Hump Day Craziness

I read this yesterday and it lead me to some interesting questions.  Well, they were interesting to me anyway.  I’ve been fascinated with the different factions of the Republican Party and the increased number of Libertarians who primarily seem to vote Republican when there is no Libertarian around to vote for.  This piece mentions the possible break between Evangelical Christian Republicans and conservative Catholics over the new Pope’s recent comments regarding gays and poverty.  It appears to me that Libertarians have also broken with the Christian wing of the Republican Party over many social issues.   I’ve learned from our discussions here that Libertarians seem to be for both open borders and abortion, in some cases “on demand”, even I don’t believe in either of those suggestions, so is that to the left of me?

I guess I’m wondering where all this will eventually lead.  How hard will it be for Libertarians to vote for a Republican of the evangelical sort?  Is it just a case of voting for the lesser of two evils in a Presidential election, or even a local election?  When do your votes and principles collide?  I swallowed my objections and voted for Obama because of health care, and a couple of other accomplishments I supported,  rather than third party, which is what I normally do.  A big fat wasted vote either way really.

My thoughts rambled from the original piece but I wanted you guys to see how it got me thinking.  I’m finding it somewhat interesting that I tend to vote social issues and for the preservation of things such as Social Security, Medicare and other safety net protections.  There doesn’t seem to be that much difference to me in the reality of economic policy between the parties or for that matter even foreign policy now that many conservatives seem to be more isolationist than they were in the past, but I’m guessing the Libertarians/Conservatives here don’t agree and vote their pocket book, or is it all big vs small government and the demolition of the safety net that motivates y’all.  I’m curious.  It seems to me that the differences between us are more along the lines of priorities.  I think we all value similar things but just place more weight on some than others.  Or maybe I’m delusional.

I think it is a safe bet that if Pope Francis I lives more than a few years that Catholics will soon be kicked out of the Republican Party and resume their previous status as the semi-black race. The reason is simple. Pope Francis I is on the opposite side of the political divide from Pope John Paul II. The Polish pope was a Cold Warrior who basically took the Reagan-Thatcher line on left-leaning political movements in the Third World, including in Latin America. The Argentinian Jesuit pope isn’t a communist, but he advocates for the poor without any apology.

For now, conservative American Catholics are trying to parse the distinction, but it isn’t going to work. They are not going to be able to embrace The Slum Pope who wants to “make a mess” of the established order within the Church by encouraging young people to shake up the dioceses and force them to embrace the convicts, drug addicts, and the truly impoverished.

Our country is uniquely unable to appreciate this change specifically because our right wing succeeded in categorizing the left in the Third World (and, to an extent, even in Europe) as communist in sympathy. The right assumes that the Vatican is an ally in all things, but that is no longer even close to being the case. On so-called family values, the papacy is still reliably conservative, even if it can’t be counted on anymore to demonize homosexuality. But on economic issues, the papacy is now a dedicated enemy of the Republican Party.

Before long, the right will have no choice but to break from the pope, and then their opposition will grow to a point that the alliance between Catholics and evangelicals will not hold.

There sure has been a lot of talk lately about women.  I’ve been troubled by some of it as it seems we’re going backwards in some respects.  There are too many stories to link but between all the states enacting TRAP laws, all the strange definitions of rape, the mayor of San Diego’s bizarre harassment and who has and has not shielded him from investigation, the treatment of rape victims in the military,  USC redefining rape as not rape if there is no ejaculation (my personal favorite), who is and isn’t hot enough to either run for office or other more nefarious activities, etc. etc. that I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on.  Maybe nothing ever really changed.  I’m concerned that so much of it has become political football.  I thought this piece on the subtleties of how a woman can succeed in the financial industry was pretty troubling.

Our youngest is working in another male dominated industry and is constantly trying to determine how to proceed on her merits while most of the men are attracted to her looks.  She has a few male mentors who seem to take her seriously so she’s focusing on that and trying to stay away from the guys who want to date her and stay focused on her work.  She’s discovering it’s an interesting dynamic that has many challenges.  She faced numerous challenges as a grad student but that was nothing compared to what she’s dealing with now.

It doesn’t help when other women give this kind of advice.

New details have emerged from a bias lawsuit filed by three former employees of Merrill Lynch against the company, which alleges that during training they were instructed to read a book called “Seducing the Boys Club: Uncensored Tactics From a Woman at the Top” and emulate its advice.

The tips in the book, published by New York Magazine’s The Cut, are truly shocking. “I play on [men’s] masculine pride and natural instincts to protect the weaker sex,” says a section of the book advising women on how to get men to do their work. “Unless he is morbidly obese, there is no man on earth who won’t puff up at this sentence: Wow, you look great. Been working out?” suggests a portion on diffusing tense situations.

On a lighter note the Anthony Weiner story is in another realm altogether in my opinion.  I guess I’d like to know why his wife is standing by him but it’s none of my business really.  Otherwise it seems to be a case of “consenting adults” which doesn’t bode well for his marriage or his candidacy but otherwise is just more creepily entertaining than anything else.

I wish I could share all the “Carlos Danger” jokes my husband has come up with, they’re hysterical, and just pop out of his mouth at the most inconvenient times.  He’s a true comic and I’ve thanked my lucky stars more than once that he makes me laugh.  Anyway we’ve had a lot of fun at Anthony Weiner’s expense around here.  I saw this and couldn’t resist.

Anthony Weiner Forever

Weiner forever

81 Responses

  1. I’m not at all convinced that the remarks by Pope Francis I (hereafter Frankie) represent any sort of break or change in The Church’s attitudes towards homosexuality. The policy has always been ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ meaning that gay people are fine as long as they never do anything, well. gay. And since the Church condemns all non-marital non-procreative sex, that pretty much limits their choices to abstinence. Which makes them perfect candidates for the priesthood.

    Nor on paper, are there any changes in the Church’s teachings on social justice which have always been critical of pure capitalism without any underlying social responsibility. If an increased emphasis on social justice over right-to-life issues causes rifts between the odd right-wing alliance of Evangelicals and Catholics, so be it.

    Like

  2. Score one for the ladies:

    “The average contract between a client and a single female lobbyist was worth more than a contract between a client and a single male lobbyist in 2002, 2007, and 2012, the years analyzed by LegiStorm, a nonpartisan group that provides information on Congress. Moreover, a two-woman team held contracts with a greater average worth than those held by a two-man team, and contracts with a mixed-gender team tended to be worth more than contacts held by two men. For example, the average contract amount between a single woman and a client in 2012 was $33,289, while that for a single male lobbyist was $26,299. Contracts between two women and a client averaged $23,542; for two men, contracts averaged $17,855. For a mixed-gender team, the average was $22,992.” [behind paywall]

    Like

  3. Yello, not being Catholic I’ll take your word for it. Hasn’t there always been a bit of an uncomfortable truce between Evangelicals and Catholics though? Or is that just an unverified assumption on my part?

    More to the point I was making though is how does the Evangelical/Libertarian dynamic play out? Or does it even matter.

    Like

  4. NoVA, good one. You won’t see me claiming there has been no progress though. Lately it just “feels” as though women are taking a hit. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it? And I’m wondering how a creepy mayor in San Diego became a National political issue? It’s appropriately all over the news here. Or why we have so many “political discussions” about rape? That kind of thing has got me thinking. If certain political men are trying to get our vote, I’m not sure their plan will work……lol

    Like

  5. The average contract between a client and a single female lobbyist was worth more than a contract between a client and a single male lobbyist…Moreover, a two-woman team held contracts with a greater average worth than those held by a two-man team,

    To what would you attribute this difference? Are female lobbyists better at what they do? Do they get better access? Or are they better negotiators of fees?

    In an unrelated field, it’s a cliche that the most successful pharmaceutical sales reps tend to be female and attractive. My very small sample size of reps I know tends to confirm this. These women all tend to be very smart and driven as well but I often wonder just what is being sold.

    Like

  6. Hasn’t there always been a bit of an uncomfortable truce between Evangelicals and Catholics though?

    Not even a truce. Historically there has been a great deal of animosity as the doctrinal differences (works vs. faith, infant baptism, divinity of Mary) are extreme. I have read Chick tracts about Catholics that are very unsettling. The very recent (un)holy alliance seems to be based entirely on common political issues, abortion and gay marriage being perhaps the two most obvious.

    Like

  7. Wow, that’s an interesting site yello. I guess I understood their differences but had thought they’d found the same enemy in liberal social policy and so had formed an alliance of some sort.

    It’s so funny, growing up as a Congregational Protestant, I always wished I was Catholic, until I became friends with our Jewish neighbors, then I was totally confused. I guess that’s why I think religion is and should be a personal journey.

    Is there any way the Pope’s expression regarding gays will ever translate into marriage acceptance, or is that a bridge too far?

    Like

  8. who is and isn’t hot enough to either run for office or other more nefarious activities

    Speaking of which, seems to do nothing for the canard that Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.

    Like

  9. Is there any way the Pope’s expression regarding gays will ever translate into marriage acceptance, or is that a bridge too far?

    I just don’t see it ever happening at a doctrinal level. They would have too much backpedaling to do. The prediction I always make is that you will see male priests allowed to get married before the Catholic Church ordains a woman. Celibacy is a lower hurdle than being female to them.

    Like

  10. that’ll never happen, lms

    re: the lobbyists .. not sure. the study indicated that the sample size is pretty small. and that men are more likely to play rainmaker. more deals at less type thing.

    Like

    • lms:

      I generally vote third party or used to write in “none of the above”.

      I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t do that primarily because I really do think it is a wasted vote unless the third party candidate has at least some chance of actually winning. I’d rather not vote at all. I understand your motivation. But if principle was what drove my vote, I would only ever be able to vote for myself. No other person can represent my views in totality, and so voting for anyone else is a compromise on my principles in some way. I always vote for the viable alternative that is least offensive to them.

      I don’t know what you mean by this.

      I just mean that people can arrive at similar positions on a specific topic via different principles or thought processes, and those principles/thought processes are what define left/right/libertarian, not so much the position itself. You and I might agree on what policy should be implemented, but for totally different reasons. Christopher Hitchens, famous lefty writer for The Nation, was one of the biggest backers of the invasion of Iraq that there was. That didn’t mean he was on the same page as Dick Cheney, though. He argued from leftist principles in favor of the invasion and the continued occupation that followed, and thought that the left was abandoning its principles in arguing against it. Likewise someone like Pat Buchanan argued against both the invasion and the occupation, but on isolationist grounds, not the same arguments used by others on the left who wanted the same policy.

      Like

      • Which of the most current crop of Republican primary candidates would be so anathema to a libertarian that they would vote for Hillary Clinton instead? Santorum? Caine? Gingrich?

        What current Democrat if running for President would a libertarian have voted for over Mitt Romney?

        Like

        • yello:

          Which of the most current crop of Republican primary candidates would be so anathema to a libertarian that they would vote for Hillary Clinton instead? Santorum? Caine? Gingrich?

          I can’t speak for libertarians in general. I can only speak for myself as a practical/quasi libertarian. And I would probably not vote before I would vote for Hillary, or any known D, in a general election. I suspect that jnc or nova would say something different.

          Like

      • yello:

        The other difference is that Todd Aiken’s stated political views were were representative of other candidates as well were very offensive to vast range of voters.

        Perhaps, but it was his comments, not his political views, that brought him such notoriety. And those comments were pretty much universally condemned, even by those who share his political views.

        BTW, the above is actually a good example of exactly the tactic used. His personal comments are conflated with a political position in order to tar others who share the political position but not the comments.

        Like

        • lms:

          Yello had a couple of good points about the distinction between the San Diego mayor’s behavior and Todd Aiken’s.

          I’ve addressed those, and hopefully they appear less good now.

          I also think it matters to the rest of us who wins state elections for Congress. Both the Senate and the House vote on issues that affect all of us.

          Not the one that was the subject of Aiken’s undoing.

          Like

        • And I would probably not vote before I would vote for Hillary, or any known D, in a general election.

          Therefore there seems to be little upside to a Democrat catering to libertarian interests. They are for all practical purposes a subset of Republicans.

          Like

        • yello:

          Therefore there seems to be little upside to a Democrat catering to libertarian interests.

          If one assumes that my attitude is shared by libertarians more generally, then yes. But I doubt that is a good assumption.

          Like

  11. that’ll never happen, lms

    Yeah, I guess not.

    Like

  12. Scott

    I’ve addressed those, and hopefully they appear less good now.

    Sorry but no. Aiken’s rape comments were part and parcel of his stance on no abortions, even in the case of rape or incest, which while not traditionally embraced by the Republican party, is apparently a much more accepted view now. I seem to remember a certain Vice Presidential candidate holding the same view on abortion.

    The idea that Aiken was alluding to, that legitimate rape doesn’t result in pregnancy, is a way, in my opinion, to absolve themselves of forcing women to carry their rapists offspring to term. So yes, there is a huge difference between Filner’s behavior and Aiken’s comments.

    If a real rape victim can protect herself from pregnancy there’s no need for an abortion. Did you know that once upon a time it was also thought that women who did not have an orgasm couldn’t get pregnant?

    Not the one that was the subject of Aiken’s undoing

    Considering the current climate of the assault on access to abortion in both the House and State Legislatures, the subject of his undoing is directly linked to both his opinion on abortion and what he would have liked to see passed as a Senator. Luckily, his comments kept him out of the Senate. I’m sure others would have liked to see him win but either way, win or lose, we’re all affected in some way.

    Like

    • lms:

      Aiken’s rape comments were part and parcel of his stance on no abortions

      Actually I very much disagree, which was my point. Lots of people held the same stance on abortion without agreeing with his comment on rape, so no, they were not “part and parcel” with his stance on abortion.

      The idea that Aiken was alluding to, that legitimate rape doesn’t result in pregnancy, is a way, in my opinion, to absolve themselves of forcing women to carry their rapists offspring to term.

      I’m happy to re-litigate the whole Aiken episode if you want (others probably not so happy), but my only point was that it got elevated to the level of a national discussion for one reason only…it was useful politically for the Dems to make it one. There is no obvious national interest in what Aiken thinks about either the likelihood of pregnancy due to rape nor, in fact, abortion itself.

      Considering the current climate of the assault on access to abortion in both the House and State Legislatures, the subject of his undoing is directly linked to both his opinion on abortion and what he would have liked to see passed as a Senator.

      The current and future status of legal abortion is a function of the Supreme Court and state governments. Aiken was not running for either one. Whether or not abortion should be legal, or at what point it should become illegal, or whether or not rape victims should be excepted from that point, is not an issue that a House or Senate member has any voice in, nor do voters have any obvious reason to want/need to know their thoughts about it. As a practical matter abortion is an entirely irrelevant subject for House and Senate candidates. (As a political matter, obviously and unfortunately, it has been made relevant by both the pro- and anti- lobbies).

      Like

  13. Fair comparison? If not, why not?

    @DrewMTips: @allahpundit “Zimmerman, 29, who is white and Hispanic” They will not let this go. Imagine, “Obama, 51, who is white and African-American”

    Like

  14. If CJ Roberts can a Federal tax on existence, he’ll certainly bend us over again for this.

    http://freebeacon.com/congress-experts-question-legality-of-obamacare-exchange-subsidies/

    Like

  15. Scott

    so no, they were not “part and parcel” with his stance on abortion.

    His statement was in response to a question from a St. Louis radio station. So yes they are part and parcel to his stance on abortion. Whether others agree with his statement is irrelevant, I was only pointing out that others agree with his policy of “no abortions, ever”. The idea, from a liberal standpoint, is not to put someone with his outdated and mistaken opinions about women who are raped in office.

    I’d rather not re-litigate the Aiken episode actually. I was merely trying to point out that politically there is a difference between the Filner response by Republicans and the Aiken response by Democrats. You obviously disagree. Okay.

    And I’m sure the SC isn’t influenced whatsoever by the political climate.

    Like

    • lms:

      The idea, from a liberal standpoint, is not to put someone with his outdated and mistaken opinions about women who are raped in office.

      The only people who could keep Aiken out of office were the people of Missouri, yet the story became a national scandal. I think you are naive if you think there was no larger strategy at play in creating a national firestorm over what he said.

      And I’m sure the SC isn’t influenced whatsoever by the political climate.

      Surely it is, at least among those members who think interpreting the law requires considering popular sentiments. But I confess I have no idea how this relates to whether views on abortion have any practical relevancy to the job that a House or Senate member has to do.

      Like

  16. Scott

    yet the story became a national scandal

    Of course it did. I think deservedly so. Let’s not pretend that out of state PACs and political spending don’t influence state elections. Whether they should or not is a moot point now. Elections have become a free-for-all, in no small measure because of the SC. So yeah, most Congressional elections have become National elections as far as everything but the voting is concerned.

    I confess I have no idea how this relates to whether views on abortion have any practical relevancy to the job that a House or Senate member has to do.

    They pass laws. The house just passed a 20 week abortion ban about six weeks ago now, with no provisions for fetal anomalies, I might add. Sure it won’t pass the Senate now but who’s to say it wouldn’t after 2014? Then what, a SC ruling? That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

    Like

    • lms:

      Of course it did. I think deservedly so.

      And I think the San Diego Mayor’s story is deservedly a national story.

      Like

  17. To change the subject, here are four charts that tell the economic story for most Americans in the last five years. I find it pretty discouraging.

    (The answer is that our 30-year obsession with “efficiency” and “return on capital” has produced a business culture that believes that companies only exist to make money for their owners, instead of also serving their other stakeholders–customers and employees. But we’ll let the charts speak for themselves.)

    http://www.businessinsider.com/profits-high-wages-low-7-2013

    Like

    • lms:

      Chart 1: “American companies are making more money and more per dollar of sales than they ever have before.”

      So what? This is a bad thing?

      Chart 2: “Wages as a percent of the economy are at all-time low.”

      In and of itself, this tells us nothing particularly interesting. What is a “good” or “proper” ratio of wages to GDP? If every single person in the nation owned their own successful business and lived off the profits, wages as a percent of GDP would be zero percent. Would that be something to lament? Would it be worse than if all businesses were owned by the same person and everyone else was paid a wage, thus raising the ratio from zero to something much higher?

      Chart 3: “Fewer Americans are employed than at any time in the past three decades.”

      The author claims this is “because companies today regard employees as “costs” and “inputs” instead of human beings who are dedicating their lives to the organizations that, in turn, are supporting them and their families.” But that is absurd. A look at his graph shows quite dramatically that the drop occurred entirely within in a 2 year time frame, between 2008 and 2010. Either companies across the nation all decided at the same time to alter the way they viewed their employees, causing this drop, or something else happened. Perhaps the author should go back and read some news clippings from the time to see if he might be able to think of a different explanation. I’d recommend he start in September 2008.

      Chart 4: “The share of our national income that is going to the people who do the work (“labor”) is at an all-time low. The rest of the income, naturally, is going to owners”

      Two points about this…first, there is no “national income” which is “shared” among people. Individual people earn an income, which, aggregated across everyone in the nation might be characterized as a “national income”, but it remains income earned by individuals, not the nation in the abstract. Second, to think that owners do not do work is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard anyone suggest. As the owner of your own business, lms, I would think you should be appalled and offended at such a slight to what you do to make a living.

      Like

  18. Scott

    the San Diego Mayor’s story is deservedly a national story

    Can you explain why for me? I can see why it might be entertaining in a train wreck sort of way, much like the Anthony Weiner story. But seriously, what happens in the mayor’s office in San Diego or NYC has no political bearing on my life or yours or your family’s. They both have personal issues that need to be dealt with but how does it impact policy the way Aiken’s would have, if elected. I’d like to hear why you think the Filner story is a political story, if you really do. It seems to me it’s just something to hit Democrats over the head with.

    Like

    • lms:

      Can you explain why for me?

      His behavior apparently reaches back to when he was a congressman. I don’t want people like that in congress, and I want to know how he was able to get away with it while he a congressman, especially since allegations against him were made, and nothing was done.

      It seems to me it’s just something to hit Democrats over the head with.

      Yes, it is, just like Aiken was just something to hit Republicans over the head with.

      Like

  19. Wow.

    Like

  20. Sorry Scott, off to share a pizza with our grandson………..he had a great swim meet. I’ll try to answer tomorrow if I have time in the morning. Otherwise I won’t be around until late Sat. or Sunday………………thanks for responding. One thing, I wish I could have employees to pay so I wouldn’t have to work so hard. We’re not allowed to have any with a home based business…………….city rules. I’d be satisfied with a smaller piece of the pie at this point.

    Like

  21. just like Aiken was just something to hit Republicans over the head with

    Except that Democrats aren’t enacting laws that reflect what their boneheads say/think.

    Like

  22. Neither Mr Aiken nor Mr Filner had anything to do with Obamacare.

    Like

  23. McWing, just saw the hump day camel commercial………….funny, thanks.

    Scott, I suppose we can disagree with the conclusions the author reaches on those charts but I don’t think anyone can deny that they show the extent of suffering the middle class and working poor have endured during this recession.

    My point in comparing Aiken and Filner was simply that Aiken’s comments related to a desired policy he was promoting versus Filner’s bad personal behavior. I think one deserves national attention and one really doesn’t. Obviously, they can both be used as political cudgels but I don’t believe they are equivalent.

    In many way Filner’s transgressions are obviously worse because they affected real women while Aiken’s only had the potential to do so. Politically however, they’re different, IMO.

    I’m out until probably Sunday……………………..have a good weekend all. I’ll catch up with y’all later.

    Okie, wish you’d enlighten us.

    Like

  24. Considering that Filner served in the house for 20 years and was a co-founder of The Progressive Caucus (alongside Madam Speafer) he certainly had something to do with Obamacare.

    Like

  25. Scott, that really was funny, then.

    Like

  26. @lms,,,

    I look at that article and two things jump out at me.. First, profits are high, but a lot of that money is being made overseas. The U.S. market is pretty mature at this point. If you look at the small business surveys out of the different Federal Reserve banks, the mom and pop small businesses are definitely not doing that well. There has been a big disconnect between the S&P 500 and small business for quite some time. If you have heavy overseas exposure, as many multinationals do, you are doing well. Otherwise, you are struggling.

    Second, the drop in the share of profits going to labor is due to technology. You simply do not need as many bodies to build a car as you used to. Many factories today employ very few people, and those that have jobs are highly skilled and highly paid. And before you say “well, why can’t they just raise the wages of those who have jobs?” remember that it is the investment in technology that is making people more productive, and that investment isn’t free.

    And it isn’t just manual labor. As an analyst, in the past, I would have needed a junior number cruncher just to collect data, throw it into a spreadsheet so I could read it, calculate a bunch of rations, and that would be a full time job. Now, any number of applications do that for me. When I started on Wall Street in the mid 90’s, an institutional account would be covered by a research sales person, a sales – trader, a trader, and a sell-side analyst. Now, this whole thing has been condensed into 1 or two people. An equity sales guy is expected to come up with the trade, pitch the trade, and execute the trade. Used to be 4 people who did that.

    How many people in middle management were simply data collectors and data presenters? Technology has made it possible for the boss to know what is going on in a certain corner of a business without needing someone dedicated to that area to feed data and manage it.

    So, when I look at those charts, I don’t see anything sinister going on, what I see is the natural consequences of U.S. corporations becoming more global in scope and the effects that technology has had over the past 30 years on productivity.

    Like

  27. “We’re not allowed to have any with a home based business…………….city rules”

    this is where libertarians should strike. pointless zoning and ordinances.

    Like

  28. Perhaps Bob Filner can make up his missed sexual harassment class with the Texas State Legislature.

    Like

    • yello (from the link):

      Misogyny, as I had come to learn, is rampant in the Texas Capitol.

      The corruption of language, and in the process thought, continues apace.

      Like

  29. The corruption of language, and in the process thought, continues apace.

    In what way have they corrupted it?

    Like

    • yello:

      In what way have they corrupted it?

      She cited five specific examples of behavior that she experienced and which, implicitly, led to her conclusion. Four of them aren’t even remotely suggestive of misogyny. Only one of them, the “sweetheart” comment, might be reasonably seen to be denigrating. Asking someone out for a date is not indicative of a hatred of women. Complimenting someone on their looks, even in a work environment where it might be inappropriate, is not indicative of a hatred of women. Trying to pass legislation over the filibuster of a woman does not indicate a hatred of women. And singing a bill which limits the time period in which someone can obtain a legal abortion does not suggest a hatred of women.

      Like

      • Scott,
        Thanks for supporting your opinion with examples. We clearly have very different standards for what behavior rises to the standard of misogyny.

        Like

        • yello:

          We clearly have very different standards for what behavior rises to the standard of misogyny.

          Do you hate women?

          Like

        • Do you hate women?

          Are we working only from the most literal interpretation of Latin root words from now on?

          Like

  30. It sure as hell is misogyny:

    Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

    That pretty much covers everything you objected to being called misogyny.

    Like

  31. I sincerely doubt that anyone around here hates women.

    Like

  32. And singing a bill which limits the time period in which someone can obtain a legal abortion does not suggest a hatred of women.

    It’s the confounded singing.

    For the married guys to hit on women all the time is disrespectful and to my way of thinking, misogynous, in that it expects a standard of availability from women as toys. And that is how it was in the Lege in 1966, for sure.

    Ok for the young clerk, of course. That was too thin skinned on her part.

    Like

  33. yello:

    Are we working only from the most literal interpretation of Latin root words from now on?

    Well, I realize that misogyny has come to be used by some as a generic term for any male behavior that a woman finds objectionable, but hating women is what misogyny actually means. And the point of my original was the corruption of language. But be that as it may, what I am really wondering is whether you truly think that asking someone for a date is indicative of misogyny, whatever you consider that to be.

    I suspect that you have, at some point, asked a woman to go out with you. I also suspect that you do not consider yourself a misogynist. If both of these suspicions are accurate, I’m wondering how you square them with each other, given your apparent view of what rises to the standard of misogyny.

    Like

    • but hating women is what misogyny actually means.

      It always delights me when we finally get to the definition parsing portion of any ATiM thread.

      I suspect that you have, at some point, asked a woman to go out with you. I also suspect that you do not consider yourself a misogynist. If both of these suspicions are accurate, I’m wondering how you square them with each other, given your apparent view of what rises to the standard of misogyny.

      And I am always in awe when the Aristotelian syllogisms get brandished. To recap more formally:

      All men who ask women out are misogynists.
      Yellojkt has asked women out.
      Yellojkt is a misogynist.

      It’s airtight. Guilty as charged.

      Or maybe I have it backwards.

      Yellojkt has asked women out.
      Yellojkt is a man.
      Yellojkt is not a misogynist.
      Any man who asks a woman out is not a misogynist.

      That’s pretty clear cut too. No wonder I never win any debates around here. My grounding in formal logic is so poor. Back to Principia Mathematica for me.

      Like

  34. Jeebus, I am an inveterate misogynist.

    Like

  35. Context, Scott, context.

    Like

  36. If I ask a coworker out am I a misogynist? Or compliment a female coworker’s suit?

    Like

    • If I ask a coworker out am I a misogynist? Or compliment a female coworker’s suit?

      Are we starting a new round of Socratic Twenty Questions? Because I already lost Aristotelian Syllogisms to ScottC and my ego can’t take any more bruising tonight.

      Like

  37. McWing: I think that would make you an adulterer. Or supremely stupid.

    Like

  38. And I think that you and Scott are indulging yourselves with simply pushing buttons, since you’re ignoring context. But that’s not really new.

    Like

  39. yello:

    It always delights me when we finally get to the definition parsing portion of any ATiM thread

    I guess it must since you are the one who requested the parsing.

    To recap more formally:

    Actually, you haven’t recapped either the conversation or my logic at all. I realize cheap and deceitful snark is hard for you to resist, but really if you want to avoid answering a plainly stated question, just don’t bother responding.

    Like

  40. Well, no one that complimented or hit on the reporter was even a co-worker let alone a superior. They were people engaged in their lives, no?

    What about a woman who initiates an affair with a coworker (male), misogynist?

    Michi, my wife was a coworker at the time I asked her out. Also, I tend to compliment people on their appearance.

    Like

    • McWing:

      I suspect the disagreement really arises from a tendency towards subjectivism on the part of some. If you ask your co-worker (and some-day-to-be wife) on a date and she is flattered, then it isn’t misogynistic. If another man asks a co-worker (or even a non-co-worker, but in a professional environment) on a date, and she is offended (for God knows what reason), then of course the action is offensive. It is entirely a function of the inner thoughts of the woman.

      That is why, I think, there is such a disdain for stipulating how words might be used (and not just in this context). To define a word is to allow it to be more objectively measured, and if something can be objectively measured, then one’s “feelings” about it might prove to be incorrect. No one likes to be proven incorrect.

      Like

  41. McWing: I’d wager that you’d developed a relationship with her before you asked her out. And I’d wager that you don’t stop young women on the street (or in the office)(or state legislature) that you don’t really know and say “Wow! You look hot!”

    I’ve had male co-workers tell me that they really liked a shirt, or skirt, or the way I did my hair that day–but it is in the context of a relationship that had developed over months (or years) of working together and mutual respect.

    I’d find it incredibly difficult to believe that you or Scott wouldn’t operate from the same set of ideas.

    Like

  42. Hmmmmmmmm. . . there’s a word I’m searching for right now. . .

    Like

  43. An interesting quote from Professor Stimulus:

    Yet there are not one but two sexist campaigns under way against Ms. Yellen. One is a whisper campaign whose sexism is implicit, while the other involves raw misogyny. And both campaigns manage to combine sexism with very bad economic analysis.

    Like

    • Link doesn’t work.

      Like

    • Yello:

      I found the Krugman piece and, as usual, he’s being totally deceitful. Here is what Krugman refers to as “raw misogyny”.

      What is the world to make of the fact that as America approaches the 100th anniversary of the Fed the big question is whether the next chairman will be a woman? The Times headline is, “In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones.” It characterizes the battle to succeed Ben Bernanke, who is widely expected to depart after his current term, as being between Mrs. Yellen, a former president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, and Lawrence Summers, an acolyte of Treasury Secretary Rubin. Or, as the Times puts it, “between the California girls and the Rubin boys.”

      Are we entering the era of the gender-backed dollar? We don’t discount the issue of discrimination against women in America or the importance of cracking the glass ceilings. Your editor has spent a career cheering on high octane women. But what good is a gender-backed dollar going to do in an era of fiat money? The debate about the next Fed chairman has been conducted absent any attention to the question of whether America, or the world, is being well-served by a system in which the nation’s money is convertible into nothing other than other pieces of fiat money.

      There is nothing remotely misogynist about noting and rejecting the NYT’s framing of the Yellen/Summers contest as a matter of gender. More corruption of the language in pursuit of deception.

      Like

      • The hidden side of the Apollo missions.

        Like

      • From that New York Sun editorial that Krugman cited:

        Maybe the Joint Economic Committee could expand its bill to take in the question of whether the collapse of the dollar follows from the fact that it has been managed for the past century by men. It could be that Thurber was onto something.

        Misandry!!!

        Like

  44. Read ‘Packing For Mars’ by Mary Roach. You will never want to become an astronaut.

    Like

  45. Nothing remotely misogynist?
    “Gender-backed dollar”

    The flag really doesn’t get redder than that.

    Like

    • yello:

      The flag really doesn’t get redder than that.

      I’m reminded of those snippets of movie reviews that get highlighted on advertisements. “…you’ll love this movie!” when in its totality the review read “If hackneyed cliches, predictable plots, and horrible acting is your thing, you’ll love this movie!”

      In context it is obvious that the phrase was used to mock and criticize the NYT’s injection of gender into the discussion of who should be Fed chairman. Far from being sexist, it was actually being anti-sexist. But you and Krugman have your thing to do, and I guess you will do it.

      Like

  46. I was going to recommend “Packing for Mars” also. Pretty much anything by Mary Roach is worth reading.

    She also gives good radio.

    Like

  47. Was it the NYT that injected gender into the discussion? If so, isn’t that sexist in and of itself?

    Like

  48. Of course. Liberals are the real sexists by noting that the opposition to her is because of her gender.

    Like

  49. No, they equate opposition to her as sexism. Is opposing a woman sexism?

    Like

    • McWing:

      No, they equate opposition to her as sexism.

      Here is the original NYT article. The opening line is notable:

      “President Obama’s choice of a replacement for the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, is coming down to a battle between the California girls and the Rubin boys.”

      Had that been written as an introduction to an article in, say, the WSJ in an article promoting Summers, one can easily imagine the likes of Krugman and yello plucking that “California girls” phrase out of its context and accusing the author of denigrating and belittling women. But its OK if you are the NYT. As we both know, if your heart is in the right place (ie you are a liberal) you can say just about anything, while if your heart is in the wrong place (ie not a liberal) offense can and will be found in virtually anything you say.

      Like

  50. if your heart is in the right place (ie you are a liberal) you can say just about anything, while if your heart is in the wrong place (ie not a liberal) offense can and will be found in virtually anything you say.

    Just ask Filthy Filner.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: