--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: <snip> > > It brought me to tears to know that you > > understand completely how painful it was to have > > witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, > > abuse of the first American woman ever to make > > such a powerful and historic bid for the > > presidency. > > And these are the women who claim not to > be "running on emotion."
Raunchy, from another post: "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button for me but it doesn't preclude my rational abilities to recognize it, speak out against it and defend Hillary or any woman against it." What we claim is that our intellects aren't "fundamentally governed," as Rick put it, by our emotions, not that we don't *have* strong emotions. (Note once again Barry's deceptive use of quote marks; "running on emotion" is *his* phrase, designed to create a straw man). It occurs to me that men think emotions always block rational thought because it's true of *them*, so they assume it's true of women as well. Not really their fault; the culture tells them "real men" don't indulge in emotion, so when they experience emotion, it scares the pants off them. That crippling fear of not appearing manly is what prevents them from being able to think rationally *as well as* having emotions. In contrast, the culture tells women that it's OK for them to have emotions, so they don't fear them. They're perfectly capable of having both emotions *and* rational thought and of distinguishing between them. > It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees > anything the *least* bit odd about still > breaking into tears or into uncontrollable > bouts of anger about something that happened > to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET. Barry has again failed to pay attention to the very posts he's criticizing. Raunchy *has* met Hillary. And Raunchy didn't weep because of what happened to Hillary, she wept because she felt I had understood her anger. Nor was either of us having "uncontrollable bouts" of anger. Again, men are so terrified of emotions that they perceive them to be inherently uncontrollable. What you were seeing from both Raunchy and me was *controlled anger*. > But it's not the weepiness or the anger that > astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT. > > I honestly don't understand how anyone who > has been meditating for 30+ years can do that. > It just doesn't compute. Did these women never > heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy? > Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect > that almost everyone else here has. We GET > OVER THINGS. Why don't you? See, here's the tendency of the TM critics to view everything in black and white. It doesn't occur to Barry that it depends on the situation. He assumes that if we haven't "gotten over" one particularly strong emotion, it means we haven't *ever* gotten over *any* emotions. But that, of course, isn't the case, and it's regularly demonstrated in our posts as well as in our personal lives. > As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to > politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't. > IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary > Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's > a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected > her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear > to hold grudges; she's beyond it. She's a politician; unlike us, she *can't* appear to hold grudges. We don't see her in private, however. We don't know what kind of effort she has to exert to put on and maintain that grudge-free public face. (Note that Barry uses the term "grudge" as a weasel word to suggest that whatever the complaint is has no basis.) > The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed > to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked > like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician > more votes than a bunch of women running around > screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty > with my candidate," in a national election. > Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym* > for "national election." So Barry admits that sexism is "playing dirty." Let's remember that. But the sexist attacks weren't just aimed at her supporters. They were designed to upset her and throw her off her game. They were also designed to make her appear ridiculous in the eyes of those who were on the fence about whom to support (particularly men; the attacks were intended to reinforce their own stereotypes of women as incapable of being presidential). And of course, the sexism of Obama's supporters and the right wing actually resulted in Hillary *gaining* votes, not losing them. Many women took a second look at Hillary *because* she was being so viciously attacked. Like Raunchy, they saw the sexism as an attack on women in general, which inspired them to stand in solidarity with her, to see her as their champion. Another point Barry misses is that this was the first time a woman has ever actually had a chance in a presidential election--indeed, was initially favored to win both the nomination and the election. This particular *kind* of "playing dirty" was entirely new in a national election, so it came as a very unpleasant surprise. It's not that we didn't expect dirty tricks, it's that we didn't expect *this* dirty trick. Progressives *claim* to support equal rights for women, but they showed they're all too ready to drop that noble posture if they perceive it's to their advantage to do so. <snip> > It's the same thing here at FFL. Judy postures > as a rational person, and yet LIVES for her > grudges and acting out on them. John Knapp > shows up here and posts and she loses it and > starts trashing him as if their history were > NOT history, and was yesterday. Same with > Andrew Skolnick. Mention his name here, or the > website (http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/) > he created for Judy, and she goes ballistic, > *while* claiming that she sees the site as some > kind of "badge of honor." No, she doesn't "go ballistic," not by any stretch of the imagination (except for Barry's, of course, which is infinitely flexible). He brings up Skolnick, in fact, more often than Judy does. Nor does she "lose it" when Knapp shows up. Barry apparently doesn't feel that a person's history should ever be taken into account, at least not where TM critics are concerned. But of course he's the first to cite history-- including Andrew's old Web site--when he wants to bash TMers. With both Knapp and Skolnick, it isn't *my* history with them that's at issue; it's their own history as dishonorable TM-bashers. Trancenet is still up and running, of course, and Andrew not long ago participated in attempting to get as much TM-bashing as he possibly could into Wikipedia's pages on TM and Maharishi. So it's not as if either of them has turned the page. Their history is as relevant now as it's ever been. Do we see Barry dumping on Knapp and Skolnick for *their* longstanding grudges against TM? Of course not. Do we see Barry acting out his own longstanding grudges against TM/MMY/TMers/the TMO virtually every day? Of course we do. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. > And you, Raunch? You're going along fine, being > funny and writing your poetry, and someone men- > tions Hillary Clinton and you drop back into > "rant mode" and start acting out ALL of the > negative stereotypes any man ever had about any > woman. Mentioning Hillary wasn't what triggered it. It was Rick's "Boo Hoo, Hillary lost," when Raunchy hadn't mentioned Hillary at all; she was criticizing Obama. Barry and others have done the same thing to me when *I've* criticized Obama. Isn't it interesting that these purportedly rational men (and one would-be rational woman, i.e., Sal), when confronted with criticism of their idol, immediately go into vicious ad hominem mode rather than actually addressing the criticisms? Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women experience them fully and acknowledge them, own them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. But their emotions come out anyway. They just come out sideways. > Here's a hint: If you really do care about ending > the negative things that men say about women, as > Willytex says, "DON'T FEED IT." How can you expect > men to "take you seriously" when you don't act in > a way that CAN be taken seriously? It's long past time for men to recognize that women's emotions are valid and valuable, that they don't preclude rational thought. It's long past time for men to realize that having emotions and expressing them is not a basis for not taking a woman seriously. That's part of the stereotype they need to discard, just as they need to discard the stereotype that manly men don't have emotions. It's also long past time for men to stop pointing fingers at a woman's emotions as a way to dismiss her rational arguments that they're unable to address. How can you > expect us to understand your anger at portrayals > of women as overly emotional and tending to hold > onto grudges for years when you act overly emotional > and hang onto grudges for years? It's like a child > saying, "I am NOT 'throwing a tantrum.' And I'm > going to sit here and pout and hold my breath until > my face turns purple and until you stop saying that > about me." Actually it's like saying, "You punished me for something I didn't do, and I'm going to object until you realize you were wrong, because if I don't, you're going to *keep on doing it*. You don't get to sweep your injustice under the rug." To quote Raunchy one more time: "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button for me but it doesn't preclude my rational abilities to recognize it, speak out against it and defend Hillary or any woman against it." > What I don't think you understand is that a number > of us here LIKE you when you drop all this emotional > and samskaric attachment to things in the past and > just live in the present. The woman who does that > and is able to be funny is a delight. It's the one > who keeps throwing tantrums and claiming she isn't > doing it we laugh at, rather than with. See, Raunchy, as long as you just keep being cute and sweet and funny and don't bring up anything that makes the men uncomfortable, they'll tolerate you and even give you a pat on the head once in a while. I mean, you're likable enough.
