tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post2506368548550612617..comments2024-03-28T00:01:43.037-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: 'I'd Do -Anything- For a Campaign Contribution'Grimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-253121123084672692017-12-13T17:08:25.606-05:002017-12-13T17:08:25.606-05:00I suppose that the standard wouldn't necessari...I suppose that the standard wouldn't necessarily imply an unprecedented degree of rudeness, if we also stopped insulting men. But the culture doesn't seem inclined to consider that possibility at all.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-3172996454753114692017-12-13T11:19:16.897-05:002017-12-13T11:19:16.897-05:00No, women don't "need special protections...No, women don't "need special protections to craft a practical equality." We never did. I'm so old I can remember at least one piece about women in the workplace that argued male supervisors who went out of their way to caution and cushion their female employees were actually undermining the women's self-confidence as well as making them appear "less than" to their male co-workers. <br /><br />To me, the rule is simple: Insult women the same way you insult men and there's no problem. (And, yes, that probably does represent a new low in a definition of civil society.) Trump's tweet seems to me to satisfy that rule.<br /><br />It is interesting that Warren focused on the "slut" aspect rather than on the overall honor aspect. That is, she seems to be arguing that Gillibrand would not perform sexual acts in exchange for campaign contributions rather than arguing Gillibrand has general principles that she would not compromise in order to raise money.<br /><br />If I may be a bit pedantic: "slut" doesn't necessarily imply "prostitute". It more commonly implies a woman who has sex often and indiscriminately regardless of whether an exchange of money/goods is involved. So even if Trump intended a sexual connotation, Warren's use of "slut" was incorrect. Elisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594477709835944165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-79815573753332711582017-12-12T21:43:11.259-05:002017-12-12T21:43:11.259-05:00I would not conclude that Warren actually thinks t...<i>I would not conclude that Warren actually thinks the sexualised interpretation is true.</i><br /><br />Of course she thinks that interpretation is true. She's a Progressive-Democrat. They don't lie. Mm, mm.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38651754903661543602017-12-12T20:41:45.006-05:002017-12-12T20:41:45.006-05:00I would not conclude that Warren actually thinks t...I would not conclude that Warren actually thinks the sexualised interpretation is true. All that matters is that she can make it kindasortamaybe plausible that it might be true. The old line of "You claimed your opponent had sex with a pig. You can't prove that!" "I don't want to prove it. I want him to deny it."Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-41625491871413136952017-12-12T20:15:16.633-05:002017-12-12T20:15:16.633-05:00Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Jew thing is barking...Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Jew thing is barking up the wrong tree again. Trump does have Jewish grandchildren, I guess. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-35309932954221254342017-12-12T19:00:35.101-05:002017-12-12T19:00:35.101-05:00You do not acknowledge the Elephant in the room.
...You do not acknowledge the Elephant in the room. <br />First most of these men were "Democrats"<br />Second, most of "Democrat" men who were penalized were Jewish. <br /><br />Thus this is problem of Democrats who are Jews. <br /><br />and the rest of us will not accept new rules being drawn up Feminist. Period. <br /><br />Let the Democrats make rules for Democrats, but leave the rest of us out of their asswipery. <br /><br />- MississippiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-37682388211605082252017-12-12T16:31:37.284-05:002017-12-12T16:31:37.284-05:00That, though, raises the issue of whether women ne...<i>That, though, raises the issue of whether women need special protections in order to engage public life....</i><br /><br />As a judge of sorts said not so long ago, "the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating." No, women don't need special protection. It would help, though, if both sides of a certain question didn't insist on infantilizing women and insisting, as Woodrow Wilson did about blacks, that women would benefit from special treatment.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.com