I like. Everybody has their technique for shutting down the other side. Even rationalists like Dopers have “Godwin’s Law” and the like.
Look, there should be a way for Trump to insult women without being labeled a misogynist. What would you suggest instead?
No, I don’t know. (Gratuitously adding “as you know” about something that is highly questionable at best is remarkably similar to trying to bolster your case by beginning with “Look, …”)
I disagree that calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals” is part of any historic pattern of misogyny.
That’s a very big “if” there. I don’t either know any details on what Trump might have called men, but based on everything I’ve seen of the guy I would give pretty good odds that he’s just an all-purpose obnoxious guy.
I think it was obvious that the premise of the question was that calling women names was specifically objectionable. Trump correctly called that out as PC. If Meghan had made the claim that Trump had not similarly called men such names then the response you suggest would have been appropriate. But since she produced nothing other than the mere fact that he had insulted some specific women, his response was on point.
That’s ridiculous.
Let’s face it, there isn’t.
Look, some people like catchphrases.
It is objectionable, though. I’m not exactly a fan of Megyn Kelly, but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as a woman and as a journalist that she’s not accusing Trump of being a misogynist because she’s unfamiliar with the mind-blowing fact that he may have called a guy a fat pig at some point. It’s clear, to me at least, that there’s an implication in her question that he’s NOT an equal opportunity insulter, and I don’t fault her for not belaboring the question with caveats.
The accusation might be unfounded, and Trump may very well have a valid defense, but dismissing the question out of hand is a lame move.
Let’s pretend that Trump is a misogynist and doesn’t call men those same names with any sort of frequency, and Megyn had the data to back it up. What else would you want her to produce? Would you expect her, in an interview, to pull out data supporting her claim? Why isn’t it fair to ask the question based on the data without necessarily incorporating the existence of the data into the question?
Dopers and comics and pundits, just in the past few days, have found plenty of non-misogynist ways to insult Sarah Palin. He could use that as a model. Problem is, that approach only works when the insults are genuinely deserved, and I don’t think Trump is psychologically capable of working within those limits.
Well it’s not at all clear to me, and I very highly doubt if it’s true.
I think Kelly was influenced by the PC notion that insults against women are to be treated as insults against the group category of women.
Of course she wouldn’t need any data. But she should at least have made the claim, so that her question would be understood to mean what you’re interpreting it to be.
But in rational circles, defensible comparisons with Hitler are never actually off the table; Godwin’s Law is merely cautionary. Are you comparing Trump with Hitler because you see actual similarities, or is it merely a snarl-word? The fact that the probability of such comparisons being made “approaches one” as discourse continues is merely grounds to examine one’s position and rule out the snarl-word possibility.
Look, links to two other threads with no mention of how they are relevant is lazy. What are you trying but failing to say? Palin deserves to be insulted, so that’s not misogynist, but if it’s undeserved, then it is? The double standard is too thin, try and hide it more.
Why not? If he called a specific woman a fuck head or an asshole, is that misogynist as well?
I just meant inevitably someone will think so.
So BrainGlutton, on the first page of that first link you gave to Bone, I see Palin described as giving a “screeching” speech and her being called a “brainless twat”. Didn’t notice anyone get upset about the misogyny.
They are relevant in exactly the way I said they are relevant, and directly relevant and responsive to your question – because they’re full of insults, original or quoted, directed at Palin, most of which are not misogynistic insults. E.g., Trevor Noah says of her Trump-endorsement speech, “It’s like she’s a malfunctioning robot.” Stephen Colbert says, “Sarah Palin just guaranteed Trump the evangelical vote because I think she was speaking in tongues!” Those are genuinely witty insults, well-deserved, and would be no different if Palin were male.
But Trump is not equal to Noah’s or Colbert’s level of wit. Nor even to the average Doper’s.
No. Calling Palin a fat pig, dog, cunt, etc., would be misogynistic. She deserves insults, see above, but no woman deserves that kind.
I’ll gladly admit it is misogyny, and would prefer to avoid such language myself, but there are also plenty of non-misogynistic insults in it, see above.
Why?
You mean beyond being puerile?
So you vomit two links without indicating what you are referencing, and then claim they are insults, but “most” are not misogynistic. But then you say this about the items from one of of the links you put forward:
So now, that is misogyny. Maybe it falls outside of what you are considering “most”? Did you do a careful tally to draw that conclusion? Was the reader supposed to overcome the link dump and ferret out your point?
So let me get this straight - you think it’s okay to call Palin a dick, but a twat is misogynistic? Why does no woman deserve a particular kind of insult? It’s not like women are too fragile. Both men and women have assholes so can that be used in a non-misogynistic way? These rules, they seem pretty stupid. Which is the point of criticizing over-PC-ness.
Yes, beyond being puerile.
Look, I think we all know what kinds of insults disparage women as women, and would not be directed at men with anything like the same connotations and emotional baggage.
If I call a man a bitch and I call a woman a bitch, I have used the word in two very different senses.