Elton John Bashes Misogynists For Not Supporting Clinton

[Shadowdweller]

Not sure if all the motives include misogyny but women are certainly not immune to it.

Perhaps not, but one might reasonably expect a somewhat lower incidence. As likewise it might reasonably suggest other motivation if comparable numbers of women were also bashing Hillary.

But just as some people are still racist, to claim none are misogynists or that no liberals have anti-'female as boss' biases is unrealistic.

Indeed, so. And likewise the claim that there are no misandrists amongst liberals would be similarly unrealistic. But if you recall, however, your statements were rather more excessive:

It is very clear in particular among many of the newscasters and of all places, the liberal talk show hosts.

...and should be held to a correspondingly excessive standard of proof. No doubt, if misogyny is as you claim "very clear amongst newscasters and liberal talk show hosts", you could actually point out something concrete?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would be very interested to know a single instant that someone from the Obama camp came even close to implying that Clinton would not make a good president because of her sex or some reason that most people could easily see is code for sex; or even that she could not get elected because of her sex. Now contrast this with Clinton's campaign where they have repeatedly questioned Obama's educability because of his race.

Huh? Clinton said Obama's race meant he was less educated?

 

[Pardalis]

Are you trying to say that because I am a man, that my opinion on the matter in question is so bias as to render it invalid?

Maybe we need special glasses to see it.

BTW Skeptigirl, nobody said there was no mysoginy, there may be some, and not at the level you are suggesting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lurker and Fuelair:

I think you are both right. I agree THE MEDIA (male or female) is Obama bias. I think it is a combination of his newness, his charm and charisma, and their dislike of Hillary. Many in the media will say a little of it is pay back for the approach she and her campaign have had towards the media...I dunno, as I am not with the media.

I agree, I DO NOT THINK it is woman hating either, it is simply HILLARY HATING.

TAM

It's hard to hide your feelings once you get caught laughing at Tom DeLay joking about "nothing worse than a woman know it all". The discussion was all Democrat bashing, but the "know it all" comment was specific to Hilary and initiated by Matthew's comments on the results of a focus group. The focus group results also suggests more general misogyny.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps not, but one might reasonably expect a somewhat lower incidence. As likewise it might reasonably suggest other motivation if comparable numbers of women were also bashing Hillary.


Indeed, so. And likewise the claim that there are no misandrists amongst liberals would be similarly unrealistic. But if you recall, however, your statements were rather more excessive:


...and should be held to a correspondingly excessive standard of proof. No doubt, if misogyny is as you claim "very clear amongst newscasters and liberal talk show hosts", you could actually point out something concrete?

There is a lower incidence among women. Where do you get the idea I said there wasn't?

Have you seen the studies of black children judging other black children as bad and white children as good?

Here's one example, there were other studies that confirmed this asking kids to say things about other kids in pictures they were shown.

What Dolls Can Tell Us About Race in America

My point is, sadly, there are plenty of women who don't realize the bias they themselves have about women. And these biases are insidious and subtle. There are easily found if you look for them and easily missed if you are not aware of how they are manifest.

 

[Pardalis]

It's hard to hide your feelings once you get caught laughing at Tom DeLay joking about "nothing worse than a woman know it all". The discussion was all Democrat bashing, but the "know it all" comment was specific to Hilary and initiated by Matthew's comments on the results of a focus group. The focus group results also suggests more general misogyny.

That's it? A joking comment off the air?

Do you have a link to the focus group?

 

[T.A.M.]

just as there are some people in the media who dislike Obama attempting to be president, and have racism as the impetus (though they would be afraid to admit it), there are media who are misogynistic...no doubt.

Is misogyny more rampant than overt racism? Yup, no doubt, but I think one needs to put it in perspective. The VAST MAJORITY of people favoring Obama or McCain are NOT Misogynistic, just as the majority of people favoring Hillary or McCain are NOT racist.

TAM

 

[Shadowdweller]

It's hard to hide your feelings once you get caught laughing at Tom DeLay joking about "nothing worse than a woman know it all".

Maybe I'm missing something. I mean, there does appear to be some sort of minor cut or flicker in that clip after the "nothing worse than a woman know it all" comment...but even with the volume turned up I can't seem to hear Matthews laughing there.

Or are we supposed to assume that Matthews (who I actually have to agree probably is guilty of some degree of misogyny based on other experience) is guilty here merely as a result of being present when Delay made that odious comment?

(Insignificant quibble: I realize that the video was probably not directly aimed at me, but in light of your own previous statements...since when is Chris "How-will-the-posture-of-his-left-eyebrow-hurt-this-campaign" Matthews either a newscaster or liberal talk show host?
)

There is a lower incidence among women. Where do you get the idea I said there wasn't?

And where did you get the idea that I said that you said there wasn't? I just happen to think that the point is material when analyzing the situation.

My point is, sadly, there are plenty of women who don't realize the bias they themselves have about women. And these biases are insidious and subtle. There are easily found if you look for them and easily missed if you are not aware of how they are manifest.

All well and good. It does not, however, excuse the as of yet unsatisfied burden of proof from your claim.

 

[Whiplash]

Are you trying to say that because I am a man, that my opinion on the matter in question is so bias as to render it invalid?

I do think this can go both ways. I think that men can absolutely be blind to their own faults in this regard. But I also think that women can be too quick to see these faults where they don't exist. Personally, I lean towards Skeptigirl being a little too defensive and seeing it where it doesn't exist in this particular case.

 

[Pardalis]

Personally, I lean towards Skeptigirl being a little too defensive and seeing it where it doesn't exist in this particular case.

I agree, it's like the example she gave (the only one so far) of the joke made off the air (not a funny joke, granted, but nothing to get all upset about)... She's completely blowing it out of proportions.

 

[fuelair]

There is a lower incidence among women. Where do you get the idea I said there wasn't?

Have you seen the studies of black children judging other black children as bad and white children as good?

Here's one example, there were other studies that confirmed this asking kids to say things about other kids in pictures they were shown.

What Dolls Can Tell Us About Race in America

My point is, sadly, there are plenty of women who don't realize the bias they themselves have about women. And these biases are insidious and subtle. There are easily found if you look for them and easily missed if you are not aware of how they are manifest.

This is the film the article is about. For those who dislike guns I apologize for the following but I do not even watch this anymore because I can't make those little girls feel better about themselves and I just feel like I want to find who makes them feel that way and shoot them.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1091431409617440489

 

[Cicero]

My point is, sadly, there are plenty of women who don't realize the bias they themselves have about women. And these biases are insidious and subtle. There are easily found if you look for them and easily missed if you are not aware of how they are manifest.

Women are oblivious to their own gender bias? Since when? Who better than women would be cognizant of their own limitations and what makes you think women with discriminating tastes regarding their own sex are self-loathing?

Even gloria Steinem recognized she needed Mort Zuckerman to get MS Magazine off the ground. Mort gave her $700.000. She inveigled a man to save her from bankruptcy. What could be a better example of a women being simultaneously cognizant of her limitations and advantages?

 

[Elizabeth I]

As a woman in "Hillary's demographic" <<gag me with several spoons!>>, I have to ask: what is misogynistic about saying, "I do not want THIS woman to be President"?

 

[T.A.M.]

exactly. Thank you for that response Elizabeth.

Don't ask me why, but I find Condi Rice, despite her short comings, to be incredibly strong, powerful, intelligent, and I think has many characteristics of a good leader. I also think when she is allowed to shine, shows charisma.

I find most of the same in Hillary, but I DO NOT find her charismatic.

Plus there is something else. Where as I find Condi, and many other female politicians, powerful, yet not exuding a "maternal school marm" persona, I find Hillary oozes it...and it is this, perhaps above all else, that makes me dislike her so.

I have always said, from my pov, it is a gut response that makes me not like her.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I think an easier way to see it my way, is like this...

Someone famous once said that the sign of a true leader is someone who you follow because YOU WANT TO, not because they TELL YOU TO.

TAM

 

[Upchurch]

I support Obama over Clinton for the Democratic nomination. However, if I had my way, we'd have Elizabeth Dole* over McCain in a heartbeat. Does that mean I'm misogynistic?



* Well, at least Dole circa 2000. I haven't really kept up with her career, but I thought her almost run back then would have been a good thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's it? A joking comment off the air?

Do you have a link to the focus group?

Are you trying to claim that conversation was not revealing about Mathew's true feelings about women in power? How much evidence would you consider convincing?

In fairness to Mathhews, in between slips back into Hilary bashing, he has gone well out of his way to avoid charges of personal bias.

I'm not sure what to say to you and TAM not recognizing the clear bias expressed against women if you refuse to recognize it and claim it is women being overly sensitive. Acting like any guy who flirts with you at work is sexually harassing you is being oversensitive. Noticing the typical expressions of subconscious misogyny like statements that assertive women are, "female dogs in heat" (aka a word that rhymes with witch), and, "no one likes a woman know-it-all" (that wasn't "no one likes a know-it-all", it was, "no one likes a woman know-it-all"), is not being overly sensitive. That crap is deeply held subconscious bias. There is clearly a double standard comparing assertive women -> bad, to assertive men -> good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I support Obama over Clinton for the Democratic nomination. However, if I had my way, we'd have Elizabeth Dole* over McCain in a heartbeat. Does that mean I'm misogynistic?

Of course there are many people who prefer Obama to Clinton for many none misogynistic reasons. And a lot of the media bashing Clinton is the same as the ridiculous amount of Bill Clinton bashing and has little or nothing to do with misogyny. But together, subtle bias against assertive and/or powerful women and the media habit of Clinton bashing has been over the top in this campaign. It is very hard to tell if it reflects the public view or drives the public view. I think it drives it.

It wouldn't matter if the public chose a President based on actual qualifications. My concern is getting another President based on image or not getting a good President because of an undeserved media attitude that colors perception in a way that does not reflect the facts. That is the danger and we've had 7 years of an incompetent corrupt President in a large part because the public relies on the unreliable news commodity as a source of information. That isn't to compare Bush and Obama, they are not comparable. But it is frustrating to see people influenced by a bunch of really poor news sources in a Presidential election campaign.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

just as there are some people in the media who dislike Obama attempting to be president, and have racism as the impetus (though they would be afraid to admit it), there are media who are misogynistic...no doubt.

Is misogyny more rampant than overt racism? Yup, no doubt, but I think one needs to put it in perspective. The VAST MAJORITY of people favoring Obama or McCain are NOT Misogynistic, just as the majority of people favoring Hillary or McCain are NOT racist.

TAM

It is hard to judge the bias especially from my corner of the country, not sure where you are, Pard is in Canada. What I see is Faux News being blatantly anti-Clinton/ anti-Obama/ and pro-McCain. The Daily Show had a great piece on it the other night. That would be tolerable but because of ratings and because the news is primarily a commodity, not primarily an information source, the other mainstream news broadcasters have been putting on more and more Faux look-alike programs and pieces. And that includes the same crap.

It is especially disturbing to see the candidate you support being continually dissed over trivial things. If I favored Obama over Clinton, it would not be so irritating. But wait until it is McCain v the Democrat. If you think it is fine now, you may not think it is so fine when it continues on this same theme past the Convention.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Of course there are many people who prefer Obama to Clinton for many none misogynistic reasons.

But together, subtle bias against assertive and/or powerful women and the media habit of Clinton bashing has been over the top in this campaign. It is very hard to tell if it reflects the public view or drives the public view. I think it drives it.

It wouldn't matter if the public chose a President based on actual qualifications. My concern is getting another President based on image or not getting a good President because of an undeserved media attitude that colors perception in a way that does not reflect the facts. That is the danger and we've had 7 years of an incompetent corrupt President in a large part because the public relies on the unreliable news commodity as a source of information. That isn't to compare Bush and Obama, they are not comparable. But it is frustrating to see people influenced by a bunch of really poor news sources in a Presidential election campaign.

Care to share your outrage over Condi Rice getting bashed now and again?

SG, has it occurred to you that having a vagina is not a guarantor of virtue, just as having a penis isn't a guarantor of virtue?

We now have you, who told us you saw Reagan's foul policies in El Salvador in the late 1970's (DOH!) and Hillary telling us about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. (DOH!)

Does that mean that all women tell tall tales for a political purpose?

Supporting Hillary because she is a woman is hardly a compliment to your alleged political acuity. It is gratifying to see that you accept that there are possible reasons to support a different Dem than she.

The path to wisdom begins with a single step.

FWIW, the avalanche of the chickens*&^ complaints about the various candidates irritates me as well. All a smoke screen.

Issues for fifty, Alex.

Then again, why vote for any of the Three Stooges?

Shemp for President, 2008!​

Why the hell not?

DR