Author
|
Topic: In Praise of Unruly Women
|
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350
|
posted 22 July 2004 11:48 AM
Is anyone allowed to start a topic?I liked this article from today: http://www.rabble.ca/link.shtml?x=33326 "The media don't know how to handle smart, accomplished, complex women. Judy Dean wasn't glamorous or supportive enough, Hillary was too smart and too strong and Teresa Kerry is too loose-lipped and too unpredictable" Freaky: Teresa Kerry looks just like my wife, just a bit older, and people call my wife flaky too. Even got the big hair. Hurray for sexy unruly older women!
From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 22 July 2004 01:36 PM
The whole "first lady" thing pisses me off anyhow. I don't take such a stupid, sexist institution seriously in the least. Ooooh, look at Hilary, what a strong, smart First Lady she was. Oooh, Teresa Kerry is so unruly and complex, what a great role model she'll be as First Lady. Whatever. I think it's pathetic that First Ladies are being held up as any kind of feminist role model whatsoever. I'll be respectful of the first First Lady who says, "This whole First Lady thing is anachronistic bullshit, it's a tradition that makes it harder for people to conceptualize a woman as president, and I'm not going to prop it up by simpering next to my husband and accepting an official title just because I happen to have a license to fuck the President."
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 24 July 2004 04:32 PM
I don't see anything wrong with being a first lady. I think we are intended to be helpmeet's to our partners. There is nothing belittling or negative about that. It's the way things are intended to be.I think that the person who is married to the president, however, needs to be cognizant that they are not the elected person. They are the *spouse* of the elected person. Their role is valuable but unelected and therefore has natural limitations to i t. Mrs. Clinton in my view didn't understand the boundaries of her role and often forgot that she was in an unelected role that was secondary to the President. She also got put in roles and positions strictly because of her relationship with him as opposed to being the best candidate. She didn't succeed in those roles either. I was disappointed that she didn't dump his ass on national tv after he cheated. I'd have made "Newsmaker of the year" when they handed me the microphone after his announcement of cheating. I wouldn't have stood in the background clapping and playing the wifely role. That isnt' within me.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 24 July 2004 04:54 PM
I have no time for either of the Clintons, but that's because of their politics. I cannot fathom why anyone ponders their marriage. Marriages are imponderable. We can never know, and now that they've both produced transparently dishonest, superficial memoirs (political, too! big surprise!), we know for sure that we will never know. Tant pis. I mean, really. I'm ashamed that I've forgotten Dean's wife's name, but she seemed to me to be taking the intelligent Canadian position -- ie, she just plain didn't believe much in First Wifery. It is, of course, impossible to take such a position in the U.S. and survive politically. But she sounded like a real human bean to me.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 25 July 2004 01:41 PM
quote: are we forgetting that rumours had it that Hilary had cheated on Bill too? remeber Vince Foster?? so an agreement seems reasonable. i wouldn't have stuck around. but it is a matter of priorities. it is true that she couldn't expect the career she has now if she dropped him. that tells us what is more important in Hilary's world
Lets underscore the words rumours here. I doubt them actually. As well, I don't respect "agreements". I think it shows significant character flaws that she chose a job over her own personal dignity and her obligations to her daughter.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 25 July 2004 09:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey:I think it shows significant character flaws that she chose a job over her own personal dignity and her obligations to her daughter.[/QB]
Excuse me Hailey, but I quite miss your points. "job over dignity" ? I presume her job as a U.S. Senator. Please explain how that job in any way diminishes her "personal dignity". "obligations to her daughter" ? If I am not mistaken, their daughter was an adult and well established in her university education when Hillary ran for her present position. Please explain your misgivings.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 25 July 2004 10:01 PM
I understood Hailey's original post to mean that by accepting Bill's infidelities seemingly without protest (at the time of the Lewinskygate scandal), Hilary was letting her daughter down by providing a bad moral role model.Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't take Hailey's post to mean that Hilary was letting her daughter down by becoming a senator - but that the sacrifices she made morally to position herself to become a senator *did* let her daughter down. Edited to correct confusing pronouns. [ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 25 July 2004 10:09 PM
quote: Ew! Yes there is!
as said by Peutski murder:Well, if you feel it is a great evil then you have the right to decide that for your life. I don't believe you have the right to mock other women who choose to be a helpmeet. James you said: quote: "job over dignity" ?...Please explain how that job in any way diminishes her "personal dignity"."obligations to her daughter" ? If I am not mistaken, their daughter was an adult and well established in her university education when Hillary ran for her present position. Please explain your misgivings.
There is nothing undignified about the position of US senator. There were some persons here who suggested that she had tolerated adultery and mistreatment in order to reach these career aspirations. If that is true then I think she sacrificed her personal dignity which to me is too high a price for any job. I'd have lashed out at him on national television. Further, I am not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton neglected her daughter's needs. From most accounts she was a very involved active parent throughout Chelsea's childhood and adolescence. I think, however, she had an obligation to role model to her daughter that women do not need to accept abuse or mistreatment from their husbands and should deal effectively with same. To stand beside your husband who is a serial adulterer clapping soundly and doing the Tammy Wynette "stand by your man" routine is not a positive example to her daughter.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 25 July 2004 10:20 PM
quote: I think, however, she had an obligation to role model to her daughter that women do not need to accept abuse or mistreatment from their husbands and should deal effectively with same. To stand beside your husband who is a serial adulterer clapping soundly and doing the Tammy Wynette "stand by your man" routine is not a positive example to her daughter
Excuse me, but what do you know about what exactly transpired between Hilary Clinton and her daughther? Do you have any understanding of how people in the public spotlight have to express themselves, as opposed to what they actually say and do in their private lives? No, you don't. You just have this burning need to pass judgement on the "correctness" of what other people do. What a surprise!
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 25 July 2004 10:29 PM
quote: Excuse me, but what do you know about what exactly transpired between Hilary Clinton and her daughther? Do you have any understanding of how people in the public spotlight have to express themselves, as opposed to what they actually say and do in their private lives? No, you don't. You just have this burning need to pass judgement on the "correctness" of what other people do.What a surprise!
It's very possible that she might have said. "It's not REALLY okay that your daddy whores around with subordinate employees but mommy wants an important job one day .....so we have to play pretend....smile pretty for the camera and clap really hard whenever mommy does!" As well, the woman was first lady for 8 years, was a very outspoken involved first lady who headed committees and took a forceful role, she remained in public life as a senator after that role ended, has given media interviews which have discussed her husband's adultery, and has written a book which devotes a full chapter to coping with adultery. Surely, you are not suggesting she objects to people forming an opinion on her as a public figure? If she did, she'd step out of the limelight.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 25 July 2004 10:39 PM
quote: It's not REALLY okay that your daddy whores around with subordinate employees but mommy wants an important job one day .....so we have to play pretend....smile pretty for the camera and clap really hard whenever mommy does
Yes, I'm sure that's what Hilary said. Again, how do you know what happened? quote: Surely, you are not suggesting she objects to people forming an opinion on her as a public figure? If she did, she'd step out of the limelight
Did I say anything about Hilary objecting to anything? What an odd comment.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 26 July 2004 11:42 AM
quote: I think we are intended to be helpmeet's to our partners. There is nothing belittling or negative about that. It's the way things are intended to be.
Using the Bible as the authority for ones arguments has been disreputable since Spinoza (1680). That is because he showed that Biblical pronouncements about social relations simply reflected local practices at the time of composition. The fact that women had to be a "helpmeet" in 400 BC should not convince in 2004. --- The comment proceeds from this formula: "God's intentions are...." Outside of Al-Quaeda, this method of argumentation has lost favour, too. You see, no one here believes you or Osama have a pipeline to God. We prefers REASONS, because these allow thought and consideration of your ideas by others. Just claiming you believe it is "intended to be" such and such is a way of short-circuiting thought. My grandmother used to say: "If God intended men to fly, he would have given them wings." Your comment has similar characteristics, including the fact that it will be left behind as society develops. You may be left behind, too.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 July 2004 12:08 PM
quote: I look forward to you giving the same developmental feedback to people who are criticizing Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Peter McKay and such when they have not met him. I am sure that you value consistency in your work as a moderator.
Excuse moi? The people on this board who criticize political figures of all stripes (and you should hear the mean things we all say about Bob Rae) are criticizing them, legitimately, for the way that they perform in their public roles, as politicians. Whenever anyone has erred and got personal about any of those guys you name -- when people have commented on Harper's avoirdupois, for instance -- some of us have come along to stop the mocking. (Well, most of the time. We all know that it's wrong. Don't we.) I agree with you that Ms Clinton has been stupid, in the same way that Jason Kenney has been stupid, in making her private life -- or some fantasy version of her private life -- public. She could and should, in my view, have been more principled. She could have stood up to all the public pressure and refused to pretend that she is a cookie-baking wifey. It is entirely possible that her husband would have lost both of his elections if she hadn't knuckled under to middle-American sociopathology; it was a hard situation for her to be in, and she chose the path I would have rejected, but then I'm not her. None of us is being forced to be stupid in the way that Ms Clinton or Mr Kenney -- or Mr Clinton, for that matter -- has been. We don't have to contribute to the destruction of democracy by fuzzing the clear lines between public and private, or state and church, or state and government. We don't have to help sentimentality and flabby-mindedness proliferate.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 July 2004 01:04 PM
quote: We don't have to contribute to the destruction of democracy by fuzzing the clear lines between public and private, or state and church, or state and government.
That's right. Babblers have far too much respect for this vital concept to ever, say, start thread after thread about some politician's actions while out of office on a personal vacation, or speculate at every possible opportunity that a politician might be drunk. What they do while in office is certainly fair game, but their private lives are, as Skdadl says, strictly off limits, no exceptions.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 26 July 2004 01:25 PM
Absolutely. You and a few others. But when an unpopular politician pulls a stunt in private life then you're swimming upstream against the masses that want to revel and delight in their mistake, even if that mistake is clearly part of their private life, made on their own time. In the battle between "principles" and "scoring some quick points", the points overall seem to be winning.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 26 July 2004 03:02 PM
quote: It's very possible that she might have said. "It's not REALLY okay that your daddy whores around with subordinate employees but mommy wants an important job one day .....so we have to play pretend....smile pretty for the camera and clap really hard whenever mommy does!"
That's a private matter between her and her daughter. Just because she's a public figure doesn't mean she has to handle every personal matter in what you might consider a politically correct way. How people, even public figures, handle these matters as it relates to the confines of the family unit is nobody's business.
quote: As well, I don't respect "agreements".
Who cares if you "respect" them. That's a matter between the spouses involved.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 27 July 2004 12:22 AM
Okay, let's say she really didn't know, and that there's no "arrangement", and that she is completely telling the truth when she says she was devastated by the knowledge and that they're both trying to put their marriage back together again.I don't really see the problem with that either, if that's the case. Maybe they really feel that it's the "Christian thing" to forgive. Maybe they're really close friends as well as marriage partners. Maybe they really love each other and they really want to stay married. It's all fine and dandy for us to say, "If my husband cheated on me, I'd kick him to the curb!" But some marriages do survive infidelity. And it's a huge thing that has happened to her, very publicly too, so it's probably on her mind a lot. Why shouldn't she write about it? Why would we think it's a bad role model for people to forgive their spouses for doing bad things to them? There are lots of ways to betray a spouse beyond having sex with someone else, and some marriages overcome that. Hillary had to react somehow publicly since the whole thing was played out in the press. Why assume she just stayed for political reasons? After all, everyone would have understood and no one would have faulted her for leaving him, even the real fundies, so it's not like it would have killed her political career to divorce him. So obviously there must be some reason she stayed. Maybe because there is genuine affection and love between them. Or maybe as a partnership with an agreement regarding others. Or maybe they really think they've got something special. Who knows?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 27 July 2004 12:36 AM
Also, it's not like infidelity happens in a vacuum. Generally infidelity is a symptom, not a cause, of a marriage going south, I think. Maybe there were things both partners were doing wrong, and Bill's "wrong thing" just happened to be publicized, and Hillary's wasn't. I've rarely seen a case where a bad marriage was all one person's fault, even in cases of infidelity.Well, except mine. My marital breakdown was all his fault. (Kidding, kidding.)
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 27 July 2004 02:04 AM
In short, Malek, yes and no. Y'see, the thing is, women have this distressing tendency to remain convinced that they are fully human, in spite of the systems that have historically been imposed on them -- and in many places, still are today! -- in just about any culture you'd care to mention. So in those few places -- and luckily, we-all seem to be in one -- where women have managed to bang their heads against enough ceilings to get a little breathing space, what do women do with their new-found freedom and independence, the wee tiny bits of it that they've got? Well, we argue about it. We try to figure out what it does and could mean. We are often quite hard on one another about it ... right up to the point when someone who thinks that female independence is funny/offensive/fill in the blanks comes along. And then we unite. Grr.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 27 July 2004 02:36 AM
Malek: I AM NOT A HONCHO!!!It's a joke! Calling me a moderator -- of the one forum that never never never becomes controversial -- it's audra's little joke! And even then, I'm only a co-moderator! Forgive the caps above, but this is beginning to get to me. I am a really nice person. I have been around babble for a long time, but I have NO POWERS. Well, almost none. But people are writing to me all the time. I can tell that I scare them. And that makes me feel so awful. I can't tell you. And then some of them think that I can do things that only audra can do. I have been trying to stop people from thinking all these things, but ... Sheesh. I am just skdadl. skdadl plain, no powers. Well, hardly any.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 27 July 2004 03:17 AM
I swear: I finish this cigarette, and the kitties and moi are bedding down. I hate American TV. I haven't watched it in years. But I made the mistake tonight. I watched it. Once started, I could not stop. There is something really wonderful and also dreadful about that culture. They do some things so incredibly well. Surfaces. Maybe it's no different from the English, still singing "Land of Hope and Glory" at the Albert Hall every year as they sway about in their funny hats. Maybe a century from now, the USian rituals will look like that does now -- pretty, but dated and sad.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826
|
posted 27 July 2004 10:09 AM
quote: I AM NOT A HONCHO!!!
Honchess? I think think that ALL folks deserve respect, not just those who we perceive to have power. P.S. skdadl, I think you described the frustrations within feminism quite succinctly. Especially for 2 am. [ 27 July 2004: Message edited by: steffie_slick ]
From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|