[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. That's not surprising. In my experience, women tend to take gender-based insults a lot less seriously *personally* because the guy who uses them is so obviously a loser. He's handed them a weapon to use against him; he's virtually declared that his point of view is worthless, grounded in misogyny rather than any real complaint against the woman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. That's not surprising. In my experience, women tend to take gender-based insults a lot less seriously *personally* because the guy who uses them is so obviously a loser. He's handed them a weapon to use against him; he's virtually declared that his point of view is worthless, grounded in misogyny rather than any real complaint against the woman. That was my intuition, though, her behavior was jerky because it WAS sex-based (literally). Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is. Following up on this, just because it's a fun topic, I think the issue is that some people react to being called a name by pretending that the name was really meant to refer not to them personally but to a group that they feel that they are symbols for. No, Barry, nobody here reacts that way. You made that up. Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. If they're so insane as to get their hot buttons pushed by jerk, there's really nothing you can do to be misogyny-free. On the whole, however, you are wisest to stick with gender-neutral terms and avoid the B-word (even if the person you are addressing is clearly one). And the dreaded C-word is right out. Better to stick with gender-neutrality or with male epithets like hardon or boner. For obvious reasons, epithets like strap-on or dildo are right out. It's all about sparing the fairer sex any hint of misogyny, donchaknow? The way they believe things should work is that they get a free pass for saying stupid shit, while the men they rail against are fair game for anything they wish to call them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Tue, 11/18/08, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 12:30 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Let's not forget Obama-girl, one (two?) of the reasons: http://www.obamagirl.com/ Tuuli (= Wind), the Finnish nearly-anorectic version of Obama-girl, one of the participants of Big Brother Finland 2008: http://www.kuvaboxi.fi/mediaobjects/pub/2008/10/13/8143010478544397028web_0.jpg I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. Too strong? shrill bitch Too smart? ball buster Too pretty? Dumb Bimbo Too clever? Manipulating Diva O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it. Bitter menopausal bull dyke Obama-hater? How about the image of a female Obama hater who calls herself 'Raunchy Dog'?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. Too strong? shrill bitch Too smart? ball buster Too pretty? Dumb Bimbo Too clever? Manipulating Diva O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it. Is anyone surprised the usual sexist suspects of FF Life would seize upon an opportunity to rip into women and me personally like rabid dogs while they ignore this: I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. How about it guys, is this a true statement? If it is, do you think we need to do something about it? The 13th Amendment to the Constitution adopted December 6, 1865, abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment, July 9, 1868, provided equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment, February 3, 1870 prohibits states from preventing citizen voting based on race. It did not specifically include women who were unable to vote in all the states until the 19th Amendment, August 26, 1920. Long after the abolition of slavery, it wasn't until May, 17, 1954 the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The decision overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned separate but equal segregation of the races. Until the ruling on Civil Rights, African Americans suffered greatly from segregation, economic injustice, Jim Crow, lynching, and disparaging language and images in literature and the arts. Calling Hillary the c word and other bon mots including Dr. Peter's endearment for his wife, bitter menopausal bull dyke, was accepted banter on all the leftie blogs. Calling Obama the n word didn't exist except on the vilest of white supremacy websites. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, enshrines the equal rights of men and women, and addressed both the equality and equity issues. In 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981. The United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW. http://tinyurl.com/67w25n The protections of the constitution for African Americans have made racism unacceptable in our society. This election cycle has proven that not only is sexism acceptable but we can use it to defeat any woman aspiring to high political office. Do we need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment so that it's possible to elect a woman for president without belittling her for her sex? What do you think? Comments from the Sexist Peanut Gallery and rauncydog's replies: cardemaister: Obama girl slams Palin video raunchydog: Addicted to porn? OffWorld: Margaret Thatcher - a fine figure of a man ...but wait: Boudicca -- Destroyer of Romans Queen Elizabeth I -- Banisher of Fundamentalists (ie. Puritans. To you Yanks, Pligrims. To us Brits fascist fundamentalists haters of freedom raunchydog: Very good historical references. Here's your homework: do.rflex: How about the image of a female Obama hater who calls herself 'Raunchy Dog'? raunchydog: I don't hate him. I'm pissed at the DNC for giving us an empty suit on which we project all our hopes for our country. (I don't count this as a sexist comment.) Barry: Women so obsessive about their own lack of accomplishment and their own sense of victimhood that they'll identify with any woman who gets into the news, even if she's dumb as a post and against everything they stand for personally, just because she's female and got into the news and they didn't and never will. raunchydog: According to Barry's definition of accomplishment, a women's self-esteem depends on getting in the news. Is he projecting, as usual, yearning for fame but unable to grasp the golden ring for himself? (Barry agrees with Dr. Peter so I'll count this as a sexist comment.) Dr. Peter: Bitter menopausal bull dyke Obama-hater? raunchydog: An so is your wife. Snuggle up to your fanstasy, why don't you?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Peter: Bitter menopausal bull dyke Obama-hater? raunchydog: An so is your wife. Snuggle up to your fanstasy, why don't you? Actually, my wife is neither menopausal, a dyke nor is she bitter. Oh, and she voted for Obama too. I was actually referring to...oh, never mind. Too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Hey Raunch, you might consider that people are reacting to your vitriolic and their comments have nothing to do with their attitudes toward women. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Raunch, you might consider that people are reacting to your vitriol and their comments have nothing to do with their attitudes toward women. Bingo. It's like when I called three people on this forum the C-word that drives her up the wall. All three of them deserved to be called that because they were acting like cunts, but only two of them actually had them. :-) Similarly, I've called John McCain a bimbo before, because he was acting like one. Was that misogynist of me, John? As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is. Following up on this, just because it's a fun topic, I think the issue is that some people react to being called a name by pretending that the name was really meant to refer not to them personally but to a group that they feel that they are symbols for. If you are a public figure, someone strongly associated with one or more groups, that is actually a somewhat valid stance. Barack Obama actually IS a symbol for black men everywhere, because he's shown them what they can accomplish. But if you're basically a media nobody, and the full extent of your public recognition is being a loud fish in the small pond of an obscure Internet chat group, then how valid -- or even sane -- is that stance? I'm such a media nobody. No one outside this group knows me by the name I use here. I live in Spain, but does that make any insult hurled at me an insult to all Spanish? I am a writer, but does that make any disparaging remarks said about me also about writers in general? What I'm getting at is that this claim that criticism of or insults hurled at a *particular* woman is also de facto an insult hurled at ALL women is bullshit. If I call you a name, I'm really calling YOU a name. You're not a symbol for diddleysquat; you're YOU, and that's the person I'm insulting. Get the concept? Let me give you an example. If I were to say to Dr. Pete, Pete, you're a nanner-nanner pooh-pooh head, even though Dr. Pete is a psychologist I am not calling ALL psycholo- gists pooh-pooh heads. Even though Dr. Pete is a man, I am casting no aspersions on the pooh-pooh-headedness of ALL men. We all know that Dr. Pete is not really a nanner-nanner pooh-pooh head, so such claims about it being an insult to all shrinks and all men are not likely to be made. On the other hand, we all know by now that if anyone dares to tell a couple of women on this forum what they think of them -- and tell THEM directly, not any group the women mistakenly believe themselves to be symbols for -- that person will be accused of criticizing all women. And if you choose to call me names now for suggesting that calling one woman a name is NOT equivalent to calling ALL women that name, watch your ass because I'm a writer and I'll have the Writer's Union on your ass in a second.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is. Following up on this, just because it's a fun topic, I think the issue is that some people react to being called a name by pretending that the name was really meant to refer not to them personally but to a group that they feel that they are symbols for. No, Barry, nobody here reacts that way. You made that up. Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is. Following up on this, just because it's a fun topic, I think the issue is that some people react to being called a name by pretending that the name was really meant to refer not to them personally but to a group that they feel that they are symbols for. No, Barry, nobody here reacts that way. You made that up. Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. i think it has been quite awhile since B. got laid. or perhaps he needs drugs these days in order to salute the flagpole so to speak. poor guy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: As I wrote about earlier, pretending that the criticism or insult aimed at you *personally* is really about a group is an old cultist's trick, used to pretend it really *isn't* about you personally. But it is. Following up on this, just because it's a fun topic, I think the issue is that some people react to being called a name by pretending that the name was really meant to refer not to them personally but to a group that they feel that they are symbols for. No, Barry, nobody here reacts that way. You made that up. Here's the real issue: It simply doesn't occur to men who don't have an underlying streak of misogyny to insult/attack/criticize a woman using terms that denigrate her on the basis of her gender. Doing so is therefore a sure sign of a bad attitude toward women. *Especially* in a person who styles himself a writer, I might add, because he presumably has a larger and more varied vocabulary on which to draw to formulate his criticisms/insults/attacks. It's a dead giveaway. And the pretense here is all yours. Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. Lawson
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
On Nov 19, 2008, at 8:21 PM, sparaig wrote: Actually, I've found that using gender-neutral terms when insulting a woman gets a MUCH bigger response. Example called a woman a jerk once instead of a bitch. She was quite upset. LOL...this is really funny, spare. Can't please em all, I guess! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's not forget Obama-girl, one (two?) of the reasons: http://www.obamagirl.com/ Tuuli (= Wind), the Finnish nearly-anorectic version of Obama-girl, one of the participants of Big Brother Finland 2008: http://www.kuvaboxi.fi/mediaobjects/pub/2008/10/13/8143010478544397028web_0.jpg I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. Too strong? shrill bitch Too smart? ball buster Too pretty? Dumb Bimbo Too clever? Manipulating Diva O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 12:30 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's not forget Obama-girl, one (two?) of the reasons: http://www.obamagirl.com/ Tuuli (= Wind), the Finnish nearly-anorectic version of Obama-girl, one of the participants of Big Brother Finland 2008: http://www.kuvaboxi.fi/mediaobjects/pub/2008/10/13/8143010478544397028web_0.jpg I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. Too strong? shrill bitch Too smart? ball buster Too pretty? Dumb Bimbo Too clever? Manipulating Diva O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it. Bitter menopausal bull dyke Obama-hater? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , cardemaister no_reply@ wrote: Let's not forget Obama-girl, one (two?) of the reasons: http://www.obamagirl.com/ http://www.obamagirl.com/ Tuuli (= Wind), the Finnish nearly-anorectic version of Obama-girl, one of the participants of Big Brother Finland 2008: http://www.kuvaboxi.fi/mediaobjects/pub/2008/10/13/8143010478544397028we\ b_0.jpg http://www.kuvaboxi.fi/mediaobjects/pub/2008/10/13/8143010478544397028w\ eb_0.jpg I am convinced no woman will EVER be president of the USA as long as it's funny to belittle a woman for her sex. Too strong? shrill bitch Too smart? ball buster Too pretty? Dumb Bimbo Too clever? Manipulating Diva O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it. Margaret Thatcher - a fine figure of a man ...but wait: Boudicca -- Destroyer of Romans Queen Elizabeth I -- Banisher of Fundamentalists (ie. Puritans. To you Yanks, Pligrims. To us Brits fascist fundamentalists haters of freedom OffWorld
[FairfieldLife] Re: Obama-jaya-hetu-dvayam?
O.K. folks how many more images can you bring to mind of women you love to hate? Have at it. Bitter menopausal bull dyke Obama-hater? How 'bout Women so obsessive about their own lack of accomplishment and their own sense of victimhood that they'll identify with any woman who gets into the news, even if she's dumb as a post and against everything they stand for personally, just because she's female and got into the news and they didn't and never will. Too long, I know. Dr. Pete's is shorter and more to the point. Sarah Palin is Not Secretly a Genius And other obvious truths that shouldn't need proving. by Daniel Polansky Some very smart, very serious people have been spending a lot of time lately working themselves into a tizzy trying to defend their ongoing romance with the Governor of Alaska. Okay, they seem willing to admit, Palin might be a little weak on foreign policy, domestic policy, energy policy, financial policy, the economy in general, the fundamental workings of the state and federal government, geography, rhetoric, history and basic grammar, but these are just gaps in her knowledge, easily fixable by a spending a few hours in front of Wikipedia or flipping through flash cards. They don't in any way cast doubt in some fundamental way on her intellect or character. This is such a bizarre and indefensible thesis that one almost feels bad responding to it, as one would the taunts of children or the developmentally disabled. I had hoped that as the election subsided the Governor's defenders would shrink away chagrined, the bitter morning light revealing the object of their affaire de coeur a false Aphrodite, her nails pasties and her luxurious hair a weave. But the choruses of Palin 2012 have not abated and thus it becomes necessary to dispense with this whole Palin is smart but untutored meme once and for all. First, Gov. Palin may be young for a politician but she is not in fact actually young. Forty-four is a lot of years to have spent walking the earth without having learned all the countries involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement (there are three, and she's a governor for one of them.) The suggestion that she's some sort of prodigy who just hasn't been exposed to basic civic information is absurd. If this woman were anywhere near sharp enough to be put in charge of any major undertaking she would have picked up this information solely by osmosis after nearly a half-century. There is also the assumption that all of these nuanced policy-related questions are somehow out of her bailiwick, as if someone sprinted up to her and demanded in-depth information about how to caulk a faucet or snake a drain. But Palin isn't ignorant as compared with say, the head of the CIA or the Secretary of Educationshe seems to lack fundamental knowledge about basic information. Her inability to name a Supreme Court decision in the Couric interview, or obviously the whole is-Africa-a-continent thingthis isn't like being unsure of the sub-chairmen of the Pakistani senate. Any reasonably intelligent individual, interested in the workings of the society in which they operate and the world in which they reside would have been able to pick most of this stuff up. To return to the previous analogy for a moment, this is the equivalent of expecting her to know that excrement goes in the toilet and not the sinkyou don't exactly need to be Joe the Plumber to have hashed that one out. All this, of course, is putting aside the obvious truth that she is not only a politician but also an elected official, and thus expected to be capable of coherent speech about politics in general and the government that she serves in particular. The entire purpose of a representative democracy is that the people elect an individual of appropriate intellect and character who is (or at least becomes) an expert on the issues they face. Her ignorance therefore of political issues represents not simply a disturbing lack of intellectual curiosity for the executive of a state but an actual failure on her part to faithfully discharge the duties of her office. Against these varied and reasonable objections her defenders can offer little. At best they mistake charisma for intellect, at worst they rant endlessly about elitism, as if only latte-sipping New York theater critics consider being able to present one's thoughts coherently a prerequisite of leadership. If possible they prefer not to enter into the debate at all, fiating simply that by virtue of having obtained her post she must be an individual of substantive intellectual standing. This is a cheap form of argumentum ad populum, and its introduction into the debate is sophistry. I have no idea why the citizens of Alaska elected this woman governorlikely they intuited she wasn't exactly the reincarnation of Isaac Newton but felt her sufficiently equipped to cut them their oil money check. Mass democracy is a poor method of assigning merit. Hitler was
