I’m still not sure what I’m supposed to be outraged about regarding Sanders’ essay. But I’m sure it’s something.
There’s always something.
Those poor, poor Republicans- life is so unfair and so stacked against them.
It’s definitely worthy to check a person’s background. One essay where it’s hard exactly to figure out his point is one thing, but if there was a candidate who wrote multiple essays over a few years that seemed to say that women were inferior, that would be a worthy issue to discuss, even if the essays were written 40 years ago.
Also, even for something 40 years ago, it’s worthwhile to hear what the candidate says now. Like some possible reactions:[ul]
[li]“Everyone is taking it out of context”[/li][li]“It was a different time back then”[/li][li]“I could have chosen my words better”[/li][li]“I was different back then, I’ve grown up and learned a lot since then”[/li][li]“This is nothing, everyone is attacking me!”[/li][/ul]
What I think about a candidate is different depending on how they react. I don’t expect presidential candidates to have always acted perfectly and never done anything wrong, or even slightly off. But I do hope that they learn from mistakes.
What is Sanders saying about this essay now?
It’s your interpretation again. He doesn’t say that those magazines are appealing to the typical man, he points out that they sell well, and I’m sure they were in 1972. He’s asking questions, he may sound like he’s pre-supposing the answers, but why do you pre-suppose that this represents something fundamental about the nature of the candidate?
It’s certainly my interpretation, but it’s the correct interpretation. If he wrote that magazines catering to this fantasy sell well his point was clearly to portray this as a widespread mindset. Do you disagree? What point do you think he was making - it wasn’t the place for an aside about magazine sales in 1972.
I’m curious about this question. Where in any of my posts to this thread have I said anything that indicates that I think “this represents something fundamental about the nature of the candidate”?
So what? Even if we accept your interpertation of the Sander’s forty year old hypothetical (and you’ve provided no reason why we should) - what exactly do you think it proves?
Sanders thinks lots of people have BDSM fantasies? He’s right. Who cares?
Sanders thinks these fantasies are the result of traditional gender roles that focused on dominating men and submissive females? Maybe he’s right about that, too. Or maybe not; sexual fantasy is complicated. It’s a reasonable line of argument - so, who cares?
Sanders thinks traditional gender roles are confining and harmful? Lots of us think that. Who cares?
What, specifically, do you think that essay proves that would make people drop their support for Bernie Sanders?
In 2008, wasn’t the black vote 97% for Obama? Not “all,” but for all practical intents and purposes, might as well be all.
Did you even read the OP? I’ll helpfully repeat the final sentence here, in bold: “[FTR: I don’t think these are a big deal in terms of whether he should be supported in his presidential campaign, which is why I put the thread in this forum.]”
But I’m not sure if even this will work. People see what they want to see and it’s hard to get them to focus on what’s actually there.
‘Widespread’ and ‘What it is that is widespread’ are open to interpretation. I think he was saying there were widespread sales of the magazine, and I think there actually were widespread sales of the magazine, but I don’t think it’s necessarily widespread meaning the majority of men being frequent readers of the magazines. And he asks the question why, and the answer to me would be that this was 1972 and magazines of this nature had recently become available at your local outlets instead of hidden away, as a result many people were curious and purchasing these magazines. But their core readership over time would have been a much narrower group interested in each particular focus of the magazine. He does imply that men are generally attracted to a set of magazines depicting something that might be characterized as ‘male power’ (Stag is the only one I recall as an actual magazine, some kind of girlfriend porn I think), however he leaves off the higher sales of Playboy, Penthouse, and many others that were offering pure naked chick porn. So you can conclude whatever you like, it doesn’t add up to anything specific to me, and his language (again from the parts I could read) didn’t add up to a declaration of men as typically fantasizing rape. He seemed to wonder about that, to ask if that were true, but he didn’t present a compelling case for it.
I’m not saying you did ask that, but I am curious why you started the thread based on the content of the article and came to such a definitive conclusion about it. It doesn’t tell me anything about the man today, and very little about him in 1972.
You seem to be conflating two different issues here:
[ol]
[li]What was Sanders’ point in citing magazine sales?[/li][li]Whether you personally agree with Sanders’ point[/li][/ol]
I’m not going to get into whether the extrapolation from magazine sales is correct - which is the focus of most of the paragraph above. But that’s clearly what he was drving at, and this supports the notion that he was presenting the fantasies as being typical (if not universal) and not as “dark satire” etc.
YMMV, but I think the article is a pretty startling one to have been written by a guy who is now a mainstream presidential candidate. (Newt Gingrich got a lot of attention as well for stuf which were much more benign.) So I read it and it was pretty clear to me what he meant and it wasn’t what his spokesperson is currently claiming.
[FWIW, to the extent that there’s any political significance of this IMHO, it’s that his spokesperson feels compelled to deny specifically that his depiction of female rape fantasies - which as some have noted are actually more common than one might suppose - reflect his views on women. Meanwhile his depiction of men as typically fantasizing about tying up and abusing women - a far more malevolent depiction IMO, and probably a lot less common - doesn’t require any comment. But that’s more a comment about societal values at this time than a comment about Sanders or his campaign.]
Spell it out. What is actually there?
It’s true.
At least, in this context.
Now, there are areas in which Democrats (to say nothing of Socialists) have the deck stacked against them. Lack of support of national defense comes to mind, or perhaps presence of union support. An out-of-context statement that seems to disparage the military will haunt a Democrat and barely mar the mirror finish on a Republican.
But in the area of sex, especially for a statement that might be seen (or misinterpreted) as hostile to women, Democrats (and, I guess, Socialists That Caucus With Democrats) will skate while Republicans will be vilified.
Is that not your experience, also?
I think Sanders’ point was in the question he asked, “To what in us are they appealing?”. It seems to be a reasonable question based on his assumptions, which would be reasonable in the context of the time. I don’t think his mention of the magazines or what he believed were common fantasies were dark satire per se. I wouldn’t look at the article as a whole as dark satire either, but I guess it’s a possible characterization in his own mind. I still don’t see that he’s presenting these things as universal, near-universal, or typical.
I’m assuming he didn’t know he’d be a mainstream presidential candidate when he wrote it. Unless there’s a lot more nonsense from him about the sexual desires of the American public I doubt it will amount to amount to anything. Newt Gingrich and others may have attracted too much attention to similar past events but it’s not the same as cases where a candidate displayed a continuing attitude that could be interpreted as a continuing characteristic of the person.
His association of fantasies with actual rape victims was clumsy but common at that time (and not exactly rare now either). I don’t see how this one tidbit is a way to assess the man’s views on women since he has a long history of other commentary and political action on the subject. I don’t know much detail about that history but I would be startled if this one bit of commentary is indicative of his views stated elsewhere.
Have you read the whole piece? This is a jpeg of it, which seems to be complete. It reads like a guy thinking out-loud.
… and he was the Democratic candidate. As a group, Black Americans lean heavily Democratic. Before 2000, Gallup grouped Race as “white” and “nonwhite” ( :rolleyes: ), but let’s look at how Black Americans have voted since 2000:
[ul]
[li]2012 – 95% for (D) Obama[/li]
[li]2008 – 99% for (D) Obama[/li]
[li]2004 – 93% for (D) Kerry[/li]
[li]2000 – 95% for (D) Gore[/li][/ul]
Soooo… yeah. Gore got the same proportion of Black American votes in 2000 as Obama did in 2012. And Kerry got 93%. The common denominator is political party, not race. I think it’s quite possible that being able to vote for a Black candidate made many Black Americans more* excited/enthusiastic* about voting, but I doubt many would have voted for McCain or Romney if a white Democratic candidate ran instead.
I fail to see the objection to this piece, except that Bernie Sanders wrote “rape” 40 years ago. It is pretty clear that the fantasies mentioned (from a man and a woman, not men and women in general) are meant to be symptomatic of gender roles he talks about later.
To put it in context, women’s sexual fantasies were just beginning to be talked about in polite company at this time. Nancy Friday’s “My Secret Garden” was published the next year. Revived Victorian porn, like “A Man and a Maid” were quite popular, which allowed people to read about abuse while considering themselves genteel.
I detect some shooting the messenger here. Not brilliantly written, but the vehicle was hardly the New Yorker after all.
Yes. I have read the whole thing. Multiple times. What, specifically, is your objection?
It’s not remotely “unfair” because it’s largely a self-inflicted wound. If Republicans as a group didn’t talk endlessly about “family values” and about the relative morality of various sex-related issues (e.g. gay marriage, birth control for women, abstinence-based sex education) no one would care that much. But when your whole schtick is built on how much more moral you are than your opponents, it is entirely reasonable for you to reap the consequences of that when it turns out that you’ve been lying the whole time about it.
And of course it’s not even true that only Republicans get dinged for this; consider the cases of Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, where Spitzer resigned and Sanford got re-elected. Or the cases of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, where Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by the House led by a man who was also hiding a sexual affair and who, in a previous affair, had deliberately limited their sexual interaction to oral sex so that he could plausibly claim not to be having sex with his partner. (Gingrich of course was supposed to be replaced by Mark Foley who stepped down after it turned out he too was having a sexual affair, which led to Dennis Hastert being elected Speaker who…well, it’s turtles all the way down).
But apart from that - yeah, totally unfair.