top 500. Not with this competition from POTUS account.

(09-29-2017, 10:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 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.

Nah, you didn't get what I was getting at, which probably was my fault. I don't think Trump hates women, I think he disdains them. As someone could disdain Mexicans (saying "I don't hate them, they are just inferior people".) Which would still make him a racist, these words as stated. Even without hate.
And in the same sense, Trump is a misogynic even though maybe not actually hating women. That's not a stretch in my books.

(09-29-2017, 10:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 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?

His attacks on women are often shaming their looks, there also seems to be blood involved. That's the technicality, that his attacks are often women-specific. The broader picture really is, him saying bad things about other people doesn't minimize the bad things he said about women. It just makes him an even bigger as... ok. But that's really how I see it, and I think seeing it differently is quite an absurd way to look at things.

(09-29-2017, 10:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: 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.

This whole "don't treat Trump unfairly" movement is so hard to grasp for me - why conservatives are in it, I mean. This can't be fun. I say it once again, when Trump is called a name like misogynic, he brought that on himself. it's really on him first and foremost.

Btw. I feel you're quite overly sensitive over an alleged misuse of the word "misogynic". :) I have to say...

[6andcounting]

Michelle Obama said if a woman didn't vote Hillary, she "voted against her own voice." WOW! So Michelle voted against her husband in 08?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) September 29, 2017

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2017, 12:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Who started this thread?

Let me guess:

No insult intended?

[GMDino]

(09-30-2017, 10:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me guess:

No insult intended?

He said he doesn't care what, well he didn't call her anything nice, said.  But I though he started the thread.

Mistake on my part. He had started a different thread.

So...no.

[*bfine32*]

In a related story. Apparently, the current FLOTUS is peddling racist propaganda to young children:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/29/politics/melania-trump-library-books-dr-suess/index.html

Quote:You may not be aware of this, but Dr. Seuss is a bit of a cliché, a tired and worn ambassador for children's literature," Soeiro wrote to Trump. "As first lady of the United States, you have an incredible platform with world-class resources at your fingertips. Just down the street you have access to a phenomenal children's librarian: Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress. I have no doubt Dr. Hayden would have given you some stellar recommendations."

Soeiro said Seuss's illustrations are "steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures and harmful stereotypes."

[Dill]

(09-30-2017, 04:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: I assume political leaning because a) I have no other explanation and b) I'm always right on that one :) I'd guess you vote conservative, more importantly not democratic, and I don't mean anything bad by it. I just don't get the perspectives. If I were to sort the most outrageous, divisive or inappropriate comments in your political sphere, this Michelle one, no matter how you feel the term misogyny is percieved, couldn't possibly make the top 500. Not with this competition from POTUS account.

I share your perplexity. 

The criticism of Michelle here seems an attempt to elevate--or reduce--her comments to the level of a Trump insult.  That involves overgeneralizing, like claiming she is berating people for just having a "different opinion" and that is basically all Trump does as well.

And you have to argue that Michelle's behavior is worse than it is. She is saying women should vote for women, etc. and that's liberal hypocrisy because before she urged women to vote for a man, her husband. The actual point Michelle was making about women's interests and "voice" is ignored.  Has to be to effect the reduction.

From the other end, it is argued that Trump's behavior is not really as bad as it is, not really misogynistic, just garden variety insulting of everyone.

Eventually, we reach the point where people don't like Trump because they Democrats, not because of what he actually says or does.

I do think though there is recognition among Trump supporters that defending Trump is a special problem. Before it was so much easier to dismiss criticism of a political leader and those who support him with a dismissive "both sides do it."  Now one has to constantly redefine standards downward and bend logic and trash definitions to render Trump not-really-all-that-bad.

 

[Dill]

(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?

I too am surprised at this.

For one Hillary did "keep her family together." And I agree with Bels it is not simply a "womans job" to keep a family together.

What I don't understand why women voters would even be looking there.

Why wouldn't they rather vote for a woman who is strong enough to win three public debates with a loud misogynist, or come out of on top of a 9-hour grilling by Congressional Republicans, or get China to agree to a reduction in carbon emissions? Why would they prefer the loud, unfocused and inexperienced misogynist on his third trophy wife?

Did Fox buzz about the dishonest Clintons trump proven competence?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-30-2017, 05:57 PM)Dill Wrote: I too am surprised at this.

For one Hillary did "keep her family together." And I agree with Bels it is not simply a "womans job" to keep a family together.

What I don't understand why women voters would even be looking there.

Why wouldn't they rather vote for a woman who is strong enough to win three public debates with a loud misogynist, or come out of on top of a 9-hour grilling by Congressional Republicans, or get China to agree to a reduction in carbon emissions? Why would they prefer the loud, unfocused and inexperienced misogynist on his third trophy wife?

Did Fox buzz about the dishonest Clintons trump proven competence?

Hillary stayed married not because she desperately wanted to keep her family together. She stayed because it helped her politically.

Having your husband be a serial cheater just makes your family look like a joke.

And yes it's the woman's job to keep the family together and running. They are actually built specifically for this task.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-30-2017, 05:57 PM)Dill Wrote: I too am surprised at this.

For one Hillary did "keep her family together." And I agree with Bels it is not simply a "womans job" to keep a family together.

What I don't understand why women voters would even be looking there.

Why wouldn't they rather vote for a woman who is strong enough to win three public debates with a loud misogynist, or come out of on top of a 9-hour grilling by Congressional Republicans, or get China to agree to a reduction in carbon emissions? Why would they prefer the loud, unfocused and inexperienced misogynist on his third trophy wife?

Did Fox buzz about the dishonest Clintons trump proven competence?

Hillary stayed married not because she desperately wanted to keep her family together. She stayed because it helped her politically.

Having your husband be a serial cheater just makes your family look like a joke.

And yes it's the woman's job to keep the family together and running. They are actually built specifically for this task. It's also the man's responsibility to do their part as welll.