But is it a woman-hating title? Is it a coincidence that it is a woman that receives this treatment? Are other women impugned?

I think we can agree that "vapid" is pretty much a gendered insult; I have seen few men labeled this way.

For example, a search for "vapidness" turned up the following quip:

quote:

---

Vapidness.com
Because, you know... Deep down, We're all 14 year old girls.

---

I wrote "yet another woman-hating title". Maybe I have just been unlucky joining Babble at a time where discrediting the crap out of Hilary Clinton, then Elizabeth May and now Sarah Palin seemed to many the yellow-bricked road to equality for all. I didn't have time to explore more than a few weeks of back titles but I have looked at quite a few this afternoon.

There seems to be an extra level of venom directed at female politicians - regardless of their actual power - and it is expressed right up there in the thread titles (TT).

Male politicians' names show up much more often in the TT, but almost always with more respect - except for the occasional Stockholmism, e.g. "Bob Rae's latest filth". In most cases, male politicians are depicted - even in highly critical opening posts - by their surname (Harper, Layton, Hampton, MacCallum, Greenspan, Nader...), or qualified by their function (Chief Harper spokesman, RCMP Chief, Former Liberal MP John Nunziata, etc.).

The use of diminutives (Lizzie May, EMay), or that of pejorative qualifiers (Liberal Alice Klein), or of a hateful "this" ("Is this what you want to see a heartbeat away from the White House?") seems a common strategy.

Even the use of name AND surname (when unnecessary) for females stands in contrast with the use of surname alone for males: Compare "Is Elizabeth May's courting of "Progressive Conservatives" hurting the Liberals?" or "While the knives are, of course, out for Dion, let's not forget about EMay", with "Is Kennedy the kingmaker losing ground?", "Is Nader going to be a spoiler?". (There are many counter-examples to this specific pattern, but it is noticeable.)

I would suggest that female officials are thus subliminally depicted as not really belonging to the political in-crowd, while male officials get, at most, a challenge to a recognized "in" status, with sports or religion metaphors: "Ed Broadbent weighs in for democracy", "Bob Rae is no team player", "Ken Dryden not ejected from Liberal Party", etc.

The subtext can even be openly trashy, e.g. the scandal press-type "May's Secret Deal with Dion", "Dressing like a hockey mom is no longer good enough for Sarah Palin", reinforcing women's outsider status and clichés of wily femininity.

So are such titles anti-women, rather than strictly anti-May or anti-Palin? I think they are because of those rhetorical twists, because we live in a misogynist world where every quip is one more straw on the oppressed's backs, one more message not to mess with men's game, and because - as has often been argued - criticisms of one member of an oppressed class are usually heard as extending to all, especially when they emphasize negative characteristics deemed common to that class rather than address the relevant issue. (I won't dare suggest that keeping women out IS the relevant issue to posters.)

I propose that we be more aware of the underlying dimensions of sexism in thread titles and try to avoid them.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

* vapid cunt - Derogatory term for a female, implying superficiality, materialism, vanity, and a hollow emptiness. May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily.
* vapid (Collins-English) : 1 bereft of strength, sharpness, flavour, etc. (strength being usually deemed the essential male quality…)
* vapid (Free On-Line Thesaurus) : vapid – 2 lacking significance or liveliness or spirit or zest; "a vapid conversation"; "a vapid smile"; "a bunch of vapid schoolgirls"
*« Vapid Shallow Models Must Die » (2006 splatter film) : Fat photographer gets revenge for his bad life by killing beautiful, shallow, vapid models.
* « vapid values for girls with fashionista wannabe cues… »
* « But whereas the Orange and N.Y.C. women seem superficial, vapid and dull, the Atlanta quintet are superficial, vapid and entertaining. »
* « Palin is a joke .. and silly and vapid and mindless »
* « Vapid & Vacuous » - Title of « Slice of Pink » blog post about Palin.
* « Megan Fox - hot and vapid, or just hot? Either she can't act and lucks her way into a lucid audition, or she nailed all the right vapid girl tics....either way, she is hot. ...

---

Just pointing out that Spector is right about the dictionary meaning and acceptable usage...

But martin is right that the word is used far more frequently to insult women than men.

For example, "he is a vapid..." finds 33 hits on Google, while "she is a vapid..." has over 1,300.

What about columnists like Rebecca Eckler or Leah McLaren, who used to be regularly skewered on this site? And yes, their writing was described in terms that I suppose could be considered sexist. Vapid drivel, etc.

However, they were hired to write vapid girly drivel. They were supposed to live single girly city lives and write about single, girly, vapid drivel as entertainment. And so they were roundly mocked for writing vapid drivel.

Of course, this isn't the case with Alice Klein, and I'd never compare her writing to the McEcklers'. I'm speaking more generally about the thread topic, not about Klein at all at this point.

On the other hand, why is predominantly male "entertainment" writing more respected than "chick lit" which is basically the audience these women were catering to?

Anyhow, I'm rambling at this point, but I don't have a problem with Martin raising this point for discussion. I'm not going to start banning this kind of discourse from the site, because I think there's a certain point at which you can just make the site too difficult for ordinary people without Ph.D.'s in women's studies to use.

But it's a good thing to discuss.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless?

---

www.slate.com/id/2200587

quote:

---

Bush's Vapid Reassurances

---

quote:

---

Cue the vapid economic nationalism

---

quote:

---

'Vapid' liberalism

---

quote:

---

Marxists and the "vapid debate"

---

quote:

---

But it wasn’t his “more substantive” answers that tipped the balance—his responses were frequently vapid, evasive

---

quote:

---

"The Harper platform is a vapid document, full of slogans but lacking a substantive plan

---

http://www.nupge.ca/issues/Election2008articles.htm

quote:

---

Two days in and this is already a stupendously vapid Canadian federal election

---

quote:

---

Jack Layton has risen his highest level of incompetence. He was an vapid poseur at Toronto City Hall,

---

www.thestar.com/comment/article/463410

quote:

---

Jack Layton...taking credit as the parade master or vapid soap-boxing on any issue ...

---

quote:

---

"I would be surprised if the turnout is up on this election. I think it's been an empty vapid election that got hijacked half way

---

quote:

---

''Martin is a vapid cheerleader. Harper looks like a guy selling you coffins. Layton is, I think, about one millimetre deep,

---

www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=5699

quote:

---

the vapid Joker- grins of Stephen Harper

---

quote:

---

The NDP’s call for complete withdrawal strikes me as vapid, shallow

---

quote:

---

coupled with Mr. Dion’s vapid leadership

---

quote:

---

They will kick butt with Dion's symbolic and vapid "Kyoto or Bust".

---

quote:

---

What a vapid, unimaginative gang we have in the Harper crew

---

GS

quote:

---

the Manley report as “irresponsible,” and represents a disturbingly vapid approach to ...

---

quote:

---

coupled with Mr. Dion's vapid leadership are the reasons Liberal funding sources

---

NP

One refers to the “rhetorical vapidity of the obama campaign”.

Another (again referring to Obama) says, “Most of what he says is rhetorical vapidity”.

Another (apparently referring to nobody in particular) professes a “skeptical suspicion of rhetorical vapidity and grandiosity - the prime ingredient of political speech…”

Another refers to “the rhetorical vapidity of presidential rhetoric”.

Another refers to the “scandal or self-importance or rhetorical vapidity” of the Kennedy family.

The remaining two are excerpts from books (via Google Books). One talks of the rhetorical vapidity of the Chinese government and the other uses the phrase without reference to any particular person.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The subtext can even be openly trashy, e.g. the scandal press-type "May's Secret Deal with Dion", "Dressing like a hockey mom is no longer good enough for Sarah Palin", reinforcing women's outsider status and clichés of wily femininity.

---

I have had some issue with what seems to be a common reference to May as Lizzie or EMay and would rather not see her referred to that way though I'm not sure I see that particular title as troublesome or indicating some sort of outsider status. Male politicians make secret deals with the best of them. However in Palin's case here you've pretty much described the core of her own campaign...'the wily feminine Washington 'outsider' and hockey mom.' The image of the 'hockey mom' is not something that was created by people looking on but a description that she herself embraces and plays to the hilt. It's one of main reasons that people are supposed to elect her. She has even self referenced herself as 'Caribou Barbie' and made statements about changing her image to wear tighter clothes in order to 'appeal'- I'm sure one can figure out what group she's referencing here.

While I get what your trying to say I can't help but feel that the title in this case isn't so much a reference on sexism against women politicians in general but a play on her own campaign talking points and her own political rhetoric.

Which I suppose brings up a question. If such as a believe is the case with Palin who actually blatantly plays political games on what perhaps are sexist stereotypes as commentators where is the line when discussing it? Do we ignore it for the sake of being fair and respectful to women politicians in general and just pretend that she herself isn't part of creating and pushing such imagery and rhetoric herself as part of her actual politics?

For me, its more about the repetion of certain kinds of tropes. And what we see is the repetition of certain kinds of tropes being directed at women, in particular in politics, which feed into, and are indeed expressions of those tropes and the sexist thinking behind them.

So, in the case of Palin, its true her faux pas and ignorant blunders have made her more than an easy target for some kinds of disparaging commentary, whatever the wording, that often targets women, as stupid and (if succesful) coniving: In this case, "if she is stupid, the only way she could be succesful, is by being coniving."

Fact is, I highly doubt that any previous governor of Alaska has operated on a level above that of Palin, because it is my impression that that is the way business is done there.

Palin may indeed be those things, but I see no reason for people here to pile on amd contribute to the pervasive stereotypes that are all to dominant in the main stream culture already. even if deserved.

Furthermore, its hard to distinguish if some people are really merely engaging in drole "political commentary" or are just happy to be able to unleash some sexist invective, secure in the knowledge that Palin's status as an enemy will cover their political tracks.

What with all the sexist stereotyping that goes on in the media, I see no reason why posters on Babble need to contribute to it, because one way or another, it does contribute to the general stereotype, even if deserved, and even if there is no ill-intent.

Surely there are enough problems with the Republican platform that people here could rise above jeering, scoffing and cackling about Palin being stupid and coniving?

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
Which I suppose brings up a question. If such as a believe is the case with Palin who actually blatantly plays political games on what perhaps are sexist stereotypes as commentators where is the line when discussing it? Do we ignore it for the sake of being fair and respectful to women politicians in general and just pretend that she herself isn't part of creating and pushing such imagery and rhetoric herself as part of her actual politics?

I dunno I think she's a tough one when it comes to this stuff.

---

I have often noticed that those on the left, including women, are certainly not above playing these cards where it may lend political advantage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
I have had some issue with what seems to be a common reference to May as Lizzie or EMay and would rather not see her referred to that way though I'm not sure I see that particular title as troublesome or indicating some sort of outsider status.

---

There are too many circumstances where the "May" would get misconstrued as 'may/May', so it is used by me to set it apart. I am not going to call her Elizabeth, nor Lizzie, and I am not going to waste my time by typing Elizabeth May on each and every occasion that I speak about her, as such EMay is lazy shorthand and nothing more.

quote:

---

If such as a believe is the case with Palin who actually blatantly plays political games on what perhaps are sexist stereotypes as commentators where is the line when discussing it? Do we ignore it for the sake of being fair and respectful to women politicians in general and just pretend that she herself isn't part of creating and pushing such imagery and rhetoric herself as part of her actual politics?

I dunno I think she's a tough one when it comes to this stuff.

---

Mocking Palin for her use of herself as a sexual, or any other kind of stereotype, as she uses many, is not sexist. She is as fair game as any other other male politician who uses themselves as a stereotype, or cliche, when it comes to mocking. In fact, IMV to not mock, and treat her differently because she is a woman, is actually quite sexist. Us little women cannot handle the heat and all of that diminishing BS, is at play.

For fuck's sake Palin winked at 60 million, at least, people during the first VP debate. She framed herself conceptually in that moment, and just like any other politician, she gets mocked for the frame of perception she set for herself.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Mocking Palin for her use of herself as a sexual, or any other kind of stereotype, as she uses many, is not sexist. She is as fair game as any other other male politician who uses themselves as a stereotype, or cliche, when it comes to mocking. In fact, IMV to not mock, and treat her differently because she is a woman, is actually quite sexist. Us little women cannot handle the heat and all of that diminishing BS, is at play.

For fuck's sake Palin winked at 60 million, at least, people during the first VP debate. She framed herself conceptually in that moment, and just like any other politician, she gets mocked for the frame of perception she set for herself.

Women are not frail little flowers that have to be nutured and coddled along, and I resent that some men are trying to frame us thusly.

---

Good point on the use of "EMay". I hadn't thought of it like that.

Moreover, as I stated

quote:

---

Women are not frail little flowers that have to be nutured and coddled along, and I resent that some men are trying to frame us thusly

---

Cue, irony and mockery are not interchangable. And if mockery of politicians, writers, pundits, news persons, and assorted other public figures were excluded from babble, 7/8th of the posts would be gone. And so would a good healthy swath of yours.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Moreover, it still contains the original message within in it, and it is up to the reader to decipher the meaning. Decontextualized it just becomes outright sexism.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Palin may indeed be those things, but I see no reason for people here to pile on amd contribute to the pervasive stereotypes that are all to dominant in the main stream culture already. even if deserved.

What with all the sexist stereotyping that goes on in the media, I see no reason why posters on Babble need to contribute to it, because one way or another, it does contribute to the general stereotype, even if deserved, and even if there is no ill-intent.

Surely there are enough problems with the Republican platform that people here could rise above jeering, scoffing and cackling about Palin being stupid and coniving?

---

You know probably on pretty much any other issue and campaign I'd like agree with you on this.
Problem being is that there really isn't much about the current Republican campaign that rises above being stupid, coniving and pandering to base fears and stupid illusions and scare words. They are NOT running on policy or for the most part the policy that they do manage to get out changes on a weekly basis.
I would love it if it was just a matter of Obama policy vs McCain policy but it really isn't. You just have to listen to the current stump speeches and interviews and it's pretty clear.

The Republican campaign in a nutshell right now is, "Obama is a terrorist, socialist and a anti-American liberal who is going to destroy the country and he's lying about taxes and kills babies and we are the Pro-American, Maverick outsiders, average working people, who aren't Bush and are going to Washington to clean it all up. Don't bother asking how exactly or what exactly we're going to do. Just trust us. *wink wink*"

And in Palin and the image created around Palin symbolizes it all and for the most part the majority of everything that's been touted about Palin and the reasons she's capable for doing all of this is exagerated or a bald face lie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

For fuck's sake Palin winked at 60 million, at least, people during the first VP debate. She framed herself conceptually in that moment, and just like any other politician, she gets mocked for the frame of perception she set for herself.

Women are not frail little flowers that have to be nutured and coddled along, and I resent that some men are trying to frame us thusly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I see so not getting respect means letting gratuitous sexist attacks stand. Fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The anwser to that question is in my post where I discussed this issue generally speaking. Its the first post I made in this thread.

---

Your first post was: How pneumatic. in response to mspector's comments of

quote:

---

"Vapid" is a gender-neutral term and is used of both men and women. You are simply wrong on this point, Martin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't really have an opinion on the term vapidity, or any other particular term. I don't think it would be possible to come with a dictionary of sexist terms that survived a generation. Terminology changes and so does context.

For me, its more about the repetion of certain kinds of tropes. And what we see is the repetition of certain kinds of tropes being directed at women, in particular in politics, which feed into, and are indeed expressions of those tropes and the sexist thinking behind them.

So, in the case of Palin, its true her faux pas and ignorant blunders have made her more than an easy target for some kinds of disparaging commentary, whatever the wording, that often targets women, as stupid and (if succesful) coniving: In this case, "if she is stupid, the only way she could be succesful, is by being coniving."

Fact is, I highly doubt that any previous governor of Alaska has operated on a level above that of Palin, because it is my impression that that is the way business is done there.

Palin may indeed be those things, but I see no reason for people here to pile on amd contribute to the pervasive stereotypes that are all to dominant in the main stream culture already. even if deserved.

Furthermore, its hard to distinguish if some people are really merely engaging in drole "political commentary" or are just happy to be able to unleash some sexist invective, secure in the knowledge that Palin's status as an enemy will cover their political tracks.

What with all the sexist stereotyping that goes on in the media, I see no reason why posters on Babble need to contribute to it, because one way or another, it does contribute to the general stereotype, even if deserved, and even if there is no ill-intent.

Surely there are enough problems with the Republican platform that people here could rise above jeering, scoffing and cackling about Palin being stupid and coniving?

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The anwser to that question is in my post where I discussed this issue generally speaking. Its the first post I made in this thread.

---

Then I guess the problem is that it appears you see anything that remotely speaks to a stereotype as a gratuitous attack. Regardless of how it fits into the current political discourse or commentary on how the women in question is running and conceptualizing her campaign. Regardless if perhaps in certain cases stereotypes actually are playing out in reality as reasons that people are supposed to vote for her. Regardless if perhaps in this case those awful stereotypes actually fit the person.

What crap. Sorry. I'm with Remind on this. It's just as sexist and IMO actually further damages women in politics who don't actually play this type of game if as good progressives we just ignore reality and treat her with kid gloves. Oh hey, will you look at that, that's EXACTLY what their campaign wants. The double standard spun to their advantage. Glad to see it's working even here.

Its pretty simple there is an existing sexist trope, which is that women are dumb, and if they are succesful it is because they are coniving. Even if these things are true about Palin making them the focus of the "left" critique of Palin, is merely reinforcing the socially ingrained stereotype.

Why? There is plenty of room to go after Palin on policy and substance of her opinions. Why pile onto the "stupid" and "coniving" routine. We can do better.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
martin dufresne, I believe what you say is true. The term vapid is most often applied to women as a misogynist attack on women's ways of knowing and communicating. By extension, when men are called vapid, I think it is generally intended as a gender-based insult, ie in alluding to stereotypically feminine characteristics.

I have often noticed that those on the left, including women, are certainly not above playing these cards where it may lend political advantage.

I greatly respect and appreciate your courage in raising this issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
...It's just as sexist and IMO actually further damages women in politics who don't actually play this type of game if as good progressives we just ignore reality and treat her with kid gloves. Oh hey, will you look at that, that's EXACTLY what their campaign wants. The double standard spun to their advantage. Glad to see it's working even here.

So sure let's just give Palin respect. Who cares what she represents, who cares how insidious, damaging and insulting her campaign is. She's a woman. Nuff said.

---

I agree completely, and don't ya just love a man telling us women, how we should be treating another woman, who is doing us women a great disservice? And not only that, one has to love how they are compounding it by telling us we women are stupid, by the inference that we don't know sexism when we see it, and it has to be pointed out to us even. The icing is their basically telling us we are also being sexist dupes of the great male patriarchy because we dare mock another woman. The sprinles on the icing is that we are being chastized for behaving badly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Not at all.

Its pretty simple there is an existing sexist trope, which is that women are dumb, and if they are succesful it is because they are coniving. Even if these things are true about Palin making them the focus of the "lect" critique of Palin, is merely reinforcing the socially ingrained stereotype.

Why? There is plenty of room to go after Palin on policy and substance of her opinions. Why pile onto the "stupid" and "coniving" routine. We can do better.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

You know if there were pages and pages of discussion on the dumb/coniving 'trope' then maybe you might have an argument. There's been plenty of comment on actual policy and substance including at least one or two threads today.

If there was a history here of talking about women in politics using the dumb/coniving trope then maybe there might be an argument. I just haven't seen it. What I've seen are comments on a particular individual where perhaps in this case that stereotype actually may fit because you know what in some cases that stereotype is actually true. Heck I've known both women and men in my own life where it's true.

As a woman I have absolutely no problem in calling it for what it is and IMO it's just as intellectually false to pretend or ignore it for the sake of protecting women everywhere against the evilness of stereotypes.

Something odd about: "So is this what you want one heartbeat away from the White House?, too"

Another point: When did the Vice Presidential candidate ever get promoted to pre-eminent importance in the media over the presidential candidate themselves.

I have never, ever seen that before. The style of American politics is, in and of itself regressive, in my opinion, there is no reason to reproduce that bullshit here, whatever the cause.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I agree completely, and don't ya just love a man telling us women, how we should be treating another woman, who is doing us women a great disservice? And not only that, one has to love how they are compounding it by telling us we women are stupid, by the inference that we don't know sexism when we see it, and it has to be pointed out to us even. The icing is their basically telling us we are also being sexist dupes of the great male patriarchy because we dare mock another woman. The sprinles on the icing is that we are being chastized for behaving badly.

But it seems we are supposed to believe they are the great purveyors of anti-sexism, and not being incredibly sexist themselves.

---

Yeah. I noticed. I've been trying not to 'go there' myself, been biting my tongue so to speak and just generally getting more annoyed and knowing that such comments would get exactly the reaction that yours just did. Another attempted smackdown...the ooga booga 'identity politics' card.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Identity politics will you get you no where with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
Yeah. I noticed. I've been trying not to 'go there' myself, been biting my tongue so to speak and just generally getting more annoyed and knowing that such comments would get exactly the reaction that yours just did. Another attempted smackdown...the ooga booga 'identity politics' card.

---

quote:

---

Heck maybe they're all right and I'm just to dumb to see it. Maybe I'm just like all those other woman out there who apparently dislike Palin, because I'm jealous of her success and her beauty and the only way that I can tear her down is to be all catty and bitchy. A couple of male pundits on Fox News told me that the other night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]I disagree. I immediatly noticed the proliferation of posts basically attacking Palin on spurious issues, such as her involvement with beauty pagents and so on and so forth, and the absence of the traditional "Sarah Palin Sexism Watch Thread."

---

quote:

---

Another point: When did the Vice Presidential candidate ever get promoted to pre-eminent importance in the media over the presidential candidate themselves.

I have never, ever seen that before. The style of American politics is, in and of itself regressive, in my opinion, there is no reason to reproduce that bullshit here, whatever the cause.

---

Perhaps it's because Palin is a major reality of this election and for whatever reasons has been at the forefront. I've been following it since the beginning and I agree I haven't seen it before. Though just because it hasn't happened before doesn't make it less real. Palin's prominence is likely going to be a discussion for years to come and has as much to do with the current dynamic and factioning/breakdown of the GOP as anything else.

This election has been unlike many if not most US elections for a number of reasons and Palin is just one of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
You were on Fox news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
You were on Fox news?

---

I really think the tag team conversation, mixed in with indirect passive aggresive digs is a cute debating strategy, much better than a direct comment that a person might respond to.

Come on, Remind, I am not some dainty flower. I can take it.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Ho hum, so what exactly is the "sexist" behaviour being engaged in here. Perhaps you can outline it for me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
If you wanted a Sexism watch then you should have started it.
Could it be that your suffering a bit from confirmation bias?

---

Well, I haven't been participating in US election threads much, let alone starting any threads, because I think US politics is basically rotten all the way through. To actually debate it is to give it credibility that it does not deserve.

I kind of feel the same way about Palin as I do about Britney Spears quite frankly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I kind of feel the same way about Palin as I do about Britney Spears quite frankly.

---

There's a lot of that going around.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Not yet. She has to fall first. Then they will rip her apart.

---

They might. But some pundits are saying that they think she will survive this and McCain won't, and that she's looking towards 2012 now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Odd, seems there are a couple men here who NEVER go into the feminist forum, now trying to defend Palin against sexism.

Something smells odd here.

---

Perhaps they haven't read Being the Strong Man A Woman Wants

It should be possible to expose and condemn both.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Odd, seems there are a couple men here who NEVER go into the feminist forum, now trying to defend Palin against sexism.

Something smells odd here.

---

I never go to the Feminist forum because you and remind asked me not to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
mocking it, like you would any other politician

---

martin dufresne's point as I understand, is that woman-hating terminology in a thread title promotes sexist attitudes in the ensuing discussion.

So in this case, mockery of Palin in a thread prefaced with the gendered insult of vapidity is focussed on topics like: her use of feminine body language, ie the wink; her family identity, ie self-declared hockey mom; her "wiliness" as a politician -- a feminized term for political instinct; her sexual persona, ie like Britney Spears and akin to a beauty queen; and her using her sex to get what she wants.

There just isn't the degree of sensibility to gender stereotypes as I think we see around race.

As to the argument that all is fair in love, war and politics, even if that were true, virtually no one here is in a position to participate in that election one way or the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The problem with the U.S. is that it produces despicable sexism while simultaneously producing despicable characters like Palin.

It should be possible to expose and condemn both.

Likewise with racism and Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Perhaps they haven't read Being the Strong Man A Woman Wants

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Perhaps they haven't read Being the Strong Man a Woman Wants

---

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Originally I thought janfromthebruce was being humorous. Thanks for exposing her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Okay, I know you're going to laugh at me, but I totally have to see what that's all about. I just put a hold on it at the library.

---

We will all be waiting - with baited breath - for your concise book report.

Along with Cueball's of course - wouldn't want to be accused of being sexist or anything.

quote:

---

Unionist said: Originally I thought janfromthebruce was being humorous. Thanks for exposing her.

---

God I hate being outed.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: janfromthebruce ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It's on my night stand, I'll lend it to you if you like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

No less so, is the pre-eminent position that men believe they need to tell us women, or indicate, what sexism really is, or isn't, cause we don't really know, or get it.

---

Now vapid was debunked as being a sexist term. As well as the use of EMay. And then of course we women were told that anti-Palin speech is misogynist, at best. With lots of other ineferences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Thought we all were discussing whatever we wanted about this directly, moreover I think I will just do/post however, I feel like it, and if "some" men have issues with it, well then that is their problem. Cause really, this is a "rabble reactions" thread, and if we were going to discuss sexism seriously at all, it would be in the feminist forum, eh?! As such we are only having reactions to Martin's perceptions there are "woman-hating thread titles", and in specific the one's he noted.

Now vapid was debunked as being a sexist term. As well as the use of EMay. And then of course we women were told that anti-Palin speech is misogynist, at best. With lots of other ineferences.

All in all it is a thread started by a man, with the support of other men, telling us women how we should behave or view things. As such it can't really be a serious thing can it?

---

Remind, don't worry. Soon Cueball, unionist, and ALL the men will be the kind of strong men we want and WE ALL will live happy ever after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It's on my night stand, I'll lend it to you if you like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

Remind, don't worry. Soon Cueball, unionist, and ALL the men will be the kind of strong men we want and WE ALL will live happy ever after.

Does anybody, and I mean ANYBODY have a problem with that???

---

I do have a problem with untargetted passive agressiveness, and talking around people and issues as if people aren't in the room, so to speak. I wouldn't call this aspect of this dialogue as "sexist" or anything other than simply rude.

So, if you and Remind don't feel comfortable talking about this issue (the presumed sexism of some male posters on babble), here in this thread or in Rabble reaction, perhaps you could just not talk about it.

However, if you are going to insist on being able to determine the nature of the Feminist discourse there, and then prohibit discussion of feminism elsewhere, then really it is just another attempt by you to limit discussion entirely in order to suit your own views.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I also think cutting men out of discussions about women's issues reinforces the idea that we're just too delicate to take the push and shove.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Does that pickup line actually work with women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
Honestly, remind, I don't think it's Cueball reinforcing that women need to be rescued.

---

quote:

---

I also think cutting men out of discussions about women's issues reinforces the idea that we're just too delicate to take the push and shove.

---

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I don't either actually, I just think he is giving it power that it should not have. Though he is telling us how we should behave and think in respect to Palin

---

No I am telling you what I think, straight up.

You can do whatever you want with my opinions. It's your idea that I am telling you what to do. In fact, I never even vaguely discussed anything you said, as being relevant to what I was objecting too.

Corrolary to that, I said that I noticed a lack of objection to instances of sexism against Palin, apparently because of where she stands in the phoney-baloney spectrum of US politics.

I think its interesting that many people seem to accept the assertion that both the Democrats and the Republicans amount to the two headed party of business, niether of which can be supported, yet Clinton was ruggedly defended here from the sexism of her detractors, while the same is not the case for Palin. Seriously, if the US party system is so corrupted, why does there seem to be a distinction?

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
if we were going to discuss sexism seriously at all, it would be in the feminist forum, eh?!

---

How so?

quote:

---

Now vapid was debunked as being a sexist term. As well as the use of EMay.

---

Not at all. Some have disputed these observations, less than convincingly, and others support them.

quote:

---

And then of course we women were told that anti-Palin speech is misogynist, at best. With lots of other ineferences.

---

The central point is that the aspects of Palin coming under attack are almost all somehow related to her gender.

quote:

---

All in all it is a thread started by a man, with the support of other men, telling us women how we should behave or view things. As such it can't really be a serious thing can it?

---

Ad hominem argument. I have indicated that the thread has my support. martin dufresne's point is well taken: babble, like many other political environments, can be shockingly hostile to women. We all benefit from advancing our understanding as to how this dynamic occurs.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I do have a problem with untargetted passive agressiveness, and talking around people and issues as if people aren't in the room, so to speak. I wouldn't call this aspect of this dialogue as "sexist" or anything other than simply rude.

So, if you and Remind don't feel comfortable talking about this issue (the presumed sexism of some male posters on babble), here in this thread or in Rabble reaction, perhaps you could just not talk about it.

Also, Remind, if you recall, I promised not to post in the Feminist Forum when you asked me not to after you took me to task for confronting the issue the obsession that many western Feminists have with non-western women wearing head scarves. This promise of mine is one I intend to keep.

---

quote:

---

I don't either actually, I just think he is giving it power that it should not have. Though he is telling us how we should behave and think in respect to Palin

---

It sounded to me like he was expressing an opinion -- which is sort of the point of a message board. He doesn't have to agree with you just because you're female, nor can you expect him not to argue with you on the subject. That would be unreasonable.

quote:

---

I certainly do not want to cut men's voices out of the equation, never said I did. Marginalizing women's voices about things pertaining to ourselves is sexist. As is telling us how we should think and behave in respect to Palin and her being a VP candidate.

---

Marginalized? In this discussion? Fiddlesticks, I say. He expressed his views, you expressed yours. Claiming your voice as a female has been marginalized because he didn't defer to your opinion doesn't do much to further the discussion.

quote:

---

The formula you have proposed above, where all discussion of feminism goes on in the Feminism Forum, which is a female prioritized space would directly cut out some men from any discussion of feminism on this board at all. I thought the point of the forum was to create a space that ecnourages dialogue between women, not to limit general discussion?

---

That's my understanding as well. Although, truth be told, I disagree with the way the women in the feminist forum can expel men from the discussion at will. I'd far rather see it wide open.

quote:

---

I think its interesting that many people seem to accept the assertion that both the Democrats and the Republicans amount to the two headed party of business, niether of which can be supported, yet Clinton was ruggedly defended here from the sexism of her detractors, while the same is not the case for Palin. Seriously, if the US party system is so corrupted, why does there seem to be a distinction?

---

Here's where I disagree with you, Cueball. In my view, Palin embraces a specific female stereotype, a collection of cliches and deserves to be roundly criticized for doing so. Clinton didn't do that. Clinton was criticized more for not fitting any of the traditional stereotypes, for having the temerity to not put the wife/mother/femininity parts of her reality ahead of the other parts - you know, the ones that actually qualified her to do the job if she could win her nomination and an election.

quote:

---

I have indicated that the thread has my support. martin dufresne's point is well taken: babble, like many other political environments, can be shockingly hostile to women. We all benefit from advancing our understanding as to how this dynamic occurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
My appologies then. I hope you can see how in the present acrimonious atmosphere, some comments might be misconstrued.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
What utter crap.

---

The tenor of your response belies your argument, such as it is.

This is yet another example of why so many women no longer can be bothered even coming to this site.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The formula you have proposed above, where all discussion of feminism goes on in the Feminism Forum, which is a female prioritized space would directly cut out some men from any discussion of feminism on this board at all. I thought the point of the forum was to create a space that ecnourages dialogue between women, not to limit general discussion?

---

No one said a word about limiting general discussion, however it was decided, by women on this board to have topics pertaining to women and feminism in the feminist forum. If some men self-select to stay out, that is their choice. This was decided because of the over-whelming male voices who try and drown out women's opinions with their own.

quote:

---

No I am telling you what I think, straight up.

---

quote:

---

You can do whatever you want with my opinions.

---

quote:

---

It's your idea that I am telling you what to do. In fact, I never even vaguely discussed anything you said, as being relevant to what I was objecting too.

---

quote:

---

Corrolary to that, I said that I noticed a lack of objection to instances of sexism against Palin, apparently because of where she stands in the phoney-baloney spectrum of US politics.

I think its interesting that many people seem to accept the assertion that both the Democrats and the Republicans amount to the two headed party of business, niether of which can be supported, yet Clinton was ruggedly defended here from the sexism of her detractors, while the same is not the case for Palin. Seriously, if the US party system is so corrupted, why does there seem to be a distinction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Ad hominem argument. I have indicated that the thread has my support. martin dufresne's point is well taken: babble, like many other political environments, can be shockingly hostile to women. We all benefit from advancing our understanding as to how this dynamic occurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:

The tenor of your response belies your argument, such as it is.

This is yet another example of why so many women no longer can be bothered even coming to this site.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

---

I AM a woman, for pity's sake!

Getting snotty and then taking your marbles and going home does not constitute a reasoned or rational argument -- and least I made one, "such as it is".

Has it occured to you that doing this when someone disagrees with you is a stereotypically feminine response and just adds ammo to those who say women are just too fragile to stand up for themselves? We wonder why the perception stands and then play into it. Why do we do that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Not going to bother with your points too much other than I say I disagree, you never substantiated anything just said it was not convincing argued. And that you were the only one to agree with martin and believe the tone you want adopted is a different one for women than it is for men.

---

Now remind, you are showing some selective memory. unionist also supported martin dufresne regarding the sexist use of the term vapid.

Your "rebuttal" -- actually refutation -- of martin dufresne's position consists of your stated personal opinion bolstered by a long list of instances of use of the term 'vapid', which you garnered from the internet. Your list contains only examples of the use of the term 'vapid' applied to men. You assert, without analysis or discussion, that in none of these cases is the term used as a gendered epithet (as for example, alQ's slur of martin dufresne in this very thread). You did not address the blatent hostility to women evidenced in many of martin dufresne's examples. You also did not address unionist's point that a google search produces only a couple hundred examples of "he is a vapid..." versus thousands of hits for "she is a vapid...".

As to your appeal to your authority as a woman to pronounce on this issue, granted, you do have it over martin there. On the other hand, he is a recognized expert, and I as a woman support his position.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
I AM a woman, for pity's sake!

---

I am aware of that. As you point out, women have sexist attitudes too.

quote:

---

Getting snotty and then taking your marbles and going home does not constitute a reasoned or rational argument -- and least I made one, "such as it is".

---

I'm not the one using rolling eye smilies.

Your argument amounted to a plain contradiction of my opinion. You also made the point that you have been on babble for seven years; by implication, I have not been here as long as you, so that should give your opinion more weight than mine. And you began your statement by calling my perspective a load of crap. That is in my view, not much of an argument.

quote:

---

Has it occured to you that doing this when someone disagrees with you is a stereotypically feminine response and just adds ammo to those who say women are just too fragile to stand up for themselves? We wonder why the perception stands and then play into it. Why do we do that?

---

I'm unsure how this sexist observation is related to my response. No one has gone anywhere -- although I do have work to do preparing evidence and submissions for a hearing tomorrow, so I may not be here much longer.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by triciamarie:
Now remind, you are showing some selective memory. unionist also supported martin dufresne regarding the sexist use of the term vapid.

---

quote:

---

You did not address the blatent hostility to women evidenced in many of martin dufresne's examples.

---

quote:

---

You also did not address unionist's point that a google search produces only a couple hundred examples of "he is a vapid..." versus thousands of hits for "she is a vapid...".

---

quote:

---

As to your appeal to your authority as a woman to pronounce on this issue, granted, you do have it over martin there. On the other hand, he is a recognized expert, and I as a woman support his position.

---

quote:

---

The tone I want adopted is one that is conscious and respectful of disadvantaged groups in society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Perhaps you should have tried to google the term for yourself, as opposed to differing to a man's opinion as fact?

---

Apparently you weren't even capable of reading my precise post and reproducing my actual Google search, before calling me a liar and launching your usual attack against all men.

The opinion you express here can't be described as a progressive one.

As for martin dufresne, he has been a publicly known activist in the movement in support of women's rights and equality for almost 30 years, as far as I can tell. Your dismissal of him as an "observer" - because of his sex - is disturbing, to say the least.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Apparently you weren't even capable of reading my precise post and reproducing my actual Google search, before calling me a liar and launching your usual attack against all men.

---

My usual attack om all men? LMAO, yep it seems men can't handle being challenged by women, and call it an attack on them when women do so. What do you call it when men challenge you unionist? Why do you see a gender difference

quote:

---

The opinion you express here can't be described as a progressive one.

---

quote:

---

As for martin dufresne, he has been a publicly known activist in the movement in support of women's rights and equality for almost 30 years, as far as I can tell. Your dismissal of him as an "observer" - because of his sex - is disturbing, to say the least.

---

quote:

---

To be unable to distinguish allies from enemies is the death of any progressive movement.

---

quote:

---

Fortunately, the women's movement as a whole has done a brilliant job over the years reaching out and building alliances, understanding clearly who and what the real enemy is. That's why it has made such incredible advances over less than two generations, although mountains remain yet to be moved.

---

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I did reproduce them unionist and stated the above results, much much different than yours, eh. My usual attack om all men? LMAO, yep it seems men can't handle being challenged by women, and call it an attack on them when women do so. What do you call it when men challenge you unionist?

---

Remind, I didn't call your Google comment an "attack on all men" - rather, your statement about "deferring to a man's opinion".

Now let me give you a clue about using Google. Ignore it if you wish, but maybe some others will benefit.

I googled "she is a vapid" and "he is a vapid". The results are as I said they were. You're wrong.

If you google "she is vapid" and "he is vapid" (which is what you thought I googled, because you were too much in a hurry to reply and didn't scroll up), you would have got roughly 468 hits vs. 46 hits - a ratio of 10 to 1 for women. The ratio for the phrase I actually googled was approximately 40 to 1 (1340 hits to 33 hits) for women.

Why your mistake (besides misreading my post)?

Because you forgot to put the quotation marks ("") around the phrase. Your search results are therefore precisely meaningless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

No one said a word about limiting general discussion, however it was decided, by women on this board to have topics pertaining to women and feminism in the feminist forum. If some men self-select to stay out, that is their choice. This was decided because of the over-whelming male voices who try and drown out women's opinions with their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
So did cue, however, I was referencing women, not men.

---

No. I did not agree with Martin on the issue of "vapid". I said I had no opinion on the word vapid. I basically said, the question depends on the context of the term "vapid"

Clearly you have been arguing with me throughout this thread without even bothering to read what I said in my inititial statement on the issue. Even though I posted it twice!

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Google ignores the word "is", which is too common. It returns hundreds of thousands of pages containing the words "she" and "vapid" or "he" and "vapid".

Look beyond the statistics reported by Google, and actually read the first page indicated at the top of each search. Neither of them contains the phrase "he is vapid" or "she is vapid".

quote:

---

I am aware of that. As you point out, women have sexist attitudes too.

---

Pointing out that women still retreat into traditional stereotypical responses at times is not sexist. It is pointing out that you can't have it both ways and is a valid criticism. If that bothers you, maybe you should examine why.

quote:

---

Your argument amounted to a plain contradiction of my opinion. You also made the point that you have been on babble for seven years; by implication, I have not been here as long as you, so that should give your opinion more weight than mine. And you began your statement by calling my perspective a load of crap. That is in my view, not much of an argument.

---

Yes, it was a plain contradiction of a statement that was given without support or rationale. I then went on to explain why, in my estimation, that statement was nonsense. If we're totting up arguments made, my brief and cursory response still adds up to more than you've offered, other than to say (if I may paraphrase): What you said to me was not nice and I'm a woman, therefore you are sexist.

I don't know how long you have been on babble, nor do I care. My point was that 7 years should be a sufficient period to detect this onerous hostility that is so awfully pervasive.

You are reading much into my post that isn't there and playing victim.

quote:

---

I'm unsure how this sexist observation is related to my response. No one has gone anywhere -- although I do have work to do preparing evidence and submissions for a hearing tomorrow, so I may not be here much longer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Say, Timebandit, the Saskatchewan NDP needs a smart, tough new leader...are you busy?

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

---

Al Q, you are too sweet! But no, I don't think I want to take it on. I've got two projects in production at the same time right now and finding that balancing my little company and a pair of wild girls is about all I can handle at the mo.

But you did just make my day.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I did not use quotation marks when I did my search, unionist is saying that is what he did, and that is why my results were differing than his.

---

Yet you persisted in saying unionist's results didn't mean much:

quote:

---

But not that that means much, as when you remove the quoatation marks, the 'he is vapid' produces 213,000 more hits than for 'she is vapid'.

---

I'll see your rolleyes and raise you one: