There have been lots of issues talked about in the Presidential debates but two items that have not gotten much coverage are women's issues and the sexism and misogyny in the media during the current election.
Race has been talked about and discussed and in fact the Congressional Black Caucus sponsored a debate.
What about women? Women issues deserve to be highlighted and the sexism and misogyny displayed in this election should be addressed. We will not heal as a country until we do.
We are asking the sponsors of the next two Democratic debates to ensure us that these issues will be addressed. As an added note a question about the "gender card" does not count unless of course you want to also ask about the "race card."
I imagine this is serious, though I am not sure how much rhetorical weight an online petition like this has. Thoughts?
12 comments:
If it draws attention to this much over looked issue, I think it has rhetorical merit.
I think it is an ad hominem in the traditional form just as asking a person, "Have you stopped beating your wife" qualifies.
To bring these topics up is one thing. To switch the burden of proof (fallacy of ignorance) and state, without evidence or criteria, that this is a problem in the media (for one candidate) is another.
Well, centering a debate on the problem is going to solve absolutely nothing. And, it isn't at all Obama's responsibility to address questions about the way Hillary Clinton is being treated by the media.
Now, a debate centerd on women's issues more Generally, and which would likely include questions about the struggles women face in politics, business, etc., would be an excellent idea, and very fitting for the Democratic Party (Obama is still a Democrat, right? And will remain so as long as he gets the nomination, right?)
Those who are interested in sexism in the media as it relates to Hillary Clinton's campaign in particular, though, should call on the candidate herself to speak to this issue. She does not need a debate format to do this. There are microphones and cameras everywhere she goes.
Harrogate has long lamented Democrats' lake of willingnes to stand up for themselves. Which is what Hillary Clinton probably ought to do, rather than playing the Teflon game.
But then, unfortunate but also Reality, it's not like it would do her any good. There is nothing she can do about this. Those who are surprised by it need to get on a prescription drug. This is a big part of why Harrogate called for her not to run in the very beginning.
Once again, Harrogate is proven right, when he would have liked to have been wrong.
Harrogate-
I believe I agree with your first paragraph. The hyperbole in the second paragraph (the end) is quote strong.
I agree with the third and don't with the fourth.
And finally, the fifth is just wrong... reality s only the implication of your terms... read Kenneth Burke... I'll post on it tonight.
Well, the hyperbole about Obama's partisan status was intentional, but as you have made clear, what we have here is a movement that is saying, we are supporting THIS candidate, THIS guy, and that's it. We consider Party a side-issue, we consider worries about continued GOP rule overwrought. We will, in short, have our candidate or we will have none. And whereas Hillary Clinton has stated on multiple occasions that she is on board with the Dem nominee and Demo unity, however that shakes out, Obama feeds his supporters take my ball and go home approach, by hedging on that question.
Let's say Obama gets screwed over, either in the minds of his supporters, or in Reality, by the convention process. Does he then just walk away entirely? What a feast for the Sean Hannity radio hours 'twould be, a nice little sub-narrative about how the Dems don't have a legitimate candidate anyway, and that their base is fractured.
But anyway, back to the main point of the post.
Your claim that my fifth paragraph is just wrong, that's interesting stuff there. Harrogate assumes you are talking in part about the observation that there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about the way she is represented in the media, including the misogynist language.
You can say it is wrong all you like and it will not make it any less the case that if and when she ever makes a strong public statement about "Hillary-bashing", this would only be more fodder to be used--perhaps it would play, for example, into the Hillary Is Shrill narrative, or perhaps the Hillary Plays the Victim Narrative.
This is a game she cannot win. Which makes Harrogate sad, but also shows once again, Harrogate was right when he recommended that she not run, it would be in the best interests of the Party and the Country (Romney plagiarized off Harrogate) for her to not drown potential candidates in a sea of money. To step aside and let good candidates emerge. And to take her Senate role seriously, to fight for good things there (something Obama could try for a change, as well).
Harrogate-
Hillary can win this "Victim" game that she plays as she won it in New Hampshire and it other political victories.
At this point in her political career, Clinton needs the opposition, she needs the hate, she needs the "misogynist language." If you are correct, and this "political realism" exists and is a separate entity (outside of our language), then she is smart to be a "victim" as it gets her votes and gets her political victories. Just as Rush's popularity grew with the Clintons, the Clintons gained strength with the way in which Rush attacked them.
If this is all a political game and this all of our political discourse is just spin, then it benefits her greatly that people treat her poorly. If your political realism is correct, then why did she attack MSNBC? To gain a political advantage and not to complain about a sense of fairness... If she did not get this advantage in New Hampshire, the race would have been different.
Hmmm. The New Hamphire example is interesting. It is almost as though you are joining those who state that her tears garnered her the upset that she got, there.
Perhaps this is true.
Although, recently Harrogate has begun to suppose that there are a lot of voters like himself, who were always pretty lukewarm about her, but who have swung towards her with increasing zeal, in large part out of a strong perception that she is being dealt with unfairly. This has nothing to do with whether she cries, or complains, or says anything about this treatment at all.
You say she needs the hate. Harrogate laments that we (Harrogate still says "we" with respect to the Democratic Party, however much he may wish it were closer to his personal politics) stand on the verge of nominating a candidate whose political messages will matter less, in the discourse, than how she deals with hate. Hate, by the way, grounded in absolutely positively NOTHING.
Simultaneously, this is bad for the country, and it speaks very poorly of the country.
An addendum: Harrogate's swing to Hillary Clinton, ironically wishing all the while she were not in the race, has obviously involved numerous factors, the perception of unfairness being one of the TWO things that put it over the top.
The other has to do with Obama supporters. But there is no point in elaborating on that any further, on this thread.
Harrogate--
You exemplify the exact point I wish to make. The "crying" part is incidental; the exact reason as to why you switched to her did not matter but that for some reason, you thought she was being treated unfair. and you decided to support her.
Maybe you abide by the cultural maxim that you support the underdog in life... you like the little guy who has a hard time getting by; you wanted the Giants over the Patriot; you like the Sabres because they are a small market team trying to fight the Rangers. Regardless of the facts, you believe in this major premise-- supporting the underdog is a good thing. Consequently, you examine details of a controversy and filter the controversy through that premise to reach your conclusion.
And this is how you support Hillary Clinton- you believed she was slighted (the media, the other candidates, the Republicans... whomever, the exact person does not matter) and you support her because of your interpretation of that slight.
The part that I am arguing is that this premise is calculated on the part of the Clinton campaign. The campaign has attempted to establish this premise as being important, especially to democrats, and that people like you will support this and, therefore, her.
Now, remember, we can only determine this "slighting" though our language as we can only access our thoughts through language (or communicative acts) if you prefer. Maybe the tears were calculated; maybe they were not (the audience may not be able to know the true intentions of Clinton because she would be a fool for telling people her intentions). But some will interpret them as being calculated. While some will rush to support her (the high number of women voters in New Hampshire) others will scoff at this attempt.
The same holds true for the fundraising (Clinton's $5 million loan--- she is in need of support against the establishment, hence, Clinton is the underdog; the attacks against Chelsea-- she is an underdog and is under attack by the vicious media). All of these are acts to gain support. And they work for some people.
All of this is to support my proposition that Hillary needs this because it helps her. She could have simply muttered to herself that what is the opinion of a powerless reporter in MSNBC. Instead, her campaign made this into a strategy over how she is treated unfairly in the media so she can help her overall campaign.
Your dislike of Obama if most likely founded in your beliefs about organized religion. You may see religious as a cult and compare Obama's campaign with a form of religion. Impartially, it is far from a cult. Yet, personally to you, it falls under a major premise and you perceive it to be true.
And remember, about the hate. It is a problem that the Democrats are running on an anti-Bush campaign. I have been very critical of that. I will not support a party because they state they are not the party of the president. This is not enough for me...
FYI--
This is not Megs. It is Solon.
Lots of assumptions at work there.
Although in the world of sports, Harrogate's apprecation for the Sabres had to do with people from Buffalo who introduced him to Sabremania; he supported the Redskins during their Overdog Years; he is for the most part a fairweather baseball fan; and most importantly of all by far, Harrogate is a true blue North Carolina Tar Heels fan.
A good example, actually, or the Truth that the underdog thing isn't really where Harrogate is coming from a'tall.
Harrogate does value fairness though. And while we are clearly going back and forth with no possibility of resolution in terms of media criticism, with you denying that there is a problem with how television media represents her, Harrogate has been sickened by what he has witnessed with his own eyes in the coverage of her campaign.
Your effort to frame this nausea a consequence of Hillary Clinton's campaign positioning her as an underdog is grossly, sadly, irresponsibly off the mark. Harrogate is a voracious media consumer--Enough so that he knew what was coming before it ever came, before Hillary Clinton was officially a candidate.
Most unfortunate of all though, is your comment about Harrogate's views on organized religion. It is true that Harrogate does not practice a religion, but your assertion that he holds religion in contempt reflects, among other things, how little we actually know about one another. Certainly Harrogate robustly attacks what he considers extremism in religion or in any other ideological corner.
The Cult argument has nothing to so with organized religion, by the way. It has to do with the Messianic tenor that the Obama campaign has increasingly assumed. For the most Part Harrogate blames this less on the candidate than on the supporters, although Obama has encouraged it.
And again, though this never seems to penetrate in our discussions, the hatred for the GOP (unlike for Hillary Clinton) is well earned. The foreign policy, the economic policy, each have wrought sad consequences, to put it mildly.
You can keep trying to make it about Bush, as though BDS were real, but it will never change their actions when they controlled all thre branches of government, and what they will do on retaining the White House.
Post a Comment