+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: A SCOTUS Opening (/Thread-A-SCOTUS-Opening)
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - CJD - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just checking.
Cool.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - PhilHos - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 11:59 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But I still, for the life of me, cannot understand what you believe is sexist about this accusation. I really can't.
It has nothing to do with the religious aspect. So stop with thinking about cults and religion.
If I called Obama a house negro, would that not be racist? Basically the same thing. Nati was basically calling ACB a "handmaiden" from The Handmaid's Tale, he was basically calling her property, lesser than and dependent on men. If you don't see how that's sexist, then I don't know what else to tell you.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - CJD - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It has nothing to do with the religious aspect. So stop with thinking about cults and religion.
If I called Obama a house negro, would that not be racist? Basically the same thing. Nati was basically calling ACB a "handmaiden" from The Handmaid's Tale, he was basically calling her property, lesser than and dependent on men. If you don't see how that's sexist, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Here's the problem, if she were not a part of that religion/cult, then he wouldn't have used that term so I can't "stop with thinking about cults and religion." That is the central tenet of that name being used. However, in respect to her association with this group, if you truly believe it is a cult, any sane person would classify her as a victim of this cult. In this case, she was indoctrinated into being subservient to men. So is criticizing her for being part of this cult really a valid criticism?
Let's examine a scenario in which race is the exploitation rather than sex.
If there were a group in which black men were indoctrinated to be subservient to white men but were taught that it was the natural order of things, rather than an abuse of power by the people they are subservient to, and then one of these black men were nominated to a position of power in which they'd have the opportunity to subject people to their flawed teachings, would it be racist to call that black man out for that?
Admittedly, there isn't a perfect parallel here, but that sounds like the rough equivalent of the "Uncle Tom." The slave that, given no other option, chose to embrace the exploitation of other slaves in order to get in the good graces of the white slave owners and live a, relatively, better life as a house slave.
Now, this isn't a perfect parallel because the motivations of an "Uncle Tom" was mostly about surviving, because they could not just leave slavery like a woman could just leave a cult (it would be difficult, but there are exit strategies from a cult whereas there were none from slavery, other than running away and hoping to make it to the North alive). But "Uncle Toms" did, in a way, harm other slaves for their own self preservation so I guess it's a little similar.
So would it have been racist for someone to call an Uncle Tom an Uncle Tom in the age of slavery? There's an argument that it wouldn't be, especially from one of the slaves' points of view, who are being actively harmed by the actions of Uncle Tom. But I could see racism being there, especially from a non-slaves' point of view. For example, an abolitionist would be in the wrong for blaming the Uncle Tom for treating the other slaves poorly, as the Uncle Tom is himself a victim of slavery just as much as the other slaves and the real villains are the enslavers, not the slaves who made the best of their awful situation.
Nowadays, of course, Uncle Tom is a very dangerous term to throw around, because it is often viewed as exaggeration and condemnation of any black person who disagrees with you, especially as a white person so you make a valid point in that regard.
So if ACB is a victim of her religious group because they are a cult, I think you've changed my mind. It is sexist to accuse her of being an enabler of her victimizers (i.e. a handmaid). You can't blame a victim for being a victim just as much as you can't really blame a slave for their own self preservation.
However, that would be definitive proof that she should not get that nomination, because she is indoctrinated and needs help before she is given the power to impact other people's lives. But if you don't believe it's a cult then there is no victim complex and then you lose the sexism angle.
So basically we have two scenarios:
1. PoP is a cult. Therefore, she is a victim. Therefore, blaming her for succumbing to her indoctrination (by calling her a handmaid) is indeed sexist. But it also means that she should never be nominated for a position of power where she can enact her own indoctrination on millions of others and should instead seek help to decode her indoctrination.
2. PoP is not a cult, it's just a religious group. She is not a victim, but she is an active and willing participant in her religious group. Therefore, associating her with that group and all the negative associations that go with it (I.E. handmaid's tale) is not sexist, because she has full cognition about her actions and beliefs. The insult is merely anti-religious for the association of her group with an extreme, fictional version of it in which women are indoctrinated and enslaved.
You have swayed me to believe the first scenario however, so I agree with you that calling her a handmaid is indeed sexist because it blames her for her own victimization at the hands of the men in her religious cult.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It has nothing to do with the religious aspect. So stop with thinking about cults and religion.
If I called Obama a house negro, would that not be racist? Basically the same thing. Nati was basically calling ACB a "handmaiden" from The Handmaid's Tale, he was basically calling her property, lesser than and dependent on men. If you don't see how that's sexist, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I think folks can deflect from the sexism of the comments by pointing to the other aspects. I wonder if folks would find and sexism in the comment if I said this:
"Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some lady judging over me"
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - GMDino - 10-27-2020
The first thing Justice Barrett did was to participate in a campaign event at the White House for the president, eight days before an election that he has explicitly said he expects will turn on her vote.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) October 27, 2020
Pres Trump escorts Justice Barrett up the South Portico steps to the balcony outside the Blue Room as invited guests applaud on the South Lawn beneath. pic.twitter.com/AxFfvJ0mA8
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 27, 2020
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - CJD - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think folks can deflect from the sexism of the comments by pointing to the other aspects. I wonder if folks would find and sexism in the comment if I said this:
"Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some lady judging over me"
If, in response to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, someone said "Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some rapey, beer chugging frat guy judging over me" would you consider that sexist because the word "guy" was used?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If, in response to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, someone said "Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some rapey, beer chugging frat guy judging over me" would you consider that sexist because the word "guy" was used?
Did you answer my question with a question?
But to answer yours: No. I'm unaware of recent systemic sexism against men. But if Kavs were a female and the exact same quote used lady, then yes.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - CJD - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you answer my question with a question?
But to answer yours: No. I'm unaware of recent systemic sexism against men.
My question is regarding the implied claim of your question that identifying a person by their gender is inherently sexist.
Unless my inference was incorrect and you would not find anything wrong with someone saying "Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some lady judging over me"?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: My question is regarding the implied claim of your question that identifying a person by their gender is inherently sexist.
Unless my inference was incorrect and you would not find anything wrong with someone saying "Woohoo! Here’s to 40+ years of having some lady judging over me"?
He called her a weirdo cult religious lady.
You didn't find a degree in sexism in the comment; I did.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Au165 - 10-27-2020
She is going to have a lot of Trump-related litigation coming down the pipe, this is just one of many that will make it there eventually.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/27/trump-must-remain-defendant-in-e-jean-carroll-rape-defamation-suit.html
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - CJD - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He called her a weirdo cult religious lady.
You didn't find a degree in sexism in the comment; I did.
When you remove the weirdo cult religious part and only have the lady part, it does sound sexist, I'll give you that. Society is systemically sexist and racist and a lot of phrases and terms are coded in that language, so sometimes sexism and racism are portrayed unintentionally.
We, as a society, should work on that.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Belsnickel - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: She is going to have a lot of Trump-related litigation coming down the pipe, this is just one of many that will make it there eventually.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/27/trump-must-remain-defendant-in-e-jean-carroll-rape-defamation-suit.html
I, actually, disagree with that ruling. Don't get me wrong, I would be happy to see him have to go through discovery and all that, but it's not the right decision from my point of view.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - michaelsean - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 10:34 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think 9/11 kind of broke our collective brains when it came to the religion of Islam. It has its issues outside of that relation with some of their traditions (such as, for example, the women covering their hair and bodies with no such restrictions on men), but by and large it's pretty similar to Judeo-Christian religions, at least on the broader strokes.
I personally think that religion should remain a personal thing and should not affect policy in any way, as they are mostly beliefs with no real factual basis, but I realize that's impossible. How do you tell a Christian to not frame their political beliefs through their perspective as a Christian? Likewise with a Muslim, Catholic, Jew etc.
So, in lieu of that, I would just encourage people to analyze everything from a critical lens, rather than an emotional or religious one. When it comes down to it, making and enforcing laws are all about the logistics. Sweeping statements work in some areas, but law isn't really one of them. Nuance is required and that's where I think a lot of laws influenced too much by religion start to suffer a bit.
Catholics are Christians. The original ones. Then Martin Luther King gave a speech about a dream and now we have all these crazy pretend Christians.
As for our new justice it's done. Arguing about what you think she will do is kind of ridiculous. Justices often surprise people.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 12:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you find any sexism in the post above?
Religious bigotry? Probably. Sexism? No.
Anyway, you're they one who doesn't think women should go to Ranger School because of their sex which is sexism.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 03:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Religious bigotry? Probably. Sexism? No.
Anyway, you're they one who doesn't think women should go to Ranger School because of their sex which is sexism.
I've seen you mention this before. Did he say women should not be allowed, for any reason, or that they should have to meet the exact same standards as men?
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 01:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He called her a weirdo cult religious lady.
You didn't find a degree in sexism in the comment; I did.
Look who is getting all PC over the use of "lady."
Did Kenny refer to himself as a knight in shining armor? How sexist.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 03:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've seen you mention this before. Did he say women should not be allowed, for any reason, or that they should have to meet the exact same standards as men?
He said they can get the same leadership training at other schools.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-First-Female-Ranger-School-Gaduates
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 03:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He said they can get the same leadership training at other schools.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-First-Female-Ranger-School-Gaduates
I appreciate you finding it. It was especially interesting to read as it's over five years old. Also, I did recall my post on your response to bfine. I do have to say though, after rereading the entire thread bfine does not say he thinks women should not be allowed in Ranger school. He did express his opinion why them going was, in his opinion, pointless and "tab chasing", but he never said they should not be allowed.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - bfine32 - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate you finding it. It was especially interesting to read as it's over five years old. Also, I did recall my post on your response to bfine. I do have to say though, after rereading the entire thread bfine does not say he thinks women should not be allowed in Ranger school. He did express his opinion why them going was, in his opinion, pointless and "tab chasing", but he never said they should not be allowed.First off; We're bringing up thoughts from 5 years ago? talk about leaving an impression.
Secondly: You grasped my point
My point was that these women would never be called upon to employ the tactics, techniques, and procedures taught at ranger School; although, I did applaud their efforts. This POV included anyone who would not be using squad level combat tactics. I have seen too often where the only reason to go is to "Get the Tab".
WTS, since that post the Army has opened up Infantry and other Combat Arms to women and I hope many women get the training.
RE: A SCOTUS Opening - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 10-27-2020
(10-27-2020, 04:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, he just said they didn't need the training, wouldn't use the training, could get the training elsewhere, and the money could be better spent elsewhere. Why? Because of their sex = institutional discrimination.
Yes, he did say all of those things. He did not say they shouldn't be allowed. One is his opinion on the merits of their participation and the other is his stating they shouldn't be allowed to participate at all. Saying he stated women should not be allowed to participate is just not a true statement.