Dr. Jill Biden

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by SteveFoerster, Dec 13, 2020.

Loading...
  1. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    @Thorne Yep. A comedy club roast would be the ideal place - and I'm sure if she were honored at such an event, the First Lady would take it in good humor.
     
    Thorne likes this.
  2. Thorne

    Thorne Member

    I prefer Diogenes
     
    Mac Juli and Johann like this.
  3. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Well-Known Member

    His approach to material wealth is certainly cooler.
     
  4. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I dunno. He embraced poverty. I didn't like poverty. I was a coward - I ran the other way. I went to work. And he was embarrassing to be around at times. Get more Diogenes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes - the "Obscenity" section in particular. You'll see what I mean - but you probably know all that already. You guys! ;)
     
    Mac Juli likes this.
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I do not read Wall Street Journal, but had a vague respect for it as a substantive publication. However, if allowing this stuff in print is reflective of their editorial standards, then it's nothing but a right-wing rag not worthy of attention.
     
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Keep in mind this was an editorial not a news article. So we should cut them a little slack for that.

    Anyway, WSJ is right of center but not to bad You just may not want to visit the editorial page. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Most of the paper is quite substantial. Great reporting. But since Murdoch purchased it, the editorial page has gone nuts.
     
  8. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I read the article. I don't see the misogyny. Then again, I don't believe in the psychic powers required to read the guy's mind, and I don't believe that criticizing, condescending or even being downright nasty to a woman is inherently misogynistic. If anything, it's wildly misogynistic to make a big freaking stink (ie, "white knighting") about a wee little opinion piece that is, actually, extremely tame compared to the vitriol that men are regularly subjected to in such opinion pieces.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=White+Knight&amp=true

    BTW, I'm still waiting for all the feminist outrage over the way that Sarah Palin, Ivanka and Melania Trump were treated in the media. If your answer is "but they deserved it!", well then great- that's your opinion and you wouldn't be misogynistic for writing an article about it.
     
    LearningAddict likes this.
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It doesn't have to be covert. Most discrimination isn't.

    The reasons why people are outraged and willing to call this misogyny is because it was targeted timing, condescendingly written, and offered by an unqualified source.

    The nature of the role of First Lady in modern times is an unsettled one. The days of Jackie and Pat are long gone. Hillary Clinton went through that. Laura Bush and Michelle Obama did not because they played the role traditionally. Now we have Jill Biden, determined not to be the "nation's hostess" when the norm is for women to be in the workplace. (We've even changed the language to reflect it with "stay-at-home mom.") So no, he didn't have to use explicit sexist language to still be sexist.

    Lee Atwater explained it best regarding the need to avoid racist words yet still be racist. Same here.

    Really? There was something said about them that wasn't dead-on and well-deserved?
     
  10. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    None of which are misogynistic for people who aren't psychics.

    You are allowed to think it was or it wasn't and not be misogynistic for holding either opinion.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    We disagree. I contend that one's misogyny does not have to be explicit to be evident. Again, Lee Atwater's lesson on racism is very telling in such matters.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  12. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    It's not the first time and won't be the last. Glad you're a sporting fellow, or we'd have nothing to talk about.
    Prejudice is an easy accusation to make and an impossible accusation to disprove. I'll take "presumption of innocence" over "I don't like this guy, so let's pile on" and "read between the lines... now excuse me while I draw the lines".
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Well, you have the advantage because I'm wrong a lot! :)
     
  14. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Let me get some more clarity on this... are you saying being unfair to the likes of this Epstein guy is a significant problem here?

    My take: this is a published piece. Publishing garbage like this is objectively detrimental to ambitious women trying to get ahead, the right way. So even if we assume, against all odds, and all appearances, that this particular guy, speaking from his position of male privilege, did not have misogyny behind this vile article - the article itself is misogynistic in effect. Because tons of READERS are bound to take it this way, and it will contribute to the (still common) notion that women CAN be held down this way. Same as with Trump and all of his many, many, lots of dog whistles. So there is nothing wrong at all in pushing back against these things by naming them what they are.

    Also, bias and bigotry are way more common than people are willing to admit. I see it all the time, from strangers, acquaintances, friends, and family, of all backgrounds (and genders). It would be bigger stretch to suggest that a guy in his sixties is NOT biased in some or all of these ways, unless shown otherwise.
     
  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I do not let this slide. Epstein is not her husband. If some stranger, in a professional or public context, would call my wife "honey", I will have a big problem with that indeed. For that matter, if a woman that's not family called me that in professional/public context, that is not OK.

    Now, for extra points, I'd like some of the folks here who give this guy the benefit of the doubt" on misogyny try to come up with a plausible rationale of why would he feel entitled to say that to her. In public, in an allegedly (but evidently, not so much) respectable publication.
     
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I reminds me of an episode in our disastrous foray into our ethnic charities world. When my wife tried to use her background as a CPA and they brought a male CPA to contradict her points. Ugh.
     
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Sorry, tried to get this slide, but it just bothers me so. Try not to take it personally. The notion that there is this pressing danger that women and minorities are unfairly shielded from criticism in our society is very incredibly out of touch. Like, ridiculously so; parallel universes, flat Earth, and vaccine denial level stuff. The fact that this kind of thinking is practically dogma on the Right (even "moderate") by now is exactly what is wrong with the Right.
     
    Johann and Bill Huffman like this.
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    So, despite the fact that the piece by Epstein was petty, juvenile, inaccurate, mean-spirited, and conspicuously timed, we should still give him the benefit of the doubt regarding misogyny? No.
     
  19. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    What we think and what actually is can be two very different things, so the point about needing to have history to draw from in the case of each individual is paramount. After all, people are condescending, disrespectful and more all the time without being racist or sexist.
     
  20. LearningAddict

    LearningAddict Well-Known Member

    Try not to take this personally: Your statement is embarrassingly naive, as if you just became a citizen of earth yesterday and have no experience with human interaction, human nature, or the happenings within it for the past 30 years at minimum where this has been a hot button topic nearly every day.

    I don't belong to any of those folds you mentioned either, especially not the political ones so you're taking that way off course. It's bizarre to me how almost everyone equates differences of view to some kind of political leaning as if they are in some kind of zombie trance and all thinking with one mind. Totally bizarre. It's time to turn off the TV. That MSM is harmful.

    Reality is (you know, situations we can point to and make reference to because they happened), it's incredibly out of touch--and perhaps even intellectually dishonest--to make the notion that there hasn't for years now been a very vocal crowd ready to defend certain groups any time criticism is levied against someone from one of those groups. It would take many years to go through all the many situations where this has happened, and this goes beyond just race and sex, this could be applied to all kinds of groups but race and sex tend to be at the top of the list when it comes to controversies. Whether the shielding has been fair or unfair in every case is another debate and has to be discussed with each case individually, but presenting this all as if the circumstances are not there is dismissing reality. This situation is but one of many examples of that actually happening. To deny it is actually akin to being be a flat earther, because it denies what is impossible to ignore right in front of your face.

    People have become jumpy and ready to make everything into an us vs. them matter even with no actual conclusive evidence. Right here it is happening with just a feeeeeeling that what he said is something more, and you're proving that. I'm sorry, rational people do not go on feelings, they go on facts. Proof. Things that can be verified. You have no factual evidence to prove this man is a misogynist and that his article is anything more than a disrespectful criticism, only your feeling and your desire to attach it to a larger issue that you can't prove his comments were purposely connected to, yet you're okay with misogyny being attached to him based solely on this one article where he was simply disrespectful and criticized a person who just happened to be a woman.

    Nope, sorry, not gonna fly, and no amount of trying to link my position with a political leaning or a far-out fringe movement is going to make your feeling overtake the need for proof. A label like that can destroy someone's career and life and this should not be done hastily and emotionally and I refuse to participate in that. My position (proof before castigation) is responsible, yours is not.
     
    Maxwell_Smart likes this.

Share This Page