11-06-2016, 03:29 AM
Read this, come back , discuss...
Hillary met Satan
Hillary met Satan
|
"Why Men Fear a Female President"
|
11-06-2016, 04:04 AM
rexs wrote: Excellent. Clinton has the strength of ten men to continue unbowed and unbroken through those 30 years.
11-06-2016, 04:35 PM
No. Nice pet theory for a moment's diversion over beers. But it doesn't hold up. The glib dismissal is a bit too much like, there little lady, don't worry your pretty little head about such things. Everything will be ok. When did we go thru the matriarchal power phase?
11-06-2016, 06:17 PM
rexs wrote: The glib dismissal is a bit too much like, there little lady, don't worry your pretty little head about such things. Everything will be ok. When did we go thru the matriarchal power phase? Seriously? You can't think of (for example) one country in Western civilization that touches upon the origin of the United States and had female monarchs? Pre-agrarian societies tend to be egalitarian and cycle through phases of male and female dominance. They weren't permanently matriarchal nor patriarchal. There's no perfectly enduring example of either one.
11-06-2016, 06:19 PM
$tevie wrote: I take offense at that. Can't we just have a reasoned discussion?
11-06-2016, 06:45 PM
I think you were incredibly dismissive of the idea that men are reacting badly to the possibility of a woman President.
It has nothing to do with monarchies because monarchies are inherited and it's obvious if you check that the women in England ascended to the throne after every alternative to maintain the bloodline AND have a male monarch were thwarted by who had boy babies or girl babies. It also has nothing to do with pre-agrarian societies, because you are going back to before there was this entrenched patriarchy that the article is talking about. This is about western civilization as we live in it today. Medusa remains a potent icon at a time when women leaders continue to be viewed skeptically or, at worst, as inhuman. Indeed, almost every influential female figure has been photoshopped with snaky hair: Martha Stewart, Condoleezza Rice, Madonna, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Angela Merkel. (Have a few minutes? Do a Google Image search: Type in a famous woman’s name and the word Medusa.) These businesswomen, politicians, activists, and artists made the same “mistake” that Susan B. Anthony identified when she commented on the lack of women’s voices in 19th-century newspapers: “Women … must echo the sentiment of these men. And if they do not do that, their heads are cut off.” http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment...urce=atlfb The Puritanical discomfort with the “troublesome woman” manifests, in miasmic form, in American culture’s continued policing of women’s voices, figurative and literal: in every panicked discussion of vocal fry and up-speak, in every dismissal of Hillary Clinton’s feminine timbre as “scolding” and “shrill.” It stays with us, too, in the policing of women’s bodies, and clothing choices, and sexual practices. It’s with us every time a woman’s behavior is dismissed as “slutty,” every time her emotions are dismissed as “crazy,” every time a guy suggests that she would be so much more pleasing if she smiled. It is with us every time the man who might become the next president of the United States refers to a woman as a “pig,” or a “dog,” or, when specificity fails, a “disgusting animal.” And every time his comments are met with feverish applause. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment...up/502187/
11-06-2016, 07:26 PM
Quote rexs Quote No. Nice pet theory for a moment's diversion over beers. But it doesn't hold up. Most societies go through phases including matriarchies. We have no instinct prohibiting female leaders. As we become a global society, portions of the population fall out of phase and that's stressful. And add to that... Well, some people are just stupid and easily misled. No gender has a lock on being dumb and violently regressive. This too shall pass. The glib dismissal is a bit too much like, there little lady, don't worry your pretty little head about such things. Everything will be ok. When did we go thru the matriarchal power phase? Seriously? You can't think of (for example) one country in Western civilization that touches upon the origin of the United States and had female monarchs? Pre-agrarian societies tend to be egalitarian and cycle through phases of male and female dominance. They weren't permanently matriarchal nor patriarchal. There's no perfectly enduring example of either one. wrote: Using "Pre-agrarian societies tend to be egalitarian..." doesn't seem bolster your arguement much. Let's talk about the US. Actually you will have to help me out here. I have no idea when it might have been.
11-06-2016, 09:48 PM
$tevie wrote: I was not dismissive. I think that you -- and the story you linked to -- are painting with an over-broad brush. Prejudice against roughly 50% of the population doesn't flatter either side. The topography of my genitalia may inform my opinions. It doesn't define me.
11-06-2016, 11:28 PM
Onamuji wrote: I was not dismissive. I think that you -- and the story you linked to -- are painting with an over-broad brush. Prejudice against roughly 50% of the population doesn't flatter either side. The topography of my genitalia may inform my opinions. It doesn't define me. Headlining with "Men" instead of "some men" is reminiscent of statements like "All government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing." |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)