He made an assumption regarding my gender and then told me that I don’t know how it is for women. Perhaps he should’ve phrased his belief that sexism is a problem without assuming that I’m a man and I just don’t get it?
I am opposed to affirmative action for women because I find it insulting to me. Affirmative action means, to me, ‘You couldn’t get this job without the help of a law. You’re lesser, so we’re giving you a handicap to level the field.’
I don’t want that.
All of this is fine and dandy. But do you really think you are going to sway a dyed-in-the-wool Republican of his beliefs by pointing out those silly little facts that get in the way? I get tired of it myself. The usual refuting of anything our side brings up, that is anything that attempts to make a logical argument, usually revolves around nit-picking as we have seen.
I have a question for you Airman and this is what every American should be asking themselves right now:
Do you think the Republicans are doing a good job running the country? They have controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and a majority on the Supreme Court for quite some time now. You think that their superior economics of small government and lasse-faire policies would have bore fruit by now.
Now before they bring up anything about Clinton or whoever, ask yourself some honest questions. Try to answer them yourself by using as non-biased a source as you can. What you find will totally blow your mind as things are not always what they appear to be.
A few Republican lies:
1. Democrats are weak on defense: This is one of the biggest lies that Republicans tell and completely false. Democrats were president when World War I and II, the Korean war, and Vietnam all broke out. In fact, Republicans largely did not think we should become involved in both World Wars. A Democrat used a weapon of mass destruction for the first and hopefully last time in warfare when Truman dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan. Democrats are not only tough enough to stand up to our enemies they are more successful too! FDR and Truman had brought Tojo, Hitler, and Mussolini to heel in just three years. These were some bad men that had powerful nations to back them up but a crippled liberal in the wheelchair led this nation in wiping them out. But, the argument may be, that in recent times Democrats have grown soft. Take a look at the amount of people in the Senate and House who have served. Look at Wesley Clark and John Kerry both war heroes. Look at Bob Kerrey who was a SEAL, won the Congressional Medal of Honor, and lost his leg defending this nation. Check the facts and see who had shirked their duty, our courageous President and Vice President is who. President Kennedy, a decorated war hero, strengthened our ICBM force by four times. He and McNamara coined the term MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. We are not weak. As a matter of fact we are STRONGER on defense which brings us to the next lie Republicans tell.
2. Democrats are not good for the economy: If you check with the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis you will find that since Hoover, Democrats have:
Smaller non-defense governments (that’s right, if you factor in defense spending, Democrats run larger governments further refuting lie 1.)
Better for GDP growth (the leading economic indicator)
Better Dow Jones performance
Lower deficit spending
Lower unemployment rates
All these things, taken straight from the BEA indicate that Democrats are better for the economy and everyone by now knows this by now but please don’t take my word for it, go see yourself. We are the party of the facts.
3. Democrats are not patriotic: This is a DESPICABLE lie that the smoke and mirrors party likes to throw around. In fact they use it against anyone who questions their idiotic policies that are taking this country down a dark road that I hope we can recover from. Democrats are patriotic. When JFK, a good Catholic, met the Pope he did not kneel and kiss the Pope’s ring. He came to Rome as a servant of the American people and his country came before all. George Bush on the other hand has a different approach. When a Saudi Arabian prince comes over representing a regime that is partially responsible for the high gas prices and for funding many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11, Georgie holds hands with him like like a school girl. But that is there custom right? In Crawford Texas it’s not. But George Bush hasn’t really shown that he loves America like we Democrats do. He shirked his duty in Vietnam and has shown that the only people he’s interested in helping is any corporation or corrupt regime from any country that is wealthy and plays ball with him.
Lastly, I call them the smoke and mirrors party because they are not really what they seem. We are running the largest government (largest in preportion to GDP as well) ever and borrowing heavily to support massive tax cuts which mostly benefit the rich. He has you all fooled with this bullshit “I’m a Texan rancher” facade. I liken it to Mr. Howell from Gilligan’s Island pretending he’s a good ol boy from Alabama. Bush was born in New England and was educated there. His daddy and his daddy before him were New England W.A.S.P.s. His daddy didn’t know that super markets had gone to scanners ten years after they became common. George Bush is not a down to earth person like you or I. The whole thing is just for show and the sad thing is that the American people haven’t yet figured it out.
It was so much harder to argue against fiscal conservatives. These were a worthy adversary. Where are you William F. Buckley?
I miss William Buckley. I really do. He could argue something, and back it with logic. Even when you disagreed, you had to admit he was saying something with deliberation and thought behind it. I liked him. Now, it is catchwords and slogans (Bush). Any disagreement is unAmerican or treason (Coulter) or held up to ridicule (Limbaugh). Any doubt is “antiGod”. If that doesn’t work, then call in the goons - Swifties, Rove, etc. and destroy the opponent’s reputation. Kerry was an antiwar liberal French loving elitist traitor. McCain (one of their own) was a brainwashed mole for the Commies. On and on. There is none of the substance of Buckley; there are only halftruths, evasions, lies and character assassination.
On the one hand, we have people who actually fought in our wars, some of whom came back maimed. They tend to be antiwar unless there is a damn good reason. On the other hand we have our present “war president” and the other chickenhawks - Rove, Cheney, etc. who had “other priorities” or a sweet slot in the Air National Guard or powerful friends. Chickenhawks who will fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood and then lie about the reasons.
Good for you, Airman Doors. Like others, I opened this thread expecting a screed, and instead found one of the most interesting and encouraging political discussions I’ve seen here.
If you’d like to read some other books that might be helpful and of particular interest to a conservative or lapsing Republican, I can strongly recommend some books by some who’ve undergone similar epiphanies – a few of which have already been mentioned:
Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America and Pigs at the Trough, by Arianna Huffington. Republican Street Cred: She’s the ex-wife of businessman and former GOP Congressman Michael Huffington, she used to debate Al Franken back in the 1990s, representing the Republican viewpoint on Comedy Central. Now writes as a progressive, and ran for governor against Arnold.
Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, by Richard Clarke. Republican Street Cred: Clarke joined the government as a Reagan appointee, and lasted through Bush I, Clinton, and the beginning of Bush II’s administrations. Now he strongly opposes the administration’s methods – or lack thereof – regarding fighting terrorism.
The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind. Republican Street Cred: Well, the guy was a member of Bush II’s cabinet, how’s that? His whistleblowing made him a target of all the vitriol that the Bush admin spin doctors could prescribe.
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, by Kevin Phillips. Republican Street Cred: An economics and political analyst, Phillips was Nixon’s chief political strategist back in '68. Now he’s an independent who despises the effect that neocons like Bush and religious fundamentalists have had on true conservatism.
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, by David Brock. Republican Street Cred: Oy, where to start? Brock was the original right wing attack scandalmonger non pareil, famously eviscerating Anita Hill and Bill Clinton in separate and poisonous features for The American Spectator. Now admits his own role in lie-peddling. He’s the founder and head of MediaMatters.org, a media watchdog organization tracking right-wing falsehoods.
Up From Conservatism and Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics, by Michael Lind. Republican Street Cred: Like Brock, Lind was another former rising star & insider in the right wing conservative movement. Used to pal around with the likes of William Buckley and George Will.
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, by John Dean. Republican Street Cred: Was Deputy Attorney General in Nixon’s first administration, then became Nixon’s White House Counsel; eventually helped expose the Watergate scandal.
Though all of the above books are extremely enlightening, I think Dean’s book is a particularly powerful and chilling indictment of the current administration. Here’s a sample quote:
There are more, but this is long enough already. Anyway, I hope these are helpful in some way. Best of luck to you on your journey, sir! And of course, to anyone who follows Airman Doors’ lead.
I really don’t think he meant it that way - I don’t think he tried to satte that he has more expertise on the subject than you. Men are entitled to opinions on this too, and your perspective is both unique and useful, but it doesn’t invalidate his. Anyway, I think you’re reading an insult into it that wasn’t there.
That’s a perfectly valid viewpoint. But people who support it don’t do so because they feel you are incapable on your own merits - just that the system is set up to make it much harder in certain areas.
I particularly suspect that no one doubts your determination or abilities. Frankly, I suspect you’d probably beat me in a fair fight, as well. You have a certain aura of asskickery about you.
BTW, Highwayman, very nicely stated.
Perhaps that’s where my parting of the ways with feminists and affirmative action are. I don’t think that the system is set up to make it ‘harder’ in certain areas. I think it’s set up so that I’ve gotta work just as hard as any guy, and that’s how I like it.
In the spirit of the purpose of SDMB:
Across the board in the United States in 1999, women earned 77% as much as men. Median weekly earnings of female full time wage and salary workers was $473 compared to $618 for males. That was up from 63% in 1979. There is much information on this and about how college, age and ethnicity affect this very real wage gap available at The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
[/hijack]
Airman, I have a lot of faith in you.
What we need is a statesman. Anyone have any suggestions? Is there an honorable man?
Barack Obama gives me some hope.
Really? What’s he done so far?
I know Obama is not from your state, but my new Senator (Salazar) has me worried. Though after an early flurry of activity which made me wonder how quickly he’d be moving to the Republicans, he’s recently taken a good, solid whack at Focus on the Family. (Dobson is the Anti-Christ. giggle) But statesman he ain’t.
You’re lucky – try being socially liberal, fiscally moderate and Wilsonian-activist foreign policy. No one agrees with me on the last one: any party that cares enough about victims of genocide ( :eek: ) to do something about it also tend to be pacifist enough to oppose unilateral military action.
And elected officials that are as socially liberal as I am tend to be too fiscally liberal as well – nearly as liberal as W 
catsix: [Scott] made an assumption regarding my gender and then told me that I don’t know how it is for women. Perhaps he should’ve phrased his belief that sexism is a problem without assuming that I’m a man and I just don’t get it?
I know that Scott called you “he”, not knowing your actual gender, but where did he “tell you that you don’t know how it is for women” or assume that “you just don’t get it”? AFAICT, he simply expressed an opinion about the impact of sexism that differed from yours, which he has a perfect right to do whether you’re male or female, and independent of whether he happened to guess your gender correctly.
You certainly have a right to disagree with his opinion, but ISTM that you’re being rather quick to take offense about it, and coming across here as rather touchy and shrill. As Excalibre noted, you seem to be reading an insult into Scott’s remarks that isn’t actually there.
you mean the link dump was a response? Looks more like the results of a quick post hoc google search to back up a rash and ill-informed partisan swipe.
But I could be wrong.
That’s all very nice, but the statistic you’re using does not accurately compare male and female workers. It doesn’t control for such things as education, experience, hours worked, seniority, or job type. All that matters in that statistic is that the person was a ‘full time’ employee, wehther they be an engineer or a doctor or a lawyer or work at Wal Mart or McDonalds or as a public sector social worker. It places the fact that women often choose fields that are traditionally lower paid than men, that they often do not work as many hours as men do because they are taking time off to have kids or take care of the kids they already have.
That’s no comparison of women’s salaries to men’s when they do the same job, with the same background, have the same seniority, work the same number of hours, and have both had the same kind of work history. It’s misleading and dishonest, and the continued reliance on it by feminists is one of the reasons I will never count myself as one of them.
This is what I think he perhaps should not have said:
Who is Scott Plaid to tell me what’s ‘close enough’ and when I’ve got life, liberty and have accomplished the pursuit of feeling like just as much of a human being as the next guy? I don’t want anybody telling me that I’m not ‘there’ yet, that I’m a victim, that I need ‘help’. There’s no ‘close enough’ about it.
‘That’s not close enough. You still need a legally enforcable handicap so you can get treated the same as men do.’ is really not an acceptable sentiment with me. I find it condescending and jerkish.
catsix: Who is Scott Plaid to tell me what’s ‘close enough’ and when I’ve got life, liberty and have accomplished the pursuit of feeling like just as much of a human being as the next guy?
Aren’t you perhaps taking his remarks a little too personally, though? I really don’t see how what he said can be read as telling you individually that your own situation is inadequate.
Rather, he was simply expressing a general opinion about gender discrimination in pay being persistent, unacceptable and unfair.
catsix: I don’t want anybody telling me that I’m not ‘there’ yet, that I’m a victim, that I need ‘help’.
Look, I’m glad that you personally find that you don’t have any gender discrimination to deal with, and that it’s not a significant problem in your experience. And I like your self-reliant attitude about considering yourself fully equal.
But I think you’re overreacting when you act as though somebody who merely expresses a different opinion—who asserts, without any reference to your situation in particular, that sexism continues to be a problem for women—is somehow insulting you.
Somebody states a general opinion that gender discrimination is a problem, that we as a society haven’t reached full equality yet, that this is a handicap for women, and your response is “I don’t want anybody telling me that”. Sister (
sorry), get over yourself: it ain’t all about you. If you can’t handle somebody disagreeing with your position without taking it as a personal insult to your own success, then you are bound to come across as touchy and shrill.
[slight hijack]
That reminds me of my favorite quote from Gloria Steinem. She said something along the lines of “In order for a woman to be as successful as a man, the woman must work twice as hard as the man. Luckily, this is not difficult.”
Ms. Steinem and I couldn’t be further apart politically, but that quote never fails to elicit a laugh from me.
[/slight hijack]
And he’s using misleading and dishonest statistics to do it. Go him.
Because I am a member of a class that he paints as disadvantaged and in need of handouts. Fuck that noise.
You think I’d laugh at that? Steinem is a sexist tool, and her jokes are nothing but sexist bullshit. Her denigration of men is unfunny crap.
catsix: Because I am a member of a class that he paints as disadvantaged and in need of handouts. Fuck that noise.
Sigh. Conservative offensensitivity strikes again. Gee, there seems to be a lot of it around here lately.
Look, like it or not, it is at least a very debatable point whether women have yet achieved complete equality in American society. There are lots of studies and statistics about sexism, gender issues, etc., and there’s simply no clear consensus on the broad question “do we as a society treat men and women equally”?
If you’re going to view any assertion on that subject that contradicts your own opinion as an outright insult to women in general and to you personally, you are going to spend a lot of time being offended. Again, this is exactly the same sort of “victimized”, oversensitive behavior that you seem to be repudiating in feminists, and I can’t understand why you’re doing it yourself.
Why not just say “Actually, Scott, I disagree that sexism or gender disparity in pay is currently significant, and I think your statistics are flawed, and here’s why” without bringing in all this emotional stuff about how you personally feel insulted and condescended to and all that?
C’mon…you know she can’t help it. Women are just so emotional…
runs
very, very quickly
Cites? I have yet to see anything dishonest from Coulter.
Here’s just one example, where Franken attempted to hose O’Reilly:
http://www.frankenlies.com/glick.htm
My expression “full of shit as a Christmas goose” referred not only to Franken’s outright lies, but his arrogant attitude as well. Now, I’m quite sure that others will say “John/Jane Conservative has an arrogant attitude, too.” and that’s fine, because in a couple of cases I agree with them.
But stacking Franken up against Coulter or Limbaugh or Savage just leaves him dangling in the breeze. I might not like their style - in fact, there are times that Savage leaves me cold - but I most assuredly cannot fault their facts and logic. Franken is clueless compared to them (actually, IMNSHO, he’s clueless compared to just about anybody, but that’s a whole 'nother story).