“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.”
—- President Obama, introducing California’s attorney general (and a possible future gubernatorial candidate) Kamala Harris, at a party fundraiser in Atherton, a wealthy suburb of San Francisco
Hey, she IS hot! I’d love to see HER shake her pom-poms! What is it she does again?
You see, all you nay-sayers, another reason why it is inappropriate and unethical for a prosecutor to prominently display herself in the role of unadulterated male eye candy is that it reinforces this kind of subtle (well, not so subtle, really), insidious marginalization of female professionals that occurs daily in offices and places of business all over America. I have taught this in sexual harassment seminars for decades: when a male boss, manager, or superior references a woman’s attractiveness, beauty, or allure in a public settling, it relegates her and all women in that organization to second-class status, and reinforces the glass ceiling. Women who are the target of this sexist, if often innocently intended, practice are usually lulled by the flattery into dismissing such incidents. That has to change. They must register their objections to the speaker for their own sake and that of generations of women to come.
What Obama did was even worse. Like all Presidents have before him, he sets cultural standards by his conduct, and is always a role model. And, as we all know, the Democratic Party, which deems William Jefferson Clinton as fit to be featured prominently at its National Convention, is the “party of women.” Publicly inking an attorney general’s virtues to her appearance, something that would never, never, never be done to a man, must be okay, right? Since the various women’s organizations that are Democratic allies typically show little integrity in such situations, they will issue none of the outraged protests that they would surely have done if Mitt Romney of President Bush had said something similarly insensitive and damaging. Thenews media, of course, which Mark Levin cleverly described recently as “Praetorian” (good one, Mark!), similarly is unlikely to find any serious fault with their hero. Let’s see if Mika and Rachel Maddow rush to Obama’s defense this time.
The President’s sexist comment significantly undermines efforts to eliminate gender bias in the workplace far more than the gaffes of any conservative.
_________________________
Facts: Washington Post
Graphic: Daily Beast
Ethics Alarms 
Yeah it’s inappropriate to comment on the physical attractiveness of an employee… You could say “She’s a very well dressed woman” you can’t say “She is a Looker! Did you see that nose?”
Like all things, life isn’t fair, however… President Obama has had tremendous support of Women voters, especially younger demographics, so you won’t hear them complaining about this. Being liked is 80% of the battle, a lesson Republicans are slow to learn.
Sorry JJ—I have several issues with this comment, because it tells me that you miss the point.
1. It isn’t inappropriate, it is materially, demonstrably harmful. Don’t make this a political correctness issue, because it isn’t.
2. The same kind of comment does not affect men similarly. Men do not have to fight to be regarded as equals in male-dominated environments.
3. “Like all things, life isn’t fair, however” is a cultural shrug. “Well, what are you going to do, boys will be boys!” Bullshit. This is wrong, and has to stop, and women should have the integrity and common sense to stop it. It is not a partisan matter in any way.
4. You’re talking politics. This is ethics.
I think JJ’s point cuts to the heart of the matter. It doesn’t matter if it is right or ethical. It only matters if you can get away with it. As he pointed out, the Democrats have learned this lesson well and taken it to heart.
Sorry – “Men do not have to fight to be regarded as equals in male-dominated environments”? I’m pretty sure that male-dominated environments are typically DEFINED as men fighting to be regarded as equals. The masculine, top-down managment style that makes up the vast majority of our society is best characterized as EVERYONE fighting EVERYONE for power, prestige, respect, and authority. Some women do very, very well in that environment. Others don’t. Some men do very, very well in that environment – other’s don’t. I’ve noticed that the women who do manage to break the glass ceiling tend to rocket straight to the top once they pass it – and something tells me the drive and will it took for them to break it is a big part of that.
Different kind of fighting, different meaning of “equals.” And I’m pretty sure you know that as well as I do.
Aaron, I do not presume to fully understand the kind of fighting men engage in at the workplace in order to jockey for power, prestige, respect, and authority, so please do not think that you fully understand the plight of a woman in a male dominated workplace.
But to help you it goes something like this, if you are attractive, a lot of men want to sexualize you and have no problem doing so privately and/or publically. As our president, and former president have demonstrated.
My friends call me “Jack.” People who don’t know me call me “Aaron”….
I don’t think Heather knows how to work a “reply” button… Stands to reason, though – not many kitchens have one…
Why would even add such a baffoonish comment to a conversation where actual ideas are being discussed. Lowest common denominator. I’m a math teacher, so I feel the need to tell you look that up if you don’t know what it actually means.
Oh typos. Sorry Jack. I’m a slow learner.
Sneaky.
So how do you propose forcing women to have integrity and common sense?
Are you aware that if voters reward unethical behavior by elected officials, you can expect more unethical behavior from elected officials?
“You have to be careful to, first of all, say he is brilliant and he is dedicated and he is tough, and he is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. He also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.”
Who could say this with impunity? Probably just a Dem about another Dem, I’m guessing.
Yeah, if President Romney had said this, he’d be pilloried in the press.
Does anybody remember the brouhaha, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments when Mitt Romney had the unmitigated temerity to declare that he was sent ‘binders full of women’ for high-level state positions in Massachusetts when he was governor? I wonder if the same professional complainers will muster any objection to the President’s comments.
You don’t REALLY wonder, do you?
Nope. These are the same people rallying behind President Clinton was his peccadilloes were shrugged off as ‘Yeah . . . he shouldna oughtna be doin’ such a thing but he’s-a our guy so we gots ta s’pport him’. I wonder if Rachel Maddow will go as nuts as she did when Senator Barbara Boxer was dismissed as irrelevant by Sen. Ted Cruz a few weeks ago on the gun control debate.
Erm . . . Um . . . That should read ” . . . rallying behind President Clinton when his . . . ” Sorry for the typo. My keyboard and my brain are conspiring against me!!! i hang my laptop in shame!
jvb
I don’t watch TV, but I read about this issue first on a major feminist blog, Shakesville, which harshly condemned the President’s remarks. Amanda Marcotte, arguably the biggest voice in the feminist blogosphere, condemned the remarks on Slate. They were far from the only ones – I’ve seen a lot of feminists criticizing Obama’s remark (even I posted about it on my little blog), as well as prominent lefty/feminist journalists like Jonathan Chait and Joan Walsh. (Links available on request. I find that often my posts here wind up in moderation if I include more than one link in my comment, which is why I hesitate to include links.)
It seems likely that Obama’s apology was in response to the groundswell of criticism, and that criticism mostly came from the left, not the right. (On the right, many people defended Obama’s sexist remark, including a whole bunch of folks on Fox, and the IWF, which is the GOP’s mouthpiece on women’s issues.)
So yes, many of the same people who – rightly – criticized Romney’s “binder” claims (and many of his more substantive policy failures, from a feminist perspective), have also criticized Obama’s remarks.
The binder comments were nothing at all, absolutely a trumped up offense–even mentioning that and this in the same category is a whitewash, Barry. I guarantee you, in the workplace, Obama’s comment would raise a red flag and probably an admonition. The binder comment? Dismissed as what it was—awkward phrasing in an innocent context.
Yes, I was pleased that the feminist groups flagged it. It’s not a “gotcha”, you know, which is all Romney’s gaffe was. It’s an important workplace problem that Obama duplicated.
If someone heard any genuine criticism from MSNBC, please let me know.
I wasn’t the one who brought it up; Johnburger was.
But the binder comments weren’t “nothing” – they were a lie. Romney was claiming credit for initiating a program that he didn’t initiate. Calling a politician on a self-aggrandizing lie is not a “gotcha,” it’s a legitimate criticism. Lots of liberals and feminists pointed out at the time that Romney’s anecdote was not true, and it’s unfair of you to pretend after-the-fact that there was no basis to the criticism other than “this sounds goofy.”
There was also an explosion of people having fun on sites like twitter and tumblr, and I don’t deny that. As far as that goes: cry me a river. Anyone who runs for President has to accept that people are going to make fun of them. Complaining about people making fun of Romney’s goofy phrasing is every bit as ridiculous as complaining that an actor on some goofy TV drama resembles Obama. Presidents (and presidential candidates) are not gods or kings, and they have no right not to be the butt of jokes.
I certainly agree that if Obama was an employee in an ordinary workplace, he should be admonished for his comment. (Indeed, in a way, that’s just what happened here – Obama is the public’s employee, and the public admonished him for his comment.)
I thought we were talking about sexism, which is how Romney’s binder comment was spun. It was obviously BS, and that accusation he deserved. As proof of sexism, however, it was indeed a “gotcha.”
“Women who are the target of this sexist, if often innocently intended, practice are usually lulled by the flattery into dismissing such incidents. That has to change. They must register their objections to the speaker for their own sake and that of generations of women to come.”
As a professional woman, working under a primarily male administration, who often finds herself such a target, I do not think it is always necessary or wise to directly object, especially since the males making such statements do not usually understand the implications and/or consequences of their words. Sometimes it’s prudent to use their words against them in more subtle, discreet ways. You may think this is unethical, as it causes a woman to sink down to an eqaul neanderthal-like level, but I think it’s smart. Men created the game. I think it’s up to women to learn how to play it, and then change it.
Learn how to play it, and then change it.
Wonder how many corrupt people in positions of authority and power started out 20, 30 or 40 years ago saying those exact words?
And how many of those corrupt people in positions of authority and power starting out 20, 30, or 40 years ago were women?
Point?
The point is women are better than men, they are immune to corruption and therefore they can fix the system. Blah blah blah blah blah vomit.
The reason you want to vomit is because you do not understand the argument. I did not say women were immune to corruption. If you think that ‘less likely’ is synonomous with ‘immune’, thn you might want to take a liguistics class.
If you’re tempted to criticize my typos, don’t bother. I see them. I just don’t care enough to correct them for you.
I also never said, nor do I think that women are better than men, especially since I have a young son. You probably think that men are better than women, so when you sense that someone is asserting the opposite you can’t control your bodily functions. I hope you also don’t deficate yourself after blah, blah, blahing.
I don’t think that’s a particularly admirable or ethical attitude. Typos are accidents; internationally uncorrected typos just show a lack of respect for readers here and others in the discussion. I suggest reconsidering that approach. I make a lot of typos, but I also try to fix them.
Duly noted.
There is some research that indicates that women may be less likely to make unethical decisions to succeed. There is no indication that women are less likely to abuse power than men. They just haven’t had as much opportunity, so it seems that way.
True. It’s not a leap in logic to then believe that women would abuse power less than men once they are given it in equal proportions. At least I don’t think it’s a leap.
No, it isn’t a leap, it is a launch towards the damned moon.
Unless women are no longer human, to suggest that – based on their gender alone – they will abuse their power less is foolishness. It places them on a pedestal they have not earned.
Oh right, women haven’t earned the respect they rightfully deserve, just like they did not deserve the right to vote less than one hundred years ago. We had to earn that, too.
Pretty sure I understand your implication quite clearly.
And what percentage of the people in correctional instituions are women? Women are inherently less likely to abuse power, which is precisely why they should work to get it. And my statement does not imply using unethical means to play the game. That’s how you interpreted it. Which says more about you than me.
“Women are inherently less likely to abuse power.
Wow.
“And my statement does not imply using unethical means to play the game. That’s how you interpreted it. Which says more about you than me.”
mmmmkay…
“Women are inherently less likely to abuse power.”
This is where I was reminded of the movie Mean Girls, which I watched at Jack’s urging some months ago.
There is nothing unfair about stereotyping – until you get stereotyped.
That movie is not about women, it is about GIRLS.
Some people have trouble distinguishing between the two though, since they think that once girls physically mature they are also equally emotionally and socially mature.
Funny, society doesn’t seem to have the same problem when it comes to males. Especially since, as they say, ‘boys will be boys’.
Right – “they” don’t stereotype boys.
Heather, you don’t have to keep adding a layer of replies.
Have you even been ON the internet before?
That movie is about power, too, and at least suggests foreshadowings of power abuse by women who are observed while they are girls.
You really think that’s what Tina Fey’s intention was? If you aren’t familiar with Tina Fey, she’s the smart, powerful, female tv executive/movie star who wrote the movie.
You also might want to look up the defintion of ‘satire’.
I didn’t say anything about Tina Fey, and what makes you think I don’t get satire?
Haven’t you noticed yet, this Heather C individual is a compendium of diversions and distractions and unrelated commentary.
I’ve been called worse and in much less elegant language, for what it’s worth. In fact, you recently called me an idiot, which I think is worse. Please keep the personal attacks coming. After all, the internet is anonymous, so your words don’t really matter.
Yes, I referred to you as an idiot, because your behavior to that point most matched the definition of idiot.
However, based on your most recent nonsense and vitriol, you’ve been demoted to classless shrew.
This is a forum to rational discussion. When you know how to join in, you’ll get a response. Until then, continue with your antics with no audience.
I’m not sure yet what to make out of what I’ve noticed so far of Heather C. But out of high respect for you, Tex, I accept your use of “compendium,” in lieu of “coagulum.”
Otherwise, I want to stay out of the crossfire between you two.
Indeed.
I like your analogy, and by its extension, I’d say this “Heather C” came here with an introductory salvo that had me convinced she was a serious individual. However, after that initial engagement was shot down, instead of continuing the discussion, she became more like a random fighter grabbing ahold of anything to shoot in any direction at any target, sometimes throwing rocks.
So I’d hate for you to get caught in the crossfire also. But I’m not really shooting back, just letting her demonstrate her own lack of civility and class and her own irrational behavior.
Because I don’t think you don’t understand the intention of the movie. But art is open to interpretation, so keep interpreting it however you see fit, just please don’t share it with young, impressionable minds.
Um. I feel the need to point out that you, Texas Faggot 2004 keep responding. You refuse to stop. So by definition, you are an auidence, making your statement false. (There is no need to say patently false. Something is either true or false. Or absurd. There’s no need to patent the description).
And why do you continue to engage with someone who you think is an idiot? I know why I’m doing it. Because it’s hilarious. And a spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down.
Heather, for what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever been uncivil to you in any way; but I really hate the use of the word “faggot,” and wish you’d stop it.
Thanks for your consideration.
Thanks Barry…I’m unable to be as diligent a moderator as usual, temporarily, but this whole threat has taken a turn to the uncivil and needlessly nasty. Please cool it.
Also, how can you not mention Tina Fey when discussing Mean Girls?
Heather, I would welcome your sharing of your understanding of the movie. I watched it at Jack’s suggestion…I believe, that was after he and I discussed L. Lohan and the course of her life. (Tsk-tsk! Gossip!)
I swear on a stack of blogosphere pages, I hit the page at the following link after searching with the randomness of typing “Lohan:”
http://rhetoricandpopculture.com/2011/03/06/mean-girls-analysis-2/
I only skimmed the page after first viewing it, so I have no comments about whatever its author actually meant to say. There are some references or allusions to power, or power-tripping. But I don’t care, really. I’d rather be beekeeping; it’s a (literally) sweet way for a man to learn and apply ethics while experiencing a relationship (many, many relationships, actually) that is (are) in constant (and, potentially at least, constantly constructive) tension, due to “power issues.” At this stage in my life, the only things that I feel especially motivated to get into, I get into so I can have access to as many beautiful chicks as possible.
Finally, some refreshing honesty. Maybe we could be friends after all.
Considering how little power the Internet gives this ‘Heather C’ and how wildly she has abused it in this forum, is submit she is a statistic in the column that debunks her own assertion of ‘women are less likely to abuse power’
I am wildly abusing the little power this forum allows me? What exactly about my behavior is wild? And what power am I wielding? The power of offering people the opportunity to read an opinion that differs from the popular one?
You should probably stop me before someone agrees with me. But then you’d just dismiss them as an idiot.
Have you studied statistics? At Texas A and M I presume?
I’m used to being dismissed. So please keep doing it. After all, the only reason I even exist is to sit on the sideline until the team needs a cheerleader.
Well, it hasn’t happened yet, lady, and I suspect it will be a long time coming before it does.
Do ya ever wonder why no one from work hangs out with you very often?
Not really. But I do wonder why someone who doesn’t actually know me would intentionally write words in a manner to mislead people into thinking that you do. I also wonder why someone that actually knew me would hide behind a computer screen if they had something they wanted to say to me.
My guess would be because they would like to avoid your bitching at work for the next 3 months and the inevitable lawsuit you’d file over the harrassment and whatever other buzzword you could think of…
Just a guess.
To use a standard TGT analogous replacement:
“White people are inherently less likely to abuse power.”
Anything wrong with that comment?
Do you also question the validity of the following statements:
1) The fastest man in the world will always be faster than the fastest woman in the world.
2) The strongest man in the world will always be stronger than the strongest woman in the world.
There are inherent differences between men and women. And if you do not have the ability to birth another human being into this world, then it becomes more difficult to understand that these differences do not always swing in mens’ favor.
(i’m not addressing your question, as you do not understand that your statement is not analagous to mine)
Here’s where your objection falls flat on its face:
You just made physical comparisons. We certainly all know those differences exist.
Comparing corruptability of the genders is a moral or ethical comparison. Sorry, you’ve got no leg to stand on for your assertion.
Well, we will just have to put an equal number of women and men in positions of power and see what happens. I know where I would place my bet. But I hope you’re not a gambler.
These seemingly insignificant physical difference, lead to more meaningful differences. Personally, I actually have two legs to stand on.
Patently absurd statement.
“Gosh, if only the world were exactly as I envisioned it, it would turn out exactly as I envision it!”
Except your ‘vision’ is based on a sexist and false assertion.
You think that statement is so absurd that I could patent it?! Please leave the number and/or email of someone capable of getting that done. Doubtful you have the credentials for that.
Ok, you are just an idiot.
Albeit an amusing one, you are still an idiot.
There’s a slew of people that disagree with you, but maybe they’re just idiots too.
Idiocy in this case refers to your pattern of discourse, not your disagreement with me.
Why are you apologizing? What exactly are you sorry for? My stupidity? No apology necessary. My stupidity is not your fault.
You think that you calling me an idiot has NOTHING to do with the fact that I don’t agree with you? I’m sure this is an isolated incident and you deeply respect all individuals, male or female, regardless of if they agree with you. You probably go around calling them genuises. But that’s just a hypothesis.
You actually going to answer the question I posed to you? The analogy of white people in charge?
No.
You made two interesting points here. First is the idea that you have to play by the rules first in order to change the system second. I tend to agree to a point, it’s often easier to change a system from the inside than it is to change a system from the outside.
To your second point about innate male/female differences. I think there is more here than is usually acknowledged, it’s not all physical differences. There was a fascinating article in the Atlantic on the importance of eunuchs in the creation and maintenance of empires. The author was highlighting the role of the lack of testosterone as being of primary importance. Not sure that I see men and woman differing much in their ability to become corrupt, but there are many cognitive differences generally between men and woman.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/the-modern-female-eunuch/274522/
As someone who’s studied the issue of the effects of power on people’s conduct (albeit more focusing on situations other than correctional institutions), I call bullshit.
Support your assertions — provide us with real evidence — or retract. Those are your only real options.
“Those are your only real options.”
That statement is false. Are you going to come to my house leading an angry, torch weilding mob if I don’t provide real evidence or retract my assertions? Doubtful.
I’ll exercise a third option.
No, she chooses the “third option”. The one that does not involve rational discourse.
texagg04 (which I assume means Texas Faggot 2004, unless you say otherwise), please tell me what you know about rational numbers. Unless you understand those, there’s no way you fully understand what rational discourse is.
Wow. That pretty well clears up any other questions I had about your mindset and ability to handle life in general.
That clears up every single question you could possibly have about me? Approximately what percentage of your day do you devote to thinking?
What’s unreasonable about assuming texagg04 means Texas Faggot 2004? If you don’t want people to misinterpet your screen name, then you should probably change it.
You see, I still think there’s hope for you, Texas Faggot 2004. Because if we don’t have hope, then what do we have?
Wait, is thinking your screen name means Texas Faggot 2004 an insult? Why? Please expound.
First off, again, layering multiple replies makes you look like a complete moron. Since you teach children, I’m going to hope that you aren’t actually this dumb. Type your WHOLE reply in ONE field, not 4 different ones.
Second, the fact that YOUR mind went there tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about you – it informs us as to your entire worldview.
You are one of those types of people who is forever offended by something, somewhere. You seek offense. This is proven by the fact that you automatically assumed that Tex was referencing a gay slur.
You are of no use what-so-ever.
Too true. And because I couldn’t have said it better – I link:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/teenage-girl-blossoming-into-beautiful-object,31061/
Ulrike – The Onion is great: “All the news that’s fit to mock” should be its byline.
I like Kevin Turner’s comments: “I grew up with Ashley and never thought much of her before, but over the last year or so, I really started to see her for the beautiful little piece of equipment she is,” said Turner, expressing enthusiasm for how the teen had evolved into a dazzling sexual apparatus. “I’m thinking of asking that mere receptacle to prom.”
Ouch!!!!
jvb
(i think i got around to a point – although i’m getting emotional – typical of a woman i know, so perhaps i’ll come back later)
Oh boy, I can hardly wait…
Don’t you have better things to do than wait for a complete stranger to reply to a thoughtless comment on the internet?
No, not really. You’re kind of a hobby for me now. That tends to happen with idiots on the interwebs.
Maybe you should explore the world at large, instead of making me your hobby. It sounds unhealthy. And creepy.
Yeah, but way easier. Besides, everyone should have – at some point in their life – a dull creature as a pet.
For most folks, that’s a dog who is a bit slow. For me, I think it shall be you…
Pingback: President Obama Routinely Calls Important, Accomplished Men ‘Good-Looking’ | Sunset Daily
Nice, surprisingly clear-sighted commentary from Ruben Navarette: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/opinion/navarrette-obama-comment/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I completely agree with you on this one, Jack. This is coming from a Commander in Chief at the head of a military dealing with a HUGE sexual harassment and sexual assault problem. He has an obligation to set the example for his service members on how to treat women in the workplace – by treating them no differently then he would a man. The commanders and equal opportunity folks give training on this very thing. I do not think he meant any harm, but he did harm. He crossed the line. I lived and worked in a “man’s environment” in the military and when men commented on my attractiveness in relation to my position calling me “The prettiest Lieutenant” it marginalized me and if I allowed the flattery it set up a poor command climate for all of my female soldiers. No man in uniform would ever say that about a male soldier – and if a woman did that she’d be called out for it in a heart beat. We can’t have double standards and expect equal respect for equal work if we allow men to box us up as a gift to their eyes. I also agree that women must object to this kind of treatment. There is a way to do this with respect and decorum. No reason to get ugly – just call it like it is by saying something like , “I assume you didn’t mean to objectify me, but I’m no more your sweetheart than John, Sir. And I surely hope the next compliment you give me is about the work I’m doing not how I Iook doing it.” Sexism has to be stamped out from both sides.
This article highlights what I’m talking about:
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/general-fired-over-alcohol-sex-charges-officials-said-1.215158
“The issue has raised the ire of Congress, where lawmakers have complained that military and defense leaders have not done enough to combat sexual assault and harassment in the ranks.”
As the military leader, the President has a responsibility to lead by example here.
Interesting also that the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives high ranking officers the power to dismiss cases. That is another story.
What surprised me are reports that SecDef could not overrule high ranking officers’ decisions to dismiss cases.
Jack, I do not agree wholeheartedly with you here: “I have taught this in sexual harassment seminars for decades: when a male boss, manager, or superior references a woman’s attractiveness, beauty, or allure in a public setting, it relegates her and all women in that organization to second-class status, and reinforces the glass ceiling.”
There is, and can be, context wherein appearance-praise, public or private, is “discrimination” without the relegation (or degradation) you caution against in your teaching.
Of the President’s remarks about AG Harris, Roxanne Jones said, “In my book, when a person –man or woman – acknowledges someone’s intellect and professionalism and then gives a lighthearted nod to her beauty, it’s not sexist. It’s just a compliment.” I agree.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/opinion/jones-obama-comment/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Different circumstances or context, same thing: When TV sportscaster Brent Musburger said, “You quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women. What a beautiful woman,” Roxanne Jones might deny this because she might see it differently, for reasons only she could explain, but…it was just a compliment – to more than one person, and not just to one particular woman, as a matter of fact.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/05/opinion/navarrette-obama-comment/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I also do not agree with some things T.Bird has said here. Human relations issues in military units tend to get “equated” lazily or otherwise irresponsibly with similar issues in the (presumably, with the possible exceptions of today’s North Korea and ancient Sparta) larger society the military components serve. I’ll say this much: Equal respect for equal work exists and, wherever it may still be lacking, will continue to progress as far as it naturally can, both inside and outside the military. In the meantime – also regardless of whether inside or outside the military – men are going to cease to “box up women as gifts for their eyes” with the same urgency and sincerity that women are going to cease to box up men as toys for their vaginas.
In my book, any society whose members tie their own stomachs into knots with anxiety, hesitancy, and doubt-first introspection, every time one member publicly and in the most generally positive manner praises another member – be it praise by a superior or peer, be it for outward appearance or other praise-worthy characteristics – is a society beset with pathological pettiness and thereby taking itself backward, not forward.
Nope. It’s not a compliment,it’s a trap. Men are there because they get thing done, but the girls, bless ’em, really brighten up the room, and darned if they aren’t smart too! It’s a way to condescend, and it works.
Oh, it works alright. But only if you accept the condescension. If you are smarter than the patronizer, hilarity can ensure.
Uh-huh. Try that in a corporate boardroom. Women should not have to deal with the problem, whether it can be opposed or not.
Agreed. I’m trying it on your blog and it is not going over very well. So it goes.
It is unlikely that you will ever find me in a corporate boardroom. (I think that really goes without saying though).
Unless I am running the company. But since a few of your loyal readers think I’m an idiot, that’s probably never going to happen.
“It’s not a compliment, it’s a trap.”
Jack that is your confirmation bias showing, and your statement echoes the confirmation bias of pettiness-beset appearance-praise critics. I would like to read your explanation of how Barack Obama’s praise for Kamala Harris “trapped” her. The more I think about it, the more I think, “You’ve got to be kidding.” I would think I was kidding myself, if I was any less sure of myself here. I mean, here I am, defending my least favorite POTUS on the most petty of issues, even using (in effect) the man’s own words that he used in real time: “Come on.”
Of course I agree that there are circumstances and manners of appearance-praise that reflect poor judgment, if nothing else. But too much of the culture has swung too far to the petty and even paranoid side. We aren’t going to get anywhere further along toward fair and equal treatment in the workplace if we aren’t going to recognize that not every instance of appearance-praise in the workplace is grounds for instant presumption of guilt of condescension, intentional degradation, harrassment, intimidation or other hostility, power-usurpation or abuse.
Jack, if you can please post my first attempt at commenting in this hour, not my second attempt, both of which appear to be awaiting moderation. Thanks.
That’s what I did.
That is how it looks, thanks again. I had made some on-screen edits that were in my first attempt to post, but which were not in my second attempt.
First, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, no matter who possesses it. If someone thinks women are different than men in terms of brutality and cruelty, read the accounts of female SS officers in concentration camps. Jack is correct that President Obama’s comment is demeaning. Exactly how does her physical beauty contribute to an understanding of the law? If she were ugly would he say, “she’s the least attractive Attorney General in the nation”? People are not objects for use or otherwise. Merit is based upon integrity, diligence, intelligence, etc., not how someone looks. I get it Jack. Be certain that if President Bush had said this liberal pundits would be apoplectic.
How would the accounts of a small, isloated group of indiviuals under extreme duress during wartime prove your initial statement?
Thank you Jack Marhsall, for letting me sling mud at the mud slingers. My sincere appreciation.
Marshall. (There’s little hope for me).
This thread has deteriorated rather quickly. Very adversarial with little said on either side besides personal attacks. Makes me sad to actually read this thread.
Someone initiated the personal attacks. An individual always launches the personal attack syndrome. The hanger-ons just follow suit. There are plenty of other things in this world to be sad over.
And you fail to take responsibility for your own actions. And then seek to tell me I should not be sad because there are worse things?
You should practice what you preach.
What actions? Do I know you in real life?
What else should I do?
Go back and read. I never told you what you should do. That’s what you did to me. All I did was make a statement.
I would first ask you to think before posting in order to prevent multiple posts. It creates a chain that my phone has trouble allowing me to view.
Your suggestion that there are other things to be sad over allows for only one conclusion and that is my own opinions are wrong and I should believe as you do.
You still will not take responsibility for your own actions. I require an apology from you on behalf of other posters and readers here. You have taken a deragotory term for gays and lesbians and used it to further demean another poster. Until you apologize for this, you will not have another word from me.
You also read between the lines things that were never said. I did not tell you to do anything. I merely stated what Is going on in this thread and the reaction it has had on me. You should follow the golden rule and do not put words into my mouth.
There you go telling me what I should do. AGAIN. You do know there are other definition for the word faggott, no? An how exactly do you intend to get what you require? Hopefully not through your written words, because that’s never going to work for you.
Please explain precisely what I am preaching again. I write so much without thinking that sometimes I forget.
You should complain to Jack about me. He’s probably the only person that will care.
He’s likely the only one who was unaware…
E-mail him and find out.
Why don’t more people read between the lines? That’s where the important stuff is.
You mean like where you called our friend a faggot?
You are Horrifying
Simply Horrifying
Are you building a haiku? We usually require a bit more exposition here than just adjectives. What horrifies you?
Sorry Jack, I didn’t mean you, I meant Heather C. I’m horrified by pretty much everything she wrote in the comments but mostly by the fact that someone who uses lowly language such as “faggot” is a math teacher. It is people like her that make people like me want to home school my children.