2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

It has a lot to do with the historical dehumanization of women vs. and the common assumption that human = man.

Yeah, in a vacuum it's pretty silly, but when one considers the fact that women haven't really been societally elevated above property/pets/animals for very long, I think it makes plenty of sense.

Perhaps we move this to the fluidity of language thread or something, though.

its more interesting than actual primaries news, though

Me, I'm just killin' time with my bitchez Cixous and Irigaray until the debate.

(actually could someone do me a huge favour and post a link to a transcript afterward because this thing's on at 1am London time?)

but when one considers the fact that women haven't really been societally elevated above property/pets/animals for very long

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc. (Also whether or not the majority of women in the world are currently "elevated above property/pets/animals" is highly debatable and varies from country to country and according to economic status).

You're absolutely right. I was thinking in terms of American history, I suppose. Though there is an argument to be made for a rising trend line, despite wildly differing sample points (WOO back to polls).

I think this is why so many people hate discussions of the political ramifications of language, once you open one door it starts to feel like anything you say naturally has something wrong with it. Which, y'know, is often true, thanks to the thousands of years of bullshit baggage and construction.

http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

why not lady president, as in lady novelist?

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc

Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence makes this excellent point several times, and he, in fact, devotes a chapter to deconstructing the nonsense about an evolutionary improvement in women's rights.

I think we need more dame presidents

in my dotage I have come to believe that the concept of "progress" in general is complete nonsense.

x-post

cant believe 200+ years of history and no chick presidents

there have been matriarchies? name one.

kind of beside the point, i know.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_el_pr/obama_taxes

here's something that annoys me about language: statements like this that imply that there is a global-culturally linear progress, rather than a constantly fluctuating continuum. Or do I need to point out that at various times and places in human history there have been matriarchies, women in power, etc

first sentenc refers to 'global' linear progress which indeed doesn't exist.

second refers to specific instances; there obviously has been progress there, though.

not much point in arguing with postmodern antinarrative dicks though, really.

http://www.multo.com/vlog/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/boudicca.jpg

in my dotage I have come to believe that the concept of "progress" in general is complete nonsense.

x-post

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:07 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

really though? can you not think of any segments of american society who could possibly provide a coutner-example here?

we can talk about cultures in which (the Medicis in 14th century Florence, for example) the idea of a powerful woman wasn't seen as a challenge to "patriarchy."

really though? can you not think of any segments of american society who could possibly provide a coutner-example here?

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

we can talk about cultures in which (the Medicis in 14th century Florence, for example) the idea of a powerful woman wasn't seen as a challenge to "patriarchy."

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:11 AM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

mainly because patriarchy is a generalized, ahistorical cateogory with a relatively recent vintage, i.e. no-one used it in 14th century florence. so indeed, it wasn't challenged.

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:12 AM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

"one iota"?

To use more onerous grad school jargon, "privileging" progress is a mistake; it's just another determinant, ever in flux.

sorry, why is it a mistake?

within a given society, say, the US; and within certain parameters; say, voting rights or laws, why is it a 'mistake' to talk about progress?

Progress vs progress

illuminating

You're changing the terms. I merely said that elevating progress as the means by which we judge material or spiritual improvements instead of a complex give-and-take is a problem. I never said that, say, gays and blacks haven't seen genuine improvements in their lots.

(xpost)

i'm not changing the terms at all. you said

The average American citizen has more access to information than his ancestors in 1908 did yet the political culture hasn't changed one iota.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:12 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i don't know what "I merely said that elevating progress as the means by which we judge material or spiritual improvements instead of a complex give-and-take is a problem" even means -- *you're* changing the terms here.

calling something a 'complex give-and-take' is fair enough because it's a messy world; but that doesn't invalidate the idea of progress.

Nobody's invalidating it! There are times when women were treated as equals, and times when they weren't, and that's as true now as it was in 14th century Florence.

i.e. progress is just one factor, and it's not that important.

Aaaaand with an hour before debate time:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/04/ordinary_people_screw_em.html

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach. "Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Asked to respond, the Clinton campaign replied: "This quote differs from the recollection of others who were in the room at the time this comment was allegedly made." Asked to produce any witnesses who could back that up, the Clinton spokesman changed the subject. Classy.

whoah I walk away for a few minutes...

bye, hillary

there have been matriarchies? name one.

I'll grant that "matriarchy" is a hotly contested term, but if we use it to refer to societies where there were established traditions of women holding positions of political and economic power there are plenty of examples: Egyptian Kush dynasty, Nubia, southern India (Mangalore/Kerala - still in existence today!), various European states at various times, etc.

interesting timing

xp

so anyone know where/if the debate is going to be streamed online? abc doesn't seem to have a clear link, maybe i missed it.

let me know!

bye, hillary

don't worry, she's been "fully vetted"

mark, this seems be the local abc station's stream: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/index
but, you might have to watch with the silly reaction graphs...

wow so according to huffpost youve got 3 people in the room who remember hillary saying that - best part is bill tried to talk her down w/a v obamaesque argument

thanks robot!

shall we have a separate debate thread?

wait when does debate start - am heading home now

now

what a fucking debate, first hour was pure BS

first hour was meaningless pain

there were flashes where I was reminded of everything I like about Hillary. Her answer on how to handle support for Israel by reassuring other middle eastern allies that they'd get the same American military support & response if they were to be attacked was totally lacking from Obama's somewhat content-free 'I promise you I will be tough' response. and she did her homework on her gun control answer for Pennslyvania and I was kind of shocked at how little Obama seemed to care about his answer on an issue that was so crucial for that audience, it just didn't matter to him. not smart!

her frustrated non-apology on the sniper thing reminded me of all the many long months that have passed since I liked Hillary

they gave her a pretty nice pass when she basically said "I lied, so what"

you could just see her seething that she was being forced to 'apologize' over such a trivial non-issue, right on the heels of her stressing the validity of the 'questions' about Obama's associations w/ Wright and argh Ayers

she's a machine and she fucking thrived in that poisonous first hour

It's not hard to "thrive" when all of the questions are directed at your opponent.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE AMERICAN FLAG?
DOES REV WRIGHT LOVE AMERICA?
etc.

Embarrassing debate.

new low for America tonight, agreed.

yeah when jonah goldberg says your mod is spouting repub talking points you're in some shit

"Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"

good lord.