Elton John Bashes Misogynists For Not Supporting Clinton

[Lurker]

Pard, quit moving the goalposts.

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?

to which you responded (bolding mine to isolate the point)

I wouldn't call it an innocent comment, but it's hardly evidence of anything. Please show me something more convincing than a small comment off the air..

And then skeptigirl kindly linked the supporting evidence of Matthews and his misogyny.

Now you moved the goalposts and said you wanted evidence of Matthews misogyny soley towards Hillary.

 

[Lurker]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh122006.shtml

MATTHEWS (12/19/06): Bob, I know you`re a liberal, but when is a politician like Hillary Clinton or anybody else going to admit they have the "A" word—ambition—and stop with this coy thing about [fluttering eyelids], “I’m so flattered by so much interest?” It’s like a stripteaser saying she’s flattered by the attention. Hillary is running for president. She wants to be president. What`s wrong with saying it?

BOB SOMERBY commenting on Matthews: Wonderful speed! It took the talker exactly 13 seconds to compare the senator to a stripper. Even by his own tawdry standards, that was lightning-quick work.

But then, Matthews has long had a jones about Clinton—about liberal women generally—that just won’t let him go. Just note how many sexist themes he introduced in that one short statement! Clinton is “coy,” he said—and she’s like a “stripteaser.” And she refuses to admit to “ambition!” Meanwhile, when Matthews quoted Clinton saying “I’m so flattered,” he did the kind of mock-female voice that nightclub comics luv doing. (Helpfully, Herbert laughed.) For the record, this tirade was triggered by the fact that Clinton hasn’t yet formally announced that she’s running for the White House. Of course, John McCain hasn’t announced yet either—he has said he’ll make a statement next month, just like Clinton has done—but the talker regards that as perfectly normal. With Clinton, though, it sets off his soul. Something starts to eat at the man.

 

[Pardalis]

Pard, quit moving the goalposts.

to which you responded (bolding mine to isolate the point)

And then skeptigirl kindly linked the supporting evidence of Matthews and his misogyny.

Now you moved the goalposts and said you wanted evidence of Matthews misogyny soley towards Hillary.

The topic of this thread is not Matthews. This is one individual, yes a sexist and misogynistic one, but the topic of this thread is about the Democrat voters as a whole who are alledgedly misogynistic for not supporting Clinton. If this is true, then there would be multiple examples of that, there would be multiple Matthews. I think to focus on one SOB doesn't prove the claim of the OP. That's why I said that it doesn't prove much of anything. It proves that this guy is a sexist, but it doesn't prove the allegation that not voting for Clinton is due to misogyny.

Otherwise it's just an argument from anecdote.

Why is this so hard to understand?

To be more clear, let me correct your last sentence:

you wanted evidence of Matthews misogyny solely towards Hillary.

There, that's what I want.

 

[Lurker]

The topic of this thread is not Matthews. This is one individual, yes a sexist and misogynistic one, but the topic of this thread is about the Democrat voters as a whole who are alledgedly misogynistic for not supporting Clinton. If this is true, then there would be multiple examples of that, there would be multiple Matthews. I think to focus on one SOB doesn't prove the claim of the OP. That's why I said that it doesn't prove much of anything. It proves that this guy is a sexist, but it doesn't prove the allegation that not voting for Clinton is due to misogyny.

Otherwise it's just an argument from anecdote.

Well, as often happens in a thread over a few posts long the exact topic in the OP is not strictly adhered to. A slight variance was made when skeptigirl made a claim, you then asked for evidence of that claim which she then provided. After she provided the evidence, you then wanted to change the parameters of the claim.

Perhaps you had a specific intent when you posted that meant to keep the evidence directly related to misogyny towards Hillary but it was not apparent in the key wording of the interchange.

So, how many SOBs do we need to find to determine that misogyny has some relevence to the political race and Hillary? If we find 5 more, aren't we still arguing from anecdote?

 

[Tailgater]

Paging Maggie Thatcher . . .

....queen mary I.....

 

[Tailgater]

......catherine the great.......

 

[Hokulele]

Hok, I didn't mean to sound harsh but you brought up the example of Thatcher, an individual when I said my comments on Clinton being less inclined to war was based solely on the fact she is a woman, not on something specific but you need the context of that to understand what I mean.

The only point I am taking issue with in this thread is the fact that you are trying to have the best of both worlds when it comes to generality vs. individuality. Clinton is an individual, and your reasons for choosing to support her are fine by me. However, you cannot claim that the general statement "Women do not start wars" does apply to her but not to someone like Thatcher. They are both women. Stating that Clinton does not start wars would be a fair statement, and can be supported by looking at the record.

The problem is there are too many side conversations here with a couple of people bringing up stuff from other threads in addition to their annoyance I prefer Clinton to Obama. So let me back track just for clarity even though this is about the 4th time I have stated my position.

True, but I have read your position. More than once.

Obama and Clinton are very close in terms of who I'd vote for. So my preference is based on small differences. When I mentioned a small difference and said it is a small difference, the Obama supporters responded as if I had made claims the difference was much greater than I had.

If you think I said the fact Clinton is a woman is a huge reason to vote for her you would be making a straw man up claiming I'm only voting for her because she is a woman. And that is where a lot of the false statements about my position have originated from.

I am not suggesting it is a huge reason, but it was the reason that for you made the difference. It may not be huge, but it is key to your support.

Given that the two candidates are so close, the fact Clinton is a woman tips the balance for me. And I say that because I believe women on the whole view the world differently from men. We have different priorities for example. Women are going to care more about things that affect women. And women are less likely to resolve issues with violence.

You can argue Clinton is a warmonger if you think the evidence supports that. You can argue that she is not typical of women in general if you think there is evidence of that. I don't see any evidence suggesting Clinton is of the mindset of Thatcher. I see no evidence suggesting Clinton is more inclined to violence to settle disputes than women in general.

Given that the two candidates are so close, the fact Clinton is a woman tips the balance for me. That is a completely different statement than what is being implied I am saying.

This implies that all of the positive values you see in women must necessarily apply to Clinton and it seems to be a bit of a statement of trust rather than logic. This is the main reason I brought up the Thatcher counter-example, mostly to show that being a woman does not necessarily mean a candidate will always support views and policies commonly associated with women.

For me, the stand-out statement in this post of yours is "You can argue that she is not typical of women in general if you think there is evidence of that." I would argue that there is no such thing as anyone who is typical of women in general. This is why Clinton's gender is not an issue for me in choosing which candidate to support. Yes, I eagerly await the day a woman holds top office in the US, mostly to get the whole issue over with. However, I would not assume that a woman head of state will necessarily mean there is someone whose policies I agree with 100%.

When you stop and think about it, assuming Clinton holds the attitude of women in general sounds a bit sexist to me. (This is meant to be irony, not an accusation. Please do not take it as such. )

 

[Tailgater]

Ilse Koch and Irma Grese (nazi positions of power)

Queen Victoria
Queen Isabella
Elizabeth I

 

[Lurker]

Boudica

 

[Tailgater]

For every candidates race, sex and age, we can pull out some quotes from some idiot who has a bias against them. The problem is using a broad brush to show that everyone against the candidate feels that way from the same angle.

 

[Metullus]

Fulvia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulvia

 

[Tailgater]

Pard, I don't have to provide supporting evidence for the obvious. Don't waste our time here. Women do not start wars. They commit only a fraction of the murder and violence men commit. It's biological. Get over it.

Really? So are black crime statistics biological too?

Are you equally as uncomfortable with Obama by the same thinking?

 

[Tailgater]

Why is the fact which I said repeatedly that there were individual women who could be responsible for wars just totally ignored in my posts. I really don't want to resort to shouting but I do wish people would read what I wrote instead of responding to what they imagine I wrote.

So how many individuals till we can start thinking of them as a group?

 

[Pardalis]

If we find 5 more, aren't we still arguing from anecdote?

Well at least it would be more significant.

 

[T.A.M.]

I love it when the "biological" line of thinking comes out. Seems to only come out for certain elements though.

TAM

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And if all of us men were to say the same, but that because Obama is a man tips the balance for us, would that be ok with you?

and would it be ok if African Americans said because Obama is black, that that tips the balance for them?

TAM

Clearly being African American does tip the balance for many people. I'd say you have to decide for yourself what it is that tips the balance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....This implies that all of the positive values you see in women must necessarily apply to Clinton and it seems to be a bit of a statement of trust rather than logic. This is the main reason I brought up the Thatcher counter-example, mostly to show that being a woman does not necessarily mean a candidate will always support views and policies commonly associated with women.

For me, the stand-out statement in this post of yours is "You can argue that she is not typical of women in general if you think there is evidence of that." I would argue that there is no such thing as anyone who is typical of women in general. This is why Clinton's gender is not an issue for me in choosing which candidate to support. Yes, I eagerly await the day a woman holds top office in the US, mostly to get the whole issue over with. However, I would not assume that a woman head of state will necessarily mean there is someone whose policies I agree with 100%.

When you stop and think about it, assuming Clinton holds the attitude of women in general sounds a bit sexist to me. (This is meant to be irony, not an accusation. Please do not take it as such. )

I don't assume Clinton holds typical female attitudes, I see it in her history. What I said was there was no reason not to think she did. Thatcher, OTOH, was a NeoCon in my opinion and that is the antithesis of the female qualities I am referring to.

It isn't like we know nothing of Clinton's real values. I think she has enough public exposure to say the anti-war tendency is there. It may be there for Obama as well but he has much less of a public history for us to judge him by.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? So are black crime statistics biological too?

Are you equally as uncomfortable with Obama by the same thinking?

I addressed this in the other thread I started on this issue.

This post has a specific reply but you'll need to read more of the thread if the answer doesn't give you the full picture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I love it when the "biological" line of thinking comes out. Seems to only come out for certain elements though.

TAM

Maybe you also would see more of the validity of the argument by reading the other thread. I am not one to make convenient arguments.

 

[T.A.M.]

Clearly being African American does tip the balance for many people. I'd say you have to decide for yourself what it is that tips the balance.

I can accept that a man voting for Obama (hypothetically) because he is a man is a personal decision. However it is looked upon in this race as Misogyny (by Elton John, and others who support his comments) because Obama's opponent is a woman, so what does that make a woman who votes for Hillary because she is a woman, running against a man?

TAM