Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Michele Bachmann and Sexism
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  08:54:08  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm listening to Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane, who is interviewing two women political scientists, and I can't believe what I'm hearing. Maybe I'm somehow hugely ignorant, but what these two people are saying sounds absolutely idiotic to me. Of course they're going on about the cover of Newsweek and saying that Bachmann has been presented as "crazy" and full of "rage" because these are female stereotypes that women politicians have to deal with. The strong implication is that this puts women politicians at a disadvantage. At some point they brought up that the McCain/Palin ticket only got 20% of the female vote, and how this is an example of women voters not supporting women candidates. They have used things on the Huffington Post to support these statements, as if it were a reputable news source rather than a moronic liberal echo chamber.

The guests have suggested that it was unfair for Bachmann to be questioned about her submission to her husband since other, male candidates weren't asked about their marriages.

The guests have suggested that it is sexist for people to be concerned about Bachmann's migraines.

I want to scream.

Sarah Palin came damn close to being VP. Hilary Clinton came damn close to being the Democratic candidate for president. As far as I could tell from the analysis, there's no evidence that either of them lost because they were women.

It is problematic that women are so under-represented in Congress and the Senate. But the reasons for that IMHO are far more complex and has as much to do with how women are socialized and the choices women tend to make about their careers as it has to do with sexist discrimination. I definitely do not think nationally-known, popular politicians like Bachmann or Clinton are at any real disadvantage because they are women. I'm not going to claim that media treat male and female politicians totally the same. Honestly I think such a thing would be impossible given how gender conscious our society is. We can't eliminate certain biases when women dress differently, do their hair differently, makeup differently, have different first and last names, and many other cultural signifiers that identify women and women and men as men. But does that prove Bachmann is having a harder time getting elected? For crap's sake, she just won the Iowa straw poll. Does anyone seriously think she would have done even better were she a man? It's pretty obvious that Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate because she was a women and they wanted to get some of those Clinton supporters who were mad Obama got the candidacy.

Maybe this stuff is pissing me off so much because it is clouding what I think is much more important regarding Bachmann. She isn't the "Queen of Rage" because of any female stereotypes. She's crazy and full of rage because she says shit that implies that Democrats are responsible for the Swine Flu, and that Obama wants to have re-education camps. She's a bigot (see her statements and ACTIONS against homosexuals), a hypocrite (supports Tea Party stances while having made almost all her money through tax dollars), who has no regard for the law of the land when it conflicts with her personal religion (was kicked off the board of a charter school she helped found because it got in trouble for religiously indoctrinating children.)

As Jon Stewart put it, you want to make her look crazy, make a picture of her out of her words. I don't see how any self respecting feminist could possible vote for this woman or support her candidacy in any way.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  09:15:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ya got a point there, Marf.

Palin didn't get that much of the vote because she scared the crap out of people. Ditto for Bachmann.

Then there's Clinton. Hooboy. I have some fundies I work with. They are dittoheads. The hate machine targets the lead Democrat. (or Republican depending on which hate machine it is.)

They were the foaming at the mouth "Hillary had staff murdered and covered it up" types until...... Obama came away with the nomination.

All of a sudden it went from Hillary Clinton, Antichrist to Hilliary Clinton, reasonable moderate who knows whats good for the country.

Some people insist that women can't get a fair shake in politics. Others point to the candidates and show them to be bat-poop crazy.

I'll give you some examples.

Judy Barr-Topinka (former treasurer and comptroller R-IL) is a well spoken fiscal conservative and social moderate (she believes the government should focus on running the business of the state and leave bedrooms alone). I voted for her when she ran against Blago, the corrupt.

Betty Loren-Maltese (mob moll and former Cicero, IL mayor now paroled) very powerful individual. Won many campaigns. People attacked her on ethics charges, not biological ones. She was removed from office via RICO indictment and conviction.

These were successful women in politics.

Then the unsuccessful.

Carol Mosley-Brawn (former D-IL Senator) had some serious ethics issues that was the basis of her not being re-elected.

Geraldine Ferraro (former Presidential candidate D) ran a great campaign. Hampered by good economy and successes by the Republican administration in power.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  09:46:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
To add more to the accusations that being concerned about her migraines and her submission to her husband are sexist:

The severity of Bachmann's migraines are disputed. What is not disputed is that she was hospitalized twice in 2010 for them and that they are stress induced. If we had a male politician who had recently been hospitalized twice for a chronic condition made worse by stress, are we to believe that the media would ignore it and that nobody would raise any concerns?

Bachmann has proven through her actions that her religious beliefs trump her obedience to the current rule of law. So not only does she want to change laws to reflect her religious beliefs, but when they don't mesh, she just ignores the law and acts according with her religious values.

Bachmann's own children did not attend public schools. But the first public firestorm of her career arose in connection with her activism in the state's fledgling charter school movement in 1993.

Bachmann and other parents started New Heights, a Stillwater K-12 charter school where Bachmann, as board director, was accused of attempting to inject her version of Christianity into the curriculum. She ended the dispute by resigning from the board amid a packed public hearing.
Then she lies about it later, claiming she resigned over differences in vision.

Given her record, I think it is fair to ask what it means for her to submit to her husband. She has tried to explain it as having "respect" for him. What kind of empty answer is that? Does he respect her? If so, why don't we say he submits to his wife, too? No, submission implies something other than respect. If it didn't, we'd just use the word respect. So what does it mean with regards to how she performs at work. If it doesn't interfere with her career, if somehow her submission to her husband doesn't extend to her job, then she should say so, not try to water down or change the meaning of the term "submission".

I don't see how the question is sexist when male politicians that share Bachmann's worldview have been asked similar questions about how their faith would interact with their work as a public servant:

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL), the target of then-Rep. Alan Graysonís "Taliban Dan" ad because of his commitment to submission theology in the 2010 midterm election, similarly refused to explain to his constituents what the theology really is. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, was questioned about his denominationís official adherence to it, although he never really explained it either.


It seems obvious to me that the woman is extremely devoted to her faith, but she's aware of how unpopular certain aspects of that faith are with the mainstream American public, and so she is cunning when she needs to be, avoiding answering certain questions in a straight-forward manner.

She doesn't exactly have a reliable record when it comes to telling the truth. I guess being honest isn't as important as being opposed to gays in her religion.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  12:30:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That show ticked me off as well. It seems that people want to turn anything into a "racist/sexist" issue when in fact, (gasp) people don't like Bachmann BECAUSE of her views and positions. The fact that she's a woman is completely incidental.

"Tell Me More", WHYY's show at 1 also drives me nuts because EVERYTHING is racially motivated and about persecuted "people of color" are.

BTW, that photo is exactly how Bachmann looks: not all synapses are firing.


"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  13:19:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I honestly don't think it is sexism going on. Every candidate goes through the same scrutiny.

Now, I do think some s-e-x-y is going on. Why is it that all of the female republitards have to be so damn delicious to look at? When I was young that was what I looked for in a woman, hot-as-hell but dumb as a box-a-rocks. The combo makes for a great prom date, but not for President!

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  13:21:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Part of the reason this is so frustrating is because sexism (and racism, for that matter) are real problems with us today. But when people say that a very popular, strong candidate is suffering from sexism because people have raised concerned about a documented medical condition and religious views that have clearly impacted her actions in the past, those people dilute the meaning of sexism and take attention away from acts of sexism that hurt women in real, obvious, and often measurable ways. And it doesn't do any good for feminism to paint powerful women who have achieved a great deal as victims. Hilary Clinton is not a victim. She's an incredibly powerful political figure.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  13:28:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Part of the reason this is so frustrating is because sexism (and racism, for that matter) are real problems with us today. But when people say that a very popular, strong candidate is suffering from sexism because people have raised concerned about a documented medical condition and religious views that have clearly impacted her actions in the past, those people dilute the meaning of sexism and take attention away from acts of sexism that hurt women in real, obvious, and often measurable ways. And it doesn't do any good for feminism to paint powerful women who have achieved a great deal as victims. Hilary Clinton is not a victim. She's an incredibly powerful political figure.


You are right marf. The cry is sexism when it really isn't. I think Hilary is still pretty well respected isn't she? My only criticism about her is that she didn't dump that horndog hubby of hers.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  13:39:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox
As Jon Stewart put it, you want to make her look crazy, make a picture of her out of her words.
The real story behind that photo shoot is very illuminating.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  14:27:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Michelle Bachmann has a "commentary" in the Onion...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/somebodys-got-to-save-this-country-from-certain-do,21135/

Sexism these days can be subtle and often people don't realize they are being sexist. I do wonder how much sexism did affect Hillary Clinton's chances of being president. There are examples of sexism in the media reports of her candidacy. She does not have the charisma that Obama has, so that could be a reason she did not win. There are definitely people who would not vote for a woman no matter how qualified she is. That being said, she would not have gotten this far 20 or 30 years ago. I think her candidacy did show there is a gradual decrease in sexism. Hopefully, it won't be 50 years before we get a qualified woman president

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  19:09:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Why is it that all of the female republitards have to be so damn delicious to look at?
I take this to be a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer to it.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2011 :  21:43:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Why is it that all of the female republitards have to be so damn delicious to look at?
Ugh. Bachmann's dead, dead eyes make any prurient thoughts I might have about her womanly parts run for the hills.

Men with lifeless eyes do that to me, too. Equal opportunity creepiness. It's like any enjoyment they may have gotten out of life is gone, and they're now really just walking bags of meat. The idea of having sex with any of them is as much of a turn-on as visualizing boinking a pound of bacon.

Well, for me. I'm sure there are porkophiles out there for whom the bacon thing is real hotness. No offense meant. Whatever creams your Twinkie, so long as it's consensual.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 08/16/2011 :  06:07:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
LOL!

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/17/2011 :  06:58:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



Ugh. Bachmann's dead, dead eyes make any prurient thoughts I might have about her womanly parts run for the hills.

And this is coming from the king studman himself. One look into his eyes and all prurient thoughts come running down from the hills.

Men with lifeless eyes do that to me, too. Equal opportunity creepiness. It's like any enjoyment they may have gotten out of life is gone, and they're now really just walking bags of meat. The idea of having sex with any of them is as much of a turn-on as visualizing boinking a pound of bacon.

So the thought of having sex with a man who has life in his eyes appeals to you?


Well, for me. I'm sure there are porkophiles out there for whom the bacon thing is real hotness. No offense meant.

Never.

Whatever creams your Twinkie, so long as it's consensual.

Can a pound of bacon give it's consent?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/17/2011 07:11:18
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 08/17/2011 :  08:12:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

And this is coming from the king studman himself. One look into his eyes and all prurient thoughts come running down from the hills.
So the thought of having sex with a man who has life in his eyes appeals to you?
It appeals to me more than does the idea of having sex with a man with dead eyes.
Well, for me. I'm sure there are porkophiles out there for whom the bacon thing is real hotness. No offense meant.
Never.
Yes, I would never purposefully offend anyone based on their legal sexual proclivities.
Whatever creams your Twinkie, so long as it's consensual.
Can a pound of bacon give it's consent?
Nice try.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/17/2011 :  08:30:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.





So the thought of having sex with a man who has life in his eyes appeals to you?
It appeals to me more than does the idea of having sex with a man with dead eyes.

I see. So, depending on the eyes, having sex with men does appeal to you. I would not have guessed that of you. Each to his own I guess.

Well, for me. I'm sure there are porkophiles out there for whom the bacon thing is real hotness. No offense meant.
Never.
Yes, I would never purposefully offend anyone based on their legal sexual proclivities.

But you do purposefully offend others. How did you come to draw the line of offending others at one's sexual proclivities? What's so sacred about that?


Whatever creams your Twinkie, so long as it's consensual.
Can a pound of bacon give it's consent?
Nice try.

I figured you would think so.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 08/17/2011 :  09:04:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

I see. So, depending on the eyes, having sex with men does appeal to you.
Ah, a relative level of appeal is replaced with some absolute standard in order to score rhetorical points. Bravo, Bill, for expressing your dishonesty so freely.
I would not have guessed that of you.
What would it matter?
Each to his own I guess.
Yeah, that's what "whatever creams your Twinkie" means.
But you do purposefully offend others.
Yes, about stupidity that they've chosen for themselves.
How did you come to draw the line of offending others at one's sexual proclivities? What's so sacred about that?
It's largely not chosen. Do you think people decide to be turned on by bacon?
Nice try.
I figured you would think so.
I hope you didn't miss the sarcasm.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.56 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000