This is real conservatism. There has never been any other kind of conservatism, not in more than a century at least. The entire modern conservative movement, starting in the 1960s, was about countering movements toward racial, sexual, and other kinds of equality. In the post-war era, it was about overturning the New Deal liberal coalition.
From the 1880s to the 1930s, conservatism was about preserving the power of the rich elites (opposing labor rights, etc.).
In parallel, from the 1860s to the present, conservatism has been about preserving the racial and sexual hierarchy of society.
All the stuff about fiscal responsibility, federalism, and anything else you can name has never been anything more than pretext for a movement whose sole goal is preservation of the status quo hierarchy.
Conservatism will use any tool to maintain power. In the current era, it’s reactionary, fascist populism. It’s entirely consistent with the history of American conservatism. There are and there never have been any “real” American conservatives distinguishable from what the Republican party stands for now.
Or what it actually is, somewhere in the neverending middle. That somehow this is new, that no one has pointed out the misogyny in Congress before (I remember reading Pat Schroeder’s book when it was released in 1998). Its being treated both as novel and some sort of victory lap…and its neither. Making this sound like a revelation is a huge disservice to the women who have come before…making it sound like the end of the story dismisses the huge amount of work that is yet to be done.
Data point here. That’s exactly what the speech did for me — I don’t think I’ve used sexist hate speech here, but…
…I was awake for over an hour after going to bed, mulling over my own life — how I couldn’t imagine ever saying the things Yoho said…BUT that, at several junctures, I had acted in ways that harmed certain women in my life, through clueless, selfish, occasional failure to fully appreciate their fundamental personhood.
This is why the NY Times article about AOC’s speech was so off the mark. It dwelled on how it might improve her “brand.” WTF? It had nothing to do with her, as she made clear in the speech.
I believe you. Will you do me the favor of believing me, that that is what I am seeing in terms of tone? That our experiences and perceptions of this are different? And that seeing this as a revelation or a finished job is problematic?
Absolutely, I believe you. “It’s horrendous that this even needs to be a ‘thing’” permeates all of this — and so, whatever that “thing” is (or appears to be, to some) — Facebook show-off opportunity, AOC branding, genuine prompt for self-reflection, whatever — will be (unsatisfying? Tainted? Insufficient? Beside the point? Can’t think of quite the word, but I think you know what I mean).
(I see now Dangerosa was speaking to needscoffee, but it’s all relevant).
But it seems as though you’re saying this is the fault of the speech. Is anyone really saying the job is finished?
I get the whole weary thing. I’m older than you, and can remember behavior that is unthinkable today (as you do too). It’s a process. The more people jumping on the bandwagon, even if they’re overly optimistic, the more the Overton window shifts.
No, the speech was good. Disappointing that it needed to be said, but good. Its the response that’s been problematic. As Manda Jo is saying the “victory lap” tone of the responses (NOT of AOCs speech). The “wow, this needed to be said” - that triggers (for me) “where have YOU been, haven’t you been listening, because we’ve been saying this for a hundred plus years at this point?” The patronizing “you really need to listen to this” - really, I do? I’ve lived it…there was nothing there that was new or surprising, it didn’t give me any new information, it wasn’t new to the Congressional floor, and it was depressing and triggery, not the uplifting experience you (not you, needscoffee, but the men in my life) seem to think it should be for me. We have made progress, but its two steps forward, one step backwards - and the speech is maybe another baby step at best. Let me know when we get to the point where we don’t confirm men accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court because its going to take a hell of a lot of AOC like speeches that result in action and aren’t just words to make up for that one.
Yeah. I see things all the time like “Mary Trump WRECKED Donald Trump!” when obviously she did no such thing. These memes get spread by hyperbole. It’s easier for someone to click and repost than to stop and edit it to put a more realistic headline on it.
I think the “someone’s mother/daughter tack” is rooted in a really old misogynistic, class-based thinking. I grew up where the idea that women would/should be protected by their menfolk was widely held: things like sexual harassment, even assault, were supposed to be handled privately. Think dads posing with their daughter and a gun. But that model is rooted in the whole Madonna/whore thing: Good women, respectable women, will have a father or brother or uncle willing to risk physical confrontation to protect their honor; a woman that doesn’t have than must not deserve it: she flung it aside at some point, or is lacking an inherent quality. A woman with no protector was a woman who wasn’t entitled to protection, and so fair game. A girl going to the authorities was almost embarrassing and certainly suspect, because her men should have taken care of the issue.
In that context, “remember she’s someone’s daughter” is supposed to be an improvement: it’s a reminder that even a woman doesn’t have someone to protect her right there, she may still be a Madonna: don’t assume she’s a whore without additional evidence. But it doesn’t reject the premise: respectability, the right to be protected, is still rooted in a man valuing you.
I didn’t perceive it as D and MJ apparently do, as a “victory lap”, and that all is good now. I certainly don’t have access to D’s FB feed. I think it kinda shitty for her to bring her characterization of what she read on FB to criticize those who post here.
I didn’t perceive that message in this thread, and I think it a bit of a mischaracterization for D and MJ to suggest otherwise to bolster their perspective. Instead, I and many men and women feel it was one example of the type of direct reasonable statements we ought to hear more and more frequently. Sure, is it inexcusable that there have not been enough such speeches made from positions of power - especially by young non-white women. But the fact that THIS statement was made so well is - at the very least - a step in the right direction.
I don’t at all understand how the fuck a man is supposed to respond to this, that would meet w/ D and MJ’s approval. But fuck it - I can easily live without their approval. And this thread convinces me to care less for their criticism.
No, that’s the opposite of what Dangerosa is saying. These things have been said. That’s why being told 'OMG, have you heard this, you NEED to read this" is disheartening: the fact that this sounds revolutionary shows how all those earlier speakers were not heard. And it’s frustrating to be told to listen a message you yourself have been preaching for years.
It’s like Obama’s “More Perfect Union” speech. I LOVE that speech. I think it’s a great articulation of a very complex issue. But I didn’t send it to my black friends, and tell them “wow, you should read this, it will make you think”.
I agree, and I hope my preferred response makes that clear. However, “I’m someone’s daughter too” isn’t bad in this context because she is shaming Yoho - pointing out the illogic of his response on numerous levels works for me.
Dins, where have you been in the endless … well, we women on this board tend to call them the “Rapey McRape” threads? How about the most recent discussion of “the c word” and its appropriateness on this board? We’ve both been here a long time, and I like you and respect you, but yeah, you haven’t exactly been there in the fighting misogyny part of the fighting ignorance. Those aren’t your threads, and that is fine…but that is part of the problem - that you are here, and you weren’t there. And I think we are all aware of what a huge problem misogyny has been on this board…or maybe you aren’t. So, I do think this is fair. Harsh maybe, but fair.
Which hasn’t happened in this thread. I’m sorry your Facebook feed is not to your liking. It’s a correctable issue, although unlikely by posting about it here.
Some people are inspired by others’ words. Some people benefit from repeated messaging. Some find a “go team!” video energizing.
Society’s views don’t change overnight; it’s a slow grind. But if you want to put your energy into attacking the bit players on your side, that’s certainly your prerogative.
WTF? It had nothing to do with her, as she made clear in the speech.