Obviously, that wasn’t a sexual insult.
Don’t wimp out now.
I agree. And while we’re at it, let’s all pretend we’re living in a post-misogynistic era and the remark wasn’t uttered by a petty and vindictive man-child infamous for being a misogynist himself.
Did you consider the statement that your mother would do anything for money to be a sexual insult?
Assuming that at some point in time your mother has asked anyone for anything (charity donation? pay rise? reduction in fees on a major IT contract?), the logic of your arguments in this thread would imply that you did not. It’s just a thing that might fairly be said of anyone who has ever asked people for things. But maybe you felt that there was an unpleasant implication there. In which case, the obvious follow up is, why the difference between the two cases. Is it just female politicians who ask for things that lose the right to point out sexual insults? What about female lobbyists? Sales reps? More of a grey area there, perhaps.
Which makes Gillibrand what exactly?..
Context matters.
“Your mother …” is a standard insult commonly used by juvenile scumballs to impute sexual transgressions to people’s mothers, so it makes sense to assume that’s what you meant.
By contrast, as I’ve noted, accusing politicians of doing anything for money commonly has a different connotation.
And what connotation does accusing women of doing anything for money commonly have?
As you say, context matters. And the context here is Donald Trump lashing out at a female politician who has offended him. Given that context, how confident are you that her gender isn’t a factor in his choice of insult?
The notion that he is utterly blind to her gender and thinking only of her job description when he says she’d come to offices begging for money and would do anything to get it seems to me far-fetched, given his well known attitudes to women and his history of using gendered and sexual insults to attack specific women who have offended him. But you’ve ruled this out. What evidence are you relying on?
This has all been discussed already. In the event that you have anything new to add, don’t be shy. But I’m not rehashing this for you, sorry.
…Damn, wrong forum
The cost of trafficking in insults is that you forfeit the benefit of the doubt when the most offensive meanings are assigned to your insults.
The real question we should be asking is not did he intend to make a sexual innuendo. The real question is what can do to get rid of Trump before we collectively forget presidents are supposed to be acting anything like this.
Oh, I think we’re good here.
Of course, you could always try Stanislaus’ approach, and try to spin it into a serious point …
Naw, I’m good watching you make a stupid argument. Thanks, though!
So the question is whether you see Gillibrand primarily as a Senator or a woman?
Must have gone over your head.
Better than in one ear and out the other.
Don’t flatter yourself. We understand your point very well. It’s just a terrible point.
No, I don’t think so. If you think post #73 was responsive to post #72, then you’re in the same boat.
Not to worry, though - it’s a pretty big boat.
Then it seems you’re missing the point to post #73.
See, we could play this game all day.
Or perhaps whether seeing her as a Senator erases the ability to see her as a woman.
If we can hold in our head the idea that someone might be both a Senator and a woman, we might consider that an insult commonly levelled at Senators might take on an additional, more unpleasant meaning when aimed at a Senator who is also a woman.
If, on the other hand, we can only consider someone to be either a Senator or a woman at any given point in time, like one of those trick duck/rabbit pictures, we’ll be blind to this connotation.