Whoever’s heading Warren’s committee should come here and notice that the snowflake wing hasn’t even bothered getting their knives out of the drawer for you over this remark, lol.
What are the male versions of “shrill” and “schoolmarmish”?
Annoying, pedantic, lecturing.
I think you’re right that misogyny is alive and well. But looking at the success of women candidates around the nation in 2018 (and in Virginia in 2017 as well) I think there’s more than that going on in attitudes towards Hillary, Pelosi, and now Warren. It’s misogyny, crossed with the right wing hate machine, that does the job - but it seems to take some time for its work to really sink in.
Hillary was under attack for decades, of course. Pelosi, well over a decade. Warren, just a few years, but long enough already that it’s driving up her negatives.
Some people I follow say the same thing will happen to others when they get attacked, but the effect on Warren is already priced in. A few years ago, I was saying the same thing about Hillary, and in retrospect I think it’s pretty clear that I was way wrong on that. I really think there’s a cumulative effect here. So I’m also leery about Warren as the nominee, which is a damn shame. (Also, I agree that it’s a bad year for an older candidate.)
But I think that if the right-wing noise machine keeps throwing its misogynist shit at Pelosi and Warren throughout 2019, there’s no reason why Kamala or Gillibrand or Klobuchar can’t run and win. Not that it can’t make a mark on one of those women if they’re the nominee, but my WAG is that the attacks won’t have time to seep into the deeper culture, and their damage will be limited.
In other words, a description of Michael Dukakis, who I see as a male version of Warren.
Then say so.
What’s the point? I said that I thought Warren was a bad campaigner, which we can probably agree isn’t gender specific complaint, but I still got a a “go make me a sammich” retort as an answer.
Nah, you got that because, for no apparent reason, you repeatedly tried to drag me into some spat that you were having with GIGObuster.
I’ve said this twice before now, plus JC quoted me saying this, so that makes three times before now, so by your own standards, it should have sunk in. This post makes four. I’m done with you.
Of course. But even if 5-10% of the folk who voted against Hillary were primarily motivated by misogyny (and I’d wager it is more), is the safest bet to alienate that 5-10%?
Maybe I’m over cautious. I’d happily vote for another female candidate.
I’m perfectly fine with you being done with me, but I didn’t "try to drag you in for no apparent reason. The rather obvious reason is that you interjected into the exchange between me and GIGO to nitpick something in a decidedly snarky manner. It was not remotely unreasonable for me to think “hey, he’s arguing GIGO’s side of the argument”. It is quite unreasonable for you to have taken such offense to my apparent mistake.
It seems reasonable to ask those dismissing Warren for being “shrill,” “schoolmarmish,” “annoying,” “pedantic,” and/or “lecturing” to link to some examples.
Otherwise many may assume that these are simply the terms that certain people automatically apply to any woman over, say, fifty.
Along with stealing a march by being the first big name that’s able to start collecting campaign donations she’s hired a key Iowa staffer out from under Sanders. Not a bad first day of “exploring.”
Oh no, politician with popular positions is popular!
I heard her for the first time in awhile, if not ever, this week, and I certainly wouldn’t consider her any of the above in the clip I heard played. I could certainly see how someone not inclined to like her anyway could consider her lecturing or annoying but those voters can’t be reached in the first place. I’d consider most things I’ve heard from Robert Reich more shrill, annoying, lecturing, and yes even pedantic than what I’ve heard from Warren.
ETA: and I was expecting her to be pedantic-sounding and was disappointed because she didn’t seem to have enough substance even if her words were true in a general sense.
Yeah, because what Middle America wants for stability in the White House is a young Hispanic male. That’s going to reassure the typical voter between Dallas and Pittsburgh that America is still their America, in a way a kind of white-bread little old lady from Oklahoma never could. Sure. You’ve got your finger on the pulse of Middle America right there. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, can we just get in the progressive leader we have before looking for another Obama figure?
And there’s the rub.
I agree with some of what you wrote in post 53. Her well thought out positions on issues that she has honed over many decades are a flag in the sand that can help focus debate. Having that in the process could be a plus non matter how very poor an actual candidate she’d make. But she crowds the lane and lowers the chances of the newer generation of leaders, who share many of her positions on those issues but who would make better candidates for a variety of individual reasons, from getting the traction they’ll need.
Someone who won’t win and who would be a poor choice for the general election but who is known enough to get some shifting significant donations to her, should not be in the race sucking out resources. Even though the discussions regarding the issues (agree or disagree with her) might be the better for her being there.
The point is that use of gender-specific invective when it doesn’t add actual content is playing *their *game. We humans need to be better than that.
I don’t remember people calling Clinton schoolmarmish. Warren is schoolmarmish, but so is the progressive ideology. It has been schoolmarmish, often in the literal sense, since its beginning. The fanatical pietist Christians who set up the early public schools were the beginnings of that movement.
“Schoolmarm” is a handy invective to be hurled at progressives of all genders.
But you’ve heard of “Shrillary”, haven’t you?
You could have said that more simply with “They’re right”.
But it’s only used at a man if it’s intended to dismiss his masculinity as well.
First campaign slogan - “Warren for President - It’s In Her DNA”.
Warren has already shown that she will allow herself to be dragged down into mud-slinging by Trump, and not in a good way. She doesn’t have the DNC in her hip pocket the way Hillary did, nor the massive fund-raising advantage. She is going to have to make it on her own.
So far, she appears to be trying to fake authenticity. It remains to be seen if she can bring it off.
Regards,
Shodan